Missouri Regulatory Program, 10928-10934 [E7-4416]

Download as PDF 10928 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations transactions to CSA recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Domestic and import transactions involving chemical mixtures containing acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone and toluene are not subject to the following information collections: DEA information collection 1117–0023: Import/Export Declaration for List I and List II Chemicals [imports only]; and DEA information collection 1117–0029: Annual Reporting Requirement for Manufacturers of Listed Chemicals. List of Subjects In 21 CFR Part 1310 Drug traffic control, List I and List II chemicals, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1310 is amended to read as follows: I PART 1310—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 1310 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 21 U.S.C. 802, 827(h), 830, 871(b), 890. 2. Section 1310.08 is amended by revising paragraph (l) to read as follows: I § 1310.08 Excluded Transactions. * * * * * (l) Domestic and import transactions in chemical mixtures that contain acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone, and/or toluene, unless regulated because of being formulated with other List I or List II chemical(s) above the concentration limit. Dated: March 1, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7–4314 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 925 [Docket No. MO–039–FOR] Missouri Regulatory Program Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment. hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are approving an amendment to the Missouri regulatory program (Missouri program) regarding bonding under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 Act). Previously, we approved an emergency rule that allowed Missouri to transition from a ‘‘bond pool’’ approach to bonding to a ‘‘full cost bond’’ approach in a timely manner. We are now approving Missouri’s permanent rule concerning this same topic. Missouri proposed to revise its program to improve operational efficiency. DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division. Telephone: (618) 463–6460. Email: MCR_AMEND@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. II. Submission of the Amendment By letter dated October 11, 2006 (Administrative Record No. MO–666), Missouri sent us a ‘‘permanent rule’’ amendment to its program regarding bonding under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). This amendment was sent as a replacement for Missouri’s ‘‘emergency rule’’ that we previously approved on June 8, 2006 (71 FR 33243). The ‘‘emergency rule’’ allowed Missouri to transition from a ‘‘bond pool’’ approach to bonding to a ‘‘full cost bond’’ approach in a timely manner. The ‘‘permanent rule’’ amendment, when approved, will become a permanent part of Missouri’s program. PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 We announced receipt of Missouri’s proposed ‘‘emergency rule’’ 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 and we did not receive any comments. We also stated in this Federal Register document that if Missouri submitted a ‘‘permanent rule’’ with language that has the same meaning as the ‘‘emergency rule,’’ we would publish a final rule and Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’ would become part of the Missouri program. Because Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’ has the same meaning as the ‘‘emergency rule,’’ we are proceeding with the final rule. III. OSM’s Findings Following are the findings we made concerning Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’ 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. E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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 10929 same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations. The State regulations listed in the table below contain language that is the 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), and (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). 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: 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. Criteria and schedule for release of reclamation 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: hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES 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 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10930 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES We are approving the above revision because it is no less effective than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e)(2). 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: 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. 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; VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 the bond from 60 days to 90 days if the financial conditions of the permittee or thirdparty 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, personal or self bonds with other surety, 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. E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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: hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES (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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 10931 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 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10932 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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 reclamation, if required. 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. make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the emergency rule amendment. On November 10, 2005, and December 13, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the emergency rule 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 emergency rule 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 11, 2006. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 925, which codify decisions concerning the Missouri program to include the original amendment submission date and the date of final publication for this rulemaking. IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments VI. Procedural Determinations Public Comments We asked for public comments on the emergency rule amendment (70 FR 71425), but did not receive any. This final rule has been issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) provides an exception to the notice and comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for dispensing with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule. The provisions being approved in this rulemaking are substantively identical to those approved in the emergency rulemaking on June 8, 2006. At that time, notice and an opportunity to comment were provided to members of the public and no comments were received. Consequently, an additional comment period on the same provisions is viewed as unnecessary. In addition, 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 Administrative Procedure Act hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES 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 emergency rule 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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. 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. E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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 Original amendment submission date * hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 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 Date of final publication * * October 11, 2006 ........................... VerDate Aug<31>2005 meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 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. Dated: February 2, 2007. Ervin J. Barchenger, Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 925 is amended as set forth below: I PART 925—MISSOURI 1. The authority citation for part 925 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 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: I § 925.15 Approval of Missouri regulatory program amendments. * * * Fmt 4700 * * * Citation/description * March 12, 2007 .............................. 10933 * * 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(C) and (D), (2)(A) and (B), (3)(C), (4) and (5), (6)(A)6., 8. and 9., (6)(B)1., 2., and 4. through 7., (6)(C)1. through 4., 8. and 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. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1 10934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations [FR Doc. E7–4416 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 230 [Docket No. 070302051–7051–01; I.D. 021607D] Whaling Provisions; Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Quotas National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Rule. AGENCY: NMFS announces the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for bowhead whales, and other limitations deriving from regulations adopted at the 2002 Special Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). For 2007, the quota is 75 bowhead whales struck. This quota and other limitations will govern the harvest of bowhead whales by members of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). SUMMARY: Effective March 12, 2007. Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri McCarty, (301) 713–9090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aboriginal subsistence whaling in the United States is governed by the Whaling Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 916 et seq.). Regulations that implement the Act, found at 50 CFR 230.6, require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to publish, at least annually, aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas and any other limitations on aboriginal subsistence whaling deriving from regulations of the IWC. At the 2002 Special Meeting of the IWC, the Commission set quotas for aboriginal subsistence use of bowhead whales from the Bering-ChukchiBeaufort Seas stock. The bowhead quota was based on a joint request by the United States and the Russian Federation, accompanied by documentation concerning the needs of two Native groups: Alaska Eskimos and Chukotka Natives in the Russian Far East. This action by the IWC thus authorized aboriginal subsistence whaling by the AEWC for bowhead DATES: hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES ADDRESSES: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 whales. This aboriginal subsistence harvest is conducted in accordance with a cooperative agreement between NOAA and the AEWC. The IWC set a 5–year block quota of 280 bowhead whales landed. For each of the years 2003 through 2007, the number of bowhead whales struck may not exceed 67, except that any unused portion of a strike quota from any year, including 15 unused strikes from the 1998 through 2002 quota, may be carried forward. No more than 15 strikes may be added to the strike quota for any one year. At the end of the 2006 harvest, there were 15 unused strikes available for carry-forward, so the combined strike quota for 2007 is 82 (67 + 15). This arrangement ensures that the total quota of bowhead whales landed and struck in 2007 will not exceed the quotas set by the IWC. Under an arrangement between the United States and the Russian Federation, the Russian natives may use no more than seven strikes, and the Alaska Eskimos may use no more than 75 strikes. NOAA is assigning 75 strikes to the Alaska Eskimos. The AEWC will allocate these strikes among the 10 villages whose cultural and subsistence needs have been documented in past requests for bowhead quotas from the IWC, and will ensure that its hunters use no more than 75 strikes. Other Limitations The IWC regulations, as well as the NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), forbid the taking of calves or any whale accompanied by a calf. NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) contain a number of other prohibitions relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling, some of which are summarized here. Only licensed whaling captains or crew under the control of those captains may engage in whaling. They must follow the provisions of the relevant cooperative agreement between NOAA and a Native American whaling organization. The aboriginal hunters must have adequate crew, supplies, and equipment. They may not receive money for participating in the hunt. No person may sell or offer for sale whale products from whales taken in the hunt, except for authentic articles of Native handicrafts. Captains may not continue to whale after the relevant quota is taken, after the season has been closed, or if their licenses have been suspended. They may not engage in whaling in a wasteful manner. PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Dated: March 6, 2007. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7–4443 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 061109296-7009-02; I.D. 030607B] Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; Quota Transfer National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason quota transfer. AGENCY: SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Commonwealth of Virginia is transferring 150,000 lb (68,039 kg) of commercial bluefish quota to the State of New York from its 2007 quota. By this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas and announces the revised commercial quota for each state involved. DATES: Effective March 7, 2007 through December 31, 2007, unless NMFS publishes a superseding document in the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Potts, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281–9341, FAX (978) 281–9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Florida through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.160. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can transfer or combine bluefish commercial quota under § 648.160(f). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations. Virginia has agreed to transfer 150,000 lb (68,039 kg) of its 2007 commercial quota to New York. The Regional Administrator has determined that the E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM 12MRR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10928-10934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4416]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 925

