[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66218-66223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18039]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 944

[SATS No. UT-048-FOR; Docket ID No. OSM-2012-0011; S1D1S SS08011000 
SX064A000 245S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 24XS501520]


Utah Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSMRE), are not approving the State of Utah's proposed amendment to 
the Utah regulatory program (``the Utah program'') under the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (``SMCRA'' or ``the Act''). 
In May of 2011, an environmental advocacy group notified OSMRE that the 
Utah legislature modified its Judicial Code of the Utah Code Annotated 
by adding a new section that requires plaintiffs who seek an 
administrative stay or preliminary injunction in an environmental 
action to first post a surety bond or cash equivalent. After 
determining that the legislative change would affect the implementation 
of the Utah program, OSMRE notified the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and 
Mining (``DOGM'' or ``the Division'') that the changes to the State law 
must be submitted as a proposed Utah program amendment. DOGM 
subsequently submitted this amendment proposing to incorporate 
legislative changes made to the Utah program.

DATES: Effective September 16, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Howard E. Strand, Manager, Denver Field Branch, Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, One Denver Federal Center Building 
41, Lakewood, Colorado 80225-0065.

[[Page 66219]]

Telephone: (303) 236-2931. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Utah Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSMRE's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSMRE's Decision
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background on the Utah Program

    Subject to OSMRE's oversight, sec. 503(a) of the Act permits a 
State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its 
borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, 
State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with 
the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis 
of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved 
the Utah program on January 21, 1981. You can find background 
information on the Utah program, including the Secretary's findings, 
the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Utah 
program in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5899). You can 
also find later actions concerning Utah's program and program 
amendments at 30 CFR 944.15, 944.16, and 944.30.

II. Submission of the Amendment

    The Governor of Utah signed H.B. 399 into law on March 21, 2011. On 
May 16, 2011, OSMRE received a letter from an environmental advocacy 
group notifying the agency of Utah's legislative changes under H.B. 399 
(Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0011-0010). That letter asserted 
that H.B. 399 resulted in changes to Utah law that required OSMRE's 
review and approval through the State program amendment process under 
30 CFR part 732 before such legislative changes could become an 
effective part of Utah's program.
    In response to the citizen letter, OSMRE, in a letter dated August 
8, 2011, requested that DOGM clarify whether the enactment of H.B. 399 
resulted in a change to the Utah program (Administrative Record No. 
OSM-2012-0011-0005). On October 31, 2011, DOGM provided a response to 
OSMRE's request. In its response, DOGM explained that H.B. 399 modified 
title 78 of the Utah Judicial Code (Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-
0011-0006). DOGM's letter also stated its uncertainty as to whether the 
enactment of H.B. 399 represented a change in State law approved as 
part of the Utah program, modified the rights of any party for judicial 
review in a manner that would conflict with the requirements of 30 CFR 
732.15, or was inconsistent with the Federal law (Administrative Record 
No. OSM-2012-0011-0006). In a letter dated February 24, 2012, OSMRE 
determined that a change of condition had occurred under 30 CFR 
732.17(e)(2); therefore, OSMRE required DOGM to submit the legislative 
changes as a proposed program amendment pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(f) 
(Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0011-0007). DOGM submitted the 
language of H.B. 399 as a State program amendment on April 18, 2012 
(Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0011-0003).
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the June 12, 
2012, Federal Register (77 FR 34892). 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 (Administrative 
Record No. OSM-2012-0011-0001). We did not hold a public hearing or 
meeting because one was not requested. The public comment period ended 
on July 12, 2012. We received three public comments and one comment 
from a Federal agency.

III. OSMRE's Findings

    The following are the findings we made concerning the proposed 
amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 
732.17. As described below, we are not approving the amendment.
    DOGM's proposed amendment seeks approval to apply the terms of H.B. 
399 under Utah's Program. H.B. 399 modified, and was codified under, 
title 78 of the Utah Judicial Code, Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828, and 
applies to environmental actions. ``Environmental action'' is defined 
as a cause of action filed on or after May 10, 2011, that seeks 
judicial review of a final agency action to issue a permit. Utah Code 
Ann. sec. 78B-5-828(b). This provision specifically applies to permits 
issued by the Department of Transportation, the School and 
Institutional Trust Lands Administration, or the Department of Natural 
Resources (``DNR''), which includes DOGM's coal permitting actions 
issued pursuant to Utah's program. Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-
828(b)(ii)(A)-(C).
    Under the proposed amendment incorporating the terms of H.B. 399, a 
court or agency may not grant a plaintiff's request for temporary 
relief (administrative stay or preliminary injunction) related to a 
challenged State environmental permitting decision until the plaintiff 
posts a surety bond or cash equivalent (herein referred to as a bond or 
environmental litigation bond). Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828(3). This 
bond would be imposed in an amount that either the reviewing agency or 
court deems sufficient to compensate for damages the defendant may 
sustain as a result of a stay or injunction later found to have been 
unwarranted. Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828(3)(a). The bond is required 
to be written by a surety licensed to do business within the State and 
must be made payable to each defendant in the event the plaintiff does 
not prevail on the merits of the environmental action. Utah Code Ann. 
sec. 78B-5-828(3)(b)-(c) and (5). A reviewing agency or court decision 
refusing to require the posting of a bond is immediately appealable. 
Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828(6).
    While the changes outlined in H.B. 399 (Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-
828) apply to multiple State agencies, this final rule pertains only to 
the application of Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828 to DOGM's coal 
permitting actions issued pursuant to the approved Utah program under 
SMCRA. Utah's program consists of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation 
Act, Utah Code Ann. sec. 40-10-1 through 40-10-31, and the Utah 
Administrative Code rules, R645-100 through -403. While DOGM's 
submission does not amend the text of the already approved Utah 
program, application of Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828 would markedly 
alter implementation of the Utah program and render the program 
inconsistent with, and less stringent and effective than, SMCRA and 
Federal regulations. Both DOGM, which is responsible for administering 
the Utah coal program under SMCRA, and the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining 
(``the Board''), which is an administrative body with rulemaking and 
adjudicatory responsibilities under Utah's coal program, are entities 
within DNR and, therefore, are subject to the environmental litigation 
bond requirement.
    SMCRA sec. 503 provides that a State may assume primary 
responsibility to regulate coal mining and reclamation operations 
within its State borders. To obtain and maintain primacy under 30 CFR 
730.5 and 732.15(a), a State regulatory authority must submit a State 
program, or proposed amendments thereto, that contain requirements that 
are consistent with, and no less stringent and effective than, SMCRA 
and Federal regulations. As the proposed language from H.B. 399 applies 
to administrative stays issued by a State agency and preliminary 
injunctions granted by a court, SMCRA

[[Page 66220]]

requires that Utah's program must provide, at minimum, the same 
opportunities for judicial review and citizen participation that are 
available under SMCRA and the Federal regulations.
    The approved Utah program is similar to SMCRA and the Federal 
regulations regarding the available opportunities to seek temporary 
relief during an administrative hearing or proceeding. After a permit 
is issued, the Utah program, at Utah Code Ann. sec. 40-10-14(4) and 
R645-300-212, provides that the Board may grant temporary relief it 
deems appropriate pending final determination of the proceedings, in 
accordance with SMCRA sec. 514(d) and 30 CFR 775.11(b). Both the Utah 
and the Federal programs allow for an administrative hearing prior to 
judicial review, which would be adjudicatory in nature, regarding the 
agency's reasons for its permitting decision. The presiding authority 
may grant temporary relief if the person requesting relief shows that 
there is a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits 
of their case, among other criteria. See SMCRA sec. 514(d)(1)-(3) (30 
U.S.C. 1264(d)(1)-(3); 30 CFR 775.11(b)(2)(i) through (iv); Utah Code 
Ann. sec. 40-10-14(4)(a)-(c); and R645-300-212.220, 212.210-212.400. 
The Utah program, similar to SMCRA and the Federal regulations, leaves 
discretion to the deciding authority to grant temporary relief during 
administrative review so long as the above-cited criteria for such 
relief are satisfied. Neither SMCRA nor the approved Utah program 
requires the posting of a bond prior to granting a request for 
temporary relief during administrative review.
    Both SMCRA, at sec. 526(e) (30 U.S.C. 1276(e)), and the Utah 
program, at Utah Code Ann. sec. 40-10-30, establish that administrative 
hearing decisions are subject to judicial review. Thus, an interested 
person who participated in the administrative proceedings and is 
aggrieved by the regulatory authority's decision is provided an 
opportunity for appeal in a court of competent jurisdiction. SMCRA sec. 
514(f) (30 U.S.C. 1264(f)); 30 CFR 775.13; Utah Code Ann. sec. 40-10-
14(6); and R645-300-221. As provided under the Utah Code, the Utah 
Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review all final agency actions 
resulting from formal adjudicative proceedings. Utah Code Ann. sec. 40-
10-14(6)(a); see also the Utah Administrative Procedures Act at Utah 
Code Ann. sec. 63G-4-403 and 78A-3-102(6) (stating the Utah Supreme 
Court ``shall comply with the requirements of Title 63G, Chapter 4, 
Administrative Procedures Act, in its review of agency adjudicative 
proceedings.''). Under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure (``URCP''), 
the Utah courts have authority to require that an applicant submit a 
form of security to the court before it issues an order of injunction. 
However, URCP rule 65A also allows the court to forgo the security 
requirement if ``it appears that none of the parties will incur or 
suffer costs, attorney fees or damage as the result of any wrongful 
order or injunction, or . . . there exists some other substantial 
reason for dispensing with the requirement of security.'' URCP 65A(c). 
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at rule 65(c), generally 
mandate that a court require the posting of a bond before issuing a 
preliminary injunction in an amount the court deems proper to pay the 
costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully 
enjoined or restrained, neither SMCRA sec. 525(c) (30 U.S.C. 1275(c)) 
nor sec. 526(c) (30 U.S.C. 1276(c)) contain such a mandate. Rather, the 
conditions of any temporary relief ordered are reserved (not mandated) 
to the discretion of the Secretary in administrative proceedings and to 
the court in judicial proceedings.
    In addition to the opportunities afforded to persons challenging a 
final agency decision, citizen suits filed in court provide another 
pathway for persons to challenge perceived violations of the Act, 
including violations of any rule, regulation, order, or permit issued 
pursuant to the Act or failure to perform a non-discretionary duty. 
Under the State or Federal citizen suit provision, found at Utah Code 
Ann. sec. 40-10-21 or SMCRA sec. 520 (30 U.S.C. 1270), an interested 
person may commence a civil action against the United States or a State 
agency to the extent permitted by the Eleventh Amendment, or against 
any other person, to compel compliance with the corresponding State or 
Federal Act. Utah Code Ann. sec. 40-10-21(4)(b) and SMCRA sec. 520(d) 
(30 U.S.C. 1270(d)) both provide that, if a temporary restraining order 
or preliminary injunction is sought through the course of a citizen 
suit, a court ``may'' require the filing of a bond or equivalent 
security in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure. 
Thus, Utah's existing preliminary injunction standards are consistent 
within the Utah program, at Utah Code Ann. sec. 40-10-14(5), the Utah 
Administrative Procedures Act at Utah Code Ann. sec. 63G-4-404, and the 
URCP at rule 65A. The provisions in H.B. 399 that would be implemented 
under the proposed amendment appear somewhat duplicative of these pre-
existing provisions, but some of the other provisions in H.B. 399, 
including the bond requirement, would cause confusion regarding the 
appropriate temporary relief to apply with respect to decisions 
involving coal permitting actions.
    While Congress acknowledged a court's authority under SMCRA sec. 
520(d) (30 U.S.C. 1270(d)) to require the posting of a bond, the 
legislative history of this section explains that in drafting the 
citizen suit provision, the Committee intended ``that the courts will 
carefully consider the circumstances and probable outcome of litigation 
in deciding whether to require a bond. This will minimize the 
possibility that this section might be subject to misuse either by the 
commencement of frivolous actions against environmentally sound 
operations or as a substitute for other provisions of this bill which 
impose more precise requirements for citizen participation in the 
permit application and performance bond release proceedings.'' S. Rept. 
95-128, 88 (May 10, 1977). Utah's approved program contains this 
discretionary authority nearly verbatim at Utah Code Ann. sec. 40-10-
21(4)(b).
    The Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828 enacted by the Utah legislature 
as H.B. 399, and submitted by DOGM as a proposed program amendment, is 
inconsistent with SMCRA's legislative history and would not provide a 
plaintiff with the opportunities to seek temporary relief when compared 
with SMCRA and the Federal regulations. The language of the proposed 
provision would remove a judge's ability and discretion to consider 
other factors or circumstances that may otherwise be taken into account 
while deciding whether a bond must be posted and in what amount. 
Indeed, the proposed amendment mandating imposition of a bond would 
conflict with existing Utah law that was already approved as part of 
Utah's program that makes a bond discretionary in judicial proceedings.
    When deciding to grant or deny a preliminary injunction or 
administrative stay, SMCRA and the approved Utah program provide the 
deciding official with more flexibility. In enacting SMCRA, Congress 
recognized that ``providing citizen access to administrative appellate 
procedures and the courts is a practical and legitimate method of 
assuring the regulatory authority's compliance with the requirements of 
the Act.'' S. Rept. 95-128, 59 (May 10, 1977). The effect of the 
proposed mandatory environmental

[[Page 66221]]

litigation bond requirement could create an undue financial burden on 
plaintiffs and potentially deter citizens from bringing good faith 
actions. This would be inconsistent with SMCRA's purpose to ``assure 
that appropriate procedures are provided for the public participation 
in the development, revision, and enforcement of regulations, 
standards, reclamation plans, or programs established by the Secretary 
or any State under this Act. . . .'' SMCRA sec. 102(i). Further, the 
enactment of H.B. 399, codified as Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828, is 
inconsistent with SMCRA's legislative intent that bonds be used on a 
case-by-case basis as determined by a court.
    While State laws may be more stringent than the Federal program, 
State law cannot conflict with the stated purposes of SMCRA, and State 
laws cannot provide less opportunities, including for citizen 
participation, than established under SMCRA and the Federal 
regulations. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the 
congressional intent of assuring public participation and legal access 
for interested parties in agency decision-making. OSMRE thereby finds 
that Utah's amendment proposal is inconsistent with, and less stringent 
and effective than, SMCRA and the Federal regulations. Therefore, in 
accordance with 30 CFR 732.15(a) and 732.17(h)(10), OSMRE is not 
approving this amendment. As a result, the proposed amendment submitted 
by the Division will not become an effective part of the Utah coal 
mining regulatory program under SMCRA. OSMRE instructs the Division to 
continue implementing the approved Utah program as it did prior to the 
enactment of H.B. 399.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative 
Record Document ID No. OSM-2012-0011-0001) and received three 
responses.
    We received two public comment letters sent on behalf of Southern 
Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and the Sierra Club dated, 
respectively, June 1, 2012, and July 12, 2012 (Administrative Record ID 
No. OSM-2012-0011-0013). Both of the letters recommended that OSMRE 
disapprove the amendment on the basis that it is inconsistent with 
SMCRA and other applicable Federal rules and that SUWA would be 
personally harmed by it if approved.
    Additionally, we received a comment letter from a private citizen 
dated July 11, 2012 (Administrative Record ID No. OSM-2012-0011-0012). 
The commenter also recommended that OSMRE not approve the amendment 
because it would make environmental protection in the State of Utah 
more difficult with regard to coal mining operations.
    In response to the above comments, we acknowledge the concerns 
expressed and refer the commenters to our findings in sec. III for a 
detailed explanation as to why OSMRE is not approving Utah's proposed 
amendment.

Federal Agency Comments

    On May 1, 2012, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and sec. 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 ID No. OSM-2012-0011-0011). We received comments 
from one Federal Agency.
    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) commented in a letter dated May 
11, 2012 (Administrative Record ID No. OSM-2012-0011-0008). The BLM 
stated that it agreed that, due to the gravity of such granted requests 
by judicial actions, the requirement for surety bonding or equivalent 
provides necessary protection for the interest of all parties involved. 
In response, and as discussed in sec. III above, the conditions of any 
temporary relief ordered are reserved to the discretion of the 
Secretary or the State's deciding official in administrative 
proceedings, and to the court in judicial proceedings. Existing law 
provides the deciding official with the necessary flexibility to 
determine the appropriate conditions of any temporary relief on a case-
by-case basis, so long as the standards for such relief are satisfied. 
Therefore, OSMRE does not approve the proposed amendment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a 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 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.

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 28, 2013, we requested comments from both 
agencies relative to Utah's proposed amendment (Administrative Record 
Document ID No. OSM-2012-0011-0011), but neither agency responded to 
our request.

V. OSMRE's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we do not approve Utah's submittal 
sent to us on April 12, 2012. To implement this decision, we are 
amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 944, which codifies 
decisions concerning the Utah program. In accordance with the 
Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after 
the date of publication.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12630--Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    This rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications that would result in public property 
being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. 
Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This 
determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal 
regulations.

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 
13563--Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 
14094--Modernizing Regulatory Review

    Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, 
provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993 (OMB Memo M-94-
3), the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB 
review under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive 
Order 12866, retains this exemption.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required 
by sec. 3 of Executive Order 12988. The

[[Page 66222]]

Department has determined that this Federal Register document meets the 
criteria of sec. 3 of Executive Order 12988, which is intended to 
ensure that the agency review its legislation and proposed regulations 
to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; that the agency write its 
legislation and regulations to minimize litigation; and that the 
agency's legislation and regulations provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promote 
simplification and burden reduction. Because sec. 3 focuses on the 
quality of this Federal Register document and changes to the Federal 
regulations, the review under this Executive order does not extend to 
the language of the Utah program or to the program amendment that the 
State of Utah submitted.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule has potential Federalism implications, as defined under 
sec. 1(a) of Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 13132 directs 
agencies to ``grant the States the maximum administrative discretion 
possible'' with respect to Federal statutes and regulations 
administered by the States. Utah, through its approved regulatory 
program, implements and administers SMCRA and its implementing 
regulations at the State level. This rule disapproves an amendment to 
the Utah program submitted and drafted by the State, to ensure that the 
State program is ``in accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA and 
``consistent with'' the regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to 
SMCRA.

Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its 
government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment 
to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-
governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under 
the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in 
Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial 
direct effects on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Tribes. The basis for this 
determination is that our decision on the Utah program does not include 
Indian lands as defined by SMCRA or other Tribal lands and it does not 
affect the regulation of activities on Indian lands or other Tribal 
lands. Indian lands under SMCRA are regulated independently under the 
applicable approved Federal Indian program. The Department's 
consultation policy also acknowledges that our rules may have Tribal 
implications where the State proposing the amendment encompasses 
ancestral lands in areas with mineable coal. We are currently working 
to identify and engage with appropriate Tribal stakeholders to devise a 
constructive approach for consulting on these amendments.

Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of 
Energy Effects for a rulemaking 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 
significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 
13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Consistent with sec. 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) 
and 1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. Department of the Interior 
Departmental Manual, part 516, sec. 13.5(A), State program amendments 
are not major Federal actions within the meaning of sec. 102(2)(C) of 
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). Therefore, there is no need to prepare an 
environmental assessment under NEPA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not include requests and requirements of an 
individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and 
report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain 
information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.) is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule, which does not approve the State submittal, will not 
alter the existing federally approved Utah program, and therefore 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.).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule, which does not approve the State submittal because it 
would be inconsistent with SMCRA and Federal regulation, does not 
change the status quo of the existing approved Utah program or its 
implementation under SMCRA, and this rule is not a major rule under 5 
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 
This rule: (a) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) does not have significant 
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis 
of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to 
constitute a major rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule, which does not approve the State submittal because it 
would be inconsistent with SMCRA and Federal regulation, does not 
change the status quo of the existing approved Utah program or its 
implementation under SMCRA, and, therefore, this rule does not impose 
an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the 
private sector of more than $100 million per year, nor does the rule 
have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal 
governments or the private sector. This determination is based on an 
analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were 
determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

David A. Berry,
Regional Director, Interior Unified Regions 5, 7-11.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement amends 30 CFR part 944 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. Add Sec.  944.16 to read as follows:

[[Page 66223]]

Sec.  944.16  State regulatory program amendment provisions not 
approved.

    (a) The State of Utah submitted a proposed amendment to Utah's coal 
regulatory program, by letter dated April 12, 2012. The State prepared 
the proposed amendment in response to legislation (House Bill 399) 
enacted by the Utah Legislature in 2011 (Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-
828). The proposed amendment, which would require an environmental 
litigation bond be posted by a plaintiff seeking an administrative stay 
or a court-ordered injunction before any relief was granted, is not 
approved.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2024-18039 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P