[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62917-62935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29982]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 944

[SPATS No. UT-037-FOR]


Utah 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 Utah regulatory program 
(hereafter, the ``Utah program'') under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or ``the Act''). Utah proposed changes 
to definitions and engineering and hydrology provisions in its rules 
about subsidence control plans, subsidence control, and water 
replacement. Utah intended to revise its program to be consistent with 
the corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field 
Division; telephone: (303) 844-1424; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Utah Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Utah Program

    Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the 
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that 
its program includes, among other things, `` * * * a State law which 
provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation 
operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and 
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the 
Secretary pursuant to the Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On 
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 
conditionally approved the Utah

[[Page 62918]]

program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the 
Utah program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of 
comments, and the conditions of approval of the Utah program in the 
January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5899). You also can find 
later actions concerning Utah's program and program amendments 30 CFR 
944.15 and 944.30.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated March 20, 1998 (administrative record number UT-
1103), Utah sent to us an amendment to its program (SPATS No. UT-037-
FOR, administrative record number 1105) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et 
seq.). Utah sent the amendment in response to a June 5, 1996, letter 
(administrative record number UT-1083) that we sent to the State in 
accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c).
    Changes to the Utah Administrative Rules (Utah Admin. R.) that the 
State proposed included: Adding definitions for ``material damage,'' 
``non-commercial building,'' ``occupied residential dwelling and 
structures related thereto,'' ``replacement of water supply,'' and 
``State-appropriated water supply'' at Utah Admin R. 645-100-200; 
adding requirements at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.100 through -525.130 
for pre-subsidence surveys; removing existing requirements for 
subsidence control plans at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525 through -
525.170; recodifying rules at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.200 through -
525.240 pertaining to protected areas; removing existing requirements 
for subsidence control at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.200 through -
525.232; adding requirements at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.300 through 
-525.490 for subsidence control and subsidence control plans; adding 
requirements for subsidence damage repair at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.500 through -525.530; adding a rebuttable presumption of causation 
by subsidence at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.540 through -525.545; 
adding provisions at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.550 for adjusting bond 
amounts for subsidence damage; recodifying rules at Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525.600 and 645-301-525.700 that require compliance with approved 
subsidence control plans and public notice of proposed mining, 
respectively; removing existing provisions for surveys of renewable 
resource lands at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-724.600; adding a provision at 
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 for finding whether underground coal 
mining and reclamation activities might contaminate, diminish or 
interrupt State-appropriated water; and adding a requirement at Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-731.530 for replacing State-appropriated water 
supplies that are contaminated, diminished, or interrupted by 
underground coal mining activities.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the April 8, 
1998, Federal Register (63 FR 17138). In the same document, we opened 
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public 
hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy (administrative record 
number UT-1108). We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because 
nobody requested one. The public comment period ended on May 8, 1998. 
We received comments from two law firms on behalf of a special service 
district, a water conservancy district, an irrigation company, and a 
water users association. We also received comments from a mining 
association, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and two Federal 
agencies.
    During our review of the amendment, we identified a concern 
relating to Utah's use of the undefined term ``underground mining 
activities'' at proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-731.530, which is 
entitled ``State-appropriated water supply.'' We discussed our concern 
with Utah in telephone conversations on April 29 and May 11, 1998 
(administrative record numbers UT-1111 and UT-1113, respectively).
    Utah formally responded in a letter dated May 13, 1998, that its 
use of the undefined term was an oversight (administrative record 
number UT-1115). In the same letter, the State committed to replacing 
the undefined term ``underground mining activities'' with its defined 
term ``underground coal mining and reclamation activities'' in its 
rules, though its May 13 letter was sufficient to revise the proposed 
amendment. Based on Utah's response, we decided that reopening the 
comment period was not necessary and continued our review of the 
amendment. Utah promulgated a rule that includes the defined term on 
September 30, 1998 (Utah Division of Administrative Rules (DAR) file 
number 21334).
    We completed our review of the amendment and the comments we 
received and identified five topics of concern. Two of those topics 
involved pre-subsidence surveys and contents of subsidence control 
plans. They appeared to require changes in Utah's proposed rules. The 
remaining three topics required additional clarification from Utah on 
the scope of the terms ``State-appropriated water'' and ``State-
appropriated water supply,'' the scope of water replacement with 
respect to ``developed'' water supplies, and of the proposed definition 
of ``replacement of water supply.'' We notified Utah of our concerns in 
a letter dated October 1, 1998 (administrative record number UT-1125).
    In a letter dated July 8, 1999 (administrative record number UT-
1131), Utah notified us that the Huntington-Cleveland Irrigation 
Company filed a civil action in the State's Seventh Judicial District 
Court challenging the proposed water replacement rules included in this 
amendment. At Utah's request, we suspended our review of the amendment 
while the State addressed the legal and technical issues involved in 
that litigation.
    On December 22, 1999, we suspended certain Federal regulations 
pertaining to subsidence in relation to underground mining as a result 
of the April 27, 1999, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in National Mining Association v. Babbitt, 173 
F.3d 906 (1999). We suspended the part of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) that 
required a pre-subsidence survey of certain structures within an angle 
of draw unless the permit applicant was denied access to do such a 
survey by the structure owner(s). We also suspended 30 CFR 
817.121(c)(4) (i) through (iv) in their entirety. Those regulations 
established an angle of draw and created a rebuttable presumption that 
subsidence damage to structures protected under section 2504 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub.L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776; hereafter 
``EPAct''), and section 720 of SMCRA (as revised by EPAct) within an 
area defined by an angle of draw was caused by the underground mining 
operation. We notified Utah of the suspension by electronic mail on 
December 22, 1999, and included the December 22, 1999, Federal Register 
notice of that suspension with our message (64 FR 71652; administrative 
record number 1132).
    In a letter dated September 1, 2000 (administrative record number 
UT-1144), Utah asked us to resume our review of the amendment, noting 
that litigation of the proposed water replacement rules would continue. 
The State also committed to respond to our October 1, 1998, issue 
letter.
    Utah responded to our October 1, 1998, letter with a letter dated 
October 31, 2000 (administrative record number 1145). The State revised 
two proposed rules in its amendment and provided additional 
clarification on three topics. However, the State's response showed

[[Page 62919]]

that it did not revise its proposed amendment in light of our December 
22, 1999, suspension of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) and 817.121(c)(4) (i) 
through (iv). We discussed this with Utah in a telephone conversation 
on November 8, 2000 (administrative record number 1146), at which time 
the State agreed to consider whether it would revise its amendment in 
light of our suspension of those Federal regulations. A follow-up 
telephone conversation of November 21, 2000 (administrative record 
number UT-1148), confirmed that Utah wanted us to review the amendment 
as originally submitted on March 20, 1998, corrected on May 13, 1998, 
and addressed in its October 31, 2000, response to our issue letter 
without further revisions related to our suspension of the Federal 
regulations.
    We announced receipt of revisions to the amendment in the February 
20, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 10866; administrative record number 
UT-1157). In the same document, we reopened the public comment period 
for 15 days to provide for review of the changes and additional 
information Utah included in its October 31, 2000, response letter. The 
extended comment period closed on March 7, 2001.

III. Director's Findings

    Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under 
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 731.17. We are 
approving the amendment as described below.

A. Minor Revisions to Utah's Administrative Rules

    Utah proposed minor recodification changes to the following 
previously approved rules (with the counterpart Federal regulations 
shown in parentheses):
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.240 through -525.270, areas protected 
from underground mining and subsidence, recodified as 645-301-525.200 
through -525.240 (30 CFR 817.121(d) through (g));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.220, compliance with approved subsidence 
control plan, recodified as 645-301-525.600 (30 CFR 817.121(a)(3)(b)); 
and
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.300, public notice of proposed mining, 
recodified as 645-301-525.700 (30 CFR 817.122).
    Because these changes are minor and non-substantive in nature, we 
find that they will not make Utah's rules less effective than the 
corresponding Federal regulations.

B. Revisions to Utah's Administrative Rules That Have the Same Meaning 
as the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations

    Utah proposed revisions to the following rules containing language 
that is the same as, or similar to, the corresponding Federal 
regulations (which are listed in parentheses):
    Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, addition of new definitions of 
``material damage'' and ``occupied residential dwelling and structures 
related thereto'' (30 CFR 701.5);
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.300 through -525.313, addition of new 
subsidence control provisions for preventing or minimizing damage, 
replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.200 and -525.210, which 
are removed (30 CFR 817.121(a)(1) through (a)(3));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.410, new requirement for a description 
in the subsidence control plan of the coal removal method, replacing 
the existing provision at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.110, which is 
removed (30 CFR 784.20(b)(1));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.420, new requirement for a map to be in 
the subsidence control plan showing underground workings where planned 
subsidence is expected and identifying areas where subsidence will be 
minimized and where subsidence-related damage will be minimized and 
corrected (30 CFR 784.20(b)(2));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.430, new requirement for a description 
to be in the subsidence control plan of physical conditions affecting 
subsidence, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.120, which is 
removed (30 CFR 784.20(b)(3));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.440, new requirement for a description 
to be in the subsidence control plan of subsidence monitoring to be 
done, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.140, which is 
removed (30 CFR 784.20(b)(4));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.450 through -525.460, new requirement 
for a description to be in the subsidence control plan of subsidence 
control measures, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 
through -525.134 and Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.150, which are removed 
(30 CFR 784.29(b)(5) through (b)(6));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.470, new requirement for a description 
to be in the subsidence control plan of methods to minimize damage from 
planned subsidence (30 CFR 784.20(b)(7));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.500, new section heading added for 
repair of damage, replacing the existing introductory statement at Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.230, which is removed (30 CFR 817.121(c));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.510, new rule requiring repair of 
subsidence damage to surface lands, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-525.231, which is removed (30 CFR 817.121(c)(1));
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.520, new rule requiring repair of, or 
compensation for, subsidence damage to non-commercial buildings and 
related structures, replacing, in part, existing Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525.232, which is removed (30 CFR 817.121(c)(2)); and
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.545, new provision added for information 
to be considered in determining the cause of damage (30 CFR 
817.121(c)(4)(v)).
    Because these rules contain language that has the same meaning as 
the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they are no less 
effective than the Federal regulations. We also find that they satisfy 
item numbers B.2 and B.4 in their entirety, and C.3, D.2, and D.3 in 
part, of our June 5, 1996, 30 CFR part 732 letter.

C. Revisions to Utah's Rules That Are Not the Same as the Corresponding 
Provisions of the Federal Regulations

1. Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, Definition of ``Non-commercial 
Building''
    Utah proposed to add the definition of ``non-commercial building'' 
at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 as follows:

    Non-commercial Building means any building, other than an 
occupied residential dwelling, that, at the time the subsidence 
occurs, is used on a regular or temporary basis as a public building 
or community or institutional building as those terms are defined at 
R645-100-200. Any building used only for commercial agricultural, 
industrial, retail or other commercial enterprises is excluded.

