[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67534-67540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28197]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 944

[SPATS No. UT-041-FOR]


Utah Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: We are approving a proposed amendment to the Utah regulatory 
program (the ``Utah program'') under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Utah proposed revisions to 
and additions of rules about water replacement, blaster certification, 
standards for surety companies, and inspection and enforcement. Utah 
revised its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal 
regulations, provide additional safeguards, clarify ambiguities, and 
improve operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field 
Division, telephone: (303) 844-1400, extension 1242; Internet address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Utah Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM'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 State 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 this Act; * * * and 
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the 
Secretary pursuant to this 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 program on January 21, 1981. You can 
find background information on the Utah program, including the 
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of 
approval of the Utah program in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register 
(46 FR 5899). You can also find later actions concerning Utah's program 
and program amendments at 30 CFR 944.15 and 944.30.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated March 28, 2002, Utah sent us an amendment to its 
program (UT-041-FOR, Administrative Record No. UT-1160) under SMCRA (30 
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Utah's original submittal included two separate 
proposed amendments. In a telephone conversation on April 2, 2002 
(Administrative Record No. UT-1161), Utah agreed to our proposal to 
combine the two amendments into one amendment designated UT-041-FOR. 
Utah sent the amendment at its own initiative. The provisions of the 
Utah Administrative Rule (Utah Admin. R.) that Utah proposed to revise 
and add were: In its definitions at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, Utah 
proposed to remove the definition of ``State-Appropriated Water 
Supply'' and replace it with a new combined definition of the terms 
``Water Supply,'' ``State-appropriated Water,'' and ``State-
appropriated Water Supply,'' all of which it intends to be synonymous 
and to mean ``state appropriated water rights which are recognized by 
the Utah Constitution or Utah Code;'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-105-314, 
Utah proposed to add a new blaster certification rule that would 
require candidates for certification to be twenty-one years of age or 
older; at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.130, Utah proposed to add a new 
provision requiring a permit applicant to give a copy of the pre-
subsidence survey and any technical assessment or engineering 
evaluation to the water conservancy district, if any, where the mine is 
located; at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.700, the State proposed to add a 
new requirement that the underground mine operator mail a notification 
of proposed mining to the water conservancy district, if any, in which 
the mine is located; at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350, the State 
proposed to revise its rule to require that determinations of probable 
hydrologic consequences include

[[Page 67535]]

findings on whether underground coal mining and reclamation activities 
conducted after October 24, 1992, may result in contamination, 
diminution, or interruption of ``State-appropriated Water'' in 
existence within the proposed permit or adjacent areas at the time the 
application is submitted, and to delete the existing phrase ``and used 
for legitimate purposes within the permit or adjacent areas * * *'' at 
the end of that sentence; at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-860.110 through 
``860.112, Utah proposed to add new requirements for companies that 
issue surety bonds to meet to provide the State with standards by which 
to judge their financial stability; at Utah Admin. R. 645-400-162 and 
645-400-381, the State proposed to change its existing references to 
section 40-10-22 of the Utah Code Annotated (UCA) to reference UCA 40-
10-19 so on-site compliance conferences will not be considered 
inspections in the context of that statutory provision; in the 
enforcement rule at Utah Admin. R. 645-400-319, Utah proposed to change 
the existing reference to Utah Admin. R. 645-300-147 to cite Utah 
Admin. R. 645-300-148 instead, which requires permittees to submit 
ownership and control information to the Division of Oil, Gas and 
Mining (DOGM); and at Utah Admin. R. 645-400-322, the State proposed to 
add the phrase ``* * * which does not create an imminent danger or harm 
for which a * * *'' to complete the sentence and characterize 
situations in which it will issue notices of violation rather than 
cessation orders.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the May 17, 2002, 
Federal Register (67 FR 35077). 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 No. UT-
1163). We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one 
requested one. The public comment period ended on June 17, 2002. We 
received comments from one State agency and two Federal agencies.

