Missouri Regulatory Program, 33243-33249 [E6-8926]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
of this chapter, ‘‘San Antonio Valley’’ is
a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate
maps for determining the boundary of
the San Antonio Valley viticultural area
are ten United States Geological Survey
1:24,000 scale topographic maps. They
are titled:
(1) Hames Valley, California, 1949,
photorevised 1978;
(2) Tierra Redonda Mountain,
California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
(3) Bradley, California, 1949,
photorevised 1979;
(4) Bryson, California, 1949,
photorevised 1979;
(5) Williams Hill, California, 1949,
photorevised 1979;
(6) Jolon, California, 1949;
(7) Alder Peak, California, 1995;
(8) Bear Canyon, California, 1949,
photoinspected 1972;
(9) Cosio Knob, California, 1949,
photorevised 1984; and
(10) Espinosa Canyon, California,
1949, photorevised 1979.
(c) Boundary. The San Antonio Valley
viticultural area is located in Monterey
County, California. The boundary of the
San Antonio Valley viticultural area is
as described below:
(1) The beginning point is at the
southeast corner of section 14, T23S,
R9E, on the Hames Valley map;
(2) From the beginning point, proceed
southeast in a straight line for
approximately 5 miles across sections
24 and 25, T23S, R9E, and sections 30,
31, and 32, T23S, R10E, and section 5,
T24S, R10E, to the southeast corner of
section 5, on the Tierra Redonda
Mountain map; then
(3) Continue southeast in a straight
line for approximately 3.25 miles
through sections 9, 16, 15, and 22, T24S,
R10E, to the mid-point of the eastern
boundary of section 22 on the Bradley
map; then
(4) Proceed straight south for
approximately 2.5 miles along the
eastern boundary line of sections 22, 27,
and 34, T24S, R10E, to the MontereySan Luis Obispo County line; then
(5) Follow the Monterey-San Luis
Obispo County line west for
approximately 7.0 miles, back onto the
Tierra Redonda Mountain map, to the
southwest corner of section 34, T24S,
R9E; then
(6) Proceed northwest in a straight
line for approximately 17 miles,
crossing sections 33, 32, 29, 30, and 19,
T24S, R9E, and sections 24, 13, 14, 10,
9, and 4, T24S, R8E, on the Bryson map,
section 5, T24S, R8E in the southwest
corner of the Williams Hill map, section
32, T23S, and sections 23, 22, 15, and
16, T23S, R7E, on the Jolon map, to an
1,890-foot peak located approximately
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
2,100 feet west of section 8, T23S, R7E;
then
(7) Continue northwest in a straight
line for approximately 9 miles, crossing
the Alder Peak map between Milpitas
Grant and Stony Valley, and sections 9,
4, and 5, T22S, R6E, on the Bear Canyon
map, to a 2,713-foot peak located in
section 5, T22S, R6E; then
(8) Proceed east-northeast in a straight
line for approximately 3.9 miles,
passing onto the Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation and crossing the San
Antonio River, to a 2,449-foot peak on
the Hunter Liggett Military Reservation;
then
(9) Proceed northeast in a straight line
for approximately 2.5 miles, crossing
Mission Creek, across sections 30 and
29, T21S, R7E, on the Cosio Knob map
to the 2,530-foot peak of Cosio Knob;
then
(10) From Cosio Knob, proceed eastsoutheast in a straight line for
approximately 9.5 miles across sections
29, 28, 27, 26, 35, and 36, T21S, R7E,
sections 31 and 32, T21S, R8E, and
sections 5, 4, 3, and 2, T22S, R8E, on the
Espinosa Canyon map, to a 1,811-foot
peak located in section 2; then
(11) Proceed southeast in a straight
line for approximately 10.4 miles across
sections 2, 11, 12, and 13, T22S, R8E,
and sections 18 and 19, T22S, R9E, on
the Espinosa Canyon map, sections 19,
30, 29, 32, and 33, T22S, R9E, on the
northwest corner of the Williams Hill
map, and sections 4, 3, 10, 11, and 14,
T23S, R9E, on the Hames Valley map,
to the beginning point at the southeast
corner of section 14, T23S, R9E.
Signed: March 6, 2006.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: March 16, 2006.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. E6–8854 Filed 6–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 925
[Docket No. MO–038–FOR]
Missouri Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33243
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to
the Missouri regulatory program
(Missouri program) under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Previously
we substituted direct Federal
enforcement for portions of the Missouri
program. Missouri regained full
authority for its program on February 1,
2006. Missouri proposed to amend its
approved regulatory program and
submitted a temporary emergency
regulatory program rule (emergency
rule) to revise Missouri’s regulations
regarding bonding of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations. The
emergency rule will allow Missouri to
transition from a ‘‘bond pool’’ approach
to bonding to a ‘‘full cost bond’’
approach in a timely manner. Missouri
proposed to revise its program to
improve operational efficiency.
DATES:
Effective Date: June 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division. Telephone: (618) 463–6460.
E-mail: ifomail@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Missouri Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Missouri 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 Missouri
program on November 21, 1980. You
can find background information on the
Missouri program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval,
in the November 21, 1980, Federal
Register (45 FR 77017). You can also
find later actions concerning the
Missouri program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 925.10, 925.12,
925.15, and 925.16.
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
33244
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
II. Submission of the Amendment
Previously we substituted direct
Federal enforcement for portions of the
Missouri program. Missouri regained
full authority for its program on
February 1, 2006. By letter dated
October 31, 2005, Missouri submitted an
emergency rule to amend its approved
regulatory program under SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) (Administrative
Record No. MO–665). The purpose of
the emergency rule is to revise
Missouri’s regulations regarding
bonding of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations to allow
Missouri to transition from a ‘‘bond
pool’’ approach to bonding to a ‘‘full
cost bond’’ approach in a timely
manner. The amendment will also
improve operational efficiency. The
emergency rule became effective in
Missouri on January 1, 2006. Missouri
has indicated that, in the near future, it
will submit a permanent regulatory
program rule (permanent rule) regarding
its bonding regulations and that this
rule will contain regulatory language
that is substantially identical to the
language in this emergency rule. If
Missouri submits the permanent rule
with language that has the same
meaning as the emergency rule, we will
publish a final rule and Missouri’s
permanent rule will become part of the
Missouri program.
We announced receipt of the
amendment in the November 29, 2005,
Federal Register (70 FR 71425). In the
same document, we opened the public
comment period and provided an
opportunity for a public hearing or
meeting on the adequacy of the
amendment. We did not hold a public
hearing or meeting because no one
requested one. The public comment
period ended on December 29, 2005. We
did not receive any comments.
During our review of the amendment,
we identified concerns about types of
bonds, and criteria and schedule for
release of reclamation liability. We
notified Missouri of these concerns by
telephone and E-mail on November 23
and 29, 2005 (Administrative Record
Nos. MO–665.2, MO–665.3, and MO–
665.11), and on December 2 and 8, 2005
(Administrative Record Nos. MO–665.5
and MO–665.7).
Missouri responded by E-mail on
November 23, 2005, and December 21,
2005, by sending us a revised
amendment (Administrative Record
Nos. MO–665.2, MO–665.3, and
MO–665.10). Because the additional
information and/or revisions merely
clarified certain provisions of Missouri’s
amendment, we did not reopen the
public comment period.
III. OSM’s Findings
Following are the findings we made
concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment as described
below. Any revisions that we do not
specifically discuss below concern
nonsubstantive wording or editorial
changes.
