[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42277-42282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18101]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 920

[MD-048-FOR]


Maryland Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSM), are approving a proposed amendment to the Maryland regulatory 
program (the ``Maryland program'') under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Maryland proposed revisions 
to and additions of rules about descriptions of proposed mining 
operations, impoundments, and inspection and certification of 
impoundments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Rieger, Telephone: 412-937-
2153. Internet: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Maryland 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 Maryland 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 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 Maryland program on December 1, 1980. You 
can find background information on the

[[Page 42278]]

Maryland program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition 
of comments, and conditions of approval in the December 1, 1980, 
Federal Register (47 FR 79431). You can also find later actions 
concerning Maryland's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 920.12, 
920.15 and 920.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated November 25, 2002, Maryland sent us an amendment to 
its program (Administrative Record No. MD-577-21) under SMCRA (30 
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to the issuance of an OSM 732 letter 
dated July 8, 1997. Specifically, Maryland was required to amend 
several sections of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) including 
sections 26.20.02.13, 26.20.21.01, 26.20.21.08, and 26.20.21.09, 
relative to: Detailed design plans, siltation structures, and 
impoundments and the reference to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Technical Release 
No. 60 (criteria for dam classification).
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 25, 
2003, Federal Register (68 FR 14360). 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. We did not hold a 
public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public 
comment period ended on April 24, 2003. We did not receive any public 
comments.

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. Any revisions that we do not specifically 
discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes. The 
full text of the changes can be found in the March 25, 2003, Federal 
Register (68 FR 14360).
    Maryland proposed revisions to the following sections of COMAR in 
order to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations. 
Because these proposed rules contain language that is the same or 
similar to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they are 
no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.

COMAR 26.20.02.13

    Maryland proposed to amend its regulations at Subsection U of COMAR 
26.20.02.13 so that each application includes a ``general plan for each 
proposed siltation structure, sedimentation pond, water impoundment, 
and coal processing waste bank, dam, or embankment within the proposed 
mine plan area.'' The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 780.25(a) and 
784.16(a) require that each application include ``a general plan and a 
detailed design plan for each proposed siltation structure, water 
impoundment, and coal processing waste bank, dam, or embankment within 
the proposed permit area.''
    Although subsection U of the State regulation does not refer to ``a 
detailed design plan'' as does the Federal regulation, a detailed 
design plan is required by the State under subsection V. Maryland 
proposed to amend Subsection V(1) so that, like the Federal 
regulations, it requires a detailed design plan for ``each proposed 
siltation structure, sedimentation pond, water impoundment, and coal 
processing waste bank, dam, or embankment within the proposed mine plan 
area.''
    Maryland also proposed to add a new subsection V(1)(a) that 
requires the design plan to be designed in compliance with COMAR 
26.20.21.06 and .08, which provide performance standards for siltation 
structures and impoundments, respectively.
    The deletion of the phrase, ``excess spoil disposal structure'' in 
the current subsection, and the replacement of this phrase with, 
``siltation structure'' before the term ``sedimentation pond'' in the 
new subsection, make Maryland's rules substantively identical to the 
Federal rules at 30 CFR 780.25 and 784.16 which require siltation 
structures and sedimentation ponds to be designed in compliance with 
performance standards. The deletion of the reference to excess spoil 
does not render the Maryland program less effective because Maryland 
has permitting and performance standards for excess spoil at COMAR 
26.20.02.13 AA and 26.20.26.01 respectively. Also the current 
subsection, (a)-(d) becomes subsections (b)-(e). The renumbering of the 
sections is purely administrative in nature.
    We are approving these revisions, as they are no less effective 
than the Federal regulations.
    Maryland also proposes revisions to subsection (3). The current 
subsection reads:
    ``(3) If a sedimentation pond, water impoundment, or coal 
processing waste dam or embankment is 20 feet or higher or impounds 
more than 20 acre-feet, the plan shall contain a stability analysis of 
each structure. The stability analysis shall include but not be limited 
to strength parameters, pore pressures, and long-term seepage 
conditions.
    The plan shall also contain a description of each engineering 
design assumption and calculation with a discussion of each alternative 
considered in selecting the specific design parameters and construction 
methods.''
    Maryland is substituting the following: ``or embankment is 20 feet 
or higher or impounds more than 20 acre-feet'' with ``or siltation 
structure that meets the Class (b) or (c) criteria for dams in the 
USDA, Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 60, (October 
1985), as incorporated by reference in COMAR 26.20.21.01-1 or meets the 
size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a).'' The deleted language is 
not a requirement of the Federal regulations.
    This subsection is substantively identical to 30 CFR 780.25(f) and 
784.16(f).
    We find these revisions to be no less effective than Federal 
regulations and are approving the revisions.
    Maryland proposes revisions to subsection AA(1). Subsection AA 
requires descriptions of excess spoil disposal sites. Subsection AA(1) 
currently reads:
    ``Descriptions, including appropriate maps and cross-section 
drawings, of any proposed excess spoil disposal site and design of the 
spoil disposal structures. These plans shall describe the geotechnical 
investigation, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and 
removal, if appropriate, of the site and structures.''
    Revision of the first paragraph of subsection AA(1) reads: ``Each 
application shall contain descriptions including appropriate maps and 
cross-section drawings, of any proposed excess spoil disposal site and 
design of the spoil structures in accordance with COMAR section 
26.20.26.''
    We are approving this revision because it is substantively 
identical to 30 CFR 780.35(a). The reference to section 26.20.26, makes 
Maryland's program no less effective than 30 CFR 780.14(c) and 
784.23(c) by clarifying that only registered professional engineers may 
certify designs for excess spoil fills. This is in accordance with item 
3 of OSM's July 8, 1997, issue letter.