    Utah's proposed definition and the Federal definition of ``non-
commercial building'' reference definitions of the terms ``community or 
institutional building'' and ``public building.'' The definition of 
``public building'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 is virtually 
identical to the Federal definition of ``public building'' at 30 CFR 
761.5. Utah's definition of ``community or institutional building'' at 
Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 differs slightly from the Federal definition 
of that term. Utah's version includes the phrase ``* * * functions 
including, but not limited to * * *'' in the second clause of the 
sentence in which building functions

[[Page 62920]]

are described. By including this phrase, Utah's definition includes 
community or institutional buildings within the scope of non-commercial 
buildings if they function as educational, cultural, historic, 
religious, scientific, correctional, mental-health or physical-health 
care facilities and those serving other unnamed functions as well. 
Structures included in the Federal definition of ``community or 
institutional buildings'' are limited to those serving the functions 
specifically listed.
    The effect of this difference is to extend the protections against 
material damage caused by subsidence provided by Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525.100 through -525.700 to potentially more structures than 
encompassed by the Federal definition. Essentially, under Utah's 
proposed definition: More buildings may be subject to pre-subsidence 
surveys; permittees may be required to prevent or minimize subsidence-
related damage to more buildings; subsidence control plans may have to 
describe methods to be used to minimize damage to more buildings from 
planned subsidence; and more buildings may be subject to provisions for 
repair or compensation for subsidence-related damage.
    We note that part of the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) 
concerning pre-subsidence surveys is suspended and that 30 CFR 
817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv) concerning the rebuttable presumption of 
causation by subsidence are suspended in their entirety. In part, 
Utah's proposed definition invokes subsidence protections in its rules 
the Federal counterparts to which are among the suspended regulations. 
That does not, however, make Utah's proposed definition inconsistent 
with SMCRA or less effective than the Federal regulations. Section 
505(b) of SMCRA specifically states ``Any provision of any State law or 
regulation in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, or which may 
become effective thereafter, which provides for the control and 
regulation of surface mining and reclamation operations for which no 
provision is contained in this Act shall not be construed to be 
inconsistent with this Act.'' This final rule describes the details of 
the suspended Federal regulations and its effect on Utah's proposed 
rules in greater detail in our findings concerning the State's proposed 
pre-subsidence survey rules, subsidence control plan contents, and the 
rebuttable presumption at parts III.C.6, III.C. 7, and III.C.9, 
respectively.
    Based on the reasoning we described above, Utah's proposed 
definition of ``non-commercial building'' is no less effective than the 
counterpart Federal definition and is not inconsistent with SMCRA. It 
also satisfies item B.3 of our June 5, 1996, 30 CFR part 732 letter.
2. Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, Definition of ``State-Appropriated Water 
Supply''
    Utah proposed the definition of ``State-appropriated water supply'' 
at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 as follows:

    State Appropriated Water Supply'' means State-created water 
rights which are recognized under the provisions of the Utah Code.

The terms ``State-appropriated water supply'' and ``drinking, domestic 
or residential water supply'' are different terms used in Utah's 
proposed rules and the Federal regulations, respectively, in the same 
context. Utah refers to ``State-appropriated water supply'' in its 
permit application rules for subsidence control plans and for probable 
hydrologic consequences determinations related to underground coal 
mining and reclamation activities at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525 and 
645-301-728.350. Utah also uses the term in its water replacement 
performance standard for underground mining activities at Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-731.530. The Federal regulations use the term ``drinking, 
domestic or residential water supply'' in the permit application 
regulations for probable hydrologic consequence determinations related 
to underground mining activities and for subsidence control plans at 30 
CFR 784.14(e)(3)(iv) and 784.20(a). They also use this term in the 
underground mining performance standards for water replacement at 30 
CFR 817.41(j).
    Utah's proposed definition of ``State-appropriated water supply'' 
is based on its use of the term ``State-appropriated water'' at Utah 
Code Annotated (UCA) 40-10-18(15)(c). As written in that section of the 
Code,

    Subject to the provisions of Section 40-10-29, the permittee 
shall promptly replace any State-appropriated water in existence 
prior to the application for a surface coal mining and reclamation 
permit, which has been affected by contamination, diminution, or 
interruption resulting from underground coal mining operations.

The Federal counterpart statutory provision is found at section 
720(a)(2) of SMCRA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. It 
provides for replacement of ``any drinking, domestic, or residential 
water supply from a well or spring'' rather than ``any State-
appropriated water.''
    In a January 29, 1997, letter clarifying the proposed use of the 
term ``State-appropriated water'' at UCA 40-10-18(15)(c) in amendment 
UT-035-FOR (administrative record number UT-1094), the State noted that 
it conferred and agreed with Utah water users and coal operators on use 
of that term. Utah wrote:

    It appears to DOGM that the ``subject to'' clause in the 
proposed bill more logically should be read as a deliberate cross-
reference to subsection 1 of Utah Code 40-10-29, which subsection 
states:

    ``(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as affecting in 
any way the right of any person to enforce or protect, under 
applicable law, his interest in water resources affected by a 
surface coal mining operation.''

Id. In other words, the water users want the ``subject to'' clause 
because they want to make absolutely clear that the new water 
replacement provisions in the Utah Coal Program supplement, rather 
than replace, any other common law or statutory remedies otherwise 
available to them. Stated otherwise, the water users are happy to 
get a new SMCRA-inspired statutory remedy for water replacement, but 
they do not want to give up other water resource protection 
remedies, if any, which they may already have under applicable water 
law. [Utah] does not think Congress intended to deprive water users 
of other existing remedies. Therefore, the ``subject to'' clause 
clearly does not make the Utah proposal less stringent than Section 
720(a) of SMCRA.

    The SMCRA counterpart to UCA 40-10-29(1) is found at section 
717(a).
    Utah further explained that existing statutes at Title 73 of the 
Utah Code Annotated govern all waters of the State. Utah wrote:

    Under Utah water law, a person or entity cannot be a 
``legitimate'' water user if he/she/it is using water that has not 
been appropriated by the State. The deliberately broad phrase ``any 
state-appropriated water'' covers the ``* * * universe of legal Utah 
water uses by the universe of legal water users.''

    Utah asserted that use of ``State-appropriated water'' in its 
statute, therefore, provided broader water replacement protection than 
the Federal provision for underground mining activities which is 
limited to ``drinking, domestic or residential water supply'' from a 
well or spring. For example, Utah noted that State-appropriated 
agricultural irrigation and industrial water must be replaced under its 
provision. We agreed with Utah and approved the State's use of ``State-
appropriated water'' at UCA 40-10-18(15)(c) as no less stringent than 
section 720(a)(2) of SMCRA (62 FR 41845, August 4, 1997; finding number 
7).

[[Page 62921]]

    We received public comments on amendment UT-037-FOR that questioned 
the scope of Utah's proposed water replacement provisions 
(administrative record number UT-1112). One commenter specifically 
wrote that

    Utah Code Ann. Sec. 40-10-18 is not limited to water ``supply'' 
but all state-appropriated water. Also, many water rights in Utah, 
including those in coal mining areas, predate statehood and thus are 
not state-created, but are recognized by Utah law.

    The comment raised a question concerning the State's January 29, 
1997, clarification that ``State-appropriated water'' covers all legal 
uses of water in Utah. It also prompted the need for clarification of 
Utah's proposed definition of ``State-appropriated water supply'' in 
this amendment.
    We have previously said that section 717(a) of SMCRA requires 
deference to State water law on questions of water allocation and use 
(See 60 FR 16722, 16733; March 31, 1995). Utah's definition of ``State-
appropriated water supply'' defers to existing State law in its 
recognition of State-created water rights. In its October 31, 2000, 
letter, Utah explained that, under UCA 73-3-5, the State can recognize 
water claims established by diversion (``diligence rights'') before 
statehood and before the State Engineer's office was established. As a 
result, the scope of ``State-appropriated water'' includes territorial 
water rights (Utah provided this explanation in response to a question 
we asked in our October 1, 1998, letter that was prompted by a public 
comment. See Part IV.1 of this final rule for that discussion of ``pre-
statehood'' water rights). Utah asserts that ``State-appropriated water 
supply'' includes all legal water uses and that all legal uses of water 
in Utah must be appropriated by the State under provisions of the Utah 
Code. The term therefore includes water from wells and springs and any 
appurtenant delivery systems providing water for direct human 
consumption or household use as does the Federal definition of 
``drinking, domestic or residential water supply.'' It also extends 
protection to other water uses not included in the Federal definition 
of the term ``drinking, domestic or residential water supply,'' such as 
water used only for agricultural or industrial needs.
    Based on the State's explanation that the term ``State-appropriated 
water supply'' encompasses the ``universe of legal water uses by the 
universe of legal water users'' in Utah, we find Utah's proposed 
definition of ``State-appropriated water supply'' at Utah Admin. R. 
645-100-200 to be no less effective than the Federal definition of 
``drinking, domestic or residential water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5. It 
also satisfies item B.1 of our June 5, 1996, 30 CFR part 732 letter.
3. Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, Definition of ``Replacement of Water 
Supply''
    Utah proposed the definition of ``replacement of water supply'' at 
Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 as follows:

    ``Replacement of Water Supply'' means, with respect to State-
appropriated water supplies contaminated, diminished, or interrupted 
by coal mining and reclamation operations, provision of water supply 
on both a temporary and permanent basis equivalent to premining 
quantity and quality. Replacement includes provision of an 
equivalent water delivery system and payment of operation and 
maintenance costs in excess of customary and reasonable delivery 
costs for premining water supplies.
    (a) Upon agreement by the permittee and the water supply owner, 
the obligation to pay such operation and maintenance costs may be 
satisfied by a one-time payment in an amount which covers the 
present worth of the increased annual operation and maintenance 
costs for a period agreed to by the permittee and the water supply 
owner.
    (b) If the affected water supply was not needed for the land use 
in existence at the time of loss, contamination, or diminution, and 
if the supply is not needed to achieve the postmining land use, 
replacement requirements may be satisfied by demonstrating that a 
suitable alternative water source is available and could feasibly be 
developed. If the latter approach is selected, written concurrence 
must be obtained from the water supply owner.

    Under Utah's proposed definition, those water supplies subject to 
being replaced are State-appropriated water supplies contaminated, 
diminished, or interrupted by coal mining and reclamation operations. 
The Federal definition is similar but differs by extending replacement 
protection to ``protected water supplies'' that are adversely affected 
by ``coal mining operations.''
    As explained in the previous finding at Part III.C.2 of this final 
rule, the State's proposed definition of ``State-appropriated water 
supply'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 includes the same water supplies 
that are included under the Federal counterpart definition of 
``drinking, domestic or residential water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5. In 
addition, as Utah explained in its January 29, 1997, clarification 
(administrative record number UT-1094), the State's term includes other 
water supplies such as water for agricultural and industrial needs. The 
term ``protected water supplies'' used in the Federal definition of 
``replacement of water supply'' is not defined. However, the 
performance standard for water replacement at 30 CFR 817.41(j) 
identifies water supplies to be replaced as ``* * * any drinking, 
domestic or residential water supply that is contaminated, diminished, 
or interrupted by underground mining activities * * *.'' Such water 
supplies are included in Utah's definition of ``State-appropriated 
water supply'' as supported by the underlying definition of ``State-
appropriated water'' in UCA 40-10-18(15)(c). In its January 29, 1997, 
clarification, the State further explained that ``State-appropriated 
water'' includes all legal water uses in Utah.
    Utah's proposed definition of ``replacement of water supply'' 
requires replacement of an adversely affected ``State-appropriated 
water supply,'' which, in turn, is based on the term ``State-
appropriated water'' as used at UCA 40-10-18(15)(c). That statutory 
provision addresses replacement of water adversely affected by 
underground coal mining operations. Utah clarified the scope of the 
term ``State-appropriated water'' in its January 29, 1997, letter as 
covering all legitimate water uses, including State-appropriated 
agricultural irrigation and industrial water. However, defining 
``replacement of water supply'' in terms of ``State-appropriated water 
supply'' appeared to establish the scope of ``replacement of water 
supply'' in terms of underground coal mining operations only. As we 
explained in the preamble to the final rule approving the Federal 
counterpart definition of ``replacement of water supply'' (60 FR 16722, 
16726; March 31, 1995), the Federal definition applies to underground 
and surface coal mining operations that affect water supplies. Our 
explanation added that the final rule is intended to apply to 
replacement of water supply under sections 717(b) and 720(a)(2) of 
SMCRA, which are the Federal counterparts to UCA 40-10-29(2) and 40-10-
18(15)(c), respectively. Reference to ``protected water supplies'' in 
the Federal definition of ``replacement of water supply'' is broad 
enough to include water adversely affected by surface and underground 
operations.
    In our October 1, 1998, letter (administrative record number UT-
1125), we asked Utah to clarify its proposed definition of 
``replacement of water supply.'' We specifically asked Utah to clarify 
whether its term, as proposed to require replacement of adversely 
affected State-appropriated water supplies, requires replacement of 
water adversely affected by surface and underground coal mining 
operations

[[Page 62922]]

under UCA 40-10-18(15)(c) and 40-10-29(2).
    Utah responded to our request for clarification in its October 31, 
2000, letter (administrative record number UT-1145). In its response, 
Utah wrote:

    The provisions for the replacement of water supplies that are 
made under the definition of ``Replacement of Water Supply'' at 
R645-100-200 are made for water supplies that are contaminated, 
diminished, or interrupted by coal mining and reclamation operations 
(emphasis added) which is a defined term also located at R645-100-
200. Thus, the replacement of water supply(ies) as contemplated 
under the definition by the same name does include the replacement 
of water supplies affected by both surface and underground mining.