A. Minor Revisions to Missouri’s
Regulations
Missouri’s definition for ‘‘regulatory
authority,’’ found at 10 CSR [Code of
State Regulations] 40–8.010(82), means
the Land Reclamation Commission
(commission), the director, or their
designated representatives and
employees unless otherwise specified in
the State’s rules. Missouri proposed to
replace the words ‘‘commission’’ or
‘‘regulatory authority’’ with the word
‘‘director’’ in the following regulations:
10 CSR 40–7.011(2)(A), (3)(C), (4)(B),
(6)(B)1., 5., 6., and 7., (6)(C)1. and 8.,
(6)(D)2., and (6)(D)2.B, 3.B, 3.B(I) and
5.C; and 10 CSR 40–7.041(1)(A), (B)1.
and (B)2. Missouri proposed to improve
operational efficiency by specifying that
the director is to perform certain duties.
We find that the substitution of the
word ‘‘director’’ for the words
‘‘commission’’ or ‘‘regulatory authority’’
will not render Missouri’s regulations
less effective than the Federal
regulations because in accordance with
Missouri’s definition for regulatory
authority, the director is a regulatory
authority as is the commission and the
certain duties specified in the
regulations cited above are not duties
reserved solely for the commission
according to section 444.810 of
Missouri’s surface coal mining law.
Therefore, we are approving these
revisions.
B. Revisions to Missouri’s Regulations
That Have the Same Meaning as the
Corresponding Provisions of the Federal
Regulations
The State regulations listed in the
table below contain language that is the
same as or similar to the corresponding
sections of the Federal regulations.
Topic
Missouri regulation (10 CSR)
Federal counterpart regulation (30 CFR)
Requirement to File a Bond ..............................
Bond Amounts ...................................................
Changing Bond Amounts ...................................
Personal Bonds Secured by Letters of Credit ...
Definition for ‘‘Parent Corporation’’ ....................
Self-Bonding ......................................................
40–7.011(2)(B) .................................................
40–7.011(4) ......................................................
40–7.011(5) ......................................................
40–7.011(6)(C)2. ..............................................
40–7.011(6)(D)1.F. ...........................................
40–7.011(6)(D)2., (6)(D)2.B., (6)(D)2.D.(I)
through (III), (6)(D)3., and (6)(D)6.
40–7.021(2)(B)5. and 6. ...................................
800.11(d).
800.14(a) and (b).
800.15.
800.21(b)(2).
800.23(a).
800.23(b), (b)(2), (b)(4)(i) through (iii), (c), and
(f).
800.40(c).
Personal bond means an indemnity
agreement in a sum certain executed by the
permittee as principal which is supported by
negotiable certificates of deposit or
irrevocable letters of credit which may be
drawn upon by the director if reclamation is
not completed or if the permit is revoked
prior to completion of reclamation.
more of the following: a cash account;
negotiable bonds of the United States, a
State, or municipality; negotiable
certificates of deposit; irrevocable letters
of credit; a perfected, first-lien security
interest in real property; or other
investment-grade rated securities having
a rating of AAA, AA, or A or an
equivalent rating issued by a nationally
recognized securities rating service. The
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.50
provides for the regulatory authority to
forfeit bonds and use funds collected
Criteria and schedule for release of reclamation liability.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Because the above State regulations
have the same meaning as the
corresponding Federal regulations, we
find that they are no less effective than
the Federal regulations.
C. 10 CSR 40–7.011
Requirements
Bond
1. 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)
Definitions
a. Missouri proposed to revise its
definition for personal bond in
paragraph (1)(C) to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
The Federal definition for collateral
bond found at 30 CFR 800.15(b) means
an indemnity agreement in a sum
certain executed by the permittee as
principal which is supported by one or
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
from bond forfeiture to complete the
reclamation plan or portion thereof, on
the permit area or increment to which
bond coverage applies.
Missouri has chosen to limit the
vehicles that support an indemnity
agreement to negotiable certificates of
deposit and irrevocable letters of credit.
Missouri also provides that the director
may use funds from personal bonds if
reclamation is not completed or if the
permit is revoked before the completion
of reclamation. We are, therefore,
approving Missouri’s definition for
personal bond because it is no less
effective than the above Federal
regulations.
b. Missouri proposed to revise its
definition for Phase I bond in paragraph
(1)(D) to read as follows:
Phase I bond means performance bond
conditioned on the release of sixty percent
(60%) of the bond upon the successful
completion of Phase I reclamation of a permit
area in accordance with the approved
reclamation plan.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
There is no Federal definition for
Phase I bond, however, the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(c) states
that the regulatory authority may release
all or part of the bond for the entire
permit area or incremental area if the
regulatory authority is satisfied that all
the reclamation or a phase of the
reclamation covered by the bond or
portion thereof has been accomplished
in accordance with specific schedules
for reclamation of Phases I, II, and III.
The schedule for Phase I reclamation,
found at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1), involves
the operator completing the backfilling,
re-grading (which may include the
replacement of topsoil), and drainage
control of a bonded area in accordance
with the approved reclamation plan.
When this schedule is complete, the
regulatory authority may release 60
percent of the bond. We are approving
Missouri’s definition for Phase I bond
because it is no less effective than the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.40(c)(1).
2. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6) Types of Bonds
a. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(A) Surety
bonds.
Missouri proposed to revise paragraph
(6)(A)8. regarding surety bonds. This
paragraph inappropriately refers to a
‘‘bank’’ or ‘‘bank charter’’ when the
subject matter of this paragraph pertains
to a surety company. Missouri proposed
to delete the language that refers to a
‘‘bank’’ or ‘‘bank charter.’’ Also,
Missouri proposed to correct the
incorrect reference citation, 10 CSR 40–
7.031(A)(6), so that it correctly reads 10
CSR 40–7.031(1)(F)2. We are approving
Missouri’s revisions regarding the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
deletion of the terms ‘‘bank’’ and ‘‘bank
charter’’ because they are
inappropriately included in this
paragraph that pertains only to surety
companies. We are also approving the
correction of the incorrect reference
citation.
Finally, Missouri proposed that, upon
the incapacity of the surety because of
bankruptcy or insolvency, or suspension
or revocation of its license, the
permittee must promptly notify the
director. Upon this notification, the
director must issue a notice of violation
(NOV) against the operator who is
without bond coverage specifying that
the operator must replace the bond in
no more than 90 days. If the NOV is not
abated in accordance with the schedule,
a cessation order must be issued
requiring immediate compliance with
10 CSR 40–3.150(4), Cessation of
Operations—Permanent.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.16(e)(2) sets forth a requirement that
upon the incapacity of a bank or surety
company by reason of bankruptcy or
insolvency, or suspension or revocation
of a charter or license, the permittee
must be deemed to be without bond
coverage and must promptly notify the
regulatory authority. When the
regulatory authority receives the
notification, it must notify the operator
in writing to replace the bond in a
period not to exceed 90 days. If the
operator does not provide an adequate
bond, the operator must cease mining
and immediately begin reclamation
operations in accordance with the
approved reclamation plan.