III. OSM's Findings

    Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under 
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 
approving the amendment.

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

    Utah's proposed revisions to the following rules contain wording 
that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the 
Federal regulations (which are noted in parentheses):
    1. Utah Admin. R. 645-400-162 and 645-400-381, changes existing 
references to section 40-10-22 of the Utah Code Annotated (UCA) to 
reference UCA section 40-10-19 instead, so on-site compliance 
conferences will not be considered inspections in the context of that 
statutory provision (30 CFR 840.16(b) and 843.20(a), respectively);
    2. Utah Admin. R. 645-400-319, changes the existing reference to 
Utah Admin. R. 645-300-147 to reference 645-300-148 instead, which 
requires permittees to submit ownership and control information to DOGM 
(30 CFR 843.11(g)); and
    3. Utah Admin. R. 645-400-322, adds the phrase ``* * * which does 
not create an imminent danger or harm for which a * * *'' to complete 
the sentence and characterize situations in which DOGM will issue 
notices of violation rather than cessation orders (30 CFR 
843.12(a)(2)).
    Because these proposed rules contain wording that is the same as or 
similar to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they are 
no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.

B. 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 ``Water Supply,'' ``State-
appropriated Water,'' and ``State-Appropriated Water Supply''
    Utah proposes to delete its existing definition of ``State-
appropriated water supply'' and replace it with a combined definition 
of the terms ``water supply,'' ``State-appropriated water,'' and 
``State-appropriated water supply.'' Under the proposed combined 
definition, the three terms `` * * * are all synonymous and mean, for 
the purposes of the R645 Rules, state appropriated water rights which 
are recognized by the Utah Constitution or Utah Code.'' The Federal 
counterpart term ``drinking, domestic or residential water supply'' is 
defined at 30 CFR 701.5.
    In the December 4, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 62917), we 
approved the existing definition of ``State-appropriated water supply'' 
in amendment UT-037-FOR. We found Utah's definition of that term was no 
less effective than the Federal definition of the counterpart term 
``drinking, domestic, or residential water supply.'' As we approved it, 
``State-Appropriated Water Supply'' meant ``State-created water rights 
which are recognized under the provisions of the Utah Code.'' Our 
approval noted that Utah's definition was based on its use of the term 
``State-appropriated water'' at UCA 40-10-18(15)(c). ``State-
appropriated water'' is not defined in title 40 of Utah's Code. 
However, in a January 29, 1997, letter (Administrative Record No. UT-
1094), Utah asserted that use of the term ``State-appropriated water'' 
in its Code provides broader water replacement protection than the 
Federal term because the State's term includes the ``* * * universe of 
legal water uses by the universe of legal water users * * *.'' As such, 
``State-appropriated water'' includes drinking, domestic, or 
residential water supplies from wells or springs and water used for 
other purposes, including agricultural irrigation and industrial water. 
The Federal term is limited to drinking, domestic or residential water 
supply from a well or spring unless the water supply is for direct 
human consumption, human sanitation, or domestic use. We accepted 
Utah's explanation in our August 4, 1997, approval of UT-035-FOR (62 FR 
41845) and relied on it, in part, for our approval of Utah's definition 
of ``State-appropriated water supply'' in amendment UT-037-FOR (Id.)
    Our approval of Utah's definition of ``State-appropriated water 
supply'' in UT-037-FOR also was based on information the State provided 
to us in response to a question we asked in our October 1, 1998, letter 
describing our concerns for that amendment (Administrative Record No. 
1125). We asked Utah to further clarify its interpretation of the term 
``State-appropriated water supply'' to address whether legal water 
rights exist in the State that are recognized by Utah law but are not 
created by the State. Utah responded to our questions in an October 31, 
2000, letter (Administrative Record No. UT-1145). As we noted in our 
approval of UT-037-FOR (Id., at 62928), Utah said the provisions of UCA 
73-5-13 recognize water claims established by diversion (``diligence 
rights'') before Utah became a State and before it established the 
State Engineer's Office. The State's response concluded that ``State-
appropriated water'' includes territorial water rights. Because the 
definition of the term ``State-appropriated water supplies'' as 
proposed in amendment UT-037-FOR was based on Utah's interpretation of 
``State-appropriated water,'' we found it to be no less effective than 
the Federal term ``drinking, domestic or residential water supply'' and 
approved it.