Utah's use of the term ``coal mining and reclamation operations'' in 
its proposed definition of ``replacement of water supply'' differs from 
the Federal term's definition but is consistent with it because it 
includes the same mining activities and effects, including ``activities 
conducted on the surface of lands in connection with a surface coal 
mine * * *.''
    We received public comments concerning the scope of Utah's proposed 
water replacement rules in amendment UT-037-FOR (administrative record 
number UT-1112). Several comments suggested expanding Utah's water 
replacement provisions and are addressed under Part IV of this final 
rule.
    In responses to comments the State received during its rulemaking 
process, Utah explained that it intends to require replacement of 
``developed'' water supplies through its proposed water replacement 
rules (administrative record number UT-1119). That interpretation of 
the State's proposed rules does not appear to be consistent with its 
January 29, 1997, letter clarifying use of the underlying term ``State-
appropriated water'' at UCA 40-10-18(15)(c). As asserted in that 
letter, any State-appropriated water covers the universe of legal Utah 
water uses by the universe of legal water users. Depending on what Utah 
considers ``developed'' water supplies to be, we believed some waters 
covered by the term ``State-appropriated water'' in the Utah Code might 
not be included in the proposed definition of ``State-appropriated 
water supply'' or covered by various rules incorporating that term 
throughout the proposed amendment.
    In our October 1, 1998, letter, we asked Utah to describe what 
constitutes a ``developed'' water supply in its interpretation of its 
proposed rules. We also asked Utah to clarify how its interpretation is 
consistent with its interpretation of the term ``State-appropriated 
water'' at UCA 40-10-18(15)(c). Utah responded to our request for 
clarification in its October 31, 2000, letter by stating, ``The 
Division interprets that a ``State-Appropriated Water Supply'' includes 
the drinking, domestic, and residential water supplies of a water 
user.''
    As we explained above and in our finding for the proposed 
definition of ``replacement of water supply,'' the State's proposed 
definition of ``State-appropriated water supply'' at Utah Admin. R. 
645-100-200 includes the same water supplies included under the Federal 
definition of ``drinking, domestic or residential water supply'' at 30 
CFR 701.5. Utah also explained in its January 29, 1997, clarification 
that its term includes other water supplies such as those supplying 
water for agricultural or industrial needs. The scope of water supply 
replacement under Utah's proposed definition of ``replacement of water 
supply'' is potentially broader than that provided by the Federal 
definition of ``replacement of water supply'' by virtue of the State's 
use of the term ``State-appropriated water supplies'' to identify water 
supplies subject to being replaced if contaminated, diminished, or 
interrupted by ``coal mining and reclamation operations.''
    For these reasons, we find Utah's proposed definition of 
``replacement of water supply'' is no less effective than the Federal 
definition. It also satisfies item B.5 of our June 5, 1996, 30 CFR part 
732 letter.
4. Utah Admin. R. R645-301-525.100 through -525.130, Pre-subsidence 
Surveys
    Utah proposed to delete the introductory statement at Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525 as well as its existing survey provisions at Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525.100 and 645-301-724.600. The State proposes to replace 
those rules with new rules introducing the subsidence control plan 
provisions in general and the pre-subsidence survey provisions at Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525 through -525.130.
    In proposed section R645-301-525.100, Utah introduces the 
subsections on subsidence control plans and pre-subsidence survey 
requirements as pertaining to ``underground coal mining and reclamation 
activities.'' Use of that term is consistent with Utah's definition of 
the same term at R645-100-200. Though the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
784.20 does not contain a similar qualifying statement, part 784 of the 
30 CFR regulations is entitled, ``UNDERGROUND MINING PERMIT 
APPLICATIONS--MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RECLAMATION AND OPERATION PLAN'' 
and includes section 784.20.
    Utah's proposed section R645-301-525.110 differs from the Federal 
counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(1) in two ways. First, it 
refers to a larger map scale required, if necessary, by the 
``Division'' as compared to ``the regulatory authority'' in the Federal 
regulations. Second, it requires such maps to show the location and 
type of ``State-appropriated water'' compared to the Federal term, 
``drinking, domestic, and residential water supplies.'' The Division 
[of Oil, Gas and Mining] is the regulatory authority in Utah. As we 
explained in our finding for Utah's proposed definition of ``State-
appropriated water supply'' at Part III.C.2 of this final rule, the 
State's use of this term is based its use of the term ``State-
appropriated water'' in the statutory provision for water replacement 
at Utah Code Annotated 40-10-18(15)(c). We approved Utah's use of 
``State-appropriated water'' in the Utah Code as no less stringent than 
the term ``drinking, domestic, or residential water supply'' at section 
720(a)(2) of SMCRA in the August 4, 1997, final rule Federal Register 
(62 FR 4185).
    The requirement at proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.120 for a 
narrative indicating if subsidence could materially damage or diminish 
the value or use of structures or renewable resource lands or adversely 
affect water supplies differs from the counterpart Federal regulation 
at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(2) only in Utah's use of the term ``State-
appropriated water supplies.'' As explained above, we find this term to 
be no less effective than the counterpart Federal term ``drinking, 
domestic or residential water supplies.''
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 requires a survey of the 
quantity and quality of all ``State-appropriated water supplies'' 
within the permit and adjacent areas that could be contaminated, 
diminished, or interrupted by subsidence. The counterpart Federal 
regulation also requires such a survey, but of the quantity and quality 
of ``drinking, domestic, or residential water supplies.'' As explained 
above, we find this term to be no less effective than the Federal term 
``drinking, domestic or residential water supplies.''
    This same proposed rule also requires a permittee to give written 
notification to property owners who deny access to conduct surveys of 
buildings, dwellings, other structures, and water supplies of the 
effect denial will have as ``described

[[Page 62923]]

in R645-301-525.543.'' Utah's original amendment contained a reference 
to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525. In our October 1, 1998, letter 
(administrative record number UT-1125), we notified Utah of our concern 
that its reference should be more specific to ensure that applicants 
provide sufficient notice to owners that there will be no presumption 
of causation by subsidence if the owners deny applicants access to 
perform pre-subsidence surveys. Utah responded in its October 31, 2000, 
letter (administrative record number UT-1145) by changing the reference 
to cite Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.543. The referenced rule provides 
that a rebuttable presumption does not exist if the permittee is denied 
access to conduct a pre-subsidence survey. Under proposed Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525.541, if material damage occurs to any noncommercial 
building, occupied residential dwelling, or related structure as a 
result of earth movement within the angle of draw from the outer 
boundary of underground mine workings to the land surface, a rebuttable 
presumption exists that the permittee caused the damage. Though the 
presumption can be rebutted, if it is not, the permittee must repair or 
compensate property owners for such damage under proposed Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525.520. Utah committed to promulgating the change proposed 
in its October 31, 2000, letter in its formal rulemaking process.
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 also requires permittees to 
give copies of the pre-subsidence survey and any technical assessment 
or engineering evaluation to the property owner and the ``Division.'' 
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) requires copies to be 
given to the property owner and the ``regulatory authority,'' which is 
the Division in Utah's case.
    We note that the State based proposed Utah Admin. R. 6445-301-
525.130 on the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 784.10(a)(3), part of which 
we suspended after our initial review of Utah's amendment. The last 
sentence of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) states ``* * * the requirements to 
perform a survey of the condition of all noncommercial buildings or 
occupied residential dwellings and structures related thereto, that may 
be materially damaged or for which the reasonably foreseeable use may 
be diminished by subsidence, within the areas encompasses by the 
applicable angle of draw is suspended per court order.''
    In its April 27, 1999, decision in National Mining Association v. 
Babbitt, 173 F.3d 906 (1999), the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia vacated certain parts of the Federal 
subsidence regulations that were among those published on March 31, 
1995, under SMCRA and section 2504 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
(``EPAct;'' Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat.2776 (1992)). EPAct added a new 
section 720 to SMCRA. Section 720 requires underground mine operators 
to repair or to compensate for material damage to residential 
structures and noncommercial buildings, and to replace drinking, 
domestic, or residential water supplies adversely affected by 
underground mining. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) 
through (iv) provided that, if damage to any non-commercial building or 
occupied residential dwelling or related structures occurred as a 
result of earth movement in an area determined by projecting a specific 
angle of draw from the outer-most boundary of any underground mine 
workings to the surface of the land, a rebuttable presumption would 
exist that the permittee caused the damage. The presumption typically 
would have applied to a 30-degree angle of draw. The Court of Appeals 
vacated 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv) in their entirety. As we 
explained in the December 22, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 71652), ``* 
* * the Court rejected the Secretary's contention that the angle of 
draw concept was reasonably based on technical and scientific 
assessments and that it logically connected the surface area that could 
be damaged from earth movement to the underground mining operation. The 
angle of draw provided the basis for establishing the surface area 
within which the rebuttable presumption would apply * * *.'' The Court 
held that the angle of draw was irrationally broad and that the 
scientific facts presented did not support the logical inference that 
damage to the surface area would be caused by earth movement from 
underground mining within the area.
    Based on the conclusion that there was no scientific or technical 
basis provided for establishing a rational connection between the angle 
of draw and surface area damage, the Court further concluded that the 
rebuttable presumption failed. Essentially, the Court found that ``* * 
* for the presumption to be permissible, the facts would have to 
demonstrate that the earth movement from the underground mining 
operation `more likely than not' caused the damage at the surface * * 
*.'' We suspended 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv) in the December 
22, 1999, final rule to comply with the Court's decision.
    The Court also vacated the part of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) that 
required a specific structural condition survey of all EPAct-protected 
structures located within an area defined by an angle of draw. As we 
explained in the December 22, 1999, final rule:

    * * * the Court clearly upheld the Secretary's authority to 
require a pre-subsidence structural condition survey of all EPAct-
protected structures. The Court accepted the Secretary's explanation 
that this specific structural condition survey was necessary, among 
other requirements, in order to determine whether a subsidence 
control plan would be required for the mining operation. However, 
because of the Court's ruling on the ``angle of draw'' regulation 
discussed above, it vacated the requirement for a specific 
structural condition survey because it was tied directly to the area 
defined by the ``angle of draw.''

