[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15028-15033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 936

[Docket No. OK-030-FOR]


Oklahoma 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 an amendment to the Oklahoma regulatory program 
(Oklahoma program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Oklahoma proposed revisions to its rules 
concerning cross sections, maps, and plans; subsidence control; 
impoundments; revegetation success standards; and roads. Oklahoma 
withdrew its previously proposed revisions to its rules concerning 
review of decision not to inspect or enforce. Oklahoma intends to 
revise its program to provide additional safeguards, clarify 
ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.

DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa 
Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Background on the Oklahoma 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

[[Page 15029]]

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 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 Oklahoma program on January 19, 1981. You can find background 
information on the Oklahoma program, including the Secretary's 
findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval, 
in the January 19, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 4902). You can also 
find later actions concerning Oklahoma's program and program amendments 
at 30 CFR 936.10, 936.15 and 936.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated July 15, 2005 (Administrative Record No. OK-
946.02), Oklahoma sent us an amendment to its approved regulatory 
program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Oklahoma proposed 
revisions to rules concerning cross sections, maps, and plans; 
subsidence control; impoundments; revegetation success standards; 
roads; and review of decision not to inspect or enforce. Oklahoma 
intends to revise its program to provide additional safeguards, clarify 
ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.
    We announced receipt of the amendment in the October 18, 2005, 
Federal Register (70 FR 60481). In the same document, we opened the 
public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing 
or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public 
hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment 
period ended on November 17, 2005. We did not receive any comments.
    During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns about 
subsidence control and subsidence control plan, impoundments, 
revegetation: standards for success, and review of decision not to 
inspect or enforce. We notified Oklahoma of these concerns by letters 
dated September 15, 2005, and October 28, 2005 (Administrative Record 
Nos. OK-946.04 and OK-946.07, respectively).
    Oklahoma responded in letters dated October 14, 2005, and November 
17, 2005 (Administrative Record Nos. OK-946.05 and OK-946.08, 
respectively), by sending us revisions to its amendment and additional 
explanatory information. Also, in its letter dated November 17, 2005, 
Oklahoma stated that its staff is continuing to review Oklahoma 
Administrative Code (OAC) 460:20-57-6, pertaining to review of decision 
not to inspect or enforce, and will submit a second amendment 
separately on this issue. Therefore, Oklahoma has withdrawn its 
previously proposed revisions to OAC 460:20-57-6.
    Based upon Oklahoma's additional explanatory information for and 
revisions to its amendment, we reopened the public comment period in 
the December 30, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 77348). The comment 
period closed on January 17, 2006. We did not receive any 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 as described below.

A. Minor Revisions to Oklahoma's Rules

    Oklahoma proposed minor wording, editorial, punctuation, and 
grammatical changes to the following previously-approved rules: 
Impoundments, OAC 460:20-43-14(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(9)(A), 
(a)(9)(B)(iii), and (a)(11)(A); Roads: general, OAC 460:20-43-52 
(e)(1); Revegetation: standards for success, OAC 460:20-45-46(c)(2); 
and Subsidence control, OAC 460:20-45-47(c)(2).
    Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make 
Oklahoma's regulations less effective than the Federal regulations.

B. OAC 460:20-25-11. Cross Sections, Maps, and Plans (Federal 
Counterpart 30 CFR 779.25) and OAC 460:20-29-11. Cross Sections, Maps, 
and Plans (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR 783.25)

    The following findings pertain to surface and underground coal 
mining.
    Oklahoma proposed to delete paragraphs (a)(11) that require permit 
applications to include cross sections, maps, and plans that show 
sufficient slope measurements to adequately represent the existing land 
surface configuration of the proposed permit area. There are no direct 
counterpart Federal regulations for the above paragraphs that Oklahoma 
proposed to delete. We are approving the deletions because they will 
not render the Oklahoma regulations less effective than the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 779.25 and 783.25.