COMAR 26.20.21

    Maryland proposes a new COMAR subsection 26.20.21.01-1:01-1 which 
reads, ``Incorporation by Reference, The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 60 (210-
VI-TR60, October 1985), ``Earth Dams and Reservoirs,'' Technical

[[Page 42279]]

Release No. 60 (TR-60) is incorporated by reference.''
    We are approving this revision as the incorporation of the 
reference to the TR-60 makes Maryland's program no less effective than 
Federal regulations incorporation by reference to the same TR-60, at 30 
CFR 780.25(a)(2) and 784.16(a)(2).

COMAR 26.20.21.08

    Maryland proposes several revisions to COMAR subsection 
26.20.21.08. First, Maryland proposes to revise subsection 
26.20.21.08A, which lists the general requirements for impoundments. 
Under the current regulations, the first requirement is that 
impoundments be designed and constructed to ensure:
    (1) Compliance with USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Standards and 
Specifications for Ponds (Code 378), July, 1981, as incorporated by 
reference in COMAR subsection 26.17.05.05B(3), if impoundments do not 
meet the size or other criteria of 30 CFR Section 77.216(a) and are 
located where failure would not be expected to cause loss of life or 
serious property damage.
    The revised COMAR section 26.20.21.08A(1) reads as follows: ``(1) 
Compliance with USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Maryland 
Conservation Practice, Standard Pond 378 (January 2000), as 
incorporated by reference in COMAR 26.17.02.01-1B(2).''
    We are approving this revision because Code 378 addresses Class A 
Hazards. There is no direct Federal counterpart and we find it is not 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.49 and 817.49.
    Maryland also proposes to revise the second requirement of 
subsection A. The new requirement reads as follows: ``(2) Compliance 
with requirements of COMAR 26.17.04.05 if the embankment is more than 
15 feet in height as measured from the upstream toe of the embankment 
to the crest of the emergency spillway.''
    We are approving this revision to the Maryland program as it is not 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations. Maryland also proposes a new 
subsection (3) referencing:
    ``Impoundments meeting the Class (b) or (c) criteria for dams in 
Earth Dams and Reservoirs, TR-60 shall comply with ``Minimum Emergency 
Spillway Hydrologic Criteria'' table in TR-60 and the requirements of 
this regulation.''
    We are approving this revision as it is substantively identical to 
and no less effective than the Federal counterpart under 30 CFR 
816.49(a)(1) and 817.49(a)(1).
    Maryland also proposes changes to subsection B of COMAR 
26.20.21.08, which addresses the stability of impoundments. COMAR 
section 26.20.21.08B(1) currently requires that: ``(1) Impoundments 
meeting the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a), located where 
failure would be expected to cause loss of life or serious property 
damage, or a coal mine waste impounding structure, shall have a minimum 
static safety factor of 1.5 for a normal pool with steady state seepage 
saturation conditions and a seismic safety factor of at least 1.2.''
    The language addition states: ``(1) Impoundments meeting the Class 
(b) or (c) criteria for dams contained in ``Earth Dams and 
Reservoirs'', TR-60 or the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) 
shall have a minimum static safety factor of 1.5 for a normal pool with 
steady state seepage saturation conditions and a seismic safety factor 
of at least 1.2.''
    The deleted language does not render the Maryland program 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations because loss of life or 
serious property damage is a hazard criterion for Class C impoundments. 
Additionally, the deletion of the phrase ``coal mine waste impounding 
structure'' is not inconsistent with Federal regulations because 
Maryland has performance standards for coal mine waste impounding 
structures at COMAR 26.20.27.11. We are approving this revision to the 
Maryland program as it is substantively identical to the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(4)(i) and 817.49(a)(4)(i). The revision 
is therefore no less effective than the Federal counterpart 
regulations.