So, in the December 22, 1999, Federal Register (Id.), we suspended the 
part of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) that required a specific structural 
condition survey of all structures protected by EPAct. The rest of that 
regulation remains in force to the extent that it applies to the EPAct-
protected water supplies survey and any technical assessments or 
related engineering evaluations.
    Utah declined to revise its amendment in light of the suspended 
Federal regulations (administrative record number UT-1148). The fact 
that we suspended the part of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) requiring a pre-
subsidence structural condition survey of EPAct-protected structures 
within the area defined by an angle of draw does not preclude Utah from 
having that provision in its rules. In addition, Utah's proposal to 
include such a provision in its rules does not make Utah's proposed 
rule less effective than the Federal regulations or less stringent than 
SMCRA. Section 505(b) of SMCRA provides that ``Any provision of any 
State law or regulation in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, 
or which may become effective thereafter, which provides for the 
control and regulation of surface mining and reclamation operations for 
which no provision is contained in this Act shall not be construed to 
be inconsistent with this Act.'' The State promulgated proposed Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 on March 15, 1998. In addition, this proposed 
rule provides for the control and regulation of surface mining and 
reclamation operations in accordance with section 505(b) of SMCRA. 0
    Therefore, based on the reasoning presented above, we find proposed 
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525 through -525.120 are no less effective than 
the counterpart Federal regulations, and proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525.130 is not inconsistent with SMCRA

[[Page 62924]]

or the Federal regulations. The State's proposal to remove existing 
provisions at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525 through -525.100 and at 645-
301-724.600 is appropriate in light of the new provisions it is adding.
5. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.400, -525.480, and -525.490, Subsidence 
Control Plan Contents
    Utah proposes to add new provisions at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.400 through -525.490 describing information that must be included 
in subsidence control plans. It also proposes to remove existing 
provisions for subsidence control plans at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.110 through -525.170.
    Proposed R645-301-525.400, which describes the conditions under 
which a pre-subsidence survey is to be conducted and what it 
information it must contain, differs somewhat from the Federal 
counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(b). Utah's rule refers to 
surveys conducted under ``R645-301-525.100'' where the Federal 
regulation refers to surveys conducted ``under paragraph (a) of this 
section.'' The Federal reference is to 30 CFR 784.20(a), which 
introduces the pre-subsidence survey requirements of subsections (a)(1) 
through (a)(3). Referenced R645-301-525.100, as also proposed in this 
amendment, is Utah's counterpart to 30 CFR 784.20(a). Proposed R645-
301-525.400 also refers to surveying for the existence of ``State-
appropriated water supplies'' and the need for a permit application to 
include a subsidence control plan if a survey shows such water supplies 
exist or could be adversely affected by subsidence. As we explained 
previously in this final rule, we find the State's term ``State-
appropriated water supply'' to be no less effective than the Federal 
term ``drinking, domestic, or residential water supply.'' Additionally, 
references in proposed R645-301-525.400 to the ``Division'' are 
analogous to the counterpart Federal regulation's references to the 
``regulatory authority'' because the Division is the regulatory 
authority in Utah.
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.480 requires subsidence control 
plans to include a description of measures to be taken ``in accordance 
with R645-301-731.530 and R645-301-525.500 to replace adversely 
affected State-appropriated water supplies or to mitigate or remedy any 
subsidence-related material damage to the land and protected structures 
* * *.'' The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(b)(8) 
requires a description of measures taken to replace ``protected water 
supplies'' and to mitigate or remedy subsidence damage to land and 
protected structures in accordance with `` * * * Secs. 817.41(j) and 
817.121(c) of this chapter * * *.'' Referenced Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
731.530 and 645-301-525.500 in Utah's proposed rule are the State's 
counterparts to OSM's performance standards for water replacement and 
surface damage repair at 30 CFR 817.41(j) and 817.121(c), respectively. 
We explained previously in our finding at Part III.C.3 of this final 
rule that, while the Federal regulations do not define ``protected 
water supplies,'' 30 CFR 817.41(j) clearly identifies a protected water 
supply subject to replacement as a ``drinking, domestic, or residential 
water supply.'' We also previously found that the State's term ``State-
appropriated water supply'' is no less effective than the Federal term 
``drinking, domestic, or residential water supply.''
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.490 requires subsidence control 
plans to include other information specified by the ``Division'' as 
needed to show the operation will be conducted according to R645-301-
525.200, -525.300, -525.500, and -525.6500. In comparison, the 
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(b)(9) refers to the 
``regulatory authority'' and to `` * * * Sec. 817.121 of this 
chapter.'' As we noted above, the Division is the regulatory authority 
in Utah.
    In the original amendment, proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.490 
only referred to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.300. That referenced rule 
includes the State's performance standards for preventing or minimizing 
subsidence-related damage under Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.310 through 
-525.313. Referenced counterpart 30 CFR 817.121 includes a much wider 
range of provisions that an operation must be conducted under. Because 
the State's original reference was less inclusive than the referenced 
counterpart Federal regulation, we found originally proposed Utah 
Admin. R. 645-525-301.490 did not ensure that the Division will be 
provided with sufficient information to determine that an operation 
will be conducted in accordance with all applicable provisions for 
subsidence control. We notified Utah of our concern in our October 1, 
1998, letter (administrative record number UT-1125), and advised the 
State that its proposed rule should include a more inclusive reference. 
In its October 31, 2000, response (administrative record number UT-
1145), the State revised proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.490 to 
include references to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.200, -525.500, and -
525.600 in addition to the original reference to -525.300. These 
referenced rules contain provisions analogous to those included under 
30 CFR 817.121. Utah committed to promulgating this change in its 
formal rulemaking process.
    We note that the State based proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.400, -525.480, and -525.490 on the need for a subsidence control 
plan when indicated by the pre-subsidence survey conducted under Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.130. That latter rule, in turn, is based on the 
Federal counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3), which is 
suspended in part. The fact that we suspended the part of 30 CFR 
784.20(a)(3) requiring a pre-subsidence structural condition survey of 
EPAct-protected structures within the area defined by an angle of draw 
does not preclude Utah from having that provision, and other provisions 
based on it, in its rules. As we explained previously, Utah's proposal 
to include provisions in its rules that are not found in SMCRA or the 
Federal regulations does not make Utah's proposed rules less effective 
than the Federal regulations or less stringent than SMCRA if those 
State provisions are in effect and control and regulate surface mining 
and reclamation operations in accordance with section 505(b) of SMCRA.
    Based on these reasons, we find proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.400, -525.480, and -525.490 are no less effective than the 
counterpart Federal regulations and are not inconsistent with SMCRA. 
The State's proposal to remove existing provisions at Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-525.110 through -525.170 is appropriate in light of the new 
provisions being added.
6. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.530, Repair or Compensation for Damage to 
Other Structures
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.530 requires repair of, or 
compensation for, subsidence-caused damage to structures or facilities 
not protected by Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.520. The Federal 
counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(3) provides that the 
permittee ``* * * must, to the extent required under applicable 
provisions of State law, * * *'' correct material subsidence damage 
caused to any structures or facilities not protected ``* * * by 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section * * *'' by repairing damage or 
compensating owners for the decreased value resulting from subsidence. 
Utah's proposed rule does not require permittees to correct damage or 
compensate owners ``to the

[[Page 62925]]

extent required under applicable provisions of State law'' but says 
they ``* * * shall either correct material damage from subsidence 
caused to any structures or facilities not protected by paragraph 
525.520 * * * '' by repairing such damage or by compensating owners for 
the resulting decreased value.
    Utah's proposed rule extends replacement or compensation protection 
to structures and facilities not provided such protections under Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.520, which is based on UCA 40-10-18(15)(b)(i). 
Those sections of Utah's rules and its Code, respectively, provide for 
repair of damage to occupied residential dwellings and related 
structures or noncommercial buildings caused by underground coal mining 
after October 24, 1992. However, they do not extend such protections to 
other structures damaged by subsidence as provided in proposed Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.530. By not including a phrase corresponding to 
the phrase ``to the extent required under applicable provisions of 
State law'' in the counterpart Federal regulation, proposed Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525.530 is Utah's legal requirement that a permittee repair 
or compensate for subsidence-caused material damage to structures not 
protected by UCA 40-10-18(15)(b)(i) or Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.520. 
As a result, there is no need to qualify the remedies available to 
owners of structures or facilities by the extent to which they are 
otherwise required under applicable provisions of State law.
    Other differences between the wording in the proposed State rule 
and the counterpart Federal regulation do not make Utah's proposed rule 
less effective. Further, the State's reference to ``525.520'' in its 
proposed rule refers to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.520, which is Utah's 
counterpart to referenced ``paragraph (c)(2) of this section,'' or 30 
CFR 817.121(c)(2), in the corresponding Federal regulation.
    For these reasons, we find proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.530 
is no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulation. It also 
satisfies item D.3 of our June 5, 1996, 30 CFR Part 732 letter.
7. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.540 Through -525.544, Rebuttable 
Presumption of Causation by Subsidence
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.540 through -525.544 introduce 
and establish a rebuttable presumption that damage sustained by certain 
structures was caused by mining. Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.541 provides that, if damage occurs to any non-commercial building 
or occupied residential dwelling or structure related thereto as a 
result of subsidence in an area determined by an angle of draw from the 
outermost boundary of any underground workings to the land surface, 
there is a rebuttable presumption that the permittee caused the damage. 
The angle of draw normally is 30 degrees from the vertical but may be 
different if amended by the Division on a mine-specific basis under 
proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.542. Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525.543 provides for no presumption where a landowner denies a 
permittee access to perform a pre-subsidence survey. Finally, proposed 
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.544 provides that the presumption will be 
rebutted if damage predated mining, was caused by something other than 
subsidence, or occurred outside the surface area in which mining 
actually caused subsidence.
    The State based its proposed rules at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.540 through -525.544 on the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv), which are suspended in their 
entirety. The fact that we suspended the Federal provisions for a 
rebuttable presumption of causation by subsidence at 30 CFR 
817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv) does not preclude Utah from having those 
provisions in its rules. In addition, Utah's proposal to include such 
provisions in its rules does not make Utah's proposed rules less 
effective than the Federal regulations or less stringent than SMCRA. 
Again, Utah's proposal to include provisions in its rules that are not 
found in SMCRA or the Federal regulations does not make Utah's proposed 
rules less effective than the Federal regulations or less stringent 
than SMCRA if those State provisions are in effect and control and 
regulate surface mining and reclamation operations in accordance with 
section 505(b) of SMCRA.
    Based on this reasoning, we find proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.540, -525.541, -525.542, -525.543, and -525.544 are no less 
effective than the counterpart Federal regulations and are not 
inconsistent with SMCRA.
8. Utah Admin. R. R645-301-525.550, Adjustment of Bond Amount for 
Subsidence Damage
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.550 adds provisions for 
adjusting bond amounts when protected land, structures, or facilities 
are materially damaged by subsidence or when protected water supplies 
are contaminated, diminished, or interrupted. Utah's proposed rule 
references land, structures, or facilities protected under Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525.500 through -525.530. Those referenced proposed rules 
address protected surface lands, non-commercial buildings, dwellings, 
and related structures, and other structures or facilities. Parts III.B 
and III.C.6 of this final rule contain our findings that those rules 
are no less effective than the Federal regulations. The Federal 
counterpart to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.550 is 30 CFR 817.121(c)(5). 
It provides for adjusting bond amounts as a result of subsidence damage 
to the same buildings, dwellings, structures and facilities but refers 
to lands, buildings, structures and facilities protected under ``* * * 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section * * *.'' Those 
referenced paragraphs are found at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(1) through (c)(3), 
which correspond to referenced Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.500 through -
525.530.
    Utah's proposed rule also provides for adjusting bond amounts when 
subsidence contaminates, diminishes, or interrupts water supplies 
protected under proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-731.530. As noted in 
previous findings in this final rule, Utah identifies protected water 
supplies as ``State-appropriated water supplies.'' The Federal 
regulation at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(5) similarly provides for bond 
adjustments when ``* * * water supplies protected under Secs. 817.41(j) 
* * *'' are adversely affected by subsidence. Section 817.41(j) is the 
Federal counterpart to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-731.530 and identifies a 
protected water supply as a ``drinking, domestic, or residential water 
supply.'' As we explained previously, Utah's term ``State-appropriated 
water supply'' is no less effective than the Federal term ``drinking, 
domestic, or residential water supply.''
    References to the ``Division'' in Utah's proposed rule are 
analogous to the Federal regulation's reference to the ``regulatory 
authority'' because the Division is the regulatory authority in Utah.
    For the reasons explained above, we find proposed Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-525.550 is no less effective than the Federal regulation at 30 
CFR 817.121(c)(5). The State's proposed rule also satisfies item D.5 of 
our June 5, 1996, 30 CFR Part 732 letter.

