Wyoming Regulatory Program, 16945-16955 [05-6602]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
with foreign-based enterprises. This
determination is based upon the fact
that the State submittal, which is the
subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulation was not considered a major
rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of $100 million or more in any given
year. This determination is based upon
the fact that the State submittal, which
Original
amendment submission date
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.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 936
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: February 14, 2005.
Ervin J. Barchenger,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent
Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble,
30 CFR part 936 is amended as set forth
below:
I
Date of final
publication
*
11/01/2004 ........
*
4/4/05
1. The authority citation for part 936
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 936.25 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final
Publication’’ to read as follows:
I
§ 936.25 Approval of Oklahoma
abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Oklahoma Plan §§ 884.13(c)2—Project Ranking and Selection; (c)3—Coordination with Other Entities; and
(c)7—Public Participation.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
I. Background on the Wyoming Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Office of Surface Mining’s (OSM’s)
Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
I. Background on the Wyoming
Program
30 CFR Part 950
[WY–032–FOR]
Wyoming Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are approving, with one
exception, a proposed amendment to
the Wyoming regulatory program (the
‘‘Wyoming program’’) under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Wyoming
proposed to remove rules pertaining to
soft rock surface mining and to revise
and add rules about highwalls and coal
exploration. Wyoming intended to
revise or revised its program to be
consistent with the corresponding
Federal regulations, provide additional
safeguards, clarify ambiguities, and to
enhance and diversify reclamation.
DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field
Division, telephone: (303) 844–1400,
extension 1424; Internet address:
jfulton@osmre.gov.
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
PART 936—OKLAHOMA
Citation/description
[FR Doc. 05–6600 Filed 4–1–05; 8:45 am]
VerDate jul<14>2003
16945
Jkt 205001
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 Wyoming
program on November 26, 1980. You
can find background information on the
Wyoming program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval
in the November 26, 1980, Federal
Register (45 FR 78637). You can also
find later actions concerning Wyoming’s
program and program amendments at 30
CFR 950.10, 950.12, 950.15, 950.16, and
950.20.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Submission of the Proposed
Amendment
By letter dated May 21, 2004,
Wyoming sent us an amendment to its
program (Rule Package 1R,
Administrative Record number WY–37–
1) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et
seq.). Wyoming sent the amendment in
response to a February 21, 1990, letter
(Administrative Record number WY–
37–7) that we sent to the State under 30
CFR 732.17(c), and in response to the
required program amendments at 30
CFR 950.16(a), (w), and (ll), and to
include the changes made at its own
initiative.
Changes Wyoming proposed to make
in its Coal Rules included: (1) Chapter
1, section 2(l), revising the definition of
‘‘coal exploration;’’ (2) Chapter 1,
section 2(ce), removing the definition of
‘‘soft rock surface mining;’’ (3) Chapter
4, section 2(b)(iv)(A), adding provisions
for small depressions; (4) Chapter 4,
section 2(b)(ix), (ix)(A), (B), and (C),
removing soft rock surface mining
provisions for backfilling and grading;
(5) Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix)(D),
retaining and revising a soft rock mining
provision for highwall retention; (6)
Chapter 10, sections 1 and 1(b)(iii),
revising requirements for coal
exploration of 250 tons or less; (7)
Chapter 10, sections 2(b), (b)(i), (ii), (iii),
(iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi),
and (xii), adding and revising
application requirements for coal
exploration of more than 250 tons or in
areas designated unsuitable for mining;
(8) Chapter 10, section 3(b), revising
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
16946
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
provisions of application approval for
exploration of more than 250 tons or in
areas designated unsuitable for mining;
(9) Chapter 10, section 4(e), revising
performance standards for protecting
certain critical, crucial and important
habitats during exploration; and (10)
Chapter 10, sections 8, 8(a), (b), (b)(i),
(ii), (ii)(A), (ii)(B), (ii)(C), (iii), and (iv),
adding rules pertaining to commercial
use and sale of coal extracted during
exploration.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the August 17,
2004, Federal Register (69 FR 51026). In
the same document, we opened the
public comment period and provided an
opportunity for a public hearing or
meeting on the amendment’s adequacy
(Administrative Record number WY–
37–10). We did not hold a public
hearing or meeting because nobody
requested either one. The public
comment period ended on September
15, 2004. We received comments from
two Federal agencies.
During our review of the amendment,
we identified concerns about
Wyoming’s proposed highwall retention
rule at Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix)(D). We
notified the State of our concerns by
letter dated August 11, 2004
(Administrative Record Number WY–
37–11).
Wyoming responded in a letter dated
August 30, 2004, by sending us a Coal
Rule Package 1–T (Administrative
Record Number WY–37–12). In that
package, Wyoming proposed additional
revisions to the highwall retention rule
at Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix)(D). It also
noted, however, that the proposed
change to the highwall retention rule
included in Coal Rule Package 1–T must
be reviewed further in the State’s
internal rulemaking process, which it
expected to take several months. In light
of Wyoming’s ongoing rulemaking, we
will defer making a final decision on
Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix) until that
process is completed and we know the
final wording of that proposed rule.
III. OSM’s Findings
Following are our findings concerning
the amendment under SMCRA and the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15
and 732.17. We are approving the
amendment, with one exception as
noted above and discussed below.
A. Minor Revisions to Wyoming’s Rules
Wyoming proposed minor
recodification changes to the following
previously-approved rules as shown:
Chapter 10, sections 2(b)(iii), (iv), (v),
(vii), (vi), and (viii), application
requirements for exploration of more
than 250 tons or in an area designated
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
unsuitable for mining, recodified as
2(b)(vi), (vii), (viii), (x), (xi), and (xii),
respectively (Federal counterparts at 30
CFR 772(b)(6), (7), (8), (8)(i), (8)(ii),
(8)(iii), (9), (11), (12), and (13),
respectively).
Because these changes are minor, we
find that they will not make Wyoming’s
rules less effective than the
corresponding Federal regulations and
can be approved.
B. Revisions to Wyoming’s Rules That
Have the Same Meaning as the
Corresponding Provisions of the Federal
Regulations
Wyoming proposed revisions to the
following rules containing language that
is the same as or similar to the
corresponding sections of the Federal
regulations. In some cases, the State also
proposed to recodify the revised rules as
shown below:
1. Chapter 1, section 2(l), revising the
definition of ‘‘coal exploration’’ (30 CFR
701.5);
2. Chapter 4, section 2(b)(iv)(A),
adding a new provision for the use of
small depressions in reclamation (30
CFR 816.102(h));
3. Chapter 10, sections 1 and 1(b)(iii),
revising general requirements for coal
exploration of 250 tons or less (30 CFR
772.11, 11(b), and 11(b)(3));
4. Chapter 10, sections 2(b), (b)(i), (ii),
and (iii), (b)(iv), and (b)(v), revising and
adding general requirements for coal
exploration of more than 250 tons or in
an area designated as unsuitable for
mining, including recodification (30
CFR 772.12(b), (b)(1), (2), (3), (4) and
(5));
5. Chapter 10, section 2(b)(ix),
description of measures to be used so
exploration of more than 250 tons or in
areas designated unsuitable for mining
complies with exploration performance
standards at Chapter 10, section 4,
including recodification (30 CFR
772.12(b)(10));
6. Chapter 10, section 3(b), provision
for administrative and judicial review
for anyone adversely affected by
decisions on coal exploration
applications (30 CFR 772.12(e)(2);
required amendment at 30 CFR
950.16(a));
7. Chapter 10, section 8, adding a new
heading for the section addressing
commercial use or sale of coal extracted
under a coal exploration license (30 CFR
772.14);
8. Chapter 10, section 8(b), adding a
new provision for written approval to
not require a mining permit for coal
exploration where sale or commercial
use of extracted coal is for coal testing
purposes only, with an added
requirement for an application to
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
demonstrate the need for coal testing
and the purpose for coal extraction
during exploration (30 CFR 772.14(b));
9. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(i), adding
a new requirement for the testing firm
name and coal testing locations for coal
extracted during exploration (30 CFR
772.14(b)(1));
10. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii), adding
a new requirement for a statement from
the end user or agent or broker if coal
extracted during exploration is sold or
commercially used, with a requirement
for the statement to include other
information described in following
subsections (30 CFR 772.14(b)(2));
11. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(A),
adding a new requirement for the
statement to include the reason for the
test, including why the coal is so
different from the user’s coal as to
require testing (30 CFR 772.14(b)(2)(i));
12. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(B),
adding a new requirement for the
statement to show the amount of coal
needed for testing and why a lesser
amount is insufficient (30 CFR
772.14(b)(2)(ii));
13. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(C),
adding a new requirement for a
description of the test to be conducted
(30 CFR 772.14(b)(2)(iii));
14. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(iii),
adding a new requirement for evidence
of sufficient coal reserves to show that
coal to be removed during exploration is
not the total reserve but a sample (30
CFR 772.14(b)(3)); and
15. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(iv),
adding a new requirement for an
explanation as to why other means of
exploration are not adequate to
determine coal quality and/or mining
feasibility (30 CFR 772.14(b)(4).
Because these proposed rules contain
language that is the same as or similar
to the corresponding Federal
regulations, we find that they are no less
effective than the corresponding Federal
regulations and can be approved.
C. Revisions to Wyoming’s Rules That
Are Not the Same as the Corresponding
Provisions of the Federal Regulations
1. Information Required in Applications
for Exploration About Historic or
Archeological Resources
Wyoming proposed to add a sentence
to the end of recodified section 2(b)(vii)
in Chapter 10 of its Coal Rules
describing requirements for applications
for coal exploration involving more than
250 tons or in areas designated
unsuitable for mining. Wyoming’s
proposed change responds to the
amendment required at 30 CFR
950.16(w). The new sentence would
expand exploration application
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
requirements to ‘‘* * * include any
other information which the
Administrator may require regarding
known or possible historic or
archeological resources.’’ With the
exception of the word ‘‘possible,’’
Wyoming’s proposed change is
substantively identical to the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 772.12(b)(8)(iv), which requires a
description of ‘‘[a]ny other information
which the regulatory authority may
require regarding known or unknown
historic or archeological resources’
(emphasis added for comparison).
Wyoming did not explain its use of the
word ‘‘possible’’ in contrast to the term
‘‘unknown’’ used in the Federal
regulation.
Neither Black’s Law Dictionary nor
the regulations at 36 CFR part 800 et
seq. define the adjectives ‘‘possible’’ or
‘‘unknown.’’ Webster’s Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary defines the
adjective ‘‘unknown’’ as—
[n]ot known or not well-known; also:
having an unknown value.
On the other hand, Webster’s defines
the adjective ‘‘possible’’ as—
1 a: being within the limits of ability,
capacity, or realization b: being what may be
done or may occur according to nature,
custom, or manners 2 a : being something
that may or may not occur b : being
something that may or may not be true or
actual 3 : having an indicated potential.
In its explanation of synonyms for
‘‘possible,’’ Webster’s adds that—
POSSIBLE implies that a thing may
certainly exist or occur given the proper
conditions * * *.
In the preamble to the final rule
Federal Register publishing the
regulations at 30 CFR 772.12 (52 FR
4244; February 10, 1987) we said
‘‘[s]everal commenters stated that they
do not believe that OSMRE has any
authority to require information on
unknown archeological sites.’’ In
response, we acknowledged that
‘‘[s]ection 772.12(b) does not require
submission of information on unknown
archeological sites.’’ We continued by
saying—
[r]ather, OSMRE is making explicit that the
regulatory authority has the discretion to
require such information, should the
regulatory authority need the information to
make informed decisions in the public
interest concerning important historic
properties that may be disturbed by coal
exploration activities. The basis for such
authority is the same as for requiring
information on historic resources in the
permitting process, discussed in the
preceding portion of this preamble (Id., at
4256).
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
In the preamble’s discussion of our
authority to require information on
historic and archeological resources in
the permitting process, as referenced in
the quotation above, we said—
[c]onsideration of the effects of surface coal
mining operations extends both to know[n]
[sic] resources and to situations where a well
reasoned conclusion has been reached that
there may be resources which are likely to be
impacted, as well as to properties listed on,
and those eligible for listing on, the National
Register of Historic Properties.
The foregoing explanation reveals
consistency between use of the terms
‘‘unknown’’ and ‘‘possible’’ in the
Federal regulation and proposed State
rule, respectively. The preamble’s
explanation of the Federal regulation
characterizes ‘‘unknown’’ resources as
‘‘situations where a well reasoned
conclusion has been reached that there
may be resources which are likely to be
impacted * * *.’’ Wyoming’s use of the
term ‘‘possible’’ is not inconsistent with
the Federal regulation’s corresponding
use of the term ‘‘unknown’’ in view of
Webster’s definition of ‘‘possible’’ as
‘‘being what may be done or may occur
according to nature, custom, or
manners’’ and its explanation that
‘‘possible’’ ‘‘* * * implies a thing may
certainly exist or occur given the proper
conditions.’’