    COMAR section 26.20.21.08B(2) currently requires that: ``(2) Except 
for coal mine waste impounding structures and impoundments located 
where failure would be expected to cause loss of life or serious 
property damage, impoundments not meeting the size or other criteria of 
30 CFR 77.216(a) shall be constructed to achieve a minimum static 
safety factor of 1.3 for a normal pool with steady state seepage 
saturation conditions.''
    Maryland proposes to make revisions to section 26.20.21.08B(2), 
which read:
    ``(2) Impoundments not included in Section B(1) of this regulation, 
except for coal mine waste impounding structures shall be constructed 
to achieve a minimum static safety factor of 1.3 for a normal pool with 
steady state seepage saturation conditions.''
    The deleted language does not render the Maryland program 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations because loss of life or 
serious property damage is a criteria for Class C impoundments 
referenced in subsection B(1). We are approving these proposed 
revisions to the Maryland program, as they are substantively identical 
to and no less effective than Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.49(a)(4)(ii) and 817.49(a)(4)(ii).
    Maryland also proposes a new COMAR section 26.20.21.08.C, which 
reads:
    ``C. Freeboard. (1) Impoundments shall have adequate freeboard to 
resist overtopping by waves and sudden increases in storage volume. (2) 
Impoundments meeting the Class (b) or (c) criteria for dams in ``Earth 
Dams and Reservoirs'', TR-60 shall comply with the freeboard hydrograph 
criteria in ``Minimum Emergency Spillway Hydrologic Criteria'' table in 
TR-60. Subsequently, the current subsections C and D would therefore 
become subsections D and E, respectively.''
    D. Foundation. The current subsection C(2) now reads: ``(2) For an 
impoundment meeting the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a), 
foundation investigation, as well as any necessary laboratory testing 
of foundation material, shall be performed to determine the design 
requirements for foundation stability.
    Subsection C(2) becomes D(2) and reads:
    ``(2) For an impoundment meeting the Class (b) or (c) criteria for 
dams contained in `Earth Dams and Reservoirs', TR-60 or the size or 
other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a), foundation investigation, as well 
as any necessary laboratory testing of foundation material, shall be 
performed to determine the design requirements for foundation 
stability.''
    We are approving these proposed revisions to the Maryland program 
because they are substantively the same and no less effective than the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(5)-(6) and 817.49(a)(5)-(6) 
regarding Freeboard and Foundation. Maryland is revising this section 
as a result of the July 8, 1997, issue letter requirements.
    Maryland proposes changes to COMAR 26.20.21.08D. As noted above, 
the proposed addition of a new subsection C changes the current 
subsection D to E with approval of the proposed changes. Further, the 
State proposes changes to the current subsection D(3). Currently 
subsection D(3) contains subsections (a) and (b), which contain the 
required design precipitation event for impoundments meeting the 
spillway requirements of the section. The State proposes to add a new 
subsection D(3)(c): ``(c) For impoundments meeting the Class (b) or (c) 
criteria for dams in `Earth Dams and

[[Page 42280]]

Reservoirs', TR-60, in accordance with the emergency spillway 
hydrograph criteria in the `Minimum Emergency Spillway Hydrologic 
Criteria' table in TR-60, or larger event specified by the 
Department.''
    Because a new subsection D(3)(c) is proposed, the State proposes to 
change subsection D(3)(b) by removing the period at the end of the 
sentence and adding a semicolon followed by the word ``or.'' With 
approval, the proposed changes, subsections E through I will change to 
F through J, respectively, but would otherwise remain unchanged.
    We are approving these revisions to the Maryland program as they 
are no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 816.49(a)(9)(ii)(A) and 817.49(a)(9)(ii)(A). The revisions make 
Maryland's language substantively the same as Federal language and are 
in response to the July 8, 1997, 732 issue letter requirements.