We are approving the above revision
because it is no less effective than the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.16(e)(2).
b. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(B) Personal
bonds secured by certificates of deposit.
i. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraphs (6)(B)2., 4., 6., and 7.
regarding personal bonds secured by
certificates of deposit. Paragraph (6)(B)4.
refers to banks or savings and loan
companies issuing the certificates of
deposit, while paragraphs (6)(B)2., 6.,
and 7 only refer to banks issuing
certificates of deposit. Missouri
proposed to revise these paragraphs to
make them consistent with paragraph
(6)(B)4. Missouri also proposed to
remove the term ‘‘Federal Savings and
Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC)’’
from this paragraph because the FSLIC
was abolished and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) now
insures savings and loan companies. We
are approving these revisions because
the Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.21(a)(4) implies that banks or
savings and loan companies are
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33245
acceptable sources for certificates of
deposit by its reference to certificates of
deposits insured by the FDIC or the
FSLIC.
ii. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraph (6)(B)4. by adding that
permittees may not submit, from a
single bank or savings and loan
company, certificates of deposit totaling
more than the maximum insurable
amount as determined by the FDIC. We
are approving this revision because the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.21(a)(4) contains the provision that
an individual certificate of deposit
cannot be accepted in an amount that is
greater than the maximum insurable
amount as determined by the FDIC.
iii. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraph (6)(B)7. by changing the
number of days that an operator has for
replacing bond coverage from 60 to 90
days if the operator is without bond
because of a bank’s or savings and loan
company’s insolvency or bankruptcy or
suspension or revocation of its charter
or license. Missouri also proposed to
add a requirement to paragraph (6)(B)7.
that prohibits an operator from
resuming mining operations until after
the director has determined that an
acceptable bond has been posted. We
are approving the revision because the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e)
provides that the operator must replace
the bond in a period not to exceed 90
days and that the operator must not
resume mining operations until the
regulatory authority has determined that
an acceptable bond has been posted.
c. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(C) Personal
bonds secured by letters of credit.
i. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraph (6)(C)4. as follows:
The letter of credit shall be issued by a
bank authorized to do business in the United
States. If the issuing bank is located in
another state, a bank located in Missouri
must confirm the letter of credit.
Confirmations shall be irrevocable and on a
form provided by the director;
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.21(b)(1) requires letters of credit to
be issued by a bank organized or
authorized to do business in the United
States. Therefore, we are approving
Missouri’s proposed revision because it
is no less effective than the Federal
regulation.
ii. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraph (6)(C)9. to require the bond to
have a mechanism by which a bank
must give prompt notice to the director
and the permittee of any action filed
alleging the insolvency or bankruptcy of
the bank or permittee or alleging any
violations which would result in the
suspension or revocation of the bank’s
charter or license to do business.
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
33246
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Missouri also proposed that upon the
incapacity of any bank by reason of
insolvency or bankruptcy or suspension
or revocation of its charter or license,
the permittee shall be deemed to be
without bond and the director must,
upon notification of the incapacity,
issue an NOV to the operator who is
without bond. The NOV must specify a
period not to exceed 90 days in which
to replace the bond coverage. In
addition, if the NOV is not abated in
accordance with the abatement
schedule, a cessation order must be
issued requiring the immediate
compliance with 10 CSR 40–3.150(4)
Cessation of Operations—Permanent
and the mining operations must not
resume until the director has
determined that an acceptable bond has
been posted.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.16(e)(1) requires the bond to have a
mechanism for a bank or surety
company to promptly notify the
regulatory authority and the permittee
of any action filed alleging the
insolvency or bankruptcy of the bank,
surety company, or permittee or alleging
any violations which would result in
the suspension or revocation of the
bank’s or surety company’s charter or
license to do business. The Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e)(2) deems
the permittee to be without bond
coverage upon the incapacity of the
bank or surety company by reason of
insolvency or bankruptcy or suspension
or revocation of its charter or license
and requires the permittee to promptly
notify the regulatory authority of the
incapacity. The regulatory authority
upon this notification must notify, in
writing, the operator who is without
bond coverage, to replace bond coverage
in a period not to exceed 90 days. If an
adequate bond is not posted, the
operator must (1) Cease mining, (2)
comply with 30 CFR 816.132 or 30 CFR
817.132, Cessation of Operations:
Permanent, and (3) immediately begin
reclamation operations in accordance
with the reclamation plan.
We are approving Missouri’s revisions
because they are no less effective than
the above Federal regulations.
d. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(D) SelfBonding.
i. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraph (6)(D)8. by changing the time
period for replacing bond from 60 days
to 90 days if the financial conditions of
the permittee or third-party guarantors
change so that they no longer satisfy the
requirements for being able to post self
bonds. Missouri also proposed that if
the bond is not replaced in accordance
with the schedule set by the director,
the operator must immediately begin to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
conduct reclamation operations in
accordance with the reclamation plan.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.23(g) provides that if the financial
conditions of the applicant, parent, or
non-parent corporate guarantor change
so that the criteria for being able to post
self bonds are not met, the permittee
must immediately notify the regulatory
authority and must post an alternative
form of bond within 90 days. If the
permittee does not post the alternate
bond, the operator must cease mining
operations and immediately begin to
conduct reclamation operations in
accordance with the reclamation plan.
We are approving Missouri’s revision
because it is no less effective than the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.23(g).
3. 10 CSR 40–7.011(7) Replacement of
Bonds
Missouri proposed to revise paragraph
(7)(A). This paragraph allows permittees
to replace existing surety or personal
bonds with other surety or personal
bonds. Missouri proposed to add self
bonds so that permittees may replace
existing surety or personal or self bonds
with other surety or personal or self
bonds.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.30(a) provides that the regulatory
authority may allow a permittee to
replace existing bonds with other bonds
that provide adequate coverage.
We are approving Missouri’s revision
because it is no less effective than the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.30(a).
D. 10 CSR 40–7.021(2) Criteria and
Schedule for Release of Reclamation
Liability
1. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraphs (2) and (2)(E). Paragraph (2)
reads as follows:
(2) Criteria and Schedule for Release of
Reclamation Liability. Except as described in
subsection (2)(E), reclamation liability shall
be released in three (3) phases.
Missouri proposed to delete the
phrase, ‘‘Except as described in
subsection (2)(E),’’ so that revised
paragraph (2) reads as follows:
(2) Criteria and Schedule for Release of
Reclamation Liability. Reclamation liability
shall be released in three (3) phases.
Paragraph (2)(E) reads as follows:
(E) All bonding liability may be released in
full from undisturbed areas when further
disturbances from surface mining have
ceased. No bonding shall be released from
undisturbed areas before Phase I liability
applying to adjacent disturbed lands is
released, except that the commission may
approve a separate bond release from an area
of undisturbed land if the area is not
excessively small and can be separated from
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
areas that have been or will be disturbed by
a distinct boundary, which can be easily
located in the field and which is not so
irregular as to make record keeping
unusually difficult. The permit shall
terminate on all areas where all bonds have
been released.
Missouri proposed to delete all the
language in this paragraph except the
last sentence, so that revised paragraph
(2)(E) reads as follows:
(E) The permit shall terminate on all areas
where all bonds have been released.
The Federal regulations that pertain to
the requirement for releasing Phase I, II,
and III performance bonds are found at
30 CFR 800.40(c), however, there are no
direct Federal counterpart regulations to
10 CSR 40–7.021(2) and (2)(E). The
language being removed from 10 CSR
40–7.021(2) references 10 CSR 40–
7.021(2)(E) and both of these paragraphs
pertain to the full release of bond, under
certain conditions, from undisturbed
areas where further disturbance from
surface mining have ceased. The Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 800.15(c) allows
bond adjustments which involve
undisturbed land and states that these
adjustments are not considered bond
release subject to the procedures of 30
CFR 800.40. We are approving the
removal of the language from 10 CSR
40–7.021(2) and (2)(E) because the
removal of this language is not
inconsistent with and will not render
Missouri’s regulations less effective than
the Federal regulations.
2. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraph (2)(A) regarding the criteria
for release of Phase I liability. Paragraph
(2)(A) reads as follows:
(A) An area shall qualify for release of
Phase I liability upon completion of
backfilling and grading, topsoiling, drainage
control and initial seeding of the disturbed
area. Phase I bond shall be retained on
unreclaimed temporary structures, such as
roads, siltation structures, diversions and
stockpiles, on an acre for acre basis.
Missouri proposed to delete the
phrase, ‘‘on an acre for acre basis,’’ from
the last sentence of this paragraph.
The Federal counterpart regulation is
found at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1) and
provides that Phase I reclamation is
complete after the operator completes
the backfilling, regrading (which may
include the replacement of topsoil), and
drainage control of the bonded area in
accordance with the approved
reclamation plan. We are approving the
deletion of the above phrase from
Missouri’s regulation because it will not
render the State regulation less effective
than the Federal counterpart regulation.
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
3. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraph (2)(B)4. regarding the criteria
for qualifying for release of Phase II
liability to read as follows:
4. A plan for achieving Phase III release has
been approved for the area requested for
release and the plan has been incorporated
into the permit;
There is no direct Federal counterpart
regulation for paragraph (2)(B)4.
However, the Federal regulation at 30
CFR 784.13(a) requires each application
to contain a plan for the reclamation of
the lands within the proposed permit
area. Missouri’s proposed regulation is
no less effective than the above Federal
regulations and we are approving it.
4. Missouri proposed to revise
paragraph (2)(D) regarding bond release
by deleting the language and replacing
it with new language and by adding new
paragraphs 1. through 3. to read as
follows:
(D) Bonds release.
1. Phase I—After the operator completes
the backfilling, grading, topsoiling, drainage
control, and initial seeding of the disturbed
area in accordance with the approved
reclamation plan, the director shall release 60
percent of the bond for the applicable area.
2. Phase II—After vegetation has been
established on the regraded mined lands in
accordance with the approved reclamation
plan, the director shall release an additional
amount of bond. When determining the
amount of bond to be released after
successful vegetation has been established,
the director shall retain that amount of bond
for the vegetated area which would be
sufficient to cover the cost of reestablishing
vegetation if completed by a third party and
for the period specified for in 10 CSR
40–7.021(1)(B) for reestablishing vegetation.
3. Phase III—After the operator has
completed successfully all surface coal
mining and reclamation activities, the
director shall release the remaining portion
of the bond, but not before the expiration
period specified for the period of liability in
10 CSR 40–7.021(1)(B).
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
The Federal counterpart regulations
are found at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1)
through (c)(3) and set forth the criteria
for releasing bond based upon the three
phases of reclamation. We are approving
Missouri’s proposed revision because it
is substantively the same as the Federal
counterpart regulations.
E. 10 CSR 40–7.031 Permit Revocation,
Bond Forfeiture and Authorization To
Expend Reclamation Fund Monies
Missouri proposed to revise paragraph
(2) regarding the procedures for permit
suspension or revocation and paragraph
(4) regarding declaration of permit
revocation. More specifically, Missouri
proposed to revise paragraphs (2)(E)1.
and (4), and to delete paragraphs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
(2)(E)2.C and D in order to remove
provisions related to the Missouri Coal
Mine Land Reclamation Fund. Missouri
also proposed to add new paragraphs
(4)(A) through (B)2. to specify what
monies the director may use for
reclamation purposes for bonds forfeited
before January 1, 2006, and for those
forfeited on or after January 1, 2006.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR
800.11(a) through (d) set forth the
provisions for a permit applicant to file,
with the regulatory authority, a bond or
bonds for performance that is
conditioned upon the faithful
performance of all the requirements of
the Act, the regulatory program, the
permit, and the reclamation plan. The
regulations also include a ‘‘full cost
bond’’ bonding system. The Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 800.11(e) provides
that we may approve an alternative
bonding system as part of a State
program. The previously approved
Missouri Coal Mine Land Reclamation
Fund is a ‘‘bond pool’’ fund that is part
of Missouri’s alternative bonding system
and is used to complete reclamation on
permit sites for which the permits have
been revoked and the associated bonds
have been forfeited. Missouri proposed
to terminate its alternative bonding
system and to adopt a ‘‘full cost bond’’
bonding system effective January 1,
2006. With this transition to a ‘‘full cost
bond’’ bonding system, Missouri
proposed that only permit sites whose
bonds have been forfeited before
January 1, 2006, are eligible to have
monies expended from the ‘‘bond pool’’
fund for the purpose of completing
reclamation of the sites. Missouri also
proposed that permit sites whose bonds
have been forfeited on or after January
1, 2006, are eligible to have monies
expended from the forfeited ‘‘full cost
bonds’’ for the purpose of completing
reclamation of the sites. We are
approving Missouri’s revisions as they
are no less effective than the Federal
regulations because permit sites under
the alternative bonding system and the
‘‘full cost bond’’ bonding system have
funds available for reclaiming coal
mining and reclamation sites whose
bonds have been forfeited.
Finally, Missouri proposed to add
new paragraphs (4)(B)1. and 2. to read
as follows:
1. In the event the estimated amount
forfeited is insufficient to pay for the full cost
of reclamation, the operator shall be liable for
remaining costs. The director may complete
or authorize completion of reclamation of the
bonded area and may recover from the
operator all costs of reclamation in excess of
the amount forfeited.
2. In the event the amount of performance
bond forfeited is more than the amount
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33247
necessary to complete reclamation, the
unused funds shall be returned by the
director to the party from whom they were
collected.
The Federal counterpart regulations
are found at 30 CFR 800.50(d)(1) and
(2). We are approving Missouri’s
revisions because they are substantively
identical to the Federal regulations.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment, but did not receive any.
Federal Agency Comments
On November 10, 2005, and December
13, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i)
and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we
requested comments on the amendment
from various Federal agencies with an
actual or potential interest in the
Missouri program (Administrative
Record Nos. MO–665.1 and MO–665.9).
We did not receive any comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we
are required to get a written concurrence
from EPA for those provisions of the
program amendment that relate to air or
water quality standards issued under
the authority of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the
revisions that Missouri proposed to
make in this amendment pertain to air
or water quality standards. Therefore,
we did not ask EPA to concur on the
amendment.
On November 10, 2005, and December
13, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),
we requested comments on the
amendment from EPA (Administrative
Record Nos. MO–665.1 and MO–665.9).
EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are
required to request comments from the
SHPO and ACHP on amendments that
may have an effect on historic
properties. On November 10, 2005, and
December 13, 2005, we requested
comments on Missouri’s amendment
(Administrative Record No. MO–665.1
and MO–665.9), but neither responded
to our request.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve the amendment Missouri sent
us on October 31, 2005, and as revised
on November 23, 2005, and December
21, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
33248
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR part 925, which codify decisions
concerning the Missouri program. We
find that good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule
effective immediately. Section 503(a) of
SMCRA requires that the State’s
program demonstrate that the State has
the capability of carrying out the
provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective
immediately will expedite that process.
SMCRA requires consistency of State
and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630—Takings
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
regulating surface coal mining and
reclamation operations be ‘‘in
accordance with’’ the requirements of
SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires
that State programs contain rules and
regulations ‘‘consistent with’’
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, we have evaluated the potential
effects of this rule on 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.