[[Page 67536]]

    Utah's combined definition of ``water supply,'' ``State-
appropriated water,'' and ``State-appropriated water supply'' as 
proposed in this amendment refers to State-appropriated water rights 
recognized by the Utah Constitution and the Utah Code. Replacing the 
phrase ``State-created water rights'' in the existing definition with 
the phrase ``state appropriated water rights'' in the proposed 
definition accommodates the assertion that water rights existing before 
Utah became a State were not created by the State but nevertheless are 
recognized by Utah law. Further, DOGM explained that referring to water 
rights recognized by the Utah Constitution gives additional support to 
recognizing existing water rights that were established before Utah 
became a State (Administrative Record No. UT-1167). It also recognizes 
that mining might affect those water rights.
    We searched Utah's R645 rules for the terms ``water supply,'' 
``State-appropriated water,'' and ``State-appropriated water supply'' 
to determine if there are any uses of those terms that would conflict 
with the proposed definition. Those terms appear separately or together 
in definitions of: ``Community or industrial building;'' ``essential 
hydrologic functions;'' ``developed water resources'' as referred to in 
the definition of ``land use;'' ``renewable resource lands'' as used 
for the purposes of Utah Admin. R. 645-103; ``replacement of water 
supply;'' and ``State-appropriated water supply'' (to be replaced by 
the proposed combined definition). Those terms also appear separately 
or in combination at: Utah Admin. R. 645-103-322.300; -525.110, 120, 
and 130; -525.214; -525.400 and 480; -525.550; -728.350; and -731.530, 
710, and 800. Utah's proposed definition is consistent with the context 
in which the terms are used in these rules. Making the three terms 
synonymous makes their use consistent throughout Utah's rules, reducing 
uncertainty over their intended meaning.
    As proposed, the combined definition of the terms ``water supply,'' 
``State-appropriated water'' and ``State-appropriated water supply'' 
recognizes water rights established before and after Utah became a 
State. Making the terms synonymous invokes the full protections 
provided by the State's rules wherever those terms appear for water 
rights that the Utah Constitution and Code recognize. The State's 
proposed definition also provides a potentially broader scope of water 
protection than does the Federal counterpart term ``drinking, domestic 
or residential water supply.'' Based on this reasoning, we find Utah's 
proposed definition is no less effective than the counterpart term's 
definition.
2. Utah Admin. R. 645-105-312, -313, and -314, Blaster Training, 
Examination, and Certification: Minimum Age
    Utah proposes to add a new rule at Utah Admin. R. 645-105-314 that 
requires candidates for blaster certification to be 21 years of age or 
older. It also proposes to change Utah Admin. R. 645-105-312 and -105-
313 to remove and add the word ``and'' after each clause, respectively, 
in view of adding the new rule at 645-105-314. Utah proposes these 
changes to make its rules consistent with Federal law for explosives 
handling. There is no provision in the 30 CFR regulations or SMCRA that 
expressly requires candidates for blaster certification to be at least 
21 years old.
    Explosive materials are within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) of the U.S. Department of the 
Treasury (U.S. Treasury). Federal regulations at 27 CFR Chapter I, Part 
55, establish requirements for the shipment, transportation, and 
possession of explosive materials. They also impose requirements on 
granting licenses to individuals to engage in the business of 
importing, manufacturing, and dealing in explosive materials. Further, 