As we explained in the 1987 final rule
(Id.) , the Federal regulation does not
require operators to submit information
about ‘‘unknown’’ resources but gives
regulatory authorities the discretion to
require such information if they need it.
In effect, Wyoming’s proposed rule
gives it the authority to require
additional information about historic
and archeological resources if needed
and the discretion to require it for
known resources and ‘‘possible’’ others
that might exist but are not definitely
known to exist. As such, we find the
State’s proposed rule at Chapter 10,
recodified section 2(b)(vii) is not
inconsistent with, and is no less
effective than, the counterpart Federal
regulation and can be approved. We also
are removing the required amendment
at 30 CFR 950.16(w).
2. Restrictions on Disturbing Certain
Critical, Crucial, and Important Habitats
During Exploration
Wyoming’s proposed rule at Chapter
10, section 4(e) of its coal rules would
prohibit disturbing critical habitat for
listed threatened and endangered
species during exploration. It also
would prohibit disturbing crucial or
important wildlife habitat during
exploration without written evidence of
consultation with the Wyoming Game
and Fish Department, including any
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16947
resulting recommendations. The
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 815.15(a) prohibits disturbing
unique or unusually high value habitats
for fish, wildlife, and other related
environmental values and critical
habitats for threatened and endangered
species during exploration. The State
rule pertains to listed threatened and
endangered species; the counterpart
Federal regulation refers only to
threatened and endangered species.
Wyoming defines the terms ‘‘crucial
habitat’’ and ‘‘important habitat’’ in its
rules. We approved Wyoming’s
definitions of those two terms in the
August 6, 1996, Federal Register for
amendment WY–022–FOR (61 FR
40735). In that approval, we noted that
Wyoming’s definition of ‘‘important
habitat’’ coincides with ‘‘habitats of
unusually high value for fish [and]
wildlife’’ as described further in 30 CFR
780.16(a)(2)(ii) (Id., at 40737). It also is
consistent with the wording of the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 815.15(a) for the rule being revised
at section 4(e) of Chapter 10 of the
State’s rules. In the 1996 approval (Id.),
we found Wyoming’s definitions of
‘‘important habitat’’ and ‘‘crucial
habitat’’ were not inconsistent with the
surface mining permit application
regulations at 30 CFR 780.16(a) and (b)
and the performance standards at
816.97(f). There are no counterpart
provisions in the Federal regulations for
the term ‘‘crucial habitat.’’
In the same August 6, 1996, Federal
Register (Id.), we required Wyoming to
revise section 4(e) of Chapter 10. The
required amendment is found at 30 CFR
950.16(ll). As proposed then in
amendment WY–022–FOR, section 4(e)
would have allowed coal exploration
operations to disturb important habitat
after consultation with the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department while
prohibiting disturbance to critical and
crucial habitat. Because ‘‘important
habitat’’ in Wyoming’s rules is
analogous to ‘‘habitats of unique or
unusually high value for fish [and]
wildlife’’ as used in the Federal
regulations and because the Federal
regulations prohibit disturbance of
unusually high value habitats, we found
Wyoming’s proposed rule was less
effective than the counterpart Federal
regulation because it allowed coal
exploration to disturb important habitat
based on consultation with the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
In a letter dated April 8, 1997
(Administrative Record number WY–
37–13), Wyoming noted its ongoing
efforts to reword section 4(e) of Chapter
10 to comply with the required
amendment. The State asked us for
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
16948
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
guidance and flexibility in interpreting
the prohibition on disturbance required
at 30 CFR 815.15(a). We responded to
Wyoming’s request for guidance in a
letter dated September 7, 2000
(Administrative Record number WY–
37–14) after discussing the issue with
the State on a number of occasions. In
that letter, we acknowledged the Federal
regulation’s prohibition of exploration
disturbance on habitats of unique or
unusually high value for fish, wildlife,
and related environmental values, and
by analogy, on important habitats in
Wyoming. However, we suggested the
following alternative:
For coal exploration on ‘‘important
habitat’’ or ‘‘crucial habitat’’ the State may
wish to consider a proposed amendment that
requires the same consultation process with
State and Federal agencies responsible for
fish and wildlife as those required by
permanent regulatory program surface coal
mining activities and reclamation plans (30
CFR 780.16, 816.97 and the State
counterparts). We would consider this
alternative to be consistent with and no less
effective in meeting the intent of SMCRA.
As proposed, Wyoming’s exploration
performance standard at section 4(e) of
Chapter 10 responds to the required
amendment as follows:
Critical habitats of listed threatened or
endangered species identified pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) shall not be disturbed during
coal exploration. Crucial or important habitat
for wildlife shall not be disturbed during coal
exploration unless written evidence of
consultation with the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department and any resulting
recommendations are submitted to the
Administrator as part of either a coal
exploration license or notice of intent to
explore application.
Wyoming explained in its amendment
how its proposed rule addresses the
approval criterion we established in the
September 7, 2000, letter. The State
explained that—
* * * as is currently required prior to
approving any coal permit, the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department reviews the
permit application and their
recommendations for minimizing the impacts
to wildlife and their habitats are considered
and integrated into the Mine and
Reclamation Plan of that permit. A similar
process would be necessary as part of any
[Land Quality Division] approval of a Notice
of Intent to Explore or a Coal Exploration
License. Therefore, this proposed rule
amendment is maintaining the current
requirement that important habitat can only
be disturbed after consultation with the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department, but is
extending this flexibility to crucial habitats
which had previously been off limits to coal
exploration.
We reviewed Wyoming’s surface coal
mining provisions for consultation on
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
fish and wildlife issues in context of the
criterion established in our September
7, 2000, letter. The State’s approved
counterparts to the Federal regulations
for permit application requirements and
consultation at 30 CFR 780.16(a) and
(a)(1) are found at Chapter 2, sections
2(a)(vi)(C)(III), (G), (G)(I), (II), and (III).
Its approved counterparts to the Federal
regulations for permit application
requirements at 30 CFR 780.16(a)(2)(i)
and (ii) and 780.16(b) are found at
Chapter 2, sections 2(b)(vi), (vi)(B) and
(vi)(C). Chapter 4, section 2(r) of
Wyoming’s rules includes the State’s
previously-approved counterparts to the
Federal performance standards for
surface coal mining at 30 CFR 816.97(a)
and (b).
Chapter 10 of Wyoming’s exploration
rules includes requirements pertaining
to endangered and threatened species as
well. Section 2(b)(v) of Wyoming’s coal
exploration rules is the State’s
previously-approved counterpart to the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
772.12(b)(9). The State’s rule requires
applications for exploration of more
than 250 tons or in areas designated as
unsuitable to include a description of
any endangered or threatened species
listed under the Endangered Species Act
that are in the proposed exploration
area. Further, section 2(b)(vi) requires a
map showing the areas of land to be
disturbed by proposed exploration and
reclamation, including the location of
critical habitats of any endangered or
threatened species listed pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act. Its Federal
counterpart is found at 30 CFR
772.12(b)(12).
Proposed section 4(e) does not repeat
the various fish and wildlife
consultation provisions that appear
throughout the State’s regulations for
surface coal mining. However, it
requires written evidence of
consultation with the Wyoming
Department of Game and Fish and the
results of that consultation to be
submitted to the State as a prerequisite
to disturbing important or crucial
habitat during coal exploration.
Wyoming’s explanation for proposed
section 4(e) said it would require a
process similar to that for mine permit
applications. Such a process would
require the Game and Fish Department’s
review of applications for exploration
that would disturb important or crucial
habitat, consider its recommendations
for minimizing impacts to wildlife and
their habitats, and integrate its
recommendations into any approval of a
Notice of Intent to Explore or a Coal
Exploration License. Those procedures
are not explicit in Wyoming’s proposed
wording of section 4(e). We interpret
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
proposed section 4(e) as requiring
persons who explore for coal in crucial
and important habitats to submit to the
Land Quality Division the
recommendations that resulted from
their consultation with the Wyoming
Department of Game and Fish and to
fully comply with those
recommendations. We interpret and
therefore accept Wyoming’s explanation
as a commitment to providing the
described level of protection for
important and crucial habitat during
exploration, and will verify its
implementation during our oversight of
the State’s regulatory program.
Though proposed section 4(e) also
does not explicitly require consultation
with the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or the Service), it
prohibits disturbing critical habitat for
listed threatened and endangered
species. Moreover, section 2(b)(v) of the
State’s exploration rules requires a
description of any listed endangered or
threatened species in the proposed
exploration area, and section 2(b)(vi)
requires a map showing areas to be
disturbed by exploration and
reclamation, including the location of
critical habitats of any listed endangered
or threatened species. We recognized in
our August 6, 1996, approval of
amendment WY–022–FOR (Id., at
40741) that the Service is responsible
for listing, recovery, administration, and
prohibitions associated with threatened
and endangered species designated
under the Endangered Species Act. As
such, the Service is the primary
repository of information compiled for
threatened and endangered species and
their critical habitats under the
Endangered Species Act. Our
experience shows that the Service either
disseminates such information directly
to State regulatory authorities upon
request or indirectly through States’
wildlife / fish and game agencies. We
interpret the proposed wording of
Wyoming’s section 4(e), as well as
sections 2(b)(v) and (b)(vi) of its Chapter
10 exploration rules, to imply direct or
indirect consultation with the Service as
a result of requiring information
pertaining to listed threatened and
endangered species and critical habitats.
Wyoming applied proposed section
4(e)’s prohibition of disturbance to
critical habitats to such habitats of
threatened and endangered species
listed under the Endangered Species
Act. The State explained in its
amendment that it added the word
‘‘listed’’ to the rule ‘‘* * * in order to
add specificity and to be consistent with
the language in the rest of the chapter
* * *.’’ The distinction is that such a
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
prohibition would not apply to species
that are proposed for listing but are not
yet listed. As Wyoming noted, proposed
section 4(e) is consistent with the
previously-approved wording of
sections 2(b)(v) and 2(b)(vi) of Chapter
10, described above, which pertain to
threatened and endangered species and
critical habitats, respectively, listed
under the Endangered Species Act.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
requires the Secretary of the Interior to
determine if species within his or her
program responsibilities are threatened
or endangered based on certain factors,
and section 4(c) requires the publication
of a list of such species. Also, section
4(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act
requires the Secretary to designate
critical habitat of species concurrently
when determining the same species to
be threatened or endangered. The
Endangered Species Act’s requirement
to designate critical habitats applies
only to those species determined to be
threatened and endangered (i.e., listed
species), not to species only proposed
for listing. Wyoming’s qualification of
its proposed rule’s prohibition on
disturbing critical habitats of listed
threatened and endangered species is
not inconsistent with that limitation of
the Endangered Species Act. The State’s
proposed addition of the ‘‘listed’’
qualifier also is not inconsistent with
the counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 815.15(a), which similarly
prohibits exploration operations from
disturbing critical habitats of threatened
or endangered species ‘‘identified
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
* * *.’’
Based on the foregoing discussions,
we find Wyoming’s proposed Chapter
10, section 4(e) to be in accordance with
SMCRA and consistent with the Federal
regulations. We also find it satisfies the
required amendment at 30 CFR
950.16(ll). Accordingly, we approve
proposed section 4(e) and remove the
required amendment.
3. Requirement To Obtain a Permit To
Conduct Surface Coal Mining
Operations If Coal Extracted During
Exploration Will Be Commercially Used
or Sold
Our 30 CFR part 732 (Part 732) letter
dated September 21, 1990, notified
Wyoming of the need to change its rules
in response to changes in the Federal
regulations for coal exploration. Item F–
4 of that letter addressed 30 CFR
772.14(a). We said —
[t]his Federal rule has been expanded to
apply to both commercial use and sale of
coal. Thus, except as provided under 30 CFR
772.14(b) and 700.11(a)(5), any person who
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
intends to commercially use or sell coal
extracted under an exploration permit must
first obtain a surface coal mining and
reclamation operations permit. Since
Wyoming’s rules restrict commercial sale but
not commercial use, the program will need
to be revised to include commercial use
restrictions no less effective than those of the
Federal rule.
Wyoming proposes a number of
changes in response to our letter. First,
it proposes to revise its definition of
‘‘coal exploration’’ at Chapter 1, section
2(l) of its rules by removing the sentence
that reads ‘‘[i]f this activity results in the
extraction of coal, the coal shall not be
offered for commercial sale (except for
test burns) * * *.’’ That change makes
Wyoming’s proposed definition
substantively identical to the Federal
definition at 30 CFR 701.5, and is
included in our finding at Part III.B of
this final rule.
The State also proposes to add new
rules at section 8 of Chapter 10 for coal
exploration. Proposed section 8(a)
would require any person who intends
to commercially use or sell coal
extracted during coal exploration
operations under an exploration license
to first obtain a permit to conduct
surface coal mining operations, except
as provided under proposed section
(8)(b). Wyoming’s proposed rule
contains the required restrictions on
commercial use and sale of coal as
described in our Part 732 letter and
contained in the Federal regulation.
Referenced, proposed section 8(b)
provides that, with the Administrator’s
prior written permission, no permit to
mine is required for the sale or
commercial use of coal extracted during
exploration if such sale or use is for coal
testing purposes only. It also describes
the application that must be filed with,
and approved by, the Administrator as
a basis for waiving the permit
requirement. Referenced, proposed
section 8(b) is Wyoming’s counterpart to
30 CFR 772.14(b) and is substantively
identical to that Federal regulation. We
included it in our finding at Part III.B of
this final rule.
As proposed, section 8(a) is similar to
counterpart 30 CFR 772.14(a) with one
significant difference. The Wyoming
rule provides one exception to the
requirement to obtain a mine permit if
coal extracted during exploration is to
be commercially used or sold; the
Federal regulation provides two
exceptions. The exception provided in
Wyoming’s rules is referenced section
8(b), described above, and is the same
as the first exception provided by the
Federal regulation at referenced 30 CFR
772.14(b). The second exception
provided by the Federal regulation is
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16949
referenced 30 CFR 700.11(a)(5), which
has no counterpart in Wyoming’s
proposed rule. Under that regulation,
Chapter VII of Title 30 does not apply
to exploration on lands subject to the
requirements of 43 CFR parts 3480—
3487. Those referenced regulations
govern operations for the exploration,
development, and production of Federal
coal under Federal coal leases, licenses,
and permits. As authorized by 43 CFR
3480.0–6(b), the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) issues exploration licenses for
unleased Federal coal and supervises
exploration operations for Federal coal.
Wyoming noted in its amendment
that it is required by State statute to
oversee coal exploration on all lands
within Wyoming regardless of the
ownership of the coal. The State
referred to three sections of the
Wyoming Environmental Quality Act to
support its position that its rule must
apply to all lands within the State’s
borders. Section 35–11–404(a) addresses
closure of all drill holes ‘‘on all lands
within the State of Wyoming * * *.’’
Section 35–11–404(j) requires notice to
be filed with the Administrator before
drilling ‘‘on lands within the state of
Wyoming * * *.’’ Third, section 35–11–
414(a) requires anyone who wants to
‘‘engage in mineral exploration * * *’’
to apply to the Administrator for a
special license.
We find Wyoming’s proposed section
8(a) of Chapter 10 to be no less effective
than counterpart 30 CFR 772.14(a) based
on restricting the commercial sale and
use of coal extracted during exploration
as required by item F–4 in the
September 21, 1990, Part 732 letter, and
can be approved. We also recognize that
proposed section 8(a) reflects
Wyoming’s assertion of jurisdiction over
all coal exploration on lands within the
State’s borders. Including exploration
for Federal coal within the scope of
Wyoming’s proposed rule does not
make it less effective than the Federal
regulations because the State’s rule
applies as needed to exploration for
non-Federal coal and the commercial
use and sale of that coal. Though we
recognize Wyoming asserts jurisdiction
over all exploration within the State, we
make no determination on that point
and expect Wyoming and persons
seeking permits to explore for Federal
coal to abide by the regulations at 43
CFR part 3480 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
16950
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
D. Revisions to Wyoming’s Rules With
No Corresponding Federal Regulations
1. Definition of ‘‘Soft Rock Surface
Mining’’
Wyoming explained that the
definition of ‘‘soft rock surface mining’’
was to have been deleted from its coal
rules when the State separated its coal
and noncoal rules in 1994. That is a
reference to OSM’s approval of
amendment WY–016–FOR in the March
30, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR
14750). The State noted that, though the
definition of ‘‘soft rock surface mining’’
includes coal mining, it ‘‘* * * should
not have been incorporated into the
Coal-Only set of rules * * *.’’ Wyoming
added that, ‘‘* * * because the Coal
rules pertain only to coal mining, there
is no reason to maintain a definition
that also lists other minerals.’’
In the March 30, 1994, Federal
Register approving amendment WY–
016–FOR, (id.), OSM recognized that
Wyoming submitted that amendment
‘‘* * * as part of a State effort to
eliminate the confusion that was
inherent in regulatory rules that applied
to two separate and distinct programs,
i.e. the regulation of coal and noncoal
mining operations.’’ OSM further noted
that ‘‘[t]he proposed reorganized rule
package is intended to facilitate a better
understanding of and increased
compliance with Wyoming’s statutes
and rules, and with SMCRA.’’
Wyoming’s removal of the definition
at Chapter 1, section 2(ce) further
clarifies that its coal rules pertain only
to coal mining. We find the proposed
change does not make the State’s coal
rules less effective than the Federal
regulations and, therefore, we can
approve it.
2. Backfilling and Grading Requirements
for Soft Rock Surface Mining, Including
Highwall Retention
Wyoming explained that it proposed
to remove sections 2(b)(ix), 2(b)(ix)(A),
(B), (C), and (D) from Chapter 4 of its
coal rules because section 2(b)(ix) was
inadvertently ‘‘* * * carried over when
the coal and noncoal rules were divided
into separate rules.’’ The State added
that, ‘‘[w]hen the rules were separated
in 1994, the rules pertaining to soft rock
mining should not have been
incorporated into the Coal-Only set of
rules.’’ Amendment WY–016–FOR,
which we approved in the March 30,
1994, Federal Register (59 FR 14750),
separated most of the State’s coal and
noncoal regulations by removing most
‘‘soft rock surface mining’’ provisions
from the State’s coal rules. The rules
cited above survived that separation,
and Wyoming now proposes to correct
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
that oversight by removing them in
amendment WY–032–FOR. Also, the
State explained that the ‘‘* * *
language [of section 2(b)(ix)(A)] was
redundant to other sections of the Coal
rules.’’
In a letter dated December 20, 1993
(Administrative Record number WY–
20–26), responding to our concerns for
amendment WY–016–FOR, the State
agreed to delete section 2(b)(ix) of
Chapter 4 to remove language pertaining
to ‘‘bluffs,’’ which we considered a form
of retained highwalls. Because section
2(b)(ix) is only the heading ‘‘Soft rock
surface mining,’’ Wyoming’s reference
to it can be interpreted to include
subsections A, B, C, and D as well,
though subsection D specifically
addresses highwall retention, not bluffs.
We referred to Wyoming’s removal of
section 2(b)(ix) in our approval of
amendment WY–016–FOR when its
subsections included provisions for
bluff retention as a form of highwall
retention that we never approved (Id., at
14751).
Sections 2(b)(ix), 2(b)(ix)(A), (B), and
(C) included backfilling and grading
performance standards for ‘‘soft rock
surface mining’’ operations that do, or
do not, plan to leave permanent
impoundments and for those that wish
to construct terraces or benches. Similar
provisions appear in Wyoming’s rules at
Chapter 8, sections 4(a)(v), (vi), and (vii)
for special bituminous surface coal
mines and in the permit application
requirements at Chapter 2, sections
2(b)(i)(D)(IV) and 2(b)(iv)(B). There are
no direct counterpart provisions in the
Federal regulations though 30 CFR
816.102 includes similar provisions
concerning general backfilling and
grading and 30 CFR 816.49(10)
addresses underwater highwalls in
permanent impoundments. Removal of
these provisions, given Wyoming’s
assertion that they only pertain to
noncoal mining, does not make the
State’s rules less effective than the
Federal regulations. Accordingly, we
can approve Wyoming’s removal of
sections 2(b)(ix), 2(b)(ix)(A), 2(b)(ix)(B),
and 2(b)(ix)(C) from Chapter 4 of its coal
rules.
Though Wyoming noted that its
highwall retention rule at Chapter 4,
section 2(b)(ix)(D) is among those
pertaining to ‘‘soft rock surface mining’’
that should be removed to complete its
separation of coal and noncoal rules,
instead it proposed to partly delete that
rule and partly revise it. Wyoming
explained that it wants to ‘‘* * * make
a clear statement that [it] supports the
retention of highwalls to enhance and
diversify reclamation as allowed by the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
current coal program.’’ The rule
currently reads—
[h]ighwall retention may be considered on
a case-by-case basis for enhanced wildlife
habitat. The Wyoming Game and Fish
Department shall be consulted by the
applicant for need and design of the land
form. Any approval under this paragraph
shall be based on a demonstration of safety,
stability, environmental protection, and
equal or better land use considerations.
Wyoming’s proposed rule would
read—
[h]ighwall retention may be considered on
a case-by-case basis to enhance wildlife
habitat as replacement for natural features
that were eliminated by mining.
In the amendment’s statement of
reasons, Wyoming recognized the
differences between its proposed rule,
the Federal regulations, and the
highwall retention provision we
approved as part of the New Mexico
regulatory program. It also said a future
State rule amendment package would
address those differences.
Section 515(b)(3) of SMCRA and 30
CFR 816.102(a)(2) require highwalls to
be eliminated to achieve approximate
original contour (AOC), with an
exception for previously mined areas.
As Wyoming noted in its amendment,
however, we previously approved a
highwall retention provision in New
Mexico’s rules (45 FR 86458; December
31, 1980). The approved New Mexico
provision is an alternative approach to
restoring mined land to its approximate
original contour, in contrast to a
provision that would allow a variance
from AOC. It also imposes specific
criteria for retained highwalls. Those
criteria address: The static safety factor;
overall highwall safety; backfilling to
cover coal seams; allowable length of
retained highwalls; the need to replace
pre-existing cliff-type habitat and
contouring the ends of highwalls; and a
requirement for State approval to retain
highwalls. By requiring an operator to
demonstrate that retained highwalls will
meet all six criteria of New Mexico’s
rule, thereby showing they closely
resemble premining features, we
concluded that—
[s]uch retention in these instances actually
reflects the intent of ‘‘approximate original
contour’’ since these features were part of the
natural pre-mined landscape. In all other
cases, the highwall must be eliminated
according to 30 CFR 816.102 (id., at 86464).
Based on the criteria New Mexico
imposed for retained highwalls, as
conditioned in the approval, we found
the State’s ‘‘* * * alternative to be in
accordance with the provisions of
SMCRA and consistent with the
regulations in 30 CFR Chapter VII.’’
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
In our disapproval of the rule
Wyoming proposed in 1988 to allow
highwall retention by recreating
‘‘bluffs’’ (54 FR 52958; December 26,
1989), we asserted that—
[w]here the two requirements [achieving
AOC and eliminating highwalls] are in
conflict, i.e., where the premining
topography includes sheer cliffs or bluffs, as
is common in New Mexico’s San Juan Basin,
the Secretary previously determined that
highwalls could be retained only to the
extent that they closely resemble premining
features in both form and function * * *
(Finding 4(b), 45 FR 86464, December 31,
1980).
Our review of Wyoming’s proposed
section 2(b)(ix)(D) finds that it is not
specific enough with respect to the
criteria retained highwalls must meet as
an alternative approach to achieving
AOC. As proposed, the rule would
provide for highwall retention on a caseby-case basis to enhance wildlife habitat
as replacement for natural features that
were eliminated by mining. In
comparison with the New Mexico
provision that Wyoming refers to in its
amendment, the proposed rule
addresses one criterion for allowing
highwall retention: Retained highwalls
would replace pre-existing natural
features. However, the proposed rule
does not address other criteria that
would require retained highwalls to
closely resemble premining features in
form and function.
To approve Wyoming’s proposed
alternative approach to achieving AOC
by retaining highwalls, we must find
that the proposed rule is in accordance
with the provisions of SMCRA and
consistent with the requirements of the
Federal regulations at Chapter VII of the
Title 30 regulations, as required by the
reference at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(10) to
732.15. As defined at 30 CFR 730.5,
‘‘consistent with’’ and ‘‘in accordance
with’’ mean, respectively:
(a) With regard to [SMCRA], the State laws
and regulations are no less stringent than,
meet the minimum requirements of and
include all applicable provisions of
[SMCRA].
(b) With regard to the Secretary’s
regulations, the State laws and regulations
are no less effective than the Secretary’s
regulations in meeting the requirements of
[SMCRA].
Absent more specific criteria for
retained highwalls to meet, Wyoming’s
proposed rule does not impose
requirements similar to those of 30 CFR
816.102 for ensuring the safety and
effectiveness of reclamation in
achieving AOC. As such, it is not in
accordance with the requirements of
SMCRA and is not consistent with the
Federal regulations.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
In a letter dated August 11, 2004, we
notified Wyoming of our concern with
the proposed highwall retention rule at
section 2(b)(ix)(D) of Chapter 4
(Administrative Record number WY–
37–11). As noted above, Wyoming’s
amendment recognized the differences
between the proposed rule, the Federal
regulations, and New Mexico’s
approved highwall retention regulation.
It also said the State would submit
another amendment to continue
addressing those differences. Given
those statements, we said in our August
11, 2004, letter that we were uncertain
how to proceed with the amended
highwall retention rule and are unlikely
to approve it as proposed. We suggested
that Wyoming provide a letter with
specific rule language that would
further explain how the State will
further consider highwall retention,
including provisions similar to those we
approved for New Mexico. We added
that we could defer a decision on the
proposed highwall retention rule in
amendment WY–032-FOR instead of
disapproving it if the letter described
Wyoming’s future rulemaking and a
timetable for submitting another
amendment.
Wyoming responded to our August
22, 2004, letter, by submitting Coal Rule
Package 1-T, dated August 30, 2004
(Administrative Record number WY–
37–12). That submittal patterns
additional proposed changes after
provisions we approved as part of the
New Mexico and Utah regulatory
programs. However, the transmittal
letter says several months might pass
before the State’s internal rulemaking
can proceed to the next step, ‘‘* * *
which is to require a hearing before the
Environmental Quality Council (EQC)
* * *’’ on changes proposed in Coal
Rule Package 1(T). Because the EQC has
yet to make the final determination of
how Wyoming’s rule will be worded, at
this time we cannot consider the State’s
August 30, 2004, submittal to be the
final version of the proposed revision to
the highwall retention rule. We
therefore defer making a decision on
proposed Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix)(D)
until the State completes its internal
rulemaking.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
A. Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment (Administrative Record
number WY–37–10), but did not receive
any.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16951
B. 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 Wyoming
program (Administrative Record
number WY–37–06).
1. U.S. Department of Labor, Mine
Safety and Health Administration
Comments
The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine
Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA), responded to our request for
comments in a letter dated July 15, 2004
(Administrative Record number WY–
37–09). MSHA stated that it did not find
anything in the proposed amendment
that would conflict with its regulations
or policies.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service Comments
We also received comments from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
in a letter dated July 15, 2004
(Administrative Record number WY–
37–08). The Service found the proposed
changes ‘‘increased clarity of some
sections of the program direction.’’
The Service also expressed concern
that the proposed amendment might
lead to increased use of undesirable
grading and contouring of disturbed
areas and a decreased use of highwall
retention around permanent ponds.
More specifically, the Service
commented that—
* * * it is unclear why soft rock surface
mining; terraces or benches; sloping, grading
or contouring or proposed pit areas for
permanent water impoundments; and
highwall retention are being dropped from
the program direction.
The Service’s comment refers to
Wyoming’s proposed removal of the
rules at Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix),
(ix)(A), (B), (C), and (D). Regarding the
proposed removal of section 2(b)(ix)(A)
and (B), the Service commented that
eliminating those provisions—
[w]ill lead to an increase in the use of
terraces and benches to recontour disturbed
areas. The Service strongly recommends, to
the greatest extent possible, that all mining
reclamation reestablish areas to the original
contour.
As we explained in our finding at Part
III.D.2 of this final rule, Wyoming
explained that it proposed to remove
sections 2(b)(ix), 2(b)(ix)(A), (B), (C),
and (D) from Chapter 4 of its coal rules
because those rules were inadvertently
‘‘carried over when the coal and
noncoal rules were divided into
separate rules * * *.’’ We previously
approved Wyoming’s separation of most
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
16952
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
of its coal and noncoal rules on March
30, 1994, in amendment WY–016–FOR
(59 FR 14750). The rules cited in the
Service’s comment survived that
separation, and Wyoming now proposes
to remove them in amendment WY–
032–FOR. Wyoming also explained that
the provisions of section 2(b)(ix)(A)
were repeated elsewhere in the coal
rules and asserted that 2(b)(ix), (ix)(A),
(B), (C), and (D) do not belong in its
coal-only rules.
In our approval of amendment WY–
016–FOR, we recognized the State’s
effort to eliminate the confusion
inherent to rules that applied to two
separate and distinct programs (coal and
noncoal mining). We further noted that
separating the coal and noncoal rules is
‘‘* * * intended to facilitate a better
understanding of and increased
compliance with Wyoming’s statutes
and rules, and with SMCRA.’’
We also believe the Service’s
comment misinterprets section
2(b)(ix)(B). This rule allows use of
terraces or benches ‘‘* * * only when it
can be shown to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that other methods of
contouring will not provide the required
result * * *’’ (emphasis added). As
written, it provides a limited exception
to the requirement to backfill and grade
to approximate original contour (‘‘the
required result’’). By removing this rule,
Wyoming will reduce those
circumstances under which terraces and
benches can be used in final
reclamation.
Similar reasoning applies to the
Service’s comment concerning section
2(b)(ix)(C). General performance
standards for sloping, grading, and
contouring to blend in with the
topography (i.e., AOC) and to control
erosion similar to those imposed by this
rule appear in other sections of Chapter
4 of Wyoming’s coal rules. The
remaining part of the rule provides for
certain circumstances in which partial
pitwalls may be left intact above water
along the shoreline of permanent
impoundments. This provision actually
conflicts with the Federal regulation at
30 CFR 816.49(10). That regulation
requires the vertical portion of any
remaining highwall ‘‘* * * to be
located far enough below the low-water
line along the full extent of the highwall
to provide adequate safety and access
for the proposed water users * * *’’ at
temporary and permanent
impoundments. By removing section
2(b)(ix)(C), Wyoming will reduce the
circumstances under which highwalls
may be left intact where they were not
part of the premining landscape and
also eliminate a conflict with Federal
provisions for reclaiming to AOC.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
Conversely, the Service expressed
concern in another comment that
Wyoming’s proposed removal of section
2(b)(ix)(D) would lead to a decrease in
highwall retention around permanent
ponds. It stated that retained highwalls
are ‘‘* * * highly beneficial to wildlife,
especially raptors, by providing nesting
structure.’’ Wyoming explained that it
proposes to remove section 2(b)(ix)(D)
along with other rules that pertain to
‘‘soft rock surface mining’’ in an effort
to separate its coal rules from its
noncoal rules. Further, while we agree
in principle with the Service about
highwalls’ potential benefit, we cannot
waive the requirement of SMCRA and
the Federal regulations to reclaim mined
lands to AOC on that basis. We are
unlikely to approve the proposed
revision as written because it provides
an exemption from reclaiming mined
lands to AOC that is not in accordance
with section 515(b)(3) of SMCRA and
consistent with 30 CFR 816.102(a)(1)
and (2). The only exceptions to the AOC
requirement are cases involving steep
slopes or previously mined areas, and
Wyoming’s proposed rule does not fit
either situation.
On the other hand, Wyoming is
considering further revisions to
proposed section 2(b)(ix)(D) in an effort
to develop an alternative approach to
achieving AOC that would allow
highwall retention in certain cases. As
we discussed in our finding at Part
III.D.2 of this final rule, the State
submitted Coal Rule Package 1–T in
response to our August 11, 2004,
concern letter. That package proposed to
further revise section 2(b)(ix)(D) to
include provisions similar to those we
approved as part of the New Mexico and
Utah regulatory programs for retaining
highwalls where similar features existed
in the pre-mine landscape and where
the retained highwalls were very similar
to the pre-existing features in form and
function. We recognize Wyoming’s
review process is ongoing for this
proposed rule and defer our decision on
it until we know the final form it will
take.
The Service also expressed concern
that Wyoming’s proposed change to
section 4(e) of Chapter 10 would lessen
protection of crucial wildlife habitats
during coal exploration. It added that
the State should also promote the
protection of ‘‘other important habitats’’
during coal exploration. The proposed
rule would prohibit disturbing crucial
and important habitat during coal
exploration ‘‘* * * unless written
evidence of consultation with the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
and any resulting recommendations are
submitted to the Administrator as part
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of either a coal exploration license or
notice of intent to explore application.’’
In part III.C.2 of this final rule, we
described an alternative we suggested
Wyoming consider in response to the
State’s request for guidance and
flexibility in interpreting the prohibition
on disturbance required at 30 CFR
815.15(a). Specifically, we suggested
that Wyoming consider requiring the
same consultation process with State
and Federal agencies for coal
exploration on important or crucial
habitat that it requires of surface coal
mining activities and reclamation plans.
We agreed that we would consider such
an alternative to be consistent with and
no less effective in meeting the intent of
SMCRA. Our finding at Part III.C.2 of
this final rule describes how we
interpret Wyoming’s proposed rule and
additional explanation as a commitment
to providing the same level of protection
for important or crucial habitat during
exploration as its rules require for
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations. As we stated in our finding,
we will verify Wyoming’s consultation
during our oversight of its regulatory
program.
3. 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 Wyoming
proposed to make in this amendment
pertains to air or water quality
standards. Therefore, we did not ask
EPA to concur on the amendment.
Nevertheless, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested EPA’s
comments on the amendment in a letter
dated May 27, 2004 (Administrative
Record number WY–37–05). EPA did
not respond to our request.
C. State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are
required to request comments from the
SHPO and ACHP on amendments that
may have an effect on historic
properties. In a letter dated May 27,
2004, we requested comments from the
SHPO and ACHP on Wyoming’s
amendment (Administrative Record
numbers WY–37–03 and WY–37–04,
respectively), but neither responded to
our request.
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve Wyoming’s May 21, 2004,
amendment with one exception as noted
below.
We defer making a decision on
proposed section 2(b)(ix)(D), highwall
retention, as discussed in finding
number III.D.2.
We approve, as discussed in: finding
III.A, Chapter 10, sections 2(b)(vi), (vii),
(x), and (xi), application requirements
for exploration of more than 250 tons or
in an area designated unsuitable for
mining; finding III.B., Chapter 1, section
2(l), revising the definition of ‘‘coal
exploration;’’ Chapter 4, section
2(b)(iv)(A), using small depressions;
Chapter 10, sections 1 and 1(b)(iii),
general requirements for coal
exploration of 250 tons or less,
including recodification; Chapter 10,
sections 2(b), (b)(i), (ii), and (iii), (b)(iv),
(vi), and (v), general requirements for
coal exploration of more than 250 tons
or in an area designated as unsuitable
for mining, including recodification;
Chapter 10, section 2(b)(ix), measures
used so exploration of more than 250
tons or in areas designated unsuitable
for mining complies with exploration
performance standards, including
recodification; Chapter 10, section 3(b),
administrative and judicial review for
anyone adversely affected by decisions
on coal exploration applications;
Chapter 10, section 8, section heading
for commercial use or sale of coal
extracted under a coal exploration
license; Chapter 10, section 8(b), written
approval to not require a mining permit
for coal exploration where commercial
use or sale of coal is for testing only and
demonstrating the need for coal testing
and the purpose for coal extraction;
Chapter 10, section 8(b)(i), requirement
for the testing firm name and coal
testing locations; Chapter 10, section
8(b)(ii), requirement for a statement
from the end user or agent or broker if
coal extracted during exploration is sold
or commercially used and for other
information; Chapter 10, section
8(b)(ii)(A), requirement for the
statement to include the reason for coal
testing; Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(B),
requirement for the statement to show
the amount of coal needed for testing
and why a lesser amount is insufficient;
Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(C),
requirement for a description of the test
to be conducted; Chapter 10, section
8(b)(iii), requirement for evidence of
sufficient coal reserves; Chapter 10,
section 8(b)(iv), requirement for
explanation why other means of
exploration are not adequate to
determine coal quality and/or mining
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
feasibility; in finding III.C.1, Chapter 10,
section 2(b)(vii), provision authorizing
the State to require exploration
applications to include information
regarding known or possible historic or
archeological resources; in finding
III.C.2, Chapter 10, section 4(e),
prohibiting disturbance of critical
habitat during exploration, and
disturbance of important or crucial
habitat during exploration without
written evidence of consultation with
the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department; in finding III.C.3, Chapter
10, Section 8(a), requiring a permit to
conduct surface coal mining operations
if coal extracted during construction
will be commercially used or sold, with
one exception; in finding III.D.1,
Chapter 1, section 2(ce), removal of the
definition of ‘‘soft rock surface mining;’’
and in finding III.D.2, Chapter 4,
sections 2(b)(ix), (ix)(A), (B), and (C),
removing backfilling and grading
requirements for soft rock surface
mining.
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR part 950, which codify decisions
concerning the Wyoming 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.
Effect of OSM’s Decision
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 us for review as a program
amendment. The Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit any changes
to approved State programs that we do
not approve. In the oversight of the
Wyoming 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 the State to enforce only
approved provisions.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630—Takings
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
based in part on the analysis performed
for the counterpart Federal regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16953
Some of the State provisions addressed
in this final rule have no counterpart
Federal regulations. In those instances,
we have determined that there are no
takings implications because we are
approving the State’s removal of those
provisions, which then no longer apply
to the regulated industry. In one
instance, we are deferring our decision
on a State rule that has no Federal
counterpart. There are no takings
implications in that instance either
because 30 CFR 731.17(g) prevents State
laws and regulations from taking effect
without our approval; therefore, the
provision has no 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
(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
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
16954
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 federallyrecognized 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.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that the provisions in this rule
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
based on 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 on
the economic analysis performed for the
counterpart Federal regulations for
which a certification was made that
those regulations would not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Department of the Interior also
certifies that the provisions in this rule
that are not based on 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 on the fact that the State is
removing all those provisions but one.
Because the removed provisions no
longer apply to the regulated industry,
they have no effect. The remaining
provision does not impose significant
economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities because we are
deferring our decision in that instance,
and 30 CFR 731.17(g) prevents State
laws and regulations from taking effect
without our approval.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule: a. does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million;
b. will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and c. does not have
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises.
This determination is based upon the
fact that some of the State provisions are
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. For all but one
of those State provisions that are not
based on counterpart Federal
regulations, the ‘‘non-major’’
determination is based on the fact that
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the State is removing them, so they no
longer apply to the regulated industry.
For the one remaining State provision
without a Federal counterpart, this
determination is based on the fact that
we are deferring a decision on that
provision, and 30 CFR 731.17(g)
prevents State laws and regulations
from taking effect without our approval.
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 part of the State submittal is
based on counterpart Federal
regulations for which an analysis was
prepared and a determination made that
the Federal regulation did not impose
an unfunded mandate. For all but one
of those State provisions that are not
based on counterpart Federal
regulations, this determination is based
on the fact that the State is removing
them, so they no longer apply to the
regulated industry. For the one
remaining State provision without a
Federal counterpart, this determination
is based on the fact that we are deferring
a decision on that provision, and 30
CFR 731.17(g) prevents State laws and
regulations from taking effect without
our approval.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 950
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: February 25, 2005.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Western Regional
Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble,
30 CFR part 950 is amended as set forth
below:
I
PART 950—WYOMING
1. The authority citation for part 950
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 950.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by date of final
publication to read as follows:
I
§ 950.15 Approval of Wyoming regulatory
program amendments.
*
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
*
04APR1
*
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Date of final
publication
Original amendment submission date
*
*
*
*
May 21, 2004 .............................................................................
§ 950.16
[Amended]
3. Section 950.16 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs (a),
(w), and (ll).
I
[FR Doc. 05–6602 Filed 4–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R03–OAR–2005–PA–0002; FRL–7894–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT
Determinations for Three Individual
Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for
three major sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). These sources are located in
Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these
revisions to establish RACT
requirements in the SIP in accordance
with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on June 3,
2005, without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse written comment
by May 4, 2005. If EPA receives such
comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–
2005–PA–0002 by one of the following
methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:10 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
Citation
description
*
April 4, 2005 ...
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Coal Rules: Chapter 1, sections 2(l) and (ce); chapter 4, sections 2(b)(iv)(A), (b)(ix), (b)(ix)(A), (B), and (C); Chapter 10,
sections 1, 1(b)(iii), 2(b), (b)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii),
(viii), (ix), (x), (xi), and (xii), 3(b), 4(e), 8, 8(a), 8(b), (b)(i),
(ii), (ii)(A), (ii)(B), (ii)(C), (iii), and (iv).
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Agency Web site: https://
www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME,
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
C. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
D. Mail: R03–OAR–2005–PA–0002,
Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously
listed EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RME ID No. R03–OAR–2005–PA–0002.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through RME,
regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME
and the Federal regulations.gov Web
sites are an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through RME or regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
PO 00000
16955
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the RME
index at https://www.docket.epa.gov/
rmepub/. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in RME or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O.
Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Caprio, (215) 814–2156, or by email at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and
182(f) of the CAA, the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or
Pennsylvania) is required to establish
and implement RACT for all major VOC
and NOX sources. The major source size
is determined by its location, the
classification of that area and whether it
is located in the ozone transport region
(OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA,
RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2)
and 182(f) applies throughout the OTR.
The entire Commonwealth is located
within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is
applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.
State implementation plan revisions
imposing RACT for three classes of VOC
sources are required under section
182(b)(2). The categories are:
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 63 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16945-16955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6602]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 950
[WY-032-FOR]
Wyoming Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are approving, with one exception, a proposed amendment to
the Wyoming regulatory program (the ``Wyoming program'') under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act).
Wyoming proposed to remove rules pertaining to soft rock surface mining
and to revise and add rules about highwalls and coal exploration.
Wyoming intended to revise or revised its program to be consistent with
the corresponding Federal regulations, provide additional safeguards,
clarify ambiguities, and to enhance and diversify reclamation.
DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field
Division, telephone: (303) 844-1400, extension 1424; Internet address:
jfulton@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Wyoming Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Office of Surface Mining's (OSM's) Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Wyoming 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 Wyoming program on November 26, 1980. You
can find background information on the Wyoming program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of
approval in the November 26, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 78637). You
can also find later actions concerning Wyoming's program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 950.10, 950.12, 950.15, 950.16, and 950.20.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated May 21, 2004, Wyoming sent us an amendment to its
program (Rule Package 1R, Administrative Record number WY-37-1) under
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Wyoming sent the amendment in response
to a February 21, 1990, letter (Administrative Record number WY-37-7)
that we sent to the State under 30 CFR 732.17(c), and in response to
the required program amendments at 30 CFR 950.16(a), (w), and (ll), and
to include the changes made at its own initiative.
Changes Wyoming proposed to make in its Coal Rules included: (1)
Chapter 1, section 2(l), revising the definition of ``coal
exploration;'' (2) Chapter 1, section 2(ce), removing the definition of
``soft rock surface mining;'' (3) Chapter 4, section 2(b)(iv)(A),
adding provisions for small depressions; (4) Chapter 4, section
2(b)(ix), (ix)(A), (B), and (C), removing soft rock surface mining
provisions for backfilling and grading; (5) Chapter 4, section
2(b)(ix)(D), retaining and revising a soft rock mining provision for
highwall retention; (6) Chapter 10, sections 1 and 1(b)(iii), revising
requirements for coal exploration of 250 tons or less; (7) Chapter 10,
sections 2(b), (b)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii),
(ix), (x), (xi), and (xii), adding and revising application
requirements for coal exploration of more than 250 tons or in areas
designated unsuitable for mining; (8) Chapter 10, section 3(b),
revising
[[Page 16946]]
provisions of application approval for exploration of more than 250
tons or in areas designated unsuitable for mining; (9) Chapter 10,
section 4(e), revising performance standards for protecting certain
critical, crucial and important habitats during exploration; and (10)
Chapter 10, sections 8, 8(a), (b), (b)(i), (ii), (ii)(A), (ii)(B),
(ii)(C), (iii), and (iv), adding rules pertaining to commercial use and
sale of coal extracted during exploration.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the August 17,
2004, Federal Register (69 FR 51026). In the same document, we opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy (Administrative Record
number WY-37-10). We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because
nobody requested either one. The public comment period ended on
September 15, 2004. We received comments from two Federal agencies.
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns about
Wyoming's proposed highwall retention rule at Chapter 4, section
2(b)(ix)(D). We notified the State of our concerns by letter dated
August 11, 2004 (Administrative Record Number WY-37-11).
Wyoming responded in a letter dated August 30, 2004, by sending us
a Coal Rule Package 1-T (Administrative Record Number WY-37-12). In
that package, Wyoming proposed additional revisions to the highwall
retention rule at Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix)(D). It also noted,
however, that the proposed change to the highwall retention rule
included in Coal Rule Package 1-T must be reviewed further in the
State's internal rulemaking process, which it expected to take several
months. In light of Wyoming's ongoing rulemaking, we will defer making
a final decision on Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix) until that process is
completed and we know the final wording of that proposed rule.
III. OSM's Findings
Following are our findings concerning the amendment under SMCRA and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving
the amendment, with one exception as noted above and discussed below.
A. Minor Revisions to Wyoming's Rules
Wyoming proposed minor recodification changes to the following
previously-approved rules as shown:
Chapter 10, sections 2(b)(iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (vi), and (viii),
application requirements for exploration of more than 250 tons or in an
area designated unsuitable for mining, recodified as 2(b)(vi), (vii),
(viii), (x), (xi), and (xii), respectively (Federal counterparts at 30
CFR 772(b)(6), (7), (8), (8)(i), (8)(ii), (8)(iii), (9), (11), (12),
and (13), respectively).
Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make
Wyoming's rules less effective than the corresponding Federal
regulations and can be approved.
B. Revisions to Wyoming's Rules That Have the Same Meaning as the
Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations
Wyoming proposed revisions to the following rules containing
language that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections
of the Federal regulations. In some cases, the State also proposed to
recodify the revised rules as shown below:
1. Chapter 1, section 2(l), revising the definition of ``coal
exploration'' (30 CFR 701.5);
2. Chapter 4, section 2(b)(iv)(A), adding a new provision for the
use of small depressions in reclamation (30 CFR 816.102(h));
3. Chapter 10, sections 1 and 1(b)(iii), revising general
requirements for coal exploration of 250 tons or less (30 CFR 772.11,
11(b), and 11(b)(3));
4. Chapter 10, sections 2(b), (b)(i), (ii), and (iii), (b)(iv), and
(b)(v), revising and adding general requirements for coal exploration
of more than 250 tons or in an area designated as unsuitable for
mining, including recodification (30 CFR 772.12(b), (b)(1), (2), (3),
(4) and (5));
5. Chapter 10, section 2(b)(ix), description of measures to be used
so exploration of more than 250 tons or in areas designated unsuitable
for mining complies with exploration performance standards at Chapter
10, section 4, including recodification (30 CFR 772.12(b)(10));
6. Chapter 10, section 3(b), provision for administrative and
judicial review for anyone adversely affected by decisions on coal
exploration applications (30 CFR 772.12(e)(2); required amendment at 30
CFR 950.16(a));
7. Chapter 10, section 8, adding a new heading for the section
addressing commercial use or sale of coal extracted under a coal
exploration license (30 CFR 772.14);
8. Chapter 10, section 8(b), adding a new provision for written
approval to not require a mining permit for coal exploration where sale
or commercial use of extracted coal is for coal testing purposes only,
with an added requirement for an application to demonstrate the need
for coal testing and the purpose for coal extraction during exploration
(30 CFR 772.14(b));
9. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(i), adding a new requirement for the
testing firm name and coal testing locations for coal extracted during
exploration (30 CFR 772.14(b)(1));
10. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii), adding a new requirement for a
statement from the end user or agent or broker if coal extracted during
exploration is sold or commercially used, with a requirement for the
statement to include other information described in following
subsections (30 CFR 772.14(b)(2));
11. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(A), adding a new requirement for
the statement to include the reason for the test, including why the
coal is so different from the user's coal as to require testing (30 CFR
772.14(b)(2)(i));
12. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(B), adding a new requirement for
the statement to show the amount of coal needed for testing and why a
lesser amount is insufficient (30 CFR 772.14(b)(2)(ii));
13. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(C), adding a new requirement for a
description of the test to be conducted (30 CFR 772.14(b)(2)(iii));
14. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(iii), adding a new requirement for
evidence of sufficient coal reserves to show that coal to be removed
during exploration is not the total reserve but a sample (30 CFR
772.14(b)(3)); and
15. Chapter 10, section 8(b)(iv), adding a new requirement for an
explanation as to why other means of exploration are not adequate to
determine coal quality and/or mining feasibility (30 CFR 772.14(b)(4).
Because these proposed rules contain language that is the same as
or similar to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they
are no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations and
can be approved.
C. Revisions to Wyoming's Rules That Are Not the Same as the
Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations
1. Information Required in Applications for Exploration About Historic
or Archeological Resources
Wyoming proposed to add a sentence to the end of recodified section
2(b)(vii) in Chapter 10 of its Coal Rules describing requirements for
applications for coal exploration involving more than 250 tons or in
areas designated unsuitable for mining. Wyoming's proposed change
responds to the amendment required at 30 CFR 950.16(w). The new
sentence would expand exploration application
[[Page 16947]]
requirements to ``* * * include any other information which the
Administrator may require regarding known or possible historic or
archeological resources.'' With the exception of the word ``possible,''
Wyoming's proposed change is substantively identical to the counterpart
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 772.12(b)(8)(iv), which requires a
description of ``[a]ny other information which the regulatory authority
may require regarding known or unknown historic or archeological
resources' (emphasis added for comparison). Wyoming did not explain its
use of the word ``possible'' in contrast to the term ``unknown'' used
in the Federal regulation.
Neither Black's Law Dictionary nor the regulations at 36 CFR part
800 et seq. define the adjectives ``possible'' or ``unknown.''
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the adjective
``unknown'' as--
[n]ot known or not well-known; also: having an unknown value.
On the other hand, Webster's defines the adjective ``possible''
as--
1 a: being within the limits of ability, capacity, or
realization b: being what may be done or may occur according to
nature, custom, or manners 2 a : being something that may or may not
occur b : being something that may or may not be true or actual 3 :
having an indicated potential.
In its explanation of synonyms for ``possible,'' Webster's adds
that--
POSSIBLE implies that a thing may certainly exist or occur given
the proper conditions * * *.
In the preamble to the final rule Federal Register publishing the
regulations at 30 CFR 772.12 (52 FR 4244; February 10, 1987) we said
``[s]everal commenters stated that they do not believe that OSMRE has
any authority to require information on unknown archeological sites.''
In response, we acknowledged that ``[s]ection 772.12(b) does not
require submission of information on unknown archeological sites.'' We
continued by saying--
[r]ather, OSMRE is making explicit that the regulatory authority
has the discretion to require such information, should the
regulatory authority need the information to make informed decisions
in the public interest concerning important historic properties that
may be disturbed by coal exploration activities. The basis for such
authority is the same as for requiring information on historic
resources in the permitting process, discussed in the preceding
portion of this preamble (Id., at 4256).
In the preamble's discussion of our authority to require
information on historic and archeological resources in the permitting
process, as referenced in the quotation above, we said--
[c]onsideration of the effects of surface coal mining operations
extends both to know[n] [sic] resources and to situations where a
well reasoned conclusion has been reached that there may be
resources which are likely to be impacted, as well as to properties
listed on, and those eligible for listing on, the National Register
of Historic Properties.
The foregoing explanation reveals consistency between use of the
terms ``unknown'' and ``possible'' in the Federal regulation and
proposed State rule, respectively. The preamble's explanation of the
Federal regulation characterizes ``unknown'' resources as ``situations
where a well reasoned conclusion has been reached that there may be
resources which are likely to be impacted * * *.'' Wyoming's use of the
term ``possible'' is not inconsistent with the Federal regulation's
corresponding use of the term ``unknown'' in view of Webster's
definition of ``possible'' as ``being what may be done or may occur
according to nature, custom, or manners'' and its explanation that
``possible'' ``* * * implies a thing may certainly exist or occur given
the proper conditions.''
As we explained in the 1987 final rule (Id.) , the Federal
regulation does not require operators to submit information about
``unknown'' resources but gives regulatory authorities the discretion
to require such information if they need it. In effect, Wyoming's
proposed rule gives it the authority to require additional information
about historic and archeological resources if needed and the discretion
to require it for known resources and ``possible'' others that might
exist but are not definitely known to exist. As such, we find the
State's proposed rule at Chapter 10, recodified section 2(b)(vii) is
not inconsistent with, and is no less effective than, the counterpart
Federal regulation and can be approved. We also are removing the
required amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(w).
2. Restrictions on Disturbing Certain Critical, Crucial, and Important
Habitats During Exploration
Wyoming's proposed rule at Chapter 10, section 4(e) of its coal
rules would prohibit disturbing critical habitat for listed threatened
and endangered species during exploration. It also would prohibit
disturbing crucial or important wildlife habitat during exploration
without written evidence of consultation with the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department, including any resulting recommendations. The counterpart
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 815.15(a) prohibits disturbing unique or
unusually high value habitats for fish, wildlife, and other related
environmental values and critical habitats for threatened and
endangered species during exploration. The State rule pertains to
listed threatened and endangered species; the counterpart Federal
regulation refers only to threatened and endangered species.
Wyoming defines the terms ``crucial habitat'' and ``important
habitat'' in its rules. We approved Wyoming's definitions of those two
terms in the August 6, 1996, Federal Register for amendment WY-022-FOR
(61 FR 40735). In that approval, we noted that Wyoming's definition of
``important habitat'' coincides with ``habitats of unusually high value
for fish [and] wildlife'' as described further in 30 CFR
780.16(a)(2)(ii) (Id., at 40737). It also is consistent with the
wording of the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 815.15(a) for
the rule being revised at section 4(e) of Chapter 10 of the State's
rules. In the 1996 approval (Id.), we found Wyoming's definitions of
``important habitat'' and ``crucial habitat'' were not inconsistent
with the surface mining permit application regulations at 30 CFR
780.16(a) and (b) and the performance standards at 816.97(f). There are
no counterpart provisions in the Federal regulations for the term
``crucial habitat.''
In the same August 6, 1996, Federal Register (Id.), we required
Wyoming to revise section 4(e) of Chapter 10. The required amendment is
found at 30 CFR 950.16(ll). As proposed then in amendment WY-022-FOR,
section 4(e) would have allowed coal exploration operations to disturb
important habitat after consultation with the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department while prohibiting disturbance to critical and crucial
habitat. Because ``important habitat'' in Wyoming's rules is analogous
to ``habitats of unique or unusually high value for fish [and]
wildlife'' as used in the Federal regulations and because the Federal
regulations prohibit disturbance of unusually high value habitats, we
found Wyoming's proposed rule was less effective than the counterpart
Federal regulation because it allowed coal exploration to disturb
important habitat based on consultation with the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department.
In a letter dated April 8, 1997 (Administrative Record number WY-
37-13), Wyoming noted its ongoing efforts to reword section 4(e) of
Chapter 10 to comply with the required amendment. The State asked us
for
[[Page 16948]]
guidance and flexibility in interpreting the prohibition on disturbance
required at 30 CFR 815.15(a). We responded to Wyoming's request for
guidance in a letter dated September 7, 2000 (Administrative Record
number WY-37-14) after discussing the issue with the State on a number
of occasions. In that letter, we acknowledged the Federal regulation's
prohibition of exploration disturbance on habitats of unique or
unusually high value for fish, wildlife, and related environmental
values, and by analogy, on important habitats in Wyoming. However, we
suggested the following alternative:
For coal exploration on ``important habitat'' or ``crucial
habitat'' the State may wish to consider a proposed amendment that
requires the same consultation process with State and Federal
agencies responsible for fish and wildlife as those required by
permanent regulatory program surface coal mining activities and
reclamation plans (30 CFR 780.16, 816.97 and the State
counterparts). We would consider this alternative to be consistent
with and no less effective in meeting the intent of SMCRA.
As proposed, Wyoming's exploration performance standard at section
4(e) of Chapter 10 responds to the required amendment as follows:
Critical habitats of listed threatened or endangered species
identified pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) shall not be disturbed during coal exploration.
Crucial or important habitat for wildlife shall not be disturbed
during coal exploration unless written evidence of consultation with
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and any resulting
recommendations are submitted to the Administrator as part of either
a coal exploration license or notice of intent to explore
application.
Wyoming explained in its amendment how its proposed rule addresses
the approval criterion we established in the September 7, 2000, letter.
The State explained that--
* * * as is currently required prior to approving any coal
permit, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department reviews the permit
application and their recommendations for minimizing the impacts to
wildlife and their habitats are considered and integrated into the
Mine and Reclamation Plan of that permit. A similar process would be
necessary as part of any [Land Quality Division] approval of a
Notice of Intent to Explore or a Coal Exploration License.
Therefore, this proposed rule amendment is maintaining the current
requirement that important habitat can only be disturbed after
consultation with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, but is
extending this flexibility to crucial habitats which had previously
been off limits to coal exploration.
We reviewed Wyoming's surface coal mining provisions for
consultation on fish and wildlife issues in context of the criterion
established in our September 7, 2000, letter. The State's approved
counterparts to the Federal regulations for permit application
requirements and consultation at 30 CFR 780.16(a) and (a)(1) are found
at Chapter 2, sections 2(a)(vi)(C)(III), (G), (G)(I), (II), and (III).
Its approved counterparts to the Federal regulations for permit
application requirements at 30 CFR 780.16(a)(2)(i) and (ii) and
780.16(b) are found at Chapter 2, sections 2(b)(vi), (vi)(B) and
(vi)(C). Chapter 4, section 2(r) of Wyoming's rules includes the
State's previously-approved counterparts to the Federal performance
standards for surface coal mining at 30 CFR 816.97(a) and (b).
Chapter 10 of Wyoming's exploration rules includes requirements
pertaining to endangered and threatened species as well. Section
2(b)(v) of Wyoming's coal exploration rules is the State's previously-
approved counterpart to the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 772.12(b)(9).
The State's rule requires applications for exploration of more than 250
tons or in areas designated as unsuitable to include a description of
any endangered or threatened species listed under the Endangered
Species Act that are in the proposed exploration area. Further, section
2(b)(vi) requires a map showing the areas of land to be disturbed by
proposed exploration and reclamation, including the location of
critical habitats of any endangered or threatened species listed
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Its Federal counterpart is
found at 30 CFR 772.12(b)(12).
Proposed section 4(e) does not repeat the various fish and wildlife
consultation provisions that appear throughout the State's regulations
for surface coal mining. However, it requires written evidence of
consultation with the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish and the
results of that consultation to be submitted to the State as a
prerequisite to disturbing important or crucial habitat during coal
exploration. Wyoming's explanation for proposed section 4(e) said it
would require a process similar to that for mine permit applications.
Such a process would require the Game and Fish Department's review of
applications for exploration that would disturb important or crucial
habitat, consider its recommendations for minimizing impacts to
wildlife and their habitats, and integrate its recommendations into any
approval of a Notice of Intent to Explore or a Coal Exploration
License. Those procedures are not explicit in Wyoming's proposed
wording of section 4(e). We interpret proposed section 4(e) as
requiring persons who explore for coal in crucial and important
habitats to submit to the Land Quality Division the recommendations
that resulted from their consultation with the Wyoming Department of
Game and Fish and to fully comply with those recommendations. We
interpret and therefore accept Wyoming's explanation as a commitment to
providing the described level of protection for important and crucial
habitat during exploration, and will verify its implementation during
our oversight of the State's regulatory program.
Though proposed section 4(e) also does not explicitly require
consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Service), it
prohibits disturbing critical habitat for listed threatened and
endangered species. Moreover, section 2(b)(v) of the State's
exploration rules requires a description of any listed endangered or
threatened species in the proposed exploration area, and section
2(b)(vi) requires a map showing areas to be disturbed by exploration
and reclamation, including the location of critical habitats of any
listed endangered or threatened species. We recognized in our August 6,
1996, approval of amendment WY-022-FOR (Id., at 40741) that the Service
is responsible for listing, recovery, administration, and prohibitions
associated with threatened and endangered species designated under the
Endangered Species Act. As such, the Service is the primary repository
of information compiled for threatened and endangered species and their
critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act. Our experience
shows that the Service either disseminates such information directly to
State regulatory authorities upon request or indirectly through States'
wildlife / fish and game agencies. We interpret the proposed wording of
Wyoming's section 4(e), as well as sections 2(b)(v) and (b)(vi) of its
Chapter 10 exploration rules, to imply direct or indirect consultation
with the Service as a result of requiring information pertaining to
listed threatened and endangered species and critical habitats.
Wyoming applied proposed section 4(e)'s prohibition of disturbance
to critical habitats to such habitats of threatened and endangered
species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The State explained in
its amendment that it added the word ``listed'' to the rule ``* * * in
order to add specificity and to be consistent with the language in the
rest of the chapter * * *.'' The distinction is that such a
[[Page 16949]]
prohibition would not apply to species that are proposed for listing
but are not yet listed. As Wyoming noted, proposed section 4(e) is
consistent with the previously-approved wording of sections 2(b)(v) and
2(b)(vi) of Chapter 10, described above, which pertain to threatened
and endangered species and critical habitats, respectively, listed
under the Endangered Species Act. Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires the Secretary of the
Interior to determine if species within his or her program
responsibilities are threatened or endangered based on certain factors,
and section 4(c) requires the publication of a list of such species.
Also, section 4(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act requires the
Secretary to designate critical habitat of species concurrently when
determining the same species to be threatened or endangered. The
Endangered Species Act's requirement to designate critical habitats
applies only to those species determined to be threatened and
endangered (i.e., listed species), not to species only proposed for
listing. Wyoming's qualification of its proposed rule's prohibition on
disturbing critical habitats of listed threatened and endangered
species is not inconsistent with that limitation of the Endangered
Species Act. The State's proposed addition of the ``listed'' qualifier
also is not inconsistent with the counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 815.15(a), which similarly prohibits exploration operations from
disturbing critical habitats of threatened or endangered species
``identified pursuant to the Endangered Species Act * * *.''
Based on the foregoing discussions, we find Wyoming's proposed
Chapter 10, section 4(e) to be in accordance with SMCRA and consistent
with the Federal regulations. We also find it satisfies the required
amendment at 30 CFR 950.16(ll). Accordingly, we approve proposed
section 4(e) and remove the required amendment.
3. Requirement To Obtain a Permit To Conduct Surface Coal Mining
Operations If Coal Extracted During Exploration Will Be Commercially
Used or Sold
Our 30 CFR part 732 (Part 732) letter dated September 21, 1990,
notified Wyoming of the need to change its rules in response to changes
in the Federal regulations for coal exploration. Item F-4 of that
letter addressed 30 CFR 772.14(a). We said --
[t]his Federal rule has been expanded to apply to both
commercial use and sale of coal. Thus, except as provided under 30
CFR 772.14(b) and 700.11(a)(5), any person who intends to
commercially use or sell coal extracted under an exploration permit
must first obtain a surface coal mining and reclamation operations
permit. Since Wyoming's rules restrict commercial sale but not
commercial use, the program will need to be revised to include
commercial use restrictions no less effective than those of the
Federal rule.
Wyoming proposes a number of changes in response to our letter.
First, it proposes to revise its definition of ``coal exploration'' at
Chapter 1, section 2(l) of its rules by removing the sentence that
reads ``[i]f this activity results in the extraction of coal, the coal
shall not be offered for commercial sale (except for test burns) * *
*.'' That change makes Wyoming's proposed definition substantively
identical to the Federal definition at 30 CFR 701.5, and is included in
our finding at Part III.B of this final rule.
The State also proposes to add new rules at section 8 of Chapter 10
for coal exploration. Proposed section 8(a) would require any person
who intends to commercially use or sell coal extracted during coal
exploration operations under an exploration license to first obtain a
permit to conduct surface coal mining operations, except as provided
under proposed section (8)(b). Wyoming's proposed rule contains the
required restrictions on commercial use and sale of coal as described
in our Part 732 letter and contained in the Federal regulation.
Referenced, proposed section 8(b) provides that, with the
Administrator's prior written permission, no permit to mine is required
for the sale or commercial use of coal extracted during exploration if
such sale or use is for coal testing purposes only. It also describes
the application that must be filed with, and approved by, the
Administrator as a basis for waiving the permit requirement.
Referenced, proposed section 8(b) is Wyoming's counterpart to 30 CFR
772.14(b) and is substantively identical to that Federal regulation. We
included it in our finding at Part III.B of this final rule.
As proposed, section 8(a) is similar to counterpart 30 CFR
772.14(a) with one significant difference. The Wyoming rule provides
one exception to the requirement to obtain a mine permit if coal
extracted during exploration is to be commercially used or sold; the
Federal regulation provides two exceptions. The exception provided in
Wyoming's rules is referenced section 8(b), described above, and is the
same as the first exception provided by the Federal regulation at
referenced 30 CFR 772.14(b). The second exception provided by the
Federal regulation is referenced 30 CFR 700.11(a)(5), which has no
counterpart in Wyoming's proposed rule. Under that regulation, Chapter
VII of Title 30 does not apply to exploration on lands subject to the
requirements of 43 CFR parts 3480--3487. Those referenced regulations
govern operations for the exploration, development, and production of
Federal coal under Federal coal leases, licenses, and permits. As
authorized by 43 CFR 3480.0-6(b), the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issues exploration licenses for
unleased Federal coal and supervises exploration operations for Federal
coal.
Wyoming noted in its amendment that it is required by State statute
to oversee coal exploration on all lands within Wyoming regardless of
the ownership of the coal. The State referred to three sections of the
Wyoming Environmental Quality Act to support its position that its rule
must apply to all lands within the State's borders. Section 35-11-
404(a) addresses closure of all drill holes ``on all lands within the
State of Wyoming * * *.'' Section 35-11-404(j) requires notice to be
filed with the Administrator before drilling ``on lands within the
state of Wyoming * * *.'' Third, section 35-11-414(a) requires anyone
who wants to ``engage in mineral exploration * * *'' to apply to the
Administrator for a special license.
We find Wyoming's proposed section 8(a) of Chapter 10 to be no less
effective than counterpart 30 CFR 772.14(a) based on restricting the
commercial sale and use of coal extracted during exploration as
required by item F-4 in the September 21, 1990, Part 732 letter, and
can be approved. We also recognize that proposed section 8(a) reflects
Wyoming's assertion of jurisdiction over all coal exploration on lands
within the State's borders. Including exploration for Federal coal
within the scope of Wyoming's proposed rule does not make it less
effective than the Federal regulations because the State's rule applies
as needed to exploration for non-Federal coal and the commercial use
and sale of that coal. Though we recognize Wyoming asserts jurisdiction
over all exploration within the State, we make no determination on that
point and expect Wyoming and persons seeking permits to explore for
Federal coal to abide by the regulations at 43 CFR part 3480 et seq.
[[Page 16950]]
D. Revisions to Wyoming's Rules With No Corresponding Federal
Regulations
1. Definition of ``Soft Rock Surface Mining''
Wyoming explained that the definition of ``soft rock surface
mining'' was to have been deleted from its coal rules when the State
separated its coal and noncoal rules in 1994. That is a reference to
OSM's approval of amendment WY-016-FOR in the March 30, 1994, Federal
Register (59 FR 14750). The State noted that, though the definition of
``soft rock surface mining'' includes coal mining, it ``* * * should
not have been incorporated into the Coal-Only set of rules * * *.''
Wyoming added that, ``* * * because the Coal rules pertain only to coal
mining, there is no reason to maintain a definition that also lists
other minerals.''
In the March 30, 1994, Federal Register approving amendment WY-016-
FOR, (id.), OSM recognized that Wyoming submitted that amendment ``* *
* as part of a State effort to eliminate the confusion that was
inherent in regulatory rules that applied to two separate and distinct
programs, i.e. the regulation of coal and noncoal mining operations.''
OSM further noted that ``[t]he proposed reorganized rule package is
intended to facilitate a better understanding of and increased
compliance with Wyoming's statutes and rules, and with SMCRA.''
Wyoming's removal of the definition at Chapter 1, section 2(ce)
further clarifies that its coal rules pertain only to coal mining. We
find the proposed change does not make the State's coal rules less
effective than the Federal regulations and, therefore, we can approve
it.
2. Backfilling and Grading Requirements for Soft Rock Surface Mining,
Including Highwall Retention
Wyoming explained that it proposed to remove sections 2(b)(ix),
2(b)(ix)(A), (B), (C), and (D) from Chapter 4 of its coal rules because
section 2(b)(ix) was inadvertently ``* * * carried over when the coal
and noncoal rules were divided into separate rules.'' The State added
that, ``[w]hen the rules were separated in 1994, the rules pertaining
to soft rock mining should not have been incorporated into the Coal-
Only set of rules.'' Amendment WY-016-FOR, which we approved in the
March 30, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 14750), separated most of the
State's coal and noncoal regulations by removing most ``soft rock
surface mining'' provisions from the State's coal rules. The rules
cited above survived that separation, and Wyoming now proposes to
correct that oversight by removing them in amendment WY-032-FOR. Also,
the State explained that the ``* * * language [of section 2(b)(ix)(A)]
was redundant to other sections of the Coal rules.''
In a letter dated December 20, 1993 (Administrative Record number
WY-20-26), responding to our concerns for amendment WY-016-FOR, the
State agreed to delete section 2(b)(ix) of Chapter 4 to remove language
pertaining to ``bluffs,'' which we considered a form of retained
highwalls. Because section 2(b)(ix) is only the heading ``Soft rock
surface mining,'' Wyoming's reference to it can be interpreted to
include subsections A, B, C, and D as well, though subsection D
specifically addresses highwall retention, not bluffs. We referred to
Wyoming's removal of section 2(b)(ix) in our approval of amendment WY-
016-FOR when its subsections included provisions for bluff retention as
a form of highwall retention that we never approved (Id., at 14751).
Sections 2(b)(ix), 2(b)(ix)(A), (B), and (C) included backfilling
and grading performance standards for ``soft rock surface mining''
operations that do, or do not, plan to leave permanent impoundments and
for those that wish to construct terraces or benches. Similar
provisions appear in Wyoming's rules at Chapter 8, sections 4(a)(v),
(vi), and (vii) for special bituminous surface coal mines and in the
permit application requirements at Chapter 2, sections 2(b)(i)(D)(IV)
and 2(b)(iv)(B). There are no direct counterpart provisions in the
Federal regulations though 30 CFR 816.102 includes similar provisions
concerning general backfilling and grading and 30 CFR 816.49(10)
addresses underwater highwalls in permanent impoundments. Removal of
these provisions, given Wyoming's assertion that they only pertain to
noncoal mining, does not make the State's rules less effective than the
Federal regulations. Accordingly, we can approve Wyoming's removal of
sections 2(b)(ix), 2(b)(ix)(A), 2(b)(ix)(B), and 2(b)(ix)(C) from
Chapter 4 of its coal rules.
Though Wyoming noted that its highwall retention rule at Chapter 4,
section 2(b)(ix)(D) is among those pertaining to ``soft rock surface
mining'' that should be removed to complete its separation of coal and
noncoal rules, instead it proposed to partly delete that rule and
partly revise it. Wyoming explained that it wants to ``* * * make a
clear statement that [it] supports the retention of highwalls to
enhance and diversify reclamation as allowed by the current coal
program.'' The rule currently reads--
[h]ighwall retention may be considered on a case-by-case basis
for enhanced wildlife habitat. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department
shall be consulted by the applicant for need and design of the land
form. Any approval under this paragraph shall be based on a
demonstration of safety, stability, environmental protection, and
equal or better land use considerations.
Wyoming's proposed rule would read--
[h]ighwall retention may be considered on a case-by-case basis
to enhance wildlife habitat as replacement for natural features that
were eliminated by mining.
In the amendment's statement of reasons, Wyoming recognized the
differences between its proposed rule, the Federal regulations, and the
highwall retention provision we approved as part of the New Mexico
regulatory program. It also said a future State rule amendment package
would address those differences.
Section 515(b)(3) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 816.102(a)(2) require
highwalls to be eliminated to achieve approximate original contour
(AOC), with an exception for previously mined areas. As Wyoming noted
in its amendment, however, we previously approved a highwall retention
provision in New Mexico's rules (45 FR 86458; December 31, 1980). The
approved New Mexico provision is an alternative approach to restoring
mined land to its approximate original contour, in contrast to a
provision that would allow a variance from AOC. It also imposes
specific criteria for retained highwalls. Those criteria address: The
static safety factor; overall highwall safety; backfilling to cover
coal seams; allowable length of retained highwalls; the need to replace
pre-existing cliff-type habitat and contouring the ends of highwalls;
and a requirement for State approval to retain highwalls. By requiring
an operator to demonstrate that retained highwalls will meet all six
criteria of New Mexico's rule, thereby showing they closely resemble
premining features, we concluded that--
[s]uch retention in these instances actually reflects the intent
of ``approximate original contour'' since these features were part
of the natural pre-mined landscape. In all other cases, the highwall
must be eliminated according to 30 CFR 816.102 (id., at 86464).
Based on the criteria New Mexico imposed for retained highwalls, as
conditioned in the approval, we found the State's ``* * * alternative
to be in accordance with the provisions of SMCRA and consistent with
the regulations in 30 CFR Chapter VII.''
[[Page 16951]]
In our disapproval of the rule Wyoming proposed in 1988 to allow
highwall retention by recreating ``bluffs'' (54 FR 52958; December 26,
1989), we asserted that--
[w]here the two requirements [achieving AOC and eliminating
highwalls] are in conflict, i.e., where the premining topography
includes sheer cliffs or bluffs, as is common in New Mexico's San
Juan Basin, the Secretary previously determined that highwalls could
be retained only to the extent that they closely resemble premining
features in both form and function * * * (Finding 4(b), 45 FR 86464,
December 31, 1980).
Our review of Wyoming's proposed section 2(b)(ix)(D) finds that it
is not specific enough with respect to the criteria retained highwalls
must meet as an alternative approach to achieving AOC. As proposed, the
rule would provide for highwall retention on a case-by-case basis to
enhance wildlife habitat as replacement for natural features that were
eliminated by mining. In comparison with the New Mexico provision that
Wyoming refers to in its amendment, the proposed rule addresses one
criterion for allowing highwall retention: Retained highwalls would
replace pre-existing natural features. However, the proposed rule does
not address other criteria that would require retained highwalls to
closely resemble premining features in form and function.
To approve Wyoming's proposed alternative approach to achieving AOC
by retaining highwalls, we must find that the proposed rule is in
accordance with the provisions of SMCRA and consistent with the
requirements of the Federal regulations at Chapter VII of the Title 30
regulations, as required by the reference at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(10) to
732.15. As defined at 30 CFR 730.5, ``consistent with'' and ``in
accordance with'' mean, respectively:
(a) With regard to [SMCRA], the State laws and regulations are
no less stringent than, meet the minimum requirements of and include
all applicable provisions of [SMCRA].
(b) With regard to the Secretary's regulations, the State laws
and regulations are no less effective than the Secretary's
regulations in meeting the requirements of [SMCRA].
Absent more specific criteria for retained highwalls to meet,
Wyoming's proposed rule does not impose requirements similar to those
of 30 CFR 816.102 for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of
reclamation in achieving AOC. As such, it is not in accordance with the
requirements of SMCRA and is not consistent with the Federal
regulations.
In a letter dated August 11, 2004, we notified Wyoming of our
concern with the proposed highwall retention rule at section
2(b)(ix)(D) of Chapter 4 (Administrative Record number WY-37-11). As
noted above, Wyoming's amendment recognized the differences between the
proposed rule, the Federal regulations, and New Mexico's approved
highwall retention regulation. It also said the State would submit
another amendment to continue addressing those differences. Given those
statements, we said in our August 11, 2004, letter that we were
uncertain how to proceed with the amended highwall retention rule and
are unlikely to approve it as proposed. We suggested that Wyoming
provide a letter with specific rule language that would further explain
how the State will further consider highwall retention, including
provisions similar to those we approved for New Mexico. We added that
we could defer a decision on the proposed highwall retention rule in
amendment WY-032-FOR instead of disapproving it if the letter described
Wyoming's future rulemaking and a timetable for submitting another
amendment.
Wyoming responded to our August 22, 2004, letter, by submitting
Coal Rule Package 1-T, dated August 30, 2004 (Administrative Record
number WY-37-12). That submittal patterns additional proposed changes
after provisions we approved as part of the New Mexico and Utah
regulatory programs. However, the transmittal letter says several
months might pass before the State's internal rulemaking can proceed to
the next step, ``* * * which is to require a hearing before the
Environmental Quality Council (EQC) * * *'' on changes proposed in Coal
Rule Package 1(T). Because the EQC has yet to make the final
determination of how Wyoming's rule will be worded, at this time we
cannot consider the State's August 30, 2004, submittal to be the final
version of the proposed revision to the highwall retention rule. We
therefore defer making a decision on proposed Chapter 4, section
2(b)(ix)(D) until the State completes its internal rulemaking.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
A. Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative
Record number WY-37-10), but did not receive any.
B. 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 Wyoming program (Administrative
Record number WY-37-06).
1. U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Comments
The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA), responded to our request for comments in a letter dated July
15, 2004 (Administrative Record number WY-37-09). MSHA stated that it
did not find anything in the proposed amendment that would conflict
with its regulations or policies.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Comments
We also received comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) in a letter dated July 15, 2004 (Administrative Record number
WY-37-08). The Service found the proposed changes ``increased clarity
of some sections of the program direction.''
The Service also expressed concern that the proposed amendment
might lead to increased use of undesirable grading and contouring of
disturbed areas and a decreased use of highwall retention around
permanent ponds. More specifically, the Service commented that--
* * * it is unclear why soft rock surface mining; terraces or
benches; sloping, grading or contouring or proposed pit areas for
permanent water impoundments; and highwall retention are being
dropped from the program direction.
The Service's comment refers to Wyoming's proposed removal of the
rules at Chapter 4, section 2(b)(ix), (ix)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
Regarding the proposed removal of section 2(b)(ix)(A) and (B), the
Service commented that eliminating those provisions--
[w]ill lead to an increase in the use of terraces and benches to
recontour disturbed areas. The Service strongly recommends, to the
greatest extent possible, that all mining reclamation reestablish
areas to the original contour.
As we explained in our finding at Part III.D.2 of this final rule,
Wyoming explained that it proposed to remove sections 2(b)(ix),
2(b)(ix)(A), (B), (C), and (D) from Chapter 4 of its coal rules because
those rules were inadvertently ``carried over when the coal and noncoal
rules were divided into separate rules * * *.'' We previously approved
Wyoming's separation of most
[[Page 16952]]
of its coal and noncoal rules on March 30, 1994, in amendment WY-016-
FOR (59 FR 14750). The rules cited in the Service's comment survived
that separation, and Wyoming now proposes to remove them in amendment
WY-032-FOR. Wyoming also explained that the provisions of section
2(b)(ix)(A) were repeated elsewhere in the coal rules and asserted that
2(b)(ix), (ix)(A), (B), (C), and (D) do not belong in its coal-only
rules.
In our approval of amendment WY-016-FOR, we recognized the State's
effort to eliminate the confusion inherent to rules that applied to two
separate and distinct programs (coal and noncoal mining). We further
noted that separating the coal and noncoal rules is ``* * * intended to
facilitate a better understanding of and increased compliance with
Wyoming's statutes and rules, and with SMCRA.''
We also believe the Service's comment misinterprets section
2(b)(ix)(B). This rule allows use of terraces or benches ``* * * only
when it can be shown to the Administrator's satisfaction that other
methods of contouring will not provide the required result * * *''
(emphasis added). As written, it provides a limited exception to the
requirement to backfill and grade to approximate original contour
(``the required result''). By removing this rule, Wyoming will reduce
those circumstances under which terraces and benches can be used in
final reclamation.
Similar reasoning applies to the Service's comment concerning
section 2(b)(ix)(C). General performance standards for sloping,
grading, and contouring to blend in with the topography (i.e., AOC) and
to control erosion similar to those imposed by this rule appear in
other sections of Chapter 4 of Wyoming's coal rules. The remaining part
of the rule provides for certain circumstances in which partial
pitwalls may be left intact above water along the shoreline of
permanent impoundments. This provision actually conflicts with the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.49(10). That regulation requires the
vertical portion of any remaining highwall ``* * * to be located far
enough below the low-water line along the full extent of the highwall
to provide adequate safety and access for the proposed water users * *
*'' at temporary and permanent impoundments. By removing section
2(b)(ix)(C), Wyoming will reduce the circumstances under which
highwalls may be left intact where they were not part of the premining
landscape and also eliminate a conflict with Federal provisions for
reclaiming to AOC.
Conversely, the Service expressed concern in another comment that
Wyoming's proposed removal of section 2(b)(ix)(D) would lead to a
decrease in highwall retention around permanent ponds. It stated that
retained highwalls are ``* * * highly beneficial to wildlife,
especially raptors, by providing nesting structure.'' Wyoming explained
that it proposes to remove section 2(b)(ix)(D) along with other rules
that pertain to ``soft rock surface mining'' in an effort to separate
its coal rules from its noncoal rules. Further, while we agree in
principle with the Service about highwalls' potential benefit, we
cannot waive the requirement of SMCRA and the Federal regulations to
reclaim mined lands to AOC on that basis. We are unlikely to approve
the proposed revision as written because it provides an exemption from
reclaiming mined lands to AOC that is not in accordance with section
515(b)(3) of SMCRA and consistent with 30 CFR 816.102(a)(1) and (2).
The only exceptions to the AOC requirement are cases involving steep
slopes or previously mined areas, and Wyoming's proposed rule does not
fit either situation.
On the other hand, Wyoming is considering further revisions to
proposed section 2(b)(ix)(D) in an effort to develop an alternative
approach to achieving AOC that would allow highwall retention in
certain cases. As we discussed in our finding at Part III.D.2 of this
final rule, the State submitted Coal Rule Package 1-T in response to
our August 11, 2004, concern letter. That package proposed to further
revise section 2(b)(ix)(D) to include provisions similar to those we
approved as part of the New Mexico and Utah regulatory programs for
retaining highwalls where similar features existed in the pre-mine
landscape and where the retained highwalls were very similar to the
pre-existing features in form and function. We recognize Wyoming's
review process is ongoing for this proposed rule and defer our decision
on it until we know the final form it will take.
The Service also expressed concern that Wyoming's proposed change
to section 4(e) of Chapter 10 would lessen protection of crucial
wildlife habitats during coal exploration. It added that the State
should also promote the protection of ``other important habitats''
during coal exploration. The proposed rule would prohibit disturbing
crucial and important habitat during coal exploration ``* * * unless
written evidence of consultation with the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department and any resulting recommendations are submitted to the
Administrator as part of either a coal exploration license or notice of
intent to explore application.'' In part III.C.2 of this final rule, we
described an alternative we suggested Wyoming consider in response to
the State's request for guidance and flexibility in interpreting the
prohibition on disturbance required at 30 CFR 815.15(a). Specifically,
we suggested that Wyoming consider requiring the same consultation
process with State and Federal agencies for coal exploration on
important or crucial habitat that it requires of surface coal mining
activities and reclamation plans. We agreed that we would consider such
an alternative to be consistent with and no less effective in meeting
the intent of SMCRA. Our finding at Part III.C.2 of this final rule
describes how we interpret Wyoming's proposed rule and additional
explanation as a commitment to providing the same level of protection
for important or crucial habitat during exploration as its rules
require for surface coal mining and reclamation operations. As we
stated in our finding, we will verify Wyoming's consultation during our
oversight of its regulatory program.
3. 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 Wyoming proposed to make in this
amendment pertains to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did
not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. Nevertheless, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested EPA's comments on the amendment in a
letter dated May 27, 2004 (Administrative Record number WY-37-05). EPA
did not respond to our request.
C. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. In a letter dated May 27, 2004, we requested comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on Wyoming's amendment (Administrative Record numbers
WY-37-03 and WY-37-04, respectively), but neither responded to our
request.
[[Page 16953]]
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve Wyoming's May 21, 2004,
amendment with one exception as noted below.
We defer making a decision on proposed section 2(b)(ix)(D),
highwall retention, as discussed in finding number III.D.2.
We approve, as discussed in: finding III.A, Chapter 10, sections
2(b)(vi), (vii), (x), and (xi), application requirements for
exploration of more than 250 tons or in an area designated unsuitable
for mining; finding III.B., Chapter 1, section 2(l), revising the
definition of ``coal exploration;'' Chapter 4, section 2(b)(iv)(A),
using small depressions; Chapter 10, sections 1 and 1(b)(iii), general
requirements for coal exploration of 250 tons or less, including
recodification; Chapter 10, sections 2(b), (b)(i), (ii), and (iii),
(b)(iv), (vi), and (v), general requirements for coal exploration of
more than 250 tons or in an area designated as unsuitable for mining,
including recodification; Chapter 10, section 2(b)(ix), measures used
so exploration of more than 250 tons or in areas designated unsuitable
for mining complies with exploration performance standards, including
recodification; Chapter 10, section 3(b), administrative and judicial
review for anyone adversely affected by decisions on coal exploration
applications; Chapter 10, section 8, section heading for commercial use
or sale of coal extracted under a coal exploration license; Chapter 10,
section 8(b), written approval to not require a mining permit for coal
exploration where commercial use or sale of coal is for testing only
and demonstrating the need for coal testing and the purpose for coal
extraction; Chapter 10, section 8(b)(i), requirement for the testing
firm name and coal testing locations; Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii),
requirement for a statement from the end user or agent or broker if
coal extracted during exploration is sold or commercially used and for
other information; Chapter 10, section 8(b)(ii)(A), requirement for the
statement to include the reason for coal testing; Chapter 10, section
8(b)(ii)(B), requirement for the statement to show the amount of coal
needed for testing and why a lesser amount is insufficient; Chapter 10,
section 8(b)(ii)(C), requirement for a description of the test to be
conducted; Chapter 10, section 8(b)(iii), requirement for evidence of
sufficient coal reserves; Chapter 10, section 8(b)(iv), requirement for
explanation why other means of exploration are not adequate to
determine coal quality and/or mining feasibility; in finding III.C.1,
Chapter 10, section 2(b)(vii), provision authorizing the State to
require exploration applications to include information regarding known
or possible historic or archeological resources; in finding III.C.2,
Chapter 10, section 4(e), prohibiting disturbance of critical habitat
during exploration, and disturbance of important or crucial habitat
during exploration without written evidence of consultation with the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department; in finding III.C.3, Chapter 10,
Section 8(a), requiring a permit to conduct surface coal mining
operations if coal extracted during construction will be commercially
used or sold, with one exception; in finding III.D.1, Chapter 1,
section 2(ce), removal of the definition of ``soft rock surface
mining;'' and in finding III.D.2, Chapter 4, sections 2(b)(ix),
(ix)(A), (B), and (C), removing backfilling and grading requirements
for soft rock surface mining.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 950, which codify decisions concerning the Wyoming
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.
Effect of OSM's Decision
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 us for review as a program
amendment. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit any
changes to approved State programs that we do not approve. In the
oversight of the Wyoming 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 the State to enforce only approved provisions.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based in part on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal
regulations. Some of the State provisions addressed in this final rule
have no counterpart Federal regulations. In those instances, we have
determined that there are no takings implications because we are
approving the State's removal of those provisions, which then no longer
apply to the regulated industry. In one instance, we are deferring our
decision on a State rule that has no Federal counterpart. There are no
takings implications in that instance either because 30 CFR 731.17(g)
prevents State laws and regulations from taking effect without our
approval; therefore, the provision has no 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 (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
[[Page 16954]]
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 expec