[[Page 62926]]

9. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.340 and 728.350, Probable Hydrologic 
Consequences (PHC) Determination
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 requires probable 
hydrologic consequences determinations to find whether underground coal 
mining and reclamation activities conducted after October 24, 1992, 
will adversely affect State-appropriated water that exists in the 
proposed permit or adjacent areas at the time a permit application is 
submitted, and that is used for legitimate purposes in those areas.
    The proposed rule differs from the Federal counterpart regulation 
at 30 CFR 784.14(e)(3)(iv) in Utah's use of the term ``State-
appropriated water,'' reference to use of that water for ``legitimate 
purposes,'' and reference to ``underground coal mining and reclamation 
activities.'' Utah hydrology rules at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-700 
establish requirements for information that must be included in 
applications for surface and underground coal mining. Because proposed 
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 pertains to a finding that must be 
included in PHC determinations specific to underground mines, the 
reference to ``underground coal mining and reclamation activities'' 
clearly identifies it as such. Similarly, adding a semi-colon at the 
end of the preceding subsection at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.340 and 
the word ``OR'' following it distinguishes proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-728.350 from subsection -728.340 as a finding that must be made for 
underground coal mining and reclamation activities as opposed to 
surface coal mining and reclamation activities. Utah's term 
``underground coal mining and reclamation activities'' includes a 
reference to ``coal mining and reclamation activities'' as both are 
defined at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200. The former term is the State's 
counterpart to the ``underground mining activities'' referred to in the 
counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 784.14(e)(3)(iv), which are 
defined at 30 CFR 701.5.
    The term ``State-appropriated water'' and reference to use of that 
water for ``legitimate purposes'' in proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
728.350 are not inconsistent with the Federal regulations. As noted in 
previous findings for this amendment, Utah's statutory provision for 
water replacement at Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 40-10-18(15)(c) is based 
on the term ``State-appropriated water.'' As used in this proposed rule 
and UCA 40-10-18(15)(c) and clarified by Utah in its January 29, 1997, 
letter (administrative record number UT-1094), ``State-appropriated 
water'' provides broader water replacement protection than is provided 
under the corresponding term ``drinking, domestic, or residential water 
supply'' used in the Federal regulation for PHC findings at 
Sec. 784.14(e)(3)(iv) and protected under section 720(a)(2) of SMCRA. 
Utah's proposed qualification that the water in existence at the time a 
permit application is submitted be used for ``legitimate purposes'' 
refers back to its term ``State-appropriated water.'' To paraphrase 
Utah's clarification about the term ``State-appropriated water'' in its 
January 29, 1997, letter, the only legitimate use of water in Utah is 
the use of water appropriated by the State. Moreover, the criterion for 
legitimate water use proposed at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 for 
underground mining is consistent with the requirement that PHC 
determinations include findings on the impacts of surface coal mining 
and reclamation activities on the source(s) of water used for domestic, 
agricultural, industrial, or other legitimate purpose at Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-728-340 and counterpart 30 CFR 780.21(f)(3)(iii) (emphasis 
added).
    Based on the reasons explained above, proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-728.350 and the proposed revision to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.340 
are not inconsistent with, and are no less effective than, the Federal 
regulation at 30 CFR 784.14(e)(3)(iv). The proposed rules also satisfy 
item C.1 of our June 5, 1996, 30 CFR part 732 letter.
10. Utah Admin. R. R645-301-731.530, Hydrology: Operation Plan: State-
Appropriated Water Supply
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-731.530 requires a permittee to 
replace any State-appropriated water supply that is contaminated, 
diminished, or interrupted by underground coal mining and reclamation 
activities conducted after October 24, 1992, if the affected water 
supply existed before the Division received the permit application for 
the activities causing the adverse effects. It also requires use of 
baseline hydrologic and geologic information required in Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-700 to determine mining impacts on the water supply. Utah's 
proposed rule differs from the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
817.41(j) in its use of the terms ``State-appropriated water supply,'' 
``underground coal mining and reclamation activities,'' and 
``Division'' and by referring to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-700. The 
corresponding terms in the Federal regulation are ``drinking, domestic 
or residential water supply,'' ``underground mining activities,'' and 
``regulatory authority.'' Also, the Federal regulation refers to 
baseline hydrologic information required in 30 CFR 780.21 and 784.14 
and geologic information required in sections 780.21 and 784.22.
    In Part IV.A of this final rule, we describe in detail commenters' 
concern for the scope of Utah's proposed water replacement rules and 
their suggestion for expanding the State's water replacement provisions 
(administrative record number UT-1112). As we explained above and in 
previous findings in this final rule, the State's proposed definition 
of ``State-appropriated water supply'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 
includes those water supplies included under the Federal definition of 
``drinking, domestic or residential water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5. 
Utah explained in its January 29, 1997, clarification that its term 
includes other water supplies such as wells and springs that supply 
water for agricultural, commercial or industrial needs. Therefore, the 
scope of water supply replacement under Utah's proposed rule is 
potentially broader than that provided under the Federal definition of 
``replacement of water supply'' by virtue of the State's use of its 
defined terms ``State-appropriated water supplies'' and ``replacement 
of water supply'' in describing those water supplies subject to 
replacement if contaminated, diminished, or interrupted by underground 
coal mining and reclamation activities.
    Utah's original (March 20, 1998) submittal of this amendment 
required prompt replacement of water adversely affected by 
``underground mining activities.'' While that term appears to be 
identical to that in the counterpart Federal regulation, it is 
undefined in Utah's rules and statute. In telephone conversations on 
April 29 and May 11, 1998, we advised Utah that use of its defined term 
``underground coal mining and reclamation activities'' would be more 
appropriate (administrative record numbers UT-1111 and UT-1113, 
respectively). The State responded with a letter dated May 13, 1998 
(administrative record number UT-1115), in which it agreed to change 
``underground mining activities'' to ``underground coal mining and 
reclamation activities'' through formal rulemaking. Utah promulgated 
the corrected rule that includes the term ``underground coal mining and 
reclamation activities'' on September 30, 1998 (DAR file number 21334), 
which is among those we are approving in this final rule. As defined at 
Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, ``underground coal mining and reclamation 
activities'' is the State's counterpart to the Federal

[[Page 62927]]

term ``underground mining activities'' as defined at 30 CFR 701.5.
    As noted previously, the Division is the regulatory authority in 
Utah.
    Based on the reasons explained above, we find proposed Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-731.530 is no less effective than the counterpart Federal 
regulation. It also satisfies item D.1 of our June 5, 1996, 30 CFR part 
732 letter.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

    Following are summaries of all written comments on the proposed 
amendment that we received and our responses to those comments.

A. Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the proposed amendment as 
originally submitted (administrative record number UT-1106) and as 
revised in Utah's October 31, 2000, letter (administrative record 
number UT-1156). We received six comment letters, two of which attached 
comments from four water user groups.
    The Utah Mining Association (UMA) responded in a May 5, 1998, 
letter, by expressing its support for the proposed amendment and urging 
us to approve it (administrative record number UT-1114). UMA noted that 
it was actively involved in developing the State legislation that 
enabled the rule changes. It explained how it worked with the State 
Engineer to ensure protection of water rights throughout the 
legislative process and with water users in Utah's coal regions to 
develop legislative language.
    We also received comments submitted by two law firms on behalf of a 
special service district, a water conservancy district, an irrigation 
company, and a water users association (hereafter, collectively the 
``water users'') (administrative record number UT-1112). These 
commenters represent water users in a predominant coal mining region of 
Utah. The remaining discussions under Part IV.A of this final rule 
describe the water users' comments and our responses.
    A number of water user comments proposed changes to rules that are 
not the subject of amendment UT-037-FOR. Those comments addressed 
alternative water source information for surface coal mining and 
reclamation activities, PHC findings and requirements concerning acid- 
or toxic-forming materials, discharges into underground mines, and 
gravity discharges. While these comments pertain to water-related 
issues, we find that the rules and changes they suggested do not apply 
to this rulemaking. However, we forwarded these comments to the State 
for its consideration.
1. Replacement of Water Supply; State-Appropriated Water Supply; and 
Water Supply
    One comment described Utah's proposed definition of ``replacement 
of water supply'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 as applicable only to 
surface mining operations. The comment based this conclusion on Utah's 
reference to State-appropriated water supplies adversely affected by 
``coal mining and reclamation operations.'' It assumed that this term 
in Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 is less inclusive than the term ``coal 
mining operations'' in the Federal definition of ``replacement of water 
supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5.
    As defined at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, ``coal mining and 
reclamation operations'' includes activities conducted on the surface 
of lands in connection with a surface coal mine and surface coal mining 
and reclamation operations, as well as surface impacts incident to an 
underground coal mine. The phrase ``surface impacts incident to an 
underground coal mine,'' also is defined at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 
and means all operations involved in or related to underground coal 
mining and reclamation activities. It includes activities conducted on 
the land surface, that alter or disturb the land surface, or that 
disturb the surface, air, or water resources of the area.
    The Federal counterpart to Utah's term ``coal mining and 
reclamation operations'' is ``surface coal mining operations'' and is 
defined at section 701(28) of SMCRA. ``Surface coal mining operations'' 
includes the scope of activities included in the term ``coal mining 
operations'' as defined at 30 CFR 705.5 and 706.3, and included in the 
Federal definition of ``replacement of water supply.'' It also includes 
activities conducted on the surface of lands in connection with a 
surface coal mine as well as to surface operations and surface impacts 
incident to an underground coal mine. Also, as we explained in our 
finding at Part III.C.3. of this final rule, Utah clarified in its 
October 31, 2000, letter (administrative record number UT-1145) that 
its proposed definition of ``replacement of water supply'' provides for 
the replacement of water supplies adversely affected by ``coal mining 
and reclamation operations.'' The latter term is defined in Utah's 
rules to include surface and underground mining. For these reasons, we 
found Utah's definition of ``replacement of water supply'' to be no 
less effective than the Federal counterpart definition at 30 CFR 701.5.
    Other comments suggested removing the word ``supply'' from Utah's 
definitions of ``replacement of water supply'' and ``State-appropriated 
water supply,'' and from references to water supply throughout Utah's 
proposed amendment. In some cases, comments suggested replacing the 
word ``supply'' or ``supplies'' with ``source'' or ``sources'' or to 
add the term ``water sources.'' While the preamble to the final rule 
approving the Federal definition of ``replacement of water supply'' 
indicates that circumstances could require replacement of a water 
source (See 60 FR 16722, 16733, March 31, 1995), sections 717(b) and 
720(a)(2) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations use the terms ``supply'' 
and ``supplies.'' The standard we use for review of Utah's program is 
that it must be no less effective than the Federal regulations and no 
less stringent than SMCRA. We cannot require Utah's provisions to be 
more stringent than SMCRA or more effective than the Federal 
regulations. Utah's use of the terms ``supply'' and ``supplies'' in its 
proposed rules is consistent with use of those terms in SMCRA and the 
Federal regulations. We therefore find the State's proposed rules are 
no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the counterpart 
Federal regulations without the suggested changes.
    Another comment suggested replacing the term ``water supply owner'' 
in Utah's proposed definition of ``replacement of water supply'' with 
``water rights holder.''
Utah's use of the term ``water supply owner'' is consistent with use of 
the identical term in the counterpart Federal definition of 
``replacement of water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5. The State's proposed 
definition therefore is no less effective than the counterpart Federal 
definition in this regard as well without the suggested change.
    One comment also maintained that UCA 40-10-18 is not limited to 
water ``supply'' but pertains to all State-appropriated water. It also 
stressed that many water rights in Utah pre-date statehood and thus are 
not State-created, but are recognized by Utah law. Sections of the 
State's rules to which this comment applied include: Utah Admin. R. 
645-100-200, definitions; 645-301-525.120 and 525.130, pre-subsidence 
survey; 645-301-525.400 and 525.480, subsidence control plan contents; 
645-301-525.550, adjustment of bond amount for subsidence damage; 645-
301-728.350, PHC determinations for underground coal mining and 
reclamation activities; and 645-301-731.530, replacement of State-
appropriated water supply.