those regulations include requirements imposed on issuing permits to 
people who intend to acquire explosive materials for use. ATF defines 
explosive materials as ``explosives, blasting agents, water gels, and 
detonators.'' Subsections 55.26(c) and (c)(1) state that ``[n]o person 
shall knowingly distribute explosive materials to any individual who * 
* * is under twenty-one years of age * * *.'' Further, section 55.49(b) 
and (b)(1) state that ``[t]he Chief, Firearms and Explosives Licensing 
Center, shall approve a properly executed application for a license or 
permit, if * * * the applicant is 21 years of age or older * * *.'' 
Clearly, the intent of these Federal regulations is to restrict 
explosives handling, possession, and transport to individuals 21 years 
of age or older. Utah's proposed rule is consistent with these Federal 
regulations governing explosive materials.
    In addition, Utah's rules for blaster training, examination and 
certification refer to knowledge of, and compliance with, Federal 
regulations and laws for explosives. At Utah Admin. R. 645-105-220, the 
State's rules note that ``[t]raining includes, but is not limited to, 
the technical aspects of blasting operations, and Utah and Federal laws 
governing the storage, transportation, and use of explosives.'' The 
Federal counterpart for this rule is found at 30 CFR 850.13(a)(1) and 
is worded similarly. Utah Admin. R. 645-105-240 goes on to say that 
``Training will include course work in, and discuss the practical 
application of: * * * * 247. Current federal and Utah rules applicable 
to the use of explosives * * *.'' The Federal counterpart to this rule 
is 30 CFR 850.13(b)(7) and is worded the same. Utah Admin. R. 645-105-
441.300 further provides that a blaster certification may be suspended 
or revoked for ``[v]iolation of any provision of Utah or federal 
explosives laws or regulations * * *.'' The Federal counterpart 
regulation is found at 30 CFR 850.15(b)(iii) and is worded the same.
    We find Utah's proposed rule is consistent with the intent of its 
rules and the counterpart Federal regulations for blaster training, 
examination, and certification in general. We also find that it is 
consistent with, and no less effective than, the ATF's regulations 
requiring persons engaging in the explosives business or using 
explosives to be at least 21 years of age.
3. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 and Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.700, 
Pre-subsidence Surveys and Public Notice of Proposed Mining: To Whom a 
Permit Applicant Must Give Copies of Pre-subsidence Surveys
    Utah proposes to include water conservancy districts among those to 
whom it gives pre-subsidence surveys and notices of proposed mining. 
Specifically, it proposes to revise Utah Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 by 
adding the phrase ``* * * the water conservancy district, if any, in 
which the mine is located * * *'' near the end of the last sentence. 
The resulting change requires permit applicants to give a copy of a 
pre-subsidence survey and any technical assessment or engineering 
evaluation to the water conservancy district, if any, where the mine is 
located in addition to giving copies to the property owner and DOGM. 
Such surveys describe the condition of certain buildings, dwellings and 
related structures and the quantity and quality of all State-
appropriated water supplies in the permit and adjacent areas that might 
be adversely affected by subsidence. The proposed revision to Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.700 adds the phrase `` * * * to the water 
conservancy district, if any, in which the mine is located and * * *'' 
to the second sentence. That change requires the underground mine