[Docket No. MO-039-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) regarding bonding under the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Previously, we approved 
an emergency rule that allowed Missouri to transition from a ``bond 
pool'' approach to bonding to a ``full cost bond'' approach in a timely 
manner. We are now approving Missouri's permanent rule concerning this 
same topic. Missouri proposed to revise its program to improve 
operational efficiency.

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 
Division. Telephone: (618) 463-6460. E-mail: MCR--AMEND@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.

II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated October 11, 2006 (Administrative Record No. MO-
666), Missouri sent us a ``permanent rule'' amendment to its program 
regarding bonding under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). This amendment 
was sent as a replacement for Missouri's ``emergency rule'' that we 
previously approved on June 8, 2006 (71 FR 33243). The ``emergency 
rule'' allowed Missouri to transition from a ``bond pool'' approach to 
bonding to a ``full cost bond'' approach in a timely manner. The 
``permanent rule'' amendment, when approved, will become a permanent 
part of Missouri's program.
    We announced receipt of Missouri's proposed ``emergency rule'' 
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 and we did not receive any comments. We also stated in 
this Federal Register document that if Missouri submitted a ``permanent 
rule'' with language that has the same meaning as the ``emergency 
rule,'' we would publish a final rule and Missouri's ``permanent rule'' 
would become part of the Missouri program. Because Missouri's 
``permanent rule'' has the same meaning as the ``emergency rule,'' we 
are proceeding with the final rule.

III. OSM's Findings

    Following are the findings we made concerning Missouri's 
``permanent rule'' 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.

[[Page 10929]]

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).
                                   and (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 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.

[[Page 10930]]

    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. 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 the 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, personal or self bonds with 
other surety, 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.

[[Page 10931]]

    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.
    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

[[Page 10932]]

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 reclamation, if required.
    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 emergency rule amendment (70 FR 
71425), 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 emergency rule 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 emