[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33249-33254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8927]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 944

[UT-043-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 revised 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 changes to 
the Utah Administrative Rules concerning permit change, renewal, 
transfer, sale and assignment, cross sections and maps, processing and 
approval of extensions to the approved permit area, determining civil 
penalty amounts, and assessing daily civil penalties. Utah revised its 
program to clarify and strengthen certain parts of the rules.

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field 
Division; telephone: (303) 844-1400, extension 1424; e-mail 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 also can find later actions concerning Utah's program 
and program amendments at 30 CFR 944.10, 944.15 and 944.30.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated November 28, 2005, Utah sent us an amendment to its 
program (Administrative Record Number UT-1181) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 
1201 et seq.). We received the amendment on December 28, 2005. Utah 
sent the amendment to make the changes at its own initiative. The State 
proposed to revise five sections of its coal rules.
    In a revision of Utah Administrative Rule (Utah Admin. R.) 645-301-
160, the State proposed to add a heading that reads, ``Permit change, 
renewal, transfer, sale, and assignment.'' Following that heading is a 
proposed reference to procedures to change, renew, transfer, assign, or 
sell existing coal mining and reclamation permit rights that are found 
at Utah Admin. R. 645-303.
    The amendment also proposed to change Utah's permit application 
requirements for cross sections and maps at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
512.100. This change would allow preparation of certain cross sections 
and maps by a professional geologist or a qualified, registered, 
professional land surveyor. The State also proposed editorial changes 
to this section to make it read more clearly with the proposed 
substantive revisions described above.
    A proposed revision to Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222 would require 
applications for extensions to the approved permit area to be processed 
and approved using the procedural requirements of Utah Admin. R. 645-
303-226 for review and processing of significant permit revisions. As 
part of this proposed change, the State also proposed to remove the 
requirement at Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222 that extensions to the 
approved permit area, except for incidental boundary changes, be 
processed and approved as new permit applications and not be approved 
under Utah Admin. R. 645-303-221 through R. 645-303-228.
    Another revision proposed in this amendment would change Utah's 
schedule of points and corresponding dollar amounts for civil penalty 
assessments found at Utah Admin. R. 645-401-330. The proposed revision 
changed the range of civil monetary penalties from $10 through $3,560 
to $22 through $4,840. It also changed the range of assessed points 
corresponding to those civil monetary penalties from 1 through 87 
points to 1 through 64 points.
    Finally, the State's amendment proposed a change at Utah Admin. R. 
645-401-410 that would require an assessment officer to assess a civil 
penalty for a minimum of two separate

[[Page 33250]]

days for any violation that continues for two or more days and is 
assigned more than 64 points. This proposed change also would remove 
the existing threshold of 80 points.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 13, 
2006, Federal Register (71 FR 7489; Administrative Record Number UT-
1192). 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 March 
15, 2006. We received comments from two Federal agencies.
    We identified a concern about proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222 
during our review of the amendment. As proposed, the rule would require 
the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) to process and approve 
applications for permit area extensions, except incidental boundary 
revisions, using the procedural requirements for permit revisions at 
Utah Admin. R. 645-303-226. The amendment would remove the existing 
requirement that DOGM process and approve permit area extensions, 
except incidental boundary revisions, through applications for new 
permits. The proposed rule is not consistent with Utah Code Annotated 
(UCA) section 40-10-12(1)(c), which requires permit area extensions, 
except incidental boundary revisions, to be made by application for 
another permit. We notified Utah of our concern in a telephone 
conversation on January 23, 2006 (Administrative Record Number UT-
1190), and an e-mail message dated February 14, 2006 (Administrative 
Record Number UT-1193).
    Utah responded in a letter dated February 16, 2006 (Administrative 
Record Number UT-1194), by withdrawing the proposed change to Utah 
Admin. R. 645-303-222 from amendment UT-043-FOR.
    We did not reopen the public comment period for the revised 
amendment because Utah's withdrawal of the proposed change to Utah 
Admin. R. 645-303-222 only reduced the scope of the amendment and 
leaves the existing approved rule in effect and unchanged.

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 revised.

A. Minor Revision to Utah's Rules

    Utah proposed a minor editorial change to the following previously-
approved rule by adding a new heading and rule at Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-160. The new rule is an editorial addition that merely restates the 
heading of Utah Admin. R. 645-303 and directs the reader to existing 
rules for permit change, renewal, transfer, sale and assignment that 
are in that section.
    Because this change is minor, we find that it will not make Utah's 
rules less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.

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

    Utah proposed revisions to the following rule containing language 
that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the 
Federal regulations:
    Utah Admin. R. 645-301-512.100, preparation and certification of 
certain cross sections and maps required in permit applications 
(corresponds to 30 CFR 780.14(c) and 784.23(c) in the Federal 
regulations).
    Because this proposed rule contains language that is the same as or 
similar to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that it is no 
less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.

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

1. Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222, Review and Approval of Extensions to the 
Approved Permit Area
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222 would require DOGM to process 
and approve permit area extensions (except incidental boundary changes) 
using procedures for significant permit revisions found at Utah Admin. 
R. 645-303-226. The proposed revision also would remove the existing 
requirement that DOGM process permit area extensions (except incidental 
boundary changes) through applications for new permits and not under 
the procedures for permit changes found at Utah Admin. R. 645-303-221 
through R. 645-303-228.
    Federal counterparts to existing Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222 are 
found at section 511(a)(3) of SMCRA and in the Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 774.13(d). Both Federal provisions require permit area 
extensions, except incidental boundary revisions, to be processed as 
applications for new permits.
    Title 40, Chapter 10, et seq., entitled, ``Coal Mining and 
Reclamation,'' of the Utah Code Annotated is the primary underlying 
statutory authority for Utah's coal mining rules found at Title R645 et 
seq. UCA 40-10-12(1)(c) states ``[a]ny extensions to the area covered 
by the permit, except incidental boundary revisions, must be made by 
application for another permit.'' This provision is Utah's statutory 
counterpart to existing Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222.
    As proposed, Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222 is not consistent with the 
plain wording of State law at UCA 40-10-12(1)(c). We expressed our 
concern in a telephone conversation with Utah on January 23, 2006 
(Administrative Record Number UT-1190) and in an e-mail message dated 
February 14, 2006 (Administrative Record Number UT-1193). In a letter 
dated February 16, 2006, (Administrative Record Number UT-1194), the 
State chose to withdraw this proposed rule from the amendment, 
recognizing the need to revise the Utah Code Annotated. Withdrawal of 
the proposed change to Utah Admin. R. 645-303-222 from amendment UT-
043-FOR leaves the existing, approved rule unchanged and in effect, 
notwithstanding the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining's formal promulgation 
of the revised rule effective February 6, 2004 (noted in a January 5, 
2006, telephone conversation; Administrative Record Number UT-1186). As 
originally submitted with this amendment, proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-
303-222 is not part of the approved Utah regulatory program.
2. Utah Admin. R. 645-401-330, Point System for Penalties and 
Determination of Civil Penalty Amounts
    Utah proposed to revise its point system for civil penalties at 
Utah Admin. R. 645-401-330. The State's approved system assesses from 1 
to 100 points for violations and assigns corresponding civil monetary 
penalties of $10 to $3,560 to each number in that range of points. The 
maximum monetary penalty is reached at the 87 points level and 
corresponds to assessed totals of 87 to 100 points, as indicated by a 
``plus'' (+) after the number 87. This amendment would change the 
assessed point total at which the maximum penalty is reached from 87 to 
64 points and would increase most civil monetary penalties, with a 
maximum penalty of $4,840 reached at 64 points. The amendment also 
would remove the ``plus'' (+), leaving the 64 points level 
corresponding to the maximum penalty without specifically indicating 
what penalty or penalties would correspond

[[Page 33251]]

to assessments totaling 65 through 100 points.
    The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 845.14 prescribes a 
very similar civil penalty point system, though the range of points and 
penalty amounts differ somewhat. That regulation assigns a maximum 
penalty of $6,500 to the assessed total of 70 points and does not 
specifically indicate penalty amounts that correspond to assessments 
totaling 71 points through the maximum possible total of 85 points. We 
increased the civil monetary penalties in this regulation most recently 
on November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70698), as required by the Federal Civil 
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461) as amended 
by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3701).
    The civil penalty point system in Utah's proposed rule need not be 
the same as the counterpart Federal civil penalty point system. In the 
November 22, 2005, Federal Register (Id., at 70699), we said--

[s]ection 518(i) of SMCRA requires that the civil penalty provisions 
of each State program contain penalties which are `no less stringent 
than' those set forth in SMCRA. Our regulations at 30 CFR 840.13(a) 
specify that each State program shall contain penalties which are no 
less stringent than those set forth in section 518 of the Act and 
shall be consistent with 30 CFR part 845. However, in a 1980 
decision on OSM's regulations governing [civil monetary penalties], 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that 
because section 518 of SMCRA fails to enumerate a point system for 
assessing civil penalties, the imposition of this requirement upon 
the States is inconsistent with SMCRA. In response to the 
Secretary's request for clarification, the Court further stated that 
it could not uphold requiring the States to impose penalties as 
stringent as those appearing in 30 CFR 845.15. Consequently, we 
cannot require that the [civil monetary penalty] provisions 
contained in a State's regulatory program mirror the penalty 
provisions of our regulations at 30 CFR 845.14 and 845.15.

    In a similar discussion of civil penalty point systems in the 
December 15, 1980, Federal Register, we added that, in the same 1980 
decision (In re: Permanent Surface Mining Regulations Litigation, Civil 
Action No. 79-114, May 16, 1980; ``round 2'') the Court said--

[S]tates need only develop a penalty system incorporating the four 
criteria in Section 518(a) of SMCRA, the procedural requirements of 
30 CFR 845.17 through 845.20, the requirement of 845.12 that all 
cessation orders must be assessed, and the requirement of 845.15(b) 
that a minimum of $750.00 per day be assessed for all cessation 
orders issued for failure to abate a violation.

    The four criteria of section 518(a) of SMCRA for determining 
penalty amounts are history of previous violations, seriousness of a 
violation, negligence, and demonstrated good faith.
    Utah proposed to change its existing civil penalty point system and 
increase most penalty amounts in this amendment, not remove them. Its 
previously approved procedures for assessing violations remain 
otherwise unchanged, including the four assessment components of 
history, seriousness, negligence, and good faith and requirements for 
cessation order assessments and daily penalties for failure to abate 
cessation orders. As such, the proposed rule meets the objective of 
civil penalties as stated in 30 CFR 845.2, which is to ``deter 
violations and to ensure maximum compliance with the terms and purposes 
of [SMCRA] on the part of the coal mining industry.'' We therefore find 
that the civil penalty provisions proposed in this amendment at Utah 
Admin. R. 645-401-330 are no less stringent than those set forth in 
section 518 of SMCRA and are consistent with 30 CFR part 845.
3. Utah Admin. R. 645-401-410, Assessing Daily Civil Penalties
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-401-410 would require DOGM to assess a 
civil penalty for a minimum of two separate days for any violation that 
continues for two or more days and is assigned more than 64 points, 
instead of the existing 80 points. This proposed change would make the 
rule consistent with changes at Utah Admin. R. 645-401-330 that also 
are proposed in this amendment. As described in the previous finding, 
one change the State also proposed at Utah Admin. R. 645-401-330 would 
reduce the assessed total of points at which it imposes the maximum 
civil monetary penalty from 87 points to 64 points.
    The wording of proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-401-410 is very similar 
to the Federal counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 845.15. Utah's rule 
refers to factors listed in Utah Admin. R. 645-301-300 that an 
assessment officer considers when assessing daily civil penalties, 
including history of violations, seriousness, negligence, and good 
faith. It also requires consideration of the extent to which the 
permittee gained any economic benefit by not complying and assessing 
civil penalties for violations assigned more than 64 points. The 
primary differences are the proposed State rule's references to other 
State rules and the threshold assessed total of 64 points. Referenced 
Utah Admin. R. 645-401-300 and 645-401-320 are Utah's rules for its 
civil penalty point system and are the State's counterparts to 
referenced 30 CFR 845.13 and 845.13(b) in the Federal regulations. 
Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-401-410 and counterpart 30 CFR 845.15 set 
their respective threshold totals of more than 64 and 70 points, as one 
of two criteria for imposing a civil monetary penalty for at least two 
separate days.
    Utah's proposed rule is very similar to the counterpart Federal 
regulation and need not be exactly the same. As we observed in the 
previous finding, we cannot require States' civil penalty systems to 
mirror the Federal regulations. Section 518(i) of SMCRA requires that 
the civil penalty provisions of each State program contain penalties 
that are no less stringent than those set forth in SMCRA. Utah proposed 
in this amendment to revise its existing civil penalty point system, 
not remove it. Its previously approved procedures for assessing 
violations remain otherwise unchanged. The proposed rule meets the 
objective of civil penalties as stated in 30 CFR 845.2, which is to 
``deter violations and to ensure maximum compliance with the terms and 
purposes of [SMCRA] on the part of the coal mining industry.'' 
Therefore, we find the civil penalty provision proposed at Utah Admin. 
R. 645-401-410 is no less stringent than section 518(i) of SMCRA and is 
consistent with 30 CFR part 845.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative 
Record Number UT-1185), 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 Utah program (Administrative 
Record Number UT-1185).
    The Utah State Office of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), submitted comments on the amendment in 
a letter dated January 20, 2006 (Administrative Record Number UT-1188). 
BLM commented on Utah's proposed changes to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
512.100 and 645-401-330.
    Concerning proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-512.100, BLM commented 
that it has found it expedient to require all but geologic materials to 
be certified by a professional mining engineer

[[Page 33252]]

registered in Utah, noting that such engineers typically are in 
managerial positions at mining operations. It added that Utah requires 
experience and testing to demonstrate competence unique to the mining 
field that someone trained in civil, mechanical, or other engineering 
or scientific disciplines might not have. BLM also commented that it 
only accepts certifications by professional land surveyors of materials 
for land ownership or mine locations, noting that such surveyors 
typically are not qualified by training or experience and are not 
licensed to certify mining-related or geologic materials.
    Proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-512.100 would allow certain cross 
sections and maps to be prepared by, or under the direction of, and 
certified by, qualified, registered, professional engineers, 
professional geologists, or qualified, registered, professional land 
surveyors with assistance from experts in related fields such as 
hydrology, geology and landscape architecture. Black's Law Dictionary 
(7th Ed.; 1999) defines ``qualified'' as

    1. Possessing the necessary qualifications; capable or competent 
* * *.

    Black's Law Dictionary defines ``qualification'' as

    1. The possession of qualities or properties (such as fitness or 
capacity) inherently or legally necessary to make one eligible for a 
position or office, or to perform a public duty or function * * *.

    The proposed rule specifically requires registered, professional 
land surveyors who would prepare or direct the preparation of, and 
certify, certain cross sections and maps to be ``qualified'' to do 
those functions and to do them with assistance from experts in related 
fields such as hydrology, geology and landscape architecture. In 
context of the proposed rule and the definitions quoted above, 
qualified, registered professional land surveyors would be capable or 
competent individuals who, with expert assistance, have the capacity 
and are fit to prepare or direct the preparation of, and certify, 
certain cross sections and maps.
    Further, as we stated in finding III. B. of this final rule, Utah's 
proposed rule contains language that is the same as or similar to the 
language of the corresponding Federal regulation at 30 CFR 780.14(c) 
and 784.23(c). Those Federal regulations allow qualified, registered, 
professional land surveyors to prepare or direct the preparation of, 
and certify, certain cross sections and maps in any State that 
authorizes them to do so with assistance from experts in related fields 
such as landscape architecture. We assume that, by proposing Utah 
Admin. R. 645-303-512.100, Utah is authorizing qualified, registered, 
professional land surveyors to perform these functions with appropriate 
expert assistance in accordance with all applicable State standards for 
professional qualifications and conduct. Moreover, the standard we use 
for review of Utah's program is that it be no less effective than the 
Federal regulations and no less stringent than SMCRA. In finding III.B 
of this final rule, we found proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-303-512.100 to 
be no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
780.14(c) and 784.23(c) because it is worded the same as or similar to 
those regulations. We cannot require Utah to have rules that are more 
effective than the Federal regulations or more stringent than SMCRA.
    With regard to proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-401-330, BLM's comment 
assumed the proposed increases in civil penalties reflect inflationary 
factors and noted that it otherwise had no specific comments except to 
say that the increased civil monetary penalties will have some minimal 
effect ``on the viability of certain coal energy resources and will 
probably be borne by the end consumers of energy.''
    As we state below in the Procedural Determinations in Section VI of 
this final rule, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required for this 
rule under Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect 
The Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy because it is not expected 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy. Further, as we noted previously in our finding at Part 
III.C.2. in this final rule, section 518(i) of SMCRA requires each 
State program to have civil penalty provisions that are no less 
stringent than those in SMCRA. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
840.13(a) further specify that each State program must have penalties 
that are no less stringent than those in section 518 of SMCRA and that 
are consistent with 30 CFR part 845. As proposed at Utah Admin. R. 645-
401-330 in this amendment, we find Utah's civil monetary penalties are 
no less stringent than those set forth in section 518 of SMCRA and are 
consistent with 30 CFR part 845.
    We also received a comment from the Intermountain Region of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, in an e-mail message 
dated February 1, 2006 (Administrative Record Number UT-1191). The 
Forest Service commented that it supported the changes proposed in UT-
043-FOR, noting that they appear to be positive improvements to the 
State's rules. It also supported the proposed rule (Utah Admin. R. 645-
301-512.100) that would allow a professional geologist to certify 
certain cross sections and maps, and said it assumed the proposed 
change is tied to Utah's new process for certifying professional 
geologists. We assume that, by proposing Utah Admin. R. 645-303-
512.100, Utah is authorizing professional geologists to prepare, direct 
the preparation of, and certify certain cross sections and maps in 
accordance with all applicable State standards for professional 
qualifications and conduct. As noted in finding III.B. of this final 
rule, we find proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-512.100 is no less 
effective than counterpart 30 CFR 780.14(c) and 784.23(c) because it 
contains language that is the same as or similar to the language of 
those corresponding Federal regulations.

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 
pertains to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask 
EPA to concur on the amendment. However, we asked EPA for its comments 
on the amendment under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) (Administrative Record 
Number UT-1183). 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 January 4, 2006, we requested the ACHP's comments on 
Utah's amendment (Administrative Record Number UT-1184). We requested 
the SHPO's comments in a letter dated January 25, 2006 (Administrative 
Record Number UT-1189). Neither the ACHP nor the SHPO responded to our 
requests.

V. OSM's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve Utah's November 28, 2005, 
amendment, as revised on February 16, 2006.
    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations 
at 30

[[Page 33253]]

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 that the 
State's program demonstrates 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.
    Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise 
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the 
Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any change of an 
approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program 
amendment. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibits any 
changes to approved State programs that are not approved by OSM. In the 
oversight of the Utah program, we will recognize only the statutes, 
regulations and other materials we have approved, together with any 
consistent implementing policies, directives and other materials. We 
will require Utah to enforce only approved provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12630--Takings

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

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

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

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior 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. 
The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way.

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. 
3501 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 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 on 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), of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions; and
    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
    This determination is based on the fact that the State submittal 
which is the subject of this rule is based on counterpart Federal 
regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made 
that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

Unfunded Mandates

    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 on the fact that the State 
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based on counterpart 
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a

[[Page 33254]]

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: April 27, 2006.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Western Region.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 944 is amended as 
set forth below:

PART 944--UTAH

0
1. The authority citation for part 944 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 944.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  944.15  Approval of Utah regulatory program amendments

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Original amendment submission date          Date of final  publication              Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
November 28, 2005 and February 16,      June 8, 2006..........................  Utah Adm. R. 645-301-160, 645-
 2006.                                                                           301-512.100, 645-401-330, and
                                                                                 645-401-400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E6-8927 Filed 6-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P