C. OAC 460:20-31-13. Subsidence Control Plan (Federal Counterpart 30 
CFR 784.20)

    Oklahoma proposed to revise paragraph (a)(3) regarding conducting 
surveys of the condition of all Energy Policy Act (EPAct) protected 
structures and water supplies. The EPAct protected structures are non-
commercial buildings or occupied residential dwellings and structures 
related thereto. The EPAct protected water supplies are all drinking, 
domestic, and residential water supplies within the permit area and 
adjacent area that could be contaminated, diminished, or interrupted by 
subsidence. Oklahoma proposed to add language that would exempt permit 
applicants from conducting surveys of EPAct protected structures if the 
applicants do not propose to use mining technology that results in 
planned subsidence. The surveys are still required if applicants 
propose to use mining technology that would result in planned 
subsidence. The counterpart Federal regulation to OAC 460:20-31-
13(a)(3) is found at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3). When you first read this 
regulation, it appears to require applicants to conduct pre-mining 
surveys of EPAct protected structures and EPAct protected water 
supplies. However, when you continue to read this regulation, it only 
requires applicants to conduct pre-mining surveys of EPAct protected 
water supplies. The reason for this is that, on April 27, 1999, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the Federal 
regulatory provision requiring applicants to conduct surveys of EPAct 
protected structures. On December 22, 1999 (64 FR 71653), in response 
to the Court's action, we suspended that portion of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) 
which required a survey of the EPAct protected structures. The 
remainder of paragraph (a)(3) continues in force, thereby, requiring 
applicants to conduct pre-mining surveys of all EPAct protected water 
supplies.
    We are approving Oklahoma's revision because it requires pre-mining 
surveys of all EPAct protected water supplies as does the Federal 
regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3). We are also approving it because it 
is not inconsistent with and will not render the Oklahoma regulations 
less effective than the above Federal regulations by requiring pre-
mining surveys of EPAct protected structures if applicants propose to 
use mining technology that results in planned subsidence.

[[Page 15030]]

D. OAC 460:20-43-14. Impoundments (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR 816.49)

    Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraph (a)(14) that prohibits 
embankment slopes of impoundments from being closer than 100 feet, 
measured horizontally, from any public road right-of-way unless 
otherwise approved under procedures established in 460:20-7-4(4) and 
460:20-7-5(d). It also requires the area between the road right-of-way 
and the embankment slopes of an impoundment, which is the clear zone 
slopes, to not be steeper than a 1V:6H grade.
    There is no direct counterpart Federal regulation regarding the 
distance between an embankment slope of an impoundment and a public 
road right-of-way. However, the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 761.11(d) 
ordinarily prohibits or limits surface coal mining operations within 
100 feet, measured horizontally, of the outside right-of-way line of 
any public road. Because impoundments can be part of a surface coal 
mining operation and Oklahoma proposed to prohibit a part of the 
surface coal mining operation (impoundments) from being closer than 100 
feet, measured horizontally, of the outside right-of-way line of any 
public road, we are approving this revision as it is consistent with 
the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 761.11(d).
    Also, there is no counterpart Federal regulation regarding clear 
zone slopes. We find that Oklahoma's proposed revision to require that 
the clear zone slopes not be steeper than a 1V:6H grade is not 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.150, Roads: 
general, and we are approving it.

E. OAC 460:20-43-46. Revegetation: Standards for Success (Federal 
Counterpart 30 CFR 816.116) and OAC 460:20-45-46. Revegetation: 
Standards for Success (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR 817.116)

    The following findings pertain to surface and underground mining.
    Oklahoma proposed to revise paragraphs (b)(3) regarding areas to be 
developed for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or 
forest products. Currently, these paragraphs require the Oklahoma 
Department of Mines (ODM), on a permit-specific basis, to specify the 
minimum stocking and planting arrangements after consulting with and 
obtaining the approval of the State agencies responsible for the 
administration of forestry and wildlife programs. Oklahoma proposed to 
revise these paragraphs in order to incorporate in its regulations, on 
a program-wide basis, minimum stocking and planting arrangements for 
areas to be developed for fish and wildlife habitat. Oklahoma proposed 
to retain the currently approved provisions that require the ODM to 
specify, on a permit-specific basis, the minimum stocking and planting 
arrangements for areas to be developed for recreation, shelter belts, 
or forest products after consulting with and obtaining the approval of 
the State agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and 
wildlife programs. When Oklahoma submitted the above proposed 
revisions, it provided us letters from the Oklahoma Department of 
Wildlife Conservation and the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, 
and Forestry (the State agencies responsible for the administration of 
forestry and wildlife programs). These letters indicated that the State 
agencies had no negative comments about the proposed revisions 
regarding Oklahoma's fish and wildlife habitat plans. The Oklahoma 
Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry recommended that, to be 
consistent, the ODM should develop additional guidance, to be 
incorporated into its regulations, for areas to be developed for 
recreation, shelter belts, or forest products. Specifically, Oklahoma 
proposed the following:
    1. Oklahoma originally proposed to revise paragraphs (b)(3)(A) 
regarding minimum stocking and planting arrangements for areas to be 
developed for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or 
forest products. These paragraphs require the ODM, on a permit-specific 
basis, to specify the minimum stocking and planting arrangements after 
consulting with and obtaining the approval of the State agencies 
responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife programs. 
In revising these paragraphs, Oklahoma proposed to make the provisions 
pertain only to fish and wildlife habitat on a program-wide basis 
instead of on a permit-specific basis, thereby, eliminating the need 
for the ODM to obtain approval from the above State agencies for 
minimum stocking and planting arrangements for every permit. The 
provision for the ODM to consult with the State agencies is still 
required. Also, Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraphs (i) to specify 
a minimum tree and shrub stocking rate and to provide guidance on the 
types and species to plant if trees or shrubs are to be planted. In 
addition, Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraphs (ii) to specify a 
minimum seeding rate and to provide guidance on the species to plant if 
native grasses and forbs are to be planted. Finally, Oklahoma proposed 
to add new paragraphs (iii) to allow an applicant to submit an 
alternative wildlife habitat plan to the ODM if he or she chooses not 
to follow the provisions set forth in proposed new paragraphs (i) and 
(ii). This alternative plan must include written approval from the 
State agencies responsible for the management of fish and wildlife.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 
817.116(b)(3)(i) provide that the regulatory authority specify the 
minimum stocking and planting arrangement for areas to be developed for 
fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest 
products after consulting with and obtaining the approval of State 
agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife 
programs. The consultation and approval may occur on either a program-
wide or a permit-specific basis.
    Oklahoma's above proposed revisions regarding proposed new 
paragraphs (i) and (ii) meet the requirements of the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i) because the 
State has chosen to specify the minimum stocking and planting 
arrangements for fish and wildlife habitat on a program-wide basis if 
trees and shrubs and/or native grasses and forbs are to be planted and 
has consulted with and obtained approval from the appropriate State 
agencies. The provisions for proposed new paragraphs (iii) are not 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) 
and 817.116(b)(3)(i) because the alternative plan must be accompanied 
by a written approval of the alternative planting rates and species 
from the State agencies responsible for the management of fish and 
wildlife and must be reviewed by the ODM. We are, therefore, approving 
Oklahoma's revisions.
    2. Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraphs (b)(3)(B) for areas to 
be developed for recreation, shelter belts, or forest products and to 
redesignate existing paragraphs (B) through (D) as new paragraphs (C) 
through (E). New paragraphs (b)(3)(B) require the ODM, on a permit-
specific basis, to specify the minimum stocking and planting 
arrangements on the basis of local and regional conditions after 
consulting with and obtaining the approval of the State agencies 
responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife programs. 
The minimum stocking and planting arrangements would then be 
incorporated into an approved reclamation plan.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 
817.116(b)(3)(i)

[[Page 15031]]

provide that the regulatory authority specify the minimum stocking and 
planting arrangement for areas to be developed for fish and wildlife 
habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest products after consulting 
with and obtaining the approval of State agencies responsible for the 
administration of forestry and wildlife programs. The consultation and 
approval may occur on either a program-wide or a permit-specific basis.
    We are approving Oklahoma's proposed revisions because they are 
consistent with the provisions of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i). We are also approving the re-
designation of the above applicable paragraphs because the re-
designations are only editorial changes and do not render the State 
regulations less effective than the Federal regulations.
    3. Oklahoma proposed to revise newly re-designated paragraphs 
(b)(3)(D) (formerly paragraphs (b)(3)(C)), regarding the technical 
standard for vegetative ground cover, by adding new language requiring 
the cover to be sufficient to control erosion.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 
817.116(b)(3)(iii) require the vegetative ground cover to be no less 
than that required to achieve the approved post-mining land use. The 
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.111(a)(4) requires a vegetative cover 
that is capable of stabilizing the soil surface from erosion.
    The addition of the new language proposed by Oklahoma is no less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving the 
addition of the new language.
    4. For areas to be developed for fish and wildlife habitat, 
recreation, shelter belts, or forest products, Oklahoma proposed to add 
new paragraphs (b)(3)(E) (formerly paragraphs (b)(3)(D)). These new 
paragraphs require comments on tree and shrub stocking and vegetative 
ground cover from State agencies responsible for the management of fish 
and wildlife.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 
817.116(b)(3)(i) require the regulatory authority to consult with the 
State agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and 
wildlife programs regarding minimum stocking and planting arrangements. 
Therefore, we are approving Oklahoma's proposed new paragraphs because 
they are no less effective than the Federal regulations.

F. OAC 460:20-43-52. Roads: General (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR 
816.150)

    Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraph (d)(3) to require that the 
relocation of a public road must comply with newly proposed OAC 460:20-
43-14(a)(14). This newly proposed regulation prohibits embankment 
slopes of impoundments from being closer than 100 feet, measured 
horizontally, from any public road right-of-way unless otherwise 
approved under procedures established in 460:20-7-4(4) and 460:20-7-
5(d). It also requires the area between the road right-of-way and the 
impoundment slopes, which is the clear zone slopes, to not be steeper 
than a 1V:6H grade.
    The counterpart Federal regulations to Oklahoma's regulations is 
found at 30 CFR 816.150 (Roads: general). There is no direct 
counterpart Federal regulation regarding the distance between the 
right-of-way of a relocated public road and an embankment slope of an 
impoundment. Also, there is no counterpart Federal regulation regarding 
clear zone slopes. However, there is a Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
761.11(d) which ordinarily prohibits or limits surface coal mining 
operations within 100 feet, measured horizontally, of the outside 
right-of-way line of any public road.
    Oklahoma proposed that relocated public roads comply with the 
requirements of newly proposed OAC 460:20-43-14(a)(14) and this newly 
proposed regulation ordinarily prohibits embankment slopes of 
impoundments from being closer than 100 feet, measured horizontally, of 
the outside right-of-way line of a relocated public road. Therefore, we 
are approving this revision because it is not inconsistent with the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 761.11(d) and 30 CFR 816.150. We are also 
approving Oklahoma's proposed revision to require that the clear zone 
slopes not be steeper than a 1V:6H grade because it is not inconsistent 
with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.150.

G. OAC 460:20-45-47. Subsidence Control (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR 
817.121)

    Oklahoma proposed to delete paragraphs (c)(4)(A) through (E) 
regarding rebuttable presumption of causation by subsidence and to 
incorporate the language in existing paragraph (c)(4)(E) into paragraph 
(c)(4) so that paragraph (c)(4) reads as follows:

    (4) Be governed by a rebuttable presumption of causation by 
subsidence. The information to be considered in determination of 
causation is whether damage to protected structures was caused by 
subsidence from underground mining. All relevant and reasonably 
available information will be considered by the Department.

    The counterpart Federal regulation is found at 30 CFR 
817.121(c)(4)(v). This Federal regulation provides for the regulatory 
authority to consider all relevant and reasonably available information 
when determining the cause of damage to EPAct protected structures by 
underground mining. Because Oklahoma's proposed revision at paragraph 
(c)(4) has the same provision as the counterpart Federal regulation at 
30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(v), we are approving it.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive 
any.

Federal Agency Comments

    On August 31, 2005, and December 15, 2005, 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 Oklahoma program (Administrative Record Nos. OK-946.03 
and OK-946.09). We did not receive any comments.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    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 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 Oklahoma proposed to 
make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. 
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
    On August 31, 2005, and December 15, 2005, under 30 CFR 
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from EPA 
(Administrative Record Nos. OK-946.03 and OK-946.09). 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. On August 31, 2005, and December 15, 2005, we requested 
comments on Oklahoma's amendment

[[Page 15032]]

(Administrative Record Nos. OK-946.03 and OK-946.09), but neither 
responded to our request.

V. OSM's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Oklahoma sent 
us on July 15, 2005, and as revised on October 14, 2005, and November 
17, 2005.
    We approve the regulations proposed by Oklahoma with the provision 
that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the regulations 
submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the public.
    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR part 936, which codify decisions concerning the Oklahoma 
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 the State's program demonstrate that the State has the 
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its 
purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that 
process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12630--Takings

    The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations 
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the 
analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The 
revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal 
counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they 
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the 
fact that the provisions have no substantive effect on the regulated 
industry.

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.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by 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. 
This determination is based on the fact that the Oklahoma program does 
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation 
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Oklahoma program has no 
effect on Federally-recognized 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 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 a portion of the 
provisions in 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.) because they are 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 part of the rule would have a 
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and 
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. The Department of 
the Interior also certifies that the provisions in this rule that are 
not based upon counterpart Federal regulations 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.). This 
determination is based upon the fact that the provisions are not 
expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.

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,

[[Page 15033]]

productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based 
upon the fact that a portion of the State provisions are 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. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based 
upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon 
the fact that the State provisions are not expected to have a 
substantive effect on the regulated industry.

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 a portion of 
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 regulations did not impose an 
unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that is not 
based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based 
upon the fact that the State provisions are not expected to have a 
substantive effect on the regulated industry.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 936

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: March 3, 2006.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.


0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 936 is amended as 
set forth below:

PART 936--OKLAHOMA

0
1. The authority citation for part 936 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 936.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  936.15  Approval of Oklahoma regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Original amendment submission
             date                 Date of final publication                   Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
July 15, 2005.................  March 27, 2006...............  Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 460:20-25-
                                                                11(a)(11); 460:20-29-11(a)(11); 460:20-31-
                                                                13(a)(3); 460:20-43-14(a)(1), (a)(3),(a)(9)(A),
                                                                (a)(9)(B)(iii), (a)(11)(A), and (a)(14); 460:20-
                                                                43-46(b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(A)(i)-(iii), (b)(3)(B)-
                                                                (E); 460:20-43-52(d)(3) and (e)(1); OAC 460:20-
                                                                45-46(b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(A)(i)-(iii), (b)(3)(B)-
                                                                (E) and(c)(2); and OAC 460:20-45-47(c)(2),
                                                                (c)(4) and (c)(4)(A)-(E).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-2899 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P