COMAR 26.20.21.09

    Maryland proposes changes to COMAR 26.20.21.09D, which relates to 
the examination of impoundments. Subsection D(1) currently states: 
``(1) Impoundments subject to 30 CFR 77.216 shall be examined in 
accordance with 30 CFR 77.21-3. Other impoundments shall be examined at 
least quarterly by a qualified person for appearance of structural 
weakness and other hazardous conditions.''
    The new COMAR section 26.20.21.09D(1) reads: ``(1) Impoundments 
meeting the Class (b) or (c) criteria for dams in ``Earth Dams and 
Reservoirs'', TR-60 or the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216 
shall be examined in accordance with 30 CFR 77.216-3. Other 
impoundments not meeting the Class (b) or (c) criteria for dams in 
``Earth Dams and Reservoirs'', TR-60 or subject to 30 CFR 77.216 shall 
be examined at least quarterly by a qualified person for appearance of 
structural weakness and other hazardous conditions.''
    We are approving this revision to the Maryland program, as it is 
substantively identical to and no less effective than the counterpart 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(12) and 817.49(a)(12). Maryland 
is making these revisions to its program in order to be consistent with 
Federal regulations and as a result of OSM's July 8, 1997, 732 issue 
letter requirements.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative 
Record No. MD-577-25), but did not receive any.

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 Maryland program (Administrative 
Record No. MD-577-22). We received one comment. This comment from the 
USDA's NRCS, noted that the proposed changes were consistent with the 
NRCS's performance standards for impoundments.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the 
amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. MD-577-24). EPA did not 
respond to our request. Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required 
to obtain written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the 
program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued 
under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). This amendment does not contain provisions 
that relate to air or water quality standards and, therefore, 
concurrence by the EPA is not required.

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. On December 10, 2002, we requested comments on Maryland's 
amendment through the Maryland Historical Trust (Administrative Record 
No. MD-577-22), but received no response to our request.

V. OSM's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Maryland sent 
us. We approve, as discussed in the findings above: COMAR 26.20.02.13 
U, concerning the elimination of the phrase ``excess spoil disposal 
structure'' and the addition of the phrase ``siltation structure'; 
V(1)(a) an addition to the enumerated criteria and (3) concerning the 
added reference to the USDA NRCS (formerly the Soil Conservation 
Service) Technical Release No. 60 (TR-60) and the deletion of the 
phrase ``excess spoil disposal structure at V(1)'' and by deleting ``or 
embankment is 20 feet or higher or impounds more than 20 acre-feet'' at 
V(3); AA(1) referencing COMAR 26.20.26; a new COMAR subsection 
``26.20.21.01-1'' concerning an incorporation by reference to (TR-60); 
26.20.21.08 A(1) through (3) concerning an incorporation by reference 
to Maryland NRCS Conservation Practice, Standard Pond 378 (January 
2000), and a new subsection referencing the (TR-60) ``Minimum Emergency 
Spillway Hydrologic Criteria Table'', B(1) and (2) referencing the (TR-
60) ``Earth, Dams and Reservoirs'', a reference to subsection B(1) and 
non coal mine waste impoundments, and deleting the reference to 
26.17.05.05B(3) at subsection A, and also deleting at subsection A and 
B, the phrase ``if impoundments do not meet the size or other criteria 
of 30 CFR 77.216(a) and are located where failure would not be expected 
to cause loss of life or serious property damage''; a new subsection C 
pertaining to ``Freeboard'', renumbering section D(2) and E(3) and 
26.20.21.09D(1) regarding ``examinations of impoundments''.
    We approve the rules proposed by Maryland with the provision that 
they be fully promulgated in identical form 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 920, which codify decisions concerning the Maryland 
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 that Maryland's program demonstrate that it 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 Maryland 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 under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by

[[Page 42281]]

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule 
meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that 
section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual 
language of State regulatory programs and program amendments 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 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the 
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes 
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct 
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. 
The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State 
regulatory program and does not involve a Federal program involving 
Indian tribes.

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

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 that 
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 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 upon 
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was 
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a 
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small 
entities. 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 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 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 920

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: June 27, 2003.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.


0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR 920 is amended as set 
forth below:

PART 920--MARYLAND

0
1. The authority citation for part 920 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 920.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  920.15  Approval of Maryland regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

[[Page 42282]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Original amendment submission    Date of final
             date                  publication      Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
November 25, 2002.............  July 17, 2003....  COMAR 26.20.02.13 U,
                                                    V(1) and (3), AA(1);
                                                    26.20.21.01-1;
                                                    26.20.21.08 A(1)
                                                    through (3), B(1)
                                                    and (2), C, D(2),
                                                    E(3);
                                                    26.20.21.09D(1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-18101 Filed 7-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P