[[Page 62928]]

    In our October 1, 1998, letter to Utah (administrative record 
number UT-1125), we asked the State to further clarify its 
interpretation of the term ``State-appropriated water'' to address the 
question of whether there are legal uses of water in Utah that fall 
outside the scope of ``State-appropriated water.'' We also asked Utah 
to clarify its interpretation of the proposed definition of ``State-
appropriated water supply'' to address the assertion that legal water 
rights exist in the State that are recognized by Utah law but are not 
created by the State.
    Utah responded to our request for clarification in a letter dated 
October 31, 2000 (administrative record number UT-1145). In its 
response, Utah said it has a process under Utah Code Annotated Section 
73-5-13 [which it included in its letter] to recognize water claims 
established by diversion (``diligence rights'') before the State 
Engineer's office was established and before Utah became a State. 
Utah's response concluded that ``State-appropriated water'' therefore 
includes territorial water rights. UCA 73-5-13 is entitled, ``Claim to 
surface or underground water not otherwise represented--Information 
required--Corrections--Filing--Investigation--Publication--Judicial 
action to determine validity--Rules.'' Subsection (1)(a) provides that:

    All claimants to the right to the use of water, including both 
surface and underground, whose rights are not represented by 
certificates of appropriation issued by the state engineer, by 
applications filed with the state engineer, by court decrees, or by 
notice of claim filed pursuant to law, shall submit the claim to the 
state engineer.

Subsection (2) describes the information that each claim must include, 
and subsection (4) requires that:

    Upon submission by a claimant of a claim that is acceptably 
complete under Subsection (2) and the deposit of money by a claimant 
with the state engineer sufficient to pay the expenses of conducting 
a field investigation and publishing a notice of the claim, the 
state engineer shall (i) file the claim; (ii) endorse the date of 
its receipt; (iii) assign the claim a water right number; and (iv) 
publish a notice of the claim following the same procedures as 
provided in Section 73-3-6.

Subsection (4)(c) provides that ``The acceptance of any claim filed 
under this section by the state engineer may not be considered to be an 
adjudication by the state engineer of the validity of the claimed water 
right.'' At the same time, however, the report of the State Engineer's 
investigation of the claim is ``* * * admissible in any administrative 
or judicial proceeding on the validity of the claim * * * '' under 
subsection (5)(b)(ii).
    Our finding at Part III.C.2. of this final rule describes Utah's 
clarification of its term ``State-appropriated water'' at UCA 40-10-
18(15)(c). We found the definition of this term to be no less effective 
than the counterpart Federal term ``drinking, domestic, or residential 
water supply.'' That Federal term is based on the wording of section 
720(a)(2) of SMCRA as amended by EPAct and requires replacement of 
water supplies adversely affected by underground mining coal mining 
operations. Our findings at Parts III.C.2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 of this 
final rule also explain why we find Utah's definitions and rules as 
proposed with the terms water ``supply'' or ``supplies'' to be no less 
effective than the Federal regulations. As we further explained at Part 
III.C.2 of this final rule, and is found at UCA 40-10-29(1), this 
provision supplements, but does not otherwise affect in any way, 
anyone's right to protect or enforce his or her interest in water 
resources affected by a coal mining operation.
    In addition, Utah's rules contain other provisions to ensure 
protection of surface and ground water beyond the protections afforded 
by this amendment. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728 addresses determinations 
of the probable hydrologic consequences of mining on surface and 
groundwater in proposed permit and adjacent areas. As required by Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-729, for each permit application, the State develops 
a cumulative hydrologic impact assessment (CHIAs) of probable impacts 
of mining and reclamation on surface and ground water systems in the 
cumulative impact area. A CHIA also determines if proposed mining and 
reclamation is designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic 
balance outside the permit area. Performance standards at Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-750 et seq. require all coal mining and reclamation 
operations to be conducted to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic 
balance in the permit and adjacent areas. They also require those 
operations to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside 
the permit area and to support approved postmining land uses.
    One comment suggested rewording Utah's definition of ``replacement 
of water supply'' to require payment of actual delivery costs instead 
of costs in excess of customary and reasonable delivery costs for 
premining water supplies. As proposed in Utah's definition, such 
payment pertains to operation and maintenance costs in excess of 
customary and reasonable costs of premining water supply delivery. We 
considered payment of costs in the preamble to the final rule approving 
the Federal definition of ``replacement of water supply'' at 30 CFR 
701.5 (60 FR 16722, 16726, March 31, 1995). In that discussion, we 
noted that payment of costs for replacement water supply operation and 
maintenance in excess of premining costs would ensure a water supply 
user or owner is made whole upon installation of the replacement supply 
by not passing-on to the user any additional costs beyond those that 
were customary and reasonable for the premining supply. The final 
Federal definition provides for payment of costs in excess of customary 
and reasonable delivery costs for premining supplies. Utah's proposed 
definition is no less effective than the Federal definition because it 
contains the same provision for payment of costs without the change 
suggested in the comment. As explained previously, the standard we use 
for review of Utah's program is that it must be no less effective than 
the Federal regulations and no less stringent than SMCRA. We cannot 
require Utah's provisions to be more stringent than SMCRA or more 
effective than the Federal regulations.
    In another comment, water users suggested removing paragraph (b) 
from Utah's proposed definition of ``replacement of water supply'' at 
Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200. Paragraph (b) provides that demonstrating 
that a suitable alternative water source is available and could 
feasibly be developed will satisfy replacement requirements if the 
affected supply was not needed for the existing land use when it was 
lost, contaminated, or diminished, and if it is not needed to achieve 
the post mine land use. If this approach is selected, written 
concurrence from the supply owner must be obtained. The commenter 
maintained that no statutory provision excuses a permittee from the 
requirement to replace adversely affected State-appropriated water.
    We considered similar comments in our preamble discussion of the 
Federal definition of ``replacement of water supply'' in the March 31, 
1995, final rule (Id., at 16727). We adopted the Federal definition, 
including the alternative water source demonstration, to give the water 
supply owner the option of foregoing installation of a delivery system 
in circumstances in which the system was not wanted or needed. We 
reasoned that the provision still would require all coal mining 
operations to be conducted to ensure water sources remain to support 
existing

[[Page 62929]]

and proposed land use by requiring the permittee to demonstrate water 
availability equal to premining quality and quantity. Only a water 
delivery system that would not be used for the postmining land use, and 
that was not needed for the premining land use, may be waived. We 
concluded that this provision ensures compliance with EPAct and section 
717 of SMCRA in all essential respects, while avoiding unneeded 
expense. The same reasoning applies to Utah's proposed definition of 
``replacement of water supply.'' Based on this reasoning, we believe 
Utah's proposed definition is no less effective than the counterpart 
Federal definition at 30 CFR 701.5 without the suggested change. 
Further, we cannot require Utah's provisions to be more stringent than 
SMCRA or more effective than the Federal regulations.
2. Suggested Additional Definitions and Rebuttable Presumptions
    Four comments submitted by water users suggested that Utah should 
define a number of terms and create additional rebuttable presumptions 
to provide more protection to water rights holders. The terms included: 
``Promptly,'' as used to describe replacement of State-appropriated 
water at UCA 40-10-18(15)(c) and proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
731.530; and ``contamination of water,'' ``diminution of water,'' and 
``interruption of water'' as used to describe water subject to 
replacement at UCA 40-10-18(15)(c) and included in several rules in 
this amendment. The comments also suggested that these additional 
definitions should include rebuttable presumptions of contamination, 
diminution, and interruption, respectively.
    The Federal counterpart to UCA 40-10-18(15(c) is section 720(a)(2) 
of SMCRA, as amended by EPAct. SMCRA does not define the terms 
``promptly,'' ``contamination of water,'' ``diminution of water,'' or 
``interruption of water'' as used in that section. We previously found 
UCA 40-10-18(15)(c) to be no less stringent than 720(a)(2) of SMCRA and 
approved it on that basis (62 FR 41845, August 4, 1997). In our 
discussion of comments in the preamble to the March 31, 1995, final 
rule, however, we decided that providing guidance on the issue of 
timing water supply replacement would promote consistent implementation 
of replacement requirements (Id., at 16727). Guidance on ``prompt'' 
replacement, in particular, is provided in that discussion, and we 
intend it to help regulatory authorities decide if water supplies have 
been ``promptly'' replaced. We explained in our finding at Part III.C.3 
of this final rule that we found Utah's definition of ``replacement of 
water supply'' to be no less effective than the counterpart Federal 
definition at 30 CFR 701.5 as proposed by the State.
    SMCRA and the Federal regulations do not require presumptions of 
water contamination, diminution, or interruption. In the preamble to 
the final rule approving the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4) 
that established the rebuttable presumption that subsidence damaged 
noncommercial buildings, dwellings, and related structures, we 
considered comments suggesting a presumption of subsidence causation 
for damage to water supplies (Id., at 16741; Note: This pre-dated our 
suspension of 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv) on December 22, 
1999). We did not establish a presumption for water supply damage 
because we believe determining the cause(s) of water supply damage does 
not lend itself to such a presumption. We based our conclusion, in 
part, on our belief that determining the cause of damage to a water 
supply from springs and wells can be much more complex than determining 
the cause of damage to surface lands and structures because the 
cause(s) of water supply damage can involve a potentially greater 
variety of geological and hydrological formations and dynamics. At the 
same time, we also concluded that a water supply owner's ability to 
have an adversely affected water supply replaced will not be inhibited 
by the absence of a presumption that subsidence damaged the supply. In 
Utah's case, if the Division ultimately proves that a water supply has 
been adversely affected by an underground mining operation, the 
permittee must promptly replace the affected supply. Consequently, we 
believe Utah's definition of ``replacement of water supply'' is no less 
effective than the counterpart Federal definition without the suggested 
presumptions.
3. Pre-Subsidence Survey
    In another comment, water users suggested adding a sentence 
concerning map requirements in pre-subsidence surveys to the end of the 
proposed paragraph at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.110. The suggestion 
would require permittees to file such maps with the State Engineer, the 
local conservancy district, the largest water right holder in the 
drainage, and the County office(s) where the permit area is located in 
addition to including it in the permit application. In Part III.C.4 of 
this final rule, we found Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.110 is no less 
effective than the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
784.20(a)(1) without the provision for map submittal with a permit 
application as suggested by the comment. This comment would add 
requirements to Utah's proposed rule that go beyond the scope of the 
counterpart Federal regulation. As explained previously, we cannot 
require Utah's rules to be more effective than the Federal regulations.
    In addition, however, existing State rules already require maps to 
be available to the public in their requirements for public 
participation and notice. Utah Admin. R. 645-300-121 provides for 
public notice of the Division's receipt of an application (including 
maps) in local newspapers, for making the application available for 
public inspection and copying at county courthouses, and notifying 
local governmental agencies, including planning agencies, water 
treatment authorities and water companies where they can inspect the 
complete application. Utah Admin. R. 645-300-122 provides for public 
comments and objections related to a permit application. Utah Admin. R. 
645-300-123 provides for informal public conferences about permit 
applications. All permit applications (including maps) on file with the 
Division will be made available for public inspection and copying at 
reasonable times as provided by Utah Admin. R. 645-300-124.
    Another comment suggested adding a statement to proposed Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 requiring the [permit] applicant to consult 
water rights holder(s), land owner(s), and the State Engineer to 
determine that all springs and water sources have been properly 
identified, monitored, and addressed in the pre-subsidence survey. 
Utah's approved regulatory requirements for public participation and 
notice are described in the preceding paragraph's response to a similar 
comment. Further, the State's rules at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-700 et 
seq. require permit applications to include descriptions of existing 
hydrologic resources, including baseline information about surface and 
groundwater. We believe Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 is not 
inconsistent with SMCRA and the Federal regulations as the State 
proposed it without the suggested additional statement.
4. Subsidence Control
    Two water user comments suggested removing the phrase ``and 
economically'' from Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.311 and -525.312, which 
require measures to respectively prevent