[[Page 67537]]

operator to mail a notification of proposed mining to the water 
conservancy district, if any, in which the mine is located in addition 
to all owners and occupants of surface property and structures above 
the underground workings at least six months prior to mining, or within 
a different period if approved by DOGM. This notice identifies specific 
areas where mining will occur, dates when specific areas will be 
undermined, and the location or locations where the operator's 
subsidence control plan may be examined.
    Utah's existing rules provide for the same distribution of pre-
subsidence surveys and public notices of proposed mining that the 
counterpart Federal regulations do. The Federal counterparts to Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-525.130 and 645-301-525.700 are found at 30 CFR 
784.20(a)(3) and 817.122, respectively. The existing Federal and State 
provisions require permit applicants to give pre-subsidence surveys, 
technical assessments, and engineering evaluations to property owners 
and to the regulatory authority and DOGM, respectively. DOGM is the 
regulatory authority in Utah. Both also require operators to mail 
public notices of proposed mining to all owners and occupants of 
surface property and structures above the underground workings. As 
currently written and approved, Utah's existing rules meet the minimum 
standard set by the Federal regulations.
    Adding the new phrases to Utah's rules extends the distribution of 
its pre-subsidence surveys and public notices of proposed mining to 
more parties than required by the Federal regulations. The Federal 
regulations do not include water conservancy districts among the 
recipients of pre-subsidence surveys or public notices of proposed 
mining. That does not preclude Utah from including them in its rules, 
however. By including water conservancy districts among the recipients 
of pre-subsidence surveys and public notices of proposed mining, Utah 
recognizes the interest such districts have in the possible effects 
underground mining-related subsidence can have on State-appropriated 
water supplies and when those effects might begin to occur. Moreover, 
section 505(b) of SMCRA provides that ``Any provision of any State law 
or regulation in effect upon the date of enactment of this Act, or 
which may become effective thereafter, which provides for more 
stringent land use and environmental controls and regulations of 
surface mining and reclamation operation than do the provisions of this 
Act or any regulations issued pursuant thereto shall not be construed 
to be inconsistent with this Act.'' We find Utah's rules are no less 
effective than the counterpart Federal regulations as proposed with the 
added phrases.
4. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350, Probable Hydrologic Consequences 
Determinations for Underground Coal Mining and Reclamation Activities
    Utah proposes to make three changes to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
728.350. The existing rule requires the probable hydrologic 
consequences (PHC) determination to include findings on whether 
underground coal mining and reclamation activities conducted after 
October 24, 1992, ``* * * may result in contamination, diminution or 
interruption of State-appropriated water in existence at the time the 
application is submitted and used for legitimate purposes within the 
permit or adjacent areas.'' Utah proposes to replace the word ``water'' 
with ``Water'' (changing the small case ``w'' to upper case ``W''). It 
also proposes to delete the final phrase that reads `` * * * and used 
for legitimate purposes within the permit or adjacent areas * * *`` and 
replace it with the phrase `` * * * within the proposed permit or 
adjacent areas * * *'' after the word ``existence.'' As proposed, the 
rule would require PHC determinations to include findings on whether 
underground coal mining and reclamation activities conducted after 
October 24, 1992, may contaminate, diminish, or interrupt ``* * * 
State-appropriated Water in existence within the proposed permit or 
adjacent areas at the time the application is submitted.''
    The counterpart Federal regulation is found at 30 CFR 
784.14(e)(3)(iv). It requires the PHC determination to include findings 
on whether the underground mining activities conducted after October 
24, 1992, may contaminate, diminish or interrupt ``* * * a well or 
spring in existence at the time the permit application is submitted and 
used for domestic, drinking, or residential purposes within the permit 
or adjacent areas.''
    Utah's proposed rule differs from the counterpart Federal 
regulation in its use of the term ``State-appropriated Water'' where 
the Federal regulation refers to ``a well or spring * * * used for 
domestic, drinking, or residential purposes * * *.'' As noted in our 
previous finding, Utah's proposed combined definition of ``Water 
Supply,'' ``State-appropriated Water,'' and ``State-appropriated Water 
Supply,'' makes those terms synonymous to mean ``* * * state 
appropriated water rights which are recognized by the Utah Constitution 
or Utah Code.'' In that finding, we concluded that Utah's proposed 
definition is no less effective than the definition of the Federal 
counterpart term ``drinking, domestic or residential water supply'' at 
30 CFR 701.5. The Federal term ``drinking, domestic or residential 
water supply'' is defined in part to mean `` * * * water received from 
a well or spring and any appurtenant delivery system that provides 
water for direct human consumption or household use'' (emphasis added). 
As such, Utah's use of the term ``State-appropriated Water'' in its 
proposed rule is analogous to the counterpart Federal regulation's 
reference to ``a well or spring * * * used for domestic, drinking, or 
residential uses * * *.''
    There are other differences between the wording of Utah's proposed 
rule and the counterpart Federal regulation. Utah's proposed rule 
requires the PHC determination to find if underground mining will 
adversely affect State-appropriated Water existing in the permit or 
adjacent areas when the application is submitted, but it does not 
expressly mention use of the water or where it is used. By comparison, 
the counterpart Federal regulation specifies that the PHC determination 
find if underground mining will adversely affect a well or spring 
existing at the time a permit application is submitted and used for 
domestic, drinking or residential purposes in the permit or adjacent 
areas. As stated before, in Utah's proposed combined definition, 
``State-appropriated Water'' means State-appropriated water rights that 
are recognized by the Utah Constitution or Utah Code. We interpret 
section 717(a) of SMCRA as requiring deference to State water law on 
questions of water allocation and use (60 FR 16722, 16733; March 31, 
1995). Title 73 of the Utah Code is entitled ``Water and Irrigation.'' 
Under the prior appropriation system of Utah water law, a water user 
who first puts water to use has the water right, and a water right is 
perfected when water is put to use (sections 73-3-1 and 73-3-17, 
respectively). As the State quoted in its January 29, 1997, letter 
(Administrative Record No. UT-1094) the Utah Supreme Court's discussion 
of J.J.N.P. Co. v. State of Utah ex rel. Division of Water Resources, 
655 P.2d 1133 (Utah 1982) cited the provision of section 73-1-3 of the 
Utah Code (entitled ``Beneficial use basis of right to use'') in 
explaining that:

    * * * individuals have no ownership interest as such in natural 
waters, only the right to put the water to certain uses. `Beneficial 
use shall be the basis, the measure and the limit of all rights to 
the use of water in this state,' Sec.  73-1-3, and the right to

[[Page 67538]]

beneficial use may be acquired only by compliance with the legal 
procedures for appropriation of a given right.

    Though Utah's proposed rule does not expressly mention water use, 
the term ``State-appropriated Water'' in its rule, by definition, 
invokes State-appropriated water rights recognized by the Utah 
Constitution or the Utah Code. Utah water rights, in turn, are based on 
putting water to beneficial use. In the context of water use in a 
predominantly semi-arid State such as Utah, we interpret the 
descriptive term ``beneficial use'' as stated by the Utah Supreme Court 
to include using water for domestic, drinking, and residential 
purposes. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable and consistent with 
Utah water law to interpret Utah's proposed rule as implying water use 
by referring to ``State-appropriated Water.''
    Similar reasoning applies to the question of where the water use 
must occur to be considered in the PHC determination's finding of 
potential adverse effects under Utah's proposed rule. Proposed Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 addresses State-appropriated Water in 
existence within the proposed permit or adjacent areas at the time the 
application is submitted. As explained above, water use is a basis for 
a water right, and the definition of ``State-appropriated Water'' means 
State-appropriated water rights that are recognized by the Utah 
Constitution or Utah Code. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable and 
consistent with Utah water law to interpret Utah's proposed rule as 
applying to beneficial use of State-appropriated Water in the proposed 
permit or adjacent areas. Removing the reference to use for 
``legitimate purposes'' does not reduce the rule's effectiveness. By 
recognizing water use for beneficial purposes as the basis of a water 
right, Utah water law confers legitimacy on such use. Moreover, the 
counterpart Federal regulation does not refer to ``use for legitimate 
purposes'' in its description of water use for domestic, drinking, or 
residential purposes, either.
    The State explained that removing the word ``water'' with a small 
case ``w'' and replacing it with ``Water'' in the term ``State-
appropriated Water'' does not alter the meaning of that term 
(Administrative Record No. UT-1169). Utah explained that ``State-
appropriated Water'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 has no meaning 
other than the one proposed in this amendment for the combined 
definition of ``Water Supply,'' ``State-appropriated Water,'' and 
``State-appropriated Water Supply'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200. We 
found Utah's definition to be no less effective than the definition of 
the counterpart Federal term ``drinking, domestic and residential water 
supply'' in finding III.B.1 of this final rule.
    Based on the reasoning presented above, we find proposed Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-728.350 is consistent with titles 40 and 73 of the 
Utah Code and is no less effective than the counterpart Federal 
regulation at 30 CFR 784.14(e)(3)(iv).
5. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-860.110, -860.111, and -860.112, Surety Bonds
    The State proposed to revise and add requirements at Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-860.110 through -860.112 that surety companies must meet in 
order to issue bonds for coal mines in Utah and that operators must 
comply with to ensure that they hold bonds issued by companies that 
meet the requirements of -860.110. Specifically, the State proposed to 
revise Utah Admin. R. 645-301-860.110 to require surety companies that 
issue bonds in Utah to have an A.M. Best rating of A- or better or an 
A.M. Best Financial Performance Rating (FPR) of 8 or better, and to be 
continuously listed in the current issue of the U.S. Treasury's 
Circular 570. Circular 570 lists surety companies holding Certificates 
of Authority from the U.S. Treasury. Utah also proposed to add Utah 
Admin. R. 645-301-860.111, which gives operators 120 days to obtain a 
surety bond with companies that meet the standards of proposed -860.110 
(if they do not have such a bond already) or face enforcement action. 
Under proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-860.112, if DOGM notifies an 
operator that a surety company guaranteeing its performance does not 
meet the standard of -860.110, the operator has 120 days to correct the 
problem or face enforcement action.
    The Federal counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 800.20(a) only 
requires that ``[a] surety bond shall be executed by the operator and a 
corporate surety licensed to do business in the State where the 
operation is located.''
    Utah intends to establish a more secure bonding program with these 
proposed additional rule requirements. In order to avoid inadequate 
bond coverage due to surety company insolvencies, Utah proposed to 
allow only surety companies deemed to be financially strong by A.M. 
Best and listed in Circular 570 to issue bonds to guarantee coal mine 
reclamation performance in Utah.
    A.M. Best is recognized as the leading provider of independent 
ratings of an insurance/surety company's financial strength and ability 
to meet its obligations. A.M. Best assigns a rating after it conducts 
an extensive quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a surety 
company's financial strength, operating performance, and market 
profile. While having an A- [excellent] rating or a Financial 
Performance Rating of 8 or better from A.M. Best is no guarantee that 
an insolvency will not occur, accepting surety bonds only from surety 
companies that meet the financial criteria to earn these ratings 
indicates that insolvency is far less likely.
    A.M. Best's highest ratings are A++ and A+, which indicate a 
superior financial condition. A Best's rating of A- indicates that a 
company's overall financial condition is excellent. As A.M. Best 
stated, earning a Financial Performance Rating (FPR) of 8 or better 
from A.M. Best means a ``* * * company has, on balance, very strong 
financial strength, operating performance and market profile when 
compared to the standards established by the A.M. Best Company. These 
companies, in [its] opinion, have a strong ability to meet their 
ongoing obligations to policy holders.''
    Requiring a surety company to be listed in the U.S. Treasury's 
Circular 570 provides additional assurance that a surety company is 
able to meet its obligations according to the financial requirements at 
31 CFR part 223. Utah's proposal to require that surety companies be 
listed in Circular 570 applies to all of Utah's coal mining surety 
bonds, notwithstanding Federal lands and Federal co-obligees.
    The U.S. Treasury establishes a per-bond underwriting limitation 
based on its in-depth financial analysis of a surety company that 
applies for authorization to write Federal bonds. Surety companies that 
are granted a Certificate of Authority are listed in Circular 570. Each 
year, surety companies have to re-apply to be listed. The U.S. Treasury 
requires listed companies to submit quarterly reports that list all 
bonds issued on which the United States is an obligee or co-obligee. If 
at any time the U.S. Treasury determines that a surety company no 
longer meets the financial criteria to be listed in Circular 570, the 
U.S Treasury terminates the surety company's Certificate of Authority. 
Often, A.M. Best's downgrades of surety companies correspond to the 
U.S. Treasury's terminations of surety companies. Utah's proposal 
provides the State with the ability to be pro-active in its efforts to 
maintain a more secure bonding program.
    Utah's proposal to give operators 120 days to comply with the 
requirement to have bonds with companies that meet the new standards 
should provide