This determination is based on the fact
that the Missouri program does not
regulate coal exploration and surface
coal mining and reclamation operations
on Indian lands. Therefore, the Missouri
program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211—Regulations
That Significantly Affect The Supply,
Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 which requires
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for a rule that is (1)
considered significant under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because
this rule is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866 and is not
expected to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects
is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an
environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory
program provisions do not constitute
major Federal actions within the
meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal,
which is the subject of this rule, is based
upon counterpart Federal regulations for
which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that
such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a
substantial number of small entities. In
making the determination as to whether
this rule would have a significant
economic impact, the Department relied
upon the data and assumptions for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule: (a) Does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and (c) Does not
have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. This
determination is based upon the fact
that the State submittal, which is the
subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulation was not considered a major
rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of $100 million or more in any given
year. This determination is based upon
the fact that the State submittal, which
is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulations did not impose an unfunded
mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 925
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: April 12, 2006.
Leonard Meier,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent
Region.
PART 925—MISSOURI
1. The authority citation for part 925
continues to read as follows:
I
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 925 is amended
as set forth below:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
I
2. Section 925.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
I
33249
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
§ 925.15 Approval of Missouri regulatory
program amendments.
*
*
*
*
*
Original amendment
submission date
Date of final
publication
Citation/description
*
October 31, 2005 ......
*
June 8, 2006 .............
*
*
*
*
*
10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(C) and (D), (2)(A) and (B), (3)(C), (4) and (5), (6)(A)6., 8., & 9., (6)(B)1.,
2., & 4. through 7., (6)(C)1. through 4., 8. & 9., (6)(D)1.F., 2., 2.B., 2.D.(I) through (III), 3.,
5.C., 6., 8., and (7)(A); 10 CSR 40–7.021(1)(A), (2), (2)(A), (2)(B)3. through 6., (2)(C)2.,
(2)(D) and (E); 10 CSR 40–7.031(2)(E)1. and 2., (2)(E)2.C. & D., (3)(C), and (4) through
(4)(B)2.; and 10 CSR 40–7.041.
[FR Doc. E6–8926 Filed 6–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 944
[UT–043–FOR]
Utah Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
SUMMARY: We are approving a revised
amendment to the Utah regulatory
program (the ‘‘Utah program’’) under the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the
Act). Utah proposed changes to the Utah
Administrative Rules concerning permit
change, renewal, transfer, sale and
assignment, cross sections and maps,
processing and approval of extensions
to the approved permit area,
determining civil penalty amounts, and
assessing daily civil penalties. Utah
revised its program to clarify and
strengthen certain parts of the rules.
DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field
Division; telephone: (303) 844–1400,
extension 1424; e-mail address:
jfulton@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Utah Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
I. Background on the Utah Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its State program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Utah
program on January 21, 1981. You can
find background information on the
Utah program, including the Secretary’s
findings, the disposition of comments,
and conditions of approval of the Utah
program in the January 21, 1981,
Federal Register (46 FR 5899). You also
can find later actions concerning Utah’s
program and program amendments at 30
CFR 944.10, 944.15 and 944.30.
II. Submission of the Proposed
Amendment
By letter dated November 28, 2005,
Utah sent us an amendment to its
program (Administrative Record
Number UT–1181) under SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). We received the
amendment on December 28, 2005. Utah
sent the amendment to make the
changes at its own initiative. The State
proposed to revise five sections of its
coal rules.
In a revision of Utah Administrative
Rule (Utah Admin. R.) 645–301–160, the
State proposed to add a heading that
reads, ‘‘Permit change, renewal, transfer,
sale, and assignment.’’ Following that
heading is a proposed reference to
procedures to change, renew, transfer,
assign, or sell existing coal mining and
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reclamation permit rights that are found
at Utah Admin. R. 645–303.
The amendment also proposed to
change Utah’s permit application
requirements for cross sections and
maps at Utah Admin. R. 645–301–
512.100. This change would allow
preparation of certain cross sections and
maps by a professional geologist or a
qualified, registered, professional land
surveyor. The State also proposed
editorial changes to this section to make
it read more clearly with the proposed
substantive revisions described above.
A proposed revision to Utah Admin.
R. 645–303–222 would require
applications for extensions to the
approved permit area to be processed
and approved using the procedural
requirements of Utah Admin. R. 645–
303–226 for review and processing of
significant permit revisions. As part of
this proposed change, the State also
proposed to remove the requirement at
Utah Admin. R. 645–303–222 that
extensions to the approved permit area,
except for incidental boundary changes,
be processed and approved as new
permit applications and not be
approved under Utah Admin. R. 645–
303–221 through R. 645–303–228.
Another revision proposed in this
amendment would change Utah’s
schedule of points and corresponding
dollar amounts for civil penalty
assessments found at Utah Admin. R.
645–401–330. The proposed revision
changed the range of civil monetary
penalties from $10 through $3,560 to
$22 through $4,840. It also changed the
range of assessed points corresponding
to those civil monetary penalties from 1
through 87 points to 1 through 64
points.
Finally, the State’s amendment
proposed a change at Utah Admin. R.
645–401–410 that would require an
assessment officer to assess a civil
penalty for a minimum of two separate
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33243-33249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8926]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 925
[Docket No. MO-038-FOR]
Missouri Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Missouri regulatory program
(Missouri program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Previously we substituted direct Federal
enforcement for portions of the Missouri program. Missouri regained
full authority for its program on February 1, 2006. Missouri proposed
to amend its approved regulatory program and submitted a temporary
emergency regulatory program rule (emergency rule) to revise Missouri's
regulations regarding bonding of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations. The emergency rule will allow Missouri to transition from a
``bond pool'' approach to bonding to a ``full cost bond'' approach in a
timely manner. Missouri proposed to revise its program to improve
operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division. Telephone: (618) 463-6460. E-mail: ifomail@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Missouri Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Missouri 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 Missouri program on November 21, 1980. You
can find background information on the Missouri program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of
approval, in the November 21, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 77017). You
can also find later actions concerning the Missouri program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 925.10, 925.12, 925.15, and 925.16.
[[Page 33244]]
II. Submission of the Amendment
Previously we substituted direct Federal enforcement for portions
of the Missouri program. Missouri regained full authority for its
program on February 1, 2006. By letter dated October 31, 2005, Missouri
submitted an emergency rule to amend its approved regulatory program
under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) (Administrative Record No. MO-
665). The purpose of the emergency rule is to revise Missouri's
regulations regarding bonding of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations to allow Missouri to transition from a ``bond pool''
approach to bonding to a ``full cost bond'' approach in a timely
manner. The amendment will also improve operational efficiency. The
emergency rule became effective in Missouri on January 1, 2006.
Missouri has indicated that, in the near future, it will submit a
permanent regulatory program rule (permanent rule) regarding its
bonding regulations and that this rule will contain regulatory language
that is substantially identical to the language in this emergency rule.
If Missouri submits the permanent rule with language that has the same
meaning as the emergency rule, we will publish a final rule and
Missouri's permanent rule will become part of the Missouri program.
We announced receipt of the amendment in the November 29, 2005,
Federal Register (70 FR 71425). In the same document, we opened the
public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing
or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public
hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment
period ended on December 29, 2005. We did not receive any comments.
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns about
types of bonds, and criteria and schedule for release of reclamation
liability. We notified Missouri of these concerns by telephone and E-
mail on November 23 and 29, 2005 (Administrative Record Nos. MO-665.2,
MO-665.3, and MO-665.11), and on December 2 and 8, 2005 (Administrative
Record Nos. MO-665.5 and MO-665.7).
Missouri responded by E-mail on November 23, 2005, and December 21,
2005, by sending us a revised amendment (Administrative Record Nos. MO-
665.2, MO-665.3, and MO-665.10). Because the additional information
and/or revisions merely clarified certain provisions of Missouri's
amendment, we did not reopen the public comment period.
III. OSM's Findings
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment as described below. Any revisions that we do
not specifically discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or
editorial changes.
A. Minor Revisions to Missouri's Regulations
Missouri's definition for ``regulatory authority,'' found at 10 CSR
[Code of State Regulations] 40-8.010(82), means the Land Reclamation
Commission (commission), the director, or their designated
representatives and employees unless otherwise specified in the State's
rules. Missouri proposed to replace the words ``commission'' or
``regulatory authority'' with the word ``director'' in the following
regulations: 10 CSR 40-7.011(2)(A), (3)(C), (4)(B), (6)(B)1., 5., 6.,
and 7., (6)(C)1. and 8., (6)(D)2., and (6)(D)2.B, 3.B, 3.B(I) and 5.C;
and 10 CSR 40-7.041(1)(A), (B)1. and (B)2. Missouri proposed to improve
operational efficiency by specifying that the director is to perform
certain duties. We find that the substitution of the word ``director''
for the words ``commission'' or ``regulatory authority'' will not
render Missouri's regulations less effective than the Federal
regulations because in accordance with Missouri's definition for
regulatory authority, the director is a regulatory authority as is the
commission and the certain duties specified in the regulations cited
above are not duties reserved solely for the commission according to
section 444.810 of Missouri's surface coal mining law. Therefore, we
are approving these revisions.
B. Revisions to Missouri's Regulations That Have the Same Meaning as
the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations
The State regulations listed in the table below contain language
that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the
Federal regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Missouri counterpart
Topic regulation (10 regulation (30
CSR) CFR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement to File a Bond...... 40-7.011(2)(B).... 800.11(d).
Bond Amounts.................... 40-7.011(4)....... 800.14(a) and (b).
Changing Bond Amounts........... 40-7.011(5)....... 800.15.
Personal Bonds Secured by 40-7.011(6)(C)2... 800.21(b)(2).
Letters of Credit.
Definition for ``Parent 40-7.011(6)(D)1.F. 800.23(a).
Corporation''.
Self-Bonding.................... 40-7.011(6)(D)2., 800.23(b), (b)(2),
(6)(D)2.B., (b)(4)(i) through
(6)(D)2.D.(I) (iii), (c), and
through (III), (f).
(6)(D)3., and
(6)(D)6.
Criteria and schedule for 40-7.021(2)(B)5. 800.40(c).
release of reclamation and 6..
liability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the above State regulations have the same meaning as the
corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they are no less
effective than the Federal regulations.
C. 10 CSR 40-7.011 Bond Requirements
1. 10 CSR 40-7.011(1) Definitions
a. Missouri proposed to revise its definition for personal bond in
paragraph (1)(C) to read as follows:
Personal bond means an indemnity agreement in a sum certain
executed by the permittee as principal which is supported by
negotiable certificates of deposit or irrevocable letters of credit
which may be drawn upon by the director if reclamation is not
completed or if the permit is revoked prior to completion of
reclamation.
The Federal definition for collateral bond found at 30 CFR
800.15(b) means an indemnity agreement in a sum certain executed by the
permittee as principal which is supported by one or more of the
following: a cash account; negotiable bonds of the United States, a
State, or municipality; negotiable certificates of deposit; irrevocable
letters of credit; a perfected, first-lien security interest in real
property; or other investment-grade rated securities having a rating of
AAA, AA, or A or an equivalent rating issued by a nationally recognized
securities rating service. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.50
provides for the regulatory authority to forfeit bonds and use funds
collected
[[Page 33245]]
from bond forfeiture to complete the reclamation plan or portion
thereof, on the permit area or increment to which bond coverage
applies.
Missouri has chosen to limit the vehicles that support an indemnity
agreement to negotiable certificates of deposit and irrevocable letters
of credit. Missouri also provides that the director may use funds from
personal bonds if reclamation is not completed or if the permit is
revoked before the completion of reclamation. We are, therefore,
approving Missouri's definition for personal bond because it is no less
effective than the above Federal regulations.
b. Missouri proposed to revise its definition for Phase I bond in
paragraph (1)(D) to read as follows:
Phase I bond means performance bond conditioned on the release
of sixty percent (60%) of the bond upon the successful completion of
Phase I reclamation of a permit area in accordance with the approved
reclamation plan.
There is no Federal definition for Phase I bond, however, the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(c) states that the regulatory
authority may release all or part of the bond for the entire permit
area or incremental area if the regulatory authority is satisfied that
all the reclamation or a phase of the reclamation covered by the bond
or portion thereof has been accomplished in accordance with specific
schedules for reclamation of Phases I, II, and III. The schedule for
Phase I reclamation, found at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1), involves the
operator completing the backfilling, re-grading (which may include the
replacement of topsoil), and drainage control of a bonded area in
accordance with the approved reclamation plan. When this schedule is
complete, the regulatory authority may release 60 percent of the bond.
We are approving Missouri's definition for Phase I bond because it is
no less effective than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1).
2. 10 CSR 40-7.011(6) Types of Bonds
a. 10 CSR 40-7.011(6)(A) Surety bonds.
Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (6)(A)8. regarding surety
bonds. This paragraph inappropriately refers to a ``bank'' or ``bank
charter'' when the subject matter of this paragraph pertains to a
surety company. Missouri proposed to delete the language that refers to
a ``bank'' or ``bank charter.'' Also, Missouri proposed to correct the
incorrect reference citation, 10 CSR 40-7.031(A)(6), so that it
correctly reads 10 CSR 40-7.031(1)(F)2. We are approving Missouri's
revisions regarding the deletion of the terms ``bank'' and ``bank
charter'' because they are inappropriately included in this paragraph
that pertains only to surety companies. We are also approving the
correction of the incorrect reference citation.
Finally, Missouri proposed that, upon the incapacity of the surety
because of bankruptcy or insolvency, or suspension or revocation of its
license, the permittee must promptly notify the director. Upon this
notification, the director must issue a notice of violation (NOV)
against the operator who is without bond coverage specifying that the
operator must replace the bond in no more than 90 days. If the NOV is
not abated in accordance with the schedule, a cessation order must be
issued requiring immediate compliance with 10 CSR 40-3.150(4),
Cessation of Operations--Permanent.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e)(2) sets forth a
requirement that upon the incapacity of a bank or surety company by
reason of bankruptcy or insolvency, or suspension or revocation of a
charter or license, the permittee must be deemed to be without bond
coverage and must promptly notify the regulatory authority. When the
regulatory authority receives the notification, it must notify the
operator in writing to replace the bond in a period not to exceed 90
days. If the operator does not provide an adequate bond, the operator
must cease mining and immediately begin reclamation operations in
accordance with the approved reclamation plan.
We are approving the above revision because it is no less effective
than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e)(2).
b. 10 CSR 40-7.011(6)(B) Personal bonds secured by certificates of
deposit.
i. Missouri proposed to revise paragraphs (6)(B)2., 4., 6., and 7.
regarding personal bonds secured by certificates of deposit. Paragraph
(6)(B)4. refers to banks or savings and loan companies issuing the
certificates of deposit, while paragraphs (6)(B)2., 6., and 7 only
refer to banks issuing certificates of deposit. Missouri proposed to
revise these paragraphs to make them consistent with paragraph (6)(B)4.
Missouri also proposed to remove the term ``Federal Savings and Loan
Insurance Corporation (FSLIC)'' from this paragraph because the FSLIC
was abolished and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) now
insures savings and loan companies. We are approving these revisions
because the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.21(a)(4) implies that
banks or savings and loan companies are acceptable sources for
certificates of deposit by its reference to certificates of deposits
insured by the FDIC or the FSLIC.
ii. Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (6)(B)4. by adding that
permittees may not submit, from a single bank or savings and loan
company, certificates of deposit totaling more than the maximum
insurable amount as determined by the FDIC. We are approving this
revision because the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.21(a)(4) contains
the provision that an individual certificate of deposit cannot be
accepted in an amount that is greater than the maximum insurable amount
as determined by the FDIC.
iii. Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (6)(B)7. by changing
the number of days that an operator has for replacing bond coverage
from 60 to 90 days if the operator is without bond because of a bank's
or savings and loan company's insolvency or bankruptcy or suspension or
revocation of its charter or license. Missouri also proposed to add a
requirement to paragraph (6)(B)7. that prohibits an operator from
resuming mining operations until after the director has determined that
an acceptable bond has been posted. We are approving the revision
because the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e) provides that the
operator must replace the bond in a period not to exceed 90 days and
that the operator must not resume mining operations until the
regulatory authority has determined that an acceptable bond has been
posted.
c. 10 CSR 40-7.011(6)(C) Personal bonds secured by letters of
credit.
i. Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (6)(C)4. as follows:
The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank authorized to do
business in the United States. If the issuing bank is located in
another state, a bank located in Missouri must confirm the letter of
credit. Confirmations shall be irrevocable and on a form provided by
the director;
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.21(b)(1) requires letters of
credit to be issued by a bank organized or authorized to do business in
the United States. Therefore, we are approving Missouri's proposed
revision because it is no less effective than the Federal regulation.
ii. Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (6)(C)9. to require the
bond to have a mechanism by which a bank must give prompt notice to the
director and the permittee of any action filed alleging the insolvency
or bankruptcy of the bank or permittee or alleging any violations which
would result in the suspension or revocation of the bank's charter or
license to do business.
[[Page 33246]]
Missouri also proposed that upon the incapacity of any bank by reason
of insolvency or bankruptcy or suspension or revocation of its charter
or license, the permittee shall be deemed to be without bond and the
director must, upon notification of the incapacity, issue an NOV to the
operator who is without bond. The NOV must specify a period not to
exceed 90 days in which to replace the bond coverage. In addition, if
the NOV is not abated in accordance with the abatement schedule, a
cessation order must be issued requiring the immediate compliance with
10 CSR 40-3.150(4) Cessation of Operations--Permanent and the mining
operations must not resume until the director has determined that an
acceptable bond has been posted.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e)(1) requires the bond to
have a mechanism for a bank or surety company to promptly notify the
regulatory authority and the permittee of any action filed alleging the
insolvency or bankruptcy of the bank, surety company, or permittee or
alleging any violations which would result in the suspension or
revocation of the bank's or surety company's charter or license to do
business. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e)(2) deems the
permittee to be without bond coverage upon the incapacity of the bank
or surety company by reason of insolvency or bankruptcy or suspension
or revocation of its charter or license and requires the permittee to
promptly notify the regulatory authority of the incapacity. The
regulatory authority upon this notification must notify, in writing,
the operator who is without bond coverage, to replace bond coverage in
a period not to exceed 90 days. If an adequate bond is not posted, the
operator must (1) Cease mining, (2) comply with 30 CFR 816.132 or 30
CFR 817.132, Cessation of Operations: Permanent, and (3) immediately
begin reclamation operations in accordance with the reclamation plan.
We are approving Missouri's revisions because they are no less
effective than the above Federal regulations.
d. 10 CSR 40-7.011(6)(D) Self-Bonding.
i. Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (6)(D)8. by changing the
time period for replacing bond from 60 days to 90 days if the financial
conditions of the permittee or third-party guarantors change so that
they no longer satisfy the requirements for being able to post self
bonds. Missouri also proposed that if the bond is not replaced in
accordance with the schedule set by the director, the operator must
immediately begin to conduct reclamation operations in accordance with
the reclamation plan.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.23(g) provides that if the
financial conditions of the applicant, parent, or non-parent corporate
guarantor change so that the criteria for being able to post self bonds
are not met, the permittee must immediately notify the regulatory
authority and must post an alternative form of bond within 90 days. If
the permittee does not post the alternate bond, the operator must cease
mining operations and immediately begin to conduct reclamation
operations in accordance with the reclamation plan.
We are approving Missouri's revision because it is no less
effective than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.23(g).
3. 10 CSR 40-7.011(7) Replacement of Bonds
Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (7)(A). This paragraph allows
permittees to replace existing surety or personal bonds with other
surety or personal bonds. Missouri proposed to add self bonds so that
permittees may replace existing surety or personal or self bonds with
other surety or personal or self bonds.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.30(a) provides that the
regulatory authority may allow a permittee to replace existing bonds
with other bonds that provide adequate coverage.
We are approving Missouri's revision because it is no less
effective than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.30(a).
D. 10 CSR 40-7.021(2) Criteria and Schedule for Release of Reclamation
Liability
1. Missouri proposed to revise paragraphs (2) and (2)(E). Paragraph (2)
reads as follows:
(2) Criteria and Schedule for Release of Reclamation Liability.
Except as described in subsection (2)(E), reclamation liability
shall be released in three (3) phases.
Missouri proposed to delete the phrase, ``Except as described in
subsection (2)(E),'' so that revised paragraph (2) reads as follows:
(2) Criteria and Schedule for Release of Reclamation Liability.
Reclamation liability shall be released in three (3) phases.
Paragraph (2)(E) reads as follows:
(E) All bonding liability may be released in full from
undisturbed areas when further disturbances from surface mining have
ceased. No bonding shall be released from undisturbed areas before
Phase I liability applying to adjacent disturbed lands is released,
except that the commission may approve a separate bond release from
an area of undisturbed land if the area is not excessively small and
can be separated from areas that have been or will be disturbed by a
distinct boundary, which can be easily located in the field and
which is not so irregular as to make record keeping unusually
difficult. The permit shall terminate on all areas where all bonds
have been released.
Missouri proposed to delete all the language in this paragraph
except the last sentence, so that revised paragraph (2)(E) reads as
follows:
(E) The permit shall terminate on all areas where all bonds have
been released.
The Federal regulations that pertain to the requirement for
releasing Phase I, II, and III performance bonds are found at 30 CFR
800.40(c), however, there are no direct Federal counterpart regulations
to 10 CSR 40-7.021(2) and (2)(E). The language being removed from 10
CSR 40-7.021(2) references 10 CSR 40-7.021(2)(E) and both of these
paragraphs pertain to the full release of bond, under certain
conditions, from undisturbed areas where further disturbance from
surface mining have ceased. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.15(c)
allows bond adjustments which involve undisturbed land and states that
these adjustments are not considered bond release subject to the
procedures of 30 CFR 800.40. We are approving the removal of the
language from 10 CSR 40-7.021(2) and (2)(E) because the removal of this
language is not inconsistent with and will not render Missouri's
regulations less effective than the Federal regulations.
2. Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (2)(A) regarding the criteria
for release of Phase I liability. Paragraph (2)(A) reads as follows:
(A) An area shall qualify for release of Phase I liability upon
completion of backfilling and grading, topsoiling, drainage control
and initial seeding of the disturbed area. Phase I bond shall be
retained on unreclaimed temporary structures, such as roads,
siltation structures, diversions and stockpiles, on an acre for acre
basis.
Missouri proposed to delete the phrase, ``on an acre for acre
basis,'' from the last sentence of this paragraph.
The Federal counterpart regulation is found at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1)
and provides that Phase I reclamation is complete after the operator
completes the backfilling, regrading (which may include the replacement
of topsoil), and drainage control of the bonded area in accordance with
the approved reclamation plan. We are approving the deletion of the
above phrase from Missouri's regulation because it will not render the
State regulation less effective than the Federal counterpart
regulation.
[[Page 33247]]
3. Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (2)(B)4. regarding the
criteria for qualifying for release of Phase II liability to read as
follows:
4. A plan for achieving Phase III release has been approved for
the area requested for release and the plan has been incorporated
into the permit;
There is no direct Federal counterpart regulation for paragraph
(2)(B)4. However, the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 784.13(a) requires
each application to contain a plan for the reclamation of the lands
within the proposed permit area. Missouri's proposed regulation is no
less effective than the above Federal regulations and we are approving
it.
4. Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (2)(D) regarding bond release
by deleting the language and replacing it with new language and by
adding new paragraphs 1. through 3. to read as follows:
(D) Bonds release.
1. Phase I--After the operator completes the backfilling,
grading, topsoiling, drainage control, and initial seeding of the
disturbed area in accordance with the approved reclamation plan, the
director shall release 60 percent of the bond for the applicable
area.
2. Phase II--After vegetation has been established on the
regraded mined lands in accordance with the approved reclamation
plan, the director shall release an additional amount of bond. When
determining the amount of bond to be released after successful
vegetation has been established, the director shall retain that
amount of bond for the vegetated area which would be sufficient to
cover the cost of reestablishing vegetation if completed by a third
party and for the period specified for in 10 CSR 40-7.021(1)(B) for
reestablishing vegetation.
3. Phase III--After the operator has completed successfully all
surface coal mining and reclamation activities, the director shall
release the remaining portion of the bond, but not before the
expiration period specified for the period of liability in 10 CSR
40-7.021(1)(B).
The Federal counterpart regulations are found at 30 CFR
800.40(c)(1) through (c)(3) and set forth the criteria for releasing
bond based upon the three phases of reclamation. We are approving
Missouri's proposed revision because it is substantively the same as
the Federal counterpart regulations.
E. 10 CSR 40-7.031 Permit Revocation, Bond Forfeiture and Authorization
To Expend Reclamation Fund Monies
Missouri proposed to revise paragraph (2) regarding the procedures
for permit suspension or revocation and paragraph (4) regarding
declaration of permit revocation. More specifically, Missouri proposed
to revise paragraphs (2)(E)1. and (4), and to delete paragraphs
(2)(E)2.C and D in order to remove provisions related to the Missouri
Coal Mine Land Reclamation Fund. Missouri also proposed to add new
paragraphs (4)(A) through (B)2. to specify what monies the director may
use for reclamation purposes for bonds forfeited before January 1,
2006, and for those forfeited on or after January 1, 2006.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.11(a) through (d) set forth
the provisions for a permit applicant to file, with the regulatory
authority, a bond or bonds for performance that is conditioned upon the
faithful performance of all the requirements of the Act, the regulatory
program, the permit, and the reclamation plan. The regulations also
include a ``full cost bond'' bonding system. The Federal regulation at
30 CFR 800.11(e) provides that we may approve an alternative bonding
system as part of a State program. The previously approved Missouri
Coal Mine Land Reclamation Fund is a ``bond pool'' fund that is part of
Missouri's alternative bonding system and is used to complete
reclamation on permit sites for which the permits have been revoked and
the associated bonds have been forfeited. Missouri proposed to
terminate its alternative bonding system and to adopt a ``full cost
bond'' bonding system effective January 1, 2006. With this transition
to a ``full cost bond'' bonding system, Missouri proposed that only
permit sites whose bonds have been forfeited before January 1, 2006,
are eligible to have monies expended from the ``bond pool'' fund for
the purpose of completing reclamation of the sites. Missouri also
proposed that permit sites whose bonds have been forfeited on or after
January 1, 2006, are eligible to have monies expended from the
forfeited ``full cost bonds'' for the purpose of completing reclamation
of the sites. We are approving Missouri's revisions as they are no less
effective than the Federal regulations because permit sites under the
alternative bonding system and the ``full cost bond'' bonding system
have funds available for reclaiming coal mining and reclamation sites
whose bonds have been forfeited.
Finally, Missouri proposed to add new paragraphs (4)(B)1. and 2. to
read as follows:
1. In the event the estimated amount forfeited is insufficient
to pay for the full cost of reclamation, the operator shall be
liable for remaining costs. The director may complete or authorize
completion of reclamation of the bonded area and may recover from
the operator all costs of reclamation in excess of the amount
forfeited.
2. In the event the amount of performance bond forfeited is more
than the amount necessary to complete reclamation, the unused funds
shall be returned by the director to the party from whom they were
collected.
The Federal counterpart regulations are found at 30 CFR
800.50(d)(1) and (2). We are approving Missouri's revisions because
they are substantively identical to the Federal regulations.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
On November 10, 2005, and December 13, 2005, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on
the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential
interest in the Missouri program (Administrative Record Nos. MO-665.1
and MO-665.9). We did not receive any comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that
relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that Missouri proposed to
make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
On November 10, 2005, and December 13, 2005, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from EPA
(Administrative Record Nos. MO-665.1 and MO-665.9). EPA did not respond
to our request.
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. On November 10, 2005, and December 13, 2005, we requested
comments on Missouri's amendment (Administrative Record No. MO-665.1
and MO-665.9), but neither responded to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Missouri sent
us on October 31, 2005, and as revised on November 23, 2005, and
December 21, 2005.
[[Page 33248]]
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 925, which codify decisions concerning the Missouri
program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to
make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA
requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that
process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal
regulations.
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule
meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that
section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual
language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because
each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This determination is based on the fact that the Missouri program does
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Missouri program has no
effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect The
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that
agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would
have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data
and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a
major rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulations did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 925
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
[[Page 33249]]
Dated: April 12, 2006.
Leonard Meier,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 925 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 925--MISSOURI
0
1. The authority citation for part 925 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 925.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 925.15 Approval of Missouri regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
October 31, 2005...................... June 8, 2006.......................... 10 CSR 40-7.011(1)(C) and (D),
(2)(A) and (B), (3)(C), (4) and
(5), (6)(A)6., 8., & 9.,
(6)(B)1., 2., & 4. through 7.,
(6)(C)1. through 4., 8. & 9.,
(6)(D)1.F., 2., 2.B., 2.D.(I)
through (III), 3., 5.C., 6.,
8., and (7)(A); 10 CSR 40-
7.021(1)(A), (2), (2)(A),
(2)(B)3. through 6., (2)(C)2.,
(2)(D) and (E); 10 CSR 40-
7.031(2)(E)1. and 2.,
(2)(E)2.C. & D., (3)(C), and
(4) through (4)(B)2.; and 10
CSR 40-7.041.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E6-8926 Filed 6-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