[[Page 62930]]

and minimize material damage to protected structures caused by 
subsidence to the extent technologically and economically feasible. We 
considered economic feasibility in our discussion of comments in the 
March 31, 1995, final rule adopting the Federal subsidence control 
regulations (Id., at 16734). Recognizing that some material damage to 
protected structures from subsidence is possible, we required that such 
damage must be repaired. At the same time, we did not intend to 
discourage use of planned and controlled subsidence mining methods or 
to require underground mining methods not normally associated with such 
operations. We did, however, intend to require reasonable measures to 
be taken on the surface to protect occupied residential dwellings and 
related structures and non-commercial buildings from material damage. 
In that context, we reasoned that, by requiring measures to minimize 
subsidence damage to non-commercial buildings and occupied residential 
dwellings and related structures only when technologically and 
economically feasible, we mitigated any potential for unreasonably 
expensive minimization measures by providing that the requirement does 
not apply if the permittee demonstrates that minimization would cost 
more than repair. The same rationale applies to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.300 through -525.313. We believe the proposed rule is no less 
effective than the counterpart Federal regulations without the 
suggested change.
    One water user comment suggested adding a new provision at Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.312.3. The suggested provision would require 
written consent of all holders of State-appropriated water with a 
source in, adjacent to, or down drainage from the permit area as a 
second prerequisite for waiving measures to minimize material damage to 
protected structures to the extent technologically and economically 
feasible. We cannot require Utah to make this suggested change because 
it goes beyond the scope of the State's proposed rules and the Federal 
regulations by requiring water holders' consent in connection with the 
potentially unrelated issue of structural damage.
5. Subsidence Control Plan Contents
    One comment suggested changes to proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.400 that would add requirements for concurrence by the State 
Engineer on the results of pre-subsidence surveys and with 
determinations by the Division that structures, renewable resource 
lands, or water supplies will be adversely affected by subsidence. The 
same comment suggested replacing references to water ``supplies'' with 
water ``sources.'' We previously explained in this final rule that 
Utah's use of the terms water ``supply'' or ``supplies'' is consistent 
with use of the same terms in the Federal regulations and SMCRA. We 
also previously explained that we cannot require Utah to include 
provisions in its rules that are more stringent than SMCRA or more 
effective than the counterpart Federal regulations. Additionally, in 
its January 29, 1997, clarification for statutory amendment UT-035-FOR 
(administrative record number UT-1094) Utah recognized the State 
Engineer's existing authority under State water law. For these reasons, 
we believe Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.400 is no less effective than the 
Federal counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(b) without the 
suggested change.
    One water user comment suggested adding a statement at the end of 
proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.420 that would require a separate 
plan, as part of the subsidence control plan, to replace any State-
appropriated water that could be adversely affected by subsidence. 
Neither SMCRA nor the Federal regulations require a separate plan for 
this purpose so we cannot require Utah's rules to do so. Moreover, upon 
approval of this amendment, Utah will have measures in place to begin 
corrective action when water is adversely affected. They include: the 
second part of Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.420, which refers to measures 
described in Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.440, -525.450, and -525.470 
that will be taken, when applicable, to correct subsidence-related 
material damage; and Utah Admin. R. 645-301-731.530, which requires 
replacement of certain adversely affected water supplies, using the 
baseline hydrologic and geologic information required in Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-700 to determine the impact(s) of mining on water supplies. We 
believe Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.420 is no less effective than 
counterpart 30 CFR 784.20(b)(2) without requiring a ``plan within a 
plan'' to replace water adversely affected by subsidence.
6. Repair of Damage to Surface Lands
    In another comment, water users suggested removing the phrase 
``technologically and economically feasible'' from proposed Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525.510, which concerns repair of damage to surface lands. 
The same reasoning we described in our response to water users' 
comments under the Subsidence Control topic in Part IV.A.4 above 
applies to this comment as well. We believe Utah's proposed rule has 
the same meaning as the counterpart Federal regulation without the 
suggested change.
7. Adjustment of Bond Amount for Subsidence Damage
    In one comment, water users suggested changes to Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-525.550, which provides for adjusting bond amounts for 
subsidence damage. The suggested changes would replace the term water 
``supply'' with water ``source,'' remove the reference to Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-731.530, and require the permittee to pay the water right 
holder for all damages caused by adverse effects on water or a water 
source if replacement does not occur within 30 days after the water or 
source is materially damaged. Our responses to other comments above 
concerning the term ``water supply'' explained that Utah's use of that 
term in its rules is consistent with the wording of the Federal 
regulations and SMCRA.
    With respect to removing the reference to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
731.530, that rule is Utah's performance standard for water 
replacement. As referenced, it identifies those protected water 
supplies subject to replacement if adversely affected by subsidence. 
Such adverse effects invoke the requirement in proposed Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-525.550 to adjust bond amounts sufficient to ensure replacement 
of water supplies if, and until, they are to be replaced. Removing the 
reference would render Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.550 less effective 
than the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(5), which 
similarly references the Federal performance standard for water 
replacement at 30 CFR 817.41(j).
    The comment's suggestion to require payment of damages if 
replacement does not occur within 30 days after water is adversely 
affected is beyond the scope of payment of operation and maintenance 
costs provided under the State and Federal definitions of ``replacement 
of water supply.'' At the same time, however, we note that the citizen 
suit provisions of section 520(e) of SMCRA provide that nothing (in 
that section) shall restrict any right which any person may have under 
any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any of the provisions 
of SMCRA and the regulations or to seek any other relief. Utah's 
counterpart to section 520 of SMCRA is found at UCA 40-10-21(5).
    Based on the explanations given above, we believe proposed Utah

[[Page 62931]]

Admin. R. 645-301-525.550 is no less effective than counterpart 30 CFR 
817.121(c)(5) without the suggested changes.
8. Public Notice of Proposed Mining and PHC Determinations for Surface 
Mines
    Two water user comments suggested significant changes to two 
sections of Utah's rules that the State made only minor changes to in 
this amendment. One comment suggested changing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.700, which provides for public notice of proposed mining. This 
amendment only proposes to recodify Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.700 in 
view of the new rules being added to the same subsection. The comment's 
suggested change would require a mine operator to mail written 
notification of proposed mining to all holders of State-appropriated 
water rights in or adjacent to the permit area at least one year prior 
to mining. That notification would identify where the operator's 
subsidence control and water replacement plans may be examined. This 
suggested change is beyond the scope of Utah's proposed rulemaking 
because it does not address Utah's proposed change. In addition, we 
explained previously in Part IV.A.3 of this final rule that Utah's 
rules already provide for public notice and review of permit 
applications. Those applications would include plans for subsidence 
control and water replacement. Utah Admin. R. 645-300-121 provides for 
public notice of the Division's receipt of an application in local 
newspapers, for making the application available for public inspection 
and copying at county courthouses, and notifying local governmental 
agencies, including planning agencies, water treatment authorities and 
water companies where they can inspect the complete application. 
Further, all permit applications on file with the Division will be made 
available for public inspection and copying at reasonable times as 
provided by Utah Admin. R. 645-300-124.
    The other comment suggested changing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
728.340, which addresses findings to be included in PHC determinations 
for surface coal mining and reclamation activities. Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-728.340 is revised in this amendment only by the addition of a 
semi-colon and the word ``OR'' at the end of the paragraph to 
distinguish it from the new PHC findings requirement being added for 
underground mining at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350. The comment's 
suggested change would require PHC findings to determine whether 
surface mining and reclamation activities conducted after October 24, 
1992, would contaminate, diminish, or interrupt and underground or 
surface source of State-appropriated water (emphasis added). Also, it 
would delete the qualifying statement that such water be located within 
the permit or adjacent areas and be used for domestic, agricultural, 
industrial or other legitimate purpose. This comment does not address 
Utah's proposed change and is beyond the scope of the State's 
amendment. Nevertheless, we note that the suggested change to Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-728.340 strives for consistency between that 
provision and the provision that follows at proposed Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-728.350 for underground coal mining and reclamation activities. 
It is important to note that the underlying authority for proposed Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 is UCA 40-10-18(15)(c), which in turn is 
based on section 720(a)(2) of SMCRA. Those statutory provisions require 
replacement of water supplies adversely affected by underground coal 
mining operations and do not affect existing water replacement 
requirements applicable to surface mining in the Federal regulations or 
in Utah's rules.
    Though both comments are beyond the scope of this amendment, we 
forwarded them to the State for its consideration.
9. PHC Determinations for Underground Mines
    One comment suggested rewording Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350, 
which addresses findings to be included in PHC determinations for 
underground coal mining and reclamation activities. The comment would 
change the phrase ``* * * may result in contamination, diminution, and 
interruption * * *,'' which describes adverse effects of underground 
mining, to read, ``may contaminate, diminish, and interrupt.'' It also 
suggested adding the term ``water sources'' after the term ``State-
appropriated water'' and removing the qualifying statement that water 
be used for legitimate purposes within the permit or adjacent areas.
    As proposed with the phrase ``* * * may result in contamination, 
diminution, or interruption * * *,'' Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 
provides for PHC findings as to whether underground coal mining and 
reclamation activities may adversely affect State-appropriated water 
supplies directly or indirectly. The water users' suggested language 
potentially could limit PHC findings to findings only of direct adverse 
effects of underground mining and reclamation activities. That, in 
turn, would render Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 potentially less 
effective than the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
784.14(e)(3)(iv).
    Utah's qualifying statement ``* * * and used for legitimate 
purposes'' * * *`` at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 describing 
existing water use is supported by a clarification the State provided 
for Utah Code amendment UT-035-FOR in its January 29, 1997, letter 
(administrative record number UT-1094). We discussed Utah's 
characterization of legitimate water use in the context of PHC findings 
at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 in our finding at Part III.C.9 of 
this final rule. Further, in the same finding, we explained how Utah's 
qualifying statement for legitimate use is consistent with the similar 
provision at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.340 for surface coal mining and 
reclamation activities. Additionally, our finding at Part III.C.2 of 
this final rule discusses Utah's clarification of the term ``State-
appropriated water,'' including its reference to legitimate water use. 
Our previous responses to other comments concerning the term ``water 
source'' in Part IV.A of this final rule explain that Utah's use of 
``State-appropriated water'' in its rules is no less effective than the 
Federal regulations and is no less stringent than SMCRA.
    In the same comment, water users also maintained that there is no 
basis for Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 to qualify that water subject 
to the PHC finding must have been used in the permit or adjacent areas. 
We considered the scope of ``the permit and adjacent areas'' in our 
discussion of comments in the March 31, 1995, final rule adopting the 
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 784.14(e)(3)(iv) (Id., at 
16729). In that discussion, we explained that ``adjacent area'' 
includes all areas outside the permit area where resources, including 
wells or springs, could reasonably be expected to be adversely impacted 
by the proposed mining operation, including probable impacts from 
underground workings. The same rationale applies to the provisions of 
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350.
    We therefore conclude that Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 is no 
less effective than the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
784.14(e)(3)(iv) as proposed with its reference to State-appropriated 
water, its description of PHC findings of adverse effects, and its 
inclusion of the provision that existing water be used for legitimate 
purposes.

B. Federal Agency Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we 
requested

[[Page 62932]]

comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with 
an actual or potential interest in the Utah program. We asked for 
comments on the amendment as Utah originally submitted it and as 
revised in the State's October 31, 2000, letter (administrative record 
numbers UT-1106 and UT-1156, respectively).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
    The Utah Field Office of USFWS responded to our request for 
comments on the original amendment in a letter dated April 21, 1998 
(administrative record number UT-1110). USFWS supported the proposed 
amendment, noting how subsidence and water loss can impact hydrologic 
systems and wildlife that depend on them. Additionally, USFWS observed 
that the amendment appears to strengthen requirements for controlling 
and mitigating subsidence damage and determining and correcting water 
supply losses.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS)
    An office of the Manti-LaSal National Forest submitted comments on 
the original amendment on behalf of the USFS after the close of the 
first comment period (administrative record number UT-1116). Discussion 
of those comments and our responses follow.
1. Replacement of Water Supply
    One USFS comment proposed changes to Utah's definition of 
``replacement of water supply'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200. It 
suggested changing the last sentence of paragraph (a) of the definition 
to require agreement to a one-time payment of increased operation and 
maintenance costs by the landowner or surface management agency in 
addition to the permittee and the water supply owner. The comment also 
suggested adding another part to the definition to read:

    If the water supply or portion of the water supply is needed for 
the land use in existence at the time of loss, contamination, or 
diminution, or postmining land use, replacement requirements must 
meet such needs and be agreed to by the land owner or land 
management agency.