[[Page 67539]]

adequate time for operators to seek surety bonds or other allowable 
forms of bond with surety companies that meet the proposed standards.
    For the reasons described above, we find proposed Utah Admin. R. 
645-301-860.110, -860.111, and -860.112 are no less stringent than 
SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal regulations.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment in letters dated 
April 2, 2002, and in the May 17, 2002, Federal Register 
(Administrative Record Nos. UT-1163 and UT-1170, respectively). We 
received comments from one State agency and two Federal agencies. We 
did not receive any public comments on the proposed amendment.

Federal Agency Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we 
requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with 
an actual or potential interest in the Utah program (Administrative 
Record No. UT-1163).
    On April 9, 2002, the Ogden regional office of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Forest Service, called us to say the Forest Service had 
no comments on the amendment (Administrative Record No. UT-1164).
    In a letter dated April 18, 2002, the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service responded to our request by stating 
that it had no comments on the amendment (Administrative Record No. UT-
1168).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), we are required to get 
concurrence 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 revisions that Utah proposed to make in this amendment 
pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask 
EPA to concur on the amendment. However, we requested EPA's comments on 
the amendment under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) (Administrative Record No. 
UT-1163). EPA did not respond to our request.

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 April 2, 2002, we requested comments on 
Utah's amendment from the SHPO and ACHP (Administrative Record No. UT-
1163).
    The Utah SHPO responded to our request for comment in a letter 
dated April 12, 2002 (Administrative Record No. UT-1165). The SHPO 
found that the proposed amendment has no potential to affect cultural 
resources.
    We did not receive any comments on the amendment from the ACHP.

V. OSM's Decision

    We approve Utah's amendment based on the findings presented above.
    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 503(a) of SMCRA requires the 
State's program to demonstrate that the State has the capability of 
carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making 
this regulation effective immediately will expedite that process. 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 regulation.

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 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 
submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal 
regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 
731, and 732 have been met.

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 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 certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a

[[Page 67540]]

substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which 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. In making the determination as to 
whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the 
Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart 
Federal regulations.

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 upon the fact that the State submittal 
that is the subject of this rule is based upon 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

    This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State 
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart 
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a 
determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an 
unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: September 5, 2002.
Brent T. Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.

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

PART 944--UTAH

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

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

    2. Section 944.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by November 6, 2002 to read as follows:


Sec.  944.15  Approval of Utah regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Original amendment submission    Date of final
             date                  publication      Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
March 28, 2002................  November 6, 2002.  Definition of ``Water
                                                    Supply,'' ``State-
                                                    appropriated
                                                    Water,'' and ``State-
                                                    appropriated Water
                                                    Supply'' at Utah
                                                    Admin. R. 645-100-
                                                    200; Utah Admin. R.
                                                    645-105-310 through
                                                    314; R. 645-301-
                                                    525.130 and -
                                                    525.700; Utah Admin.
                                                    R. 645-301-728.350;
                                                    R. 645-301-860.110
                                                    through -860.112; R.
                                                    645-400-162; and R.
                                                    645-400-319, -322,
                                                    and -381.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-28197 Filed 11-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P