Both parts of this comment addressed concerns of the landowner and 
surface management agency for perpetuating water sources needed to 
sustain land uses and ecosystems. We agree that involving the landowner 
or surface management agency in determining water replacement needs is 
a prudent approach to resource management. However, imposing that as a 
requirement in Utah's rules is beyond the scope of the Federal water 
replacement regulations. It also could create conflict if the land 
owner and surface management agency are not the water supply owner(s) 
and if their consent is not a condition of land or water supply 
ownership or land management required under other State law.
    With respect to the suggested additional part of the definition, we 
cannot require Utah's rules to be more effective than the Federal 
regulations or more stringent than SMCRA. Utah's proposed definition 
already provides that water replacement support existing land uses and 
postmining land use, as demonstrated by its provision of waivers only 
for replacement of adversely affected supplies not needed for the 
existing or postmining land uses. Further, as noted above in our 
response to the first part of this comment, requiring landowner or 
surface management agency consent could create conflict if not required 
by other provisions of State law. We believe Utah's definition is no 
less effective than the counterpart Federal definition at 30 CFR 701.5 
without the suggested additional language.
2. Subsidence Control Plans and Pre-Subsidence Surveys
    Another USFS comment suggested that the part of Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525 which addresses subsidence control plans require pre-subsidence 
surveys of all renewable resource lands, structures, and water sources 
within a subsidence area whether or not the permittee determines they 
will be adversely affected by subsidence. The comment also asserted 
that limiting surveys to State-appropriated waters will generate 
insufficient baseline data to determine the causes and effects of 
subsidence because they will overlook other protected water resources.
    We believe Utah's proposed rules adequately provide for pre-
subsidence surveys of structures, renewable resource lands and water 
supplies. Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.100 specifically requires 
pre-subsidence surveys in each application for underground coal mining 
and reclamation activities. Whether adverse effects on structures, 
renewable resources or State-appropriated water resulting from 
subsidence are expected to occur or not is the basis for determining if 
the subsidence control plan must include the additional information 
described in Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.410 through -525.490. As 
provided in Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.400, that additional information 
will not be required in the subsidence control plan if the survey 
conducted under R645-301-525.100 shows, and the Division agrees, that: 
No structures, State-appropriated water supplies, or renewable resource 
lands exist; or, that no material damage to lands or structures, or no 
reduction in their value or use, and no adverse effects on water 
supplies, would occur as a result of subsidence. Proposed Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525 through -525.120 provide the same scope of pre-
subsidence surveys as required by the counterpart Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(1) through (a)(2). Further, proposed Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-525.130 provides for pre-subsidence structural surveys within 
an applicable angle of draw when that part of the corresponding Federal 
regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) is suspended. We explained in our 
findings in Parts III.C.4 and III.C.5 of this final rule that partial 
suspension of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) does not make Utah's proposed 
provisions for pre-subsidence surveys of EPAct protected structures and 
subsidence control plan content inconsistent with SMCRA.
    We also believe Utah's proposed rules adequately cover protected 
water supplies. As explained in our findings at Part III.C.3 and 
III.C.10 of this final rule and in our responses to other public 
comments in Part IV.A, Utah's water replacement provisions are based on 
its use of the term ``State-appropriated water'' at UCA 40-10-
18(15)(c). Based on clarification provided by the State, that term 
expands Utah's protection and replacement provisions beyond the 
drinking, domestic, and residential water supplies from wells or 
springs included under the Federal regulations and SMCRA. Further, 
Utah's rules require baseline hydrologic data in addition to the pre-
subsidence survey requirements proposed in this amendment. Provisions 
at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-700 et seq. list information required in 
permit applications to characterize hydrologic resources, identify 
potential impacts of mining on those resources, and to minimize 
disturbance of such resources located in proposed permit and adjacent 
areas.
    Another USFS comment suggested that Utah Admin. R. 645-301-724.600 
should not be removed as proposed in this amendment. This existing rule 
requires a survey to determine if aquifers and recharge areas would be 
materially damaged or diminished by subsidence, if it occurred, from 
underground mining. The comment stressed the importance of aquifers and 
recharge areas to surface water. It also

[[Page 62933]]

stressed the need to inventory water resources other than those 
appropriated by the State and to address them in the subsidence control 
plan to ensure protection of hydrologic systems. Proposed Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525.110, which replaces Utah Admin. R. 645-301-724.600, 
provides for pre-subsidence surveys to determine whether subsidence, if 
it occurred, would adversely affect structures, renewable resource 
lands and State-appropriated water. As defined at Utah Admin. R. 645-
100-200, ``renewable resource lands'' includes aquifers, aquifer 
recharge areas, and other underground waters. SMCRA (as amended by 
EPAct) and the implementing Federal regulations extend replacement 
protection to drinking, domestic and residential water supplies from 
wells or springs. We explained previously in this final rule that 
Utah's protection of ``State-appropriated water supplies'' is no less 
effective than the Federal regulation and no less stringent than SMCRA 
because it extends protection to a wider range of water supplies. Utah 
clarified in its October 31, 2000, letter (administrative record number 
UT-1145) that, because it has a process under UCA 73-5-13 to recognize 
water claims established by diversion (``diligence rights'') before the 
State Engineer's office was established and before Utah became a State, 
``State-appropriated water'' also includes territorial water rights. 
Our response to the preceding comment also showed that Utah requires 
baseline data for other water resources under Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
700 et seq. As a result, we believe the State's proposed removal of 
existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-724.600 is appropriate in light of the 
rules it proposed to add at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525 through -
525.130.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written 
agreement from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that 
relate to air or water quality standards issued 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.). None of the changes Utah proposed in amendment 
UT-037-FOR pertain to air or water quality standards. As a result, we 
did not request EPA's concurrence.
    Nevertheless, we provided copies of the original and revised 
amendments to EPA for review under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and asked if 
it had any comments (administrative record numbers UT-1106 and UT-
1156). We did not receive any comments from EPA.
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation (ACHP)
    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from 
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic 
properties. In letters dated March 25, 1998, and April 6, 1998, we 
requested comments from the SHPO and the ACHP, respectively, on the 
original amendment (administrative record number UT-1106). We asked for 
comments on the revised amendment from the SHPO and the ACHP in letters 
dated January 11, 2001, (administrative record number UT-1156). We 
received one response from the SHPO in a letter dated April 7, 1998 
(administrative record number UT-1109). In that letter, the SHPO 
concurred with the determination we made under the 36 CFR 800 
regulations that the proposed amendment will have no effect on 
properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of 
Historic Places. We did not receive comments from the ACHP.

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve Utah's proposed amendment 
as submitted on March 20, 1998, corrected on May 13, 1998, and revised 
on October 31, 2000.
    We approve, as discussed in Part III.A: Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.200 through 525.240, recodified rules pertaining to protected 
areas; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.600, recodified rule pertaining to 
compliance with the approved subsidence control plan; and Utah Admin. 
R. 645-301-525.700, recodified rule pertaining to public notice of 
proposed mining; in Part III.B: Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, definitions 
of ``material damage'' and ``occupied residential dwelling and 
structures related thereto;'' Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.300 through -
525.313, subsidence control measures to prevent or minimize damage, 
replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.200 and -525.210, which 
are removed; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.410, description in the 
subsidence control plan of coal removal method(s), replacing existing 
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.110, which is removed; Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525.420, requirement for a map to be in the subsidence control plan 
showing underground workings where planned subsidence is suspected, 
areas where subsidence will be minimized, and areas where subsidence-
related damage will be minimized and corrected; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.430, description in the subsidence control plan of physical 
conditions affecting subsidence, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525.120, which is removed; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.440, 
requirement for a description in the subsidence control plan of 
subsidence monitoring to be done, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-525.140, which is removed; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.450 
through -525.460, description in the subsidence control plan of 
subsidence control measures, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.130 through -525.134 and Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.150, which are 
removed; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.470, description in the subsidence 
control plan of methods to minimize damage from planned subsidence; 
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.500, heading ``Repair of damage,'' replacing 
existing introductory statement at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.230, 
which is removed; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.510, requirement to repair 
damage to surface lands, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
525.231, which is removed; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.520, requirement 
to repair, or compensate for, damage to non-commercial buildings and 
dwellings and related structures, replacing, in part, existing Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.232, which is removed; and Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-525.545, information to be considered in determination the cause of 
damage; in Part III.C.1: Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, definition of 
``non-commercial building;'' in Part III.C.2: Utah Admin. R. 645-100-
200, definition of ``State-appropriated water supply;'' in Part 
III.C.3: Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, definition of ``replacement of 
water supply;'' in Part III.C.4: Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525 through 
645-301-525.130, subsidence control plans, pre-subsidence surveys, 
replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 645-301-724.600, which is removed; in 
Part III.C.5: Utah Admin. R. 645-300-525.400, -525.480, and -525.490, 
subsidence control plan contents, replacing existing Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-525 through -525.170, which are removed; in Part III.C.6: Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.530, repair or compensation for damage to other 
structures; in Part III.C.7: Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.540, rebuttable 
presumption of causation by subsidence; Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.541, 
rebuttable presumption of causation for damage within angle of draw; 
and Utah Admin. R. 645-301-

[[Page 62934]]

525.542, approval of site-specific angle of draw; in Part III.C.8: Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.550, adjustment of bond amount for subsidence 
damage; in Part III.C.9: Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.340 and 728.350, 
probable hydrologic consequences determination for underground mining 
effects; and in Part III.C.10: Utah Admin. R. 645-301-731.530, 
replacement of State-appropriated water supply.
    We approve these rules as Utah proposed them with the provision 
that the State fully promulgate them in a form identical to the rules 
submitted to, and reviewed by, OSM and the public. To implement this 
decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 944, 
which codify decisions concerning the Utah program. We find that good 
cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective 
immediately. Section 405(d) of SMCRA requires that the State have a 
program that is in compliance with the procedures, guidelines, and 
requirements established under the Act. Making this regulation 
effectively will expedite that process. Further, SMCRA requires 
consistency of State and Federal standards.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12630--Takings

    This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is 
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal 
regulations.

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

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

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior conducted the reviews required by 
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and 
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 because each 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 submittals are consistent with 
SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other 
requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates 
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the 
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of 
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect 
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal 
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State 
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in 
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) 
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent 
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the 
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, which 
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule 
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review 
under Executive Order 12866, and because it is not expected to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not require an environmental impact statement 
because 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)).

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.).

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 on 
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was 
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements 
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. The 
Department relied on the data and assumptions for the counterpart 
Federal regulations in making the determination as to whether this rule 
would have a significant economic impact.

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: (a) Does not 
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not 
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic 
regions; and (c) Does 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.
    This determination is based on the fact that the State submittal, 
which is the subject of this rule, is based on counterpart Federal 
regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made 
that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

Unfunded Mandates

    OSM has determined and certifies under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a cost of 
$100 million or more in any given year on any local, State, or Tribal 
governments or private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: September 18, 2001.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 944 is amended 
as set forth below:

[[Page 62935]]

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 in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of Final Publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 944.15  Approval of Utah regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Original amendment submission    Date of final
             date                  publication      Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*         *         *         *         *         **         *         *
March 20, 1998................  December 4, 2001.  Definitions of
                                                    ``material damage,''
                                                    ``non-commercial
                                                    building,''
                                                    ``occupied
                                                    residential dwelling
                                                    and structures
                                                    related thereto,''
                                                    ``replacement of
                                                    water supply,'' and
                                                    ``State-appropriated
                                                    water supply'' at
                                                    Utah Admin. R. 645-
                                                    100-200; 645-301-525
                                                    through 525.170; 645-
                                                    301-525.200 through
                                                    525.240; 645-301-
                                                    525.300 through
                                                    525.313; 645-301-
                                                    525.400 through
                                                    525.490; 645-301-
                                                    525.500 through
                                                    525.550; 545-301-
                                                    525.600; 645-301-
                                                    525.700; 645-301-
                                                    724.600; 645-301-
                                                    728.340; 645-301-
                                                    728.350; and 645-301-
                                                    731.530.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-29982 Filed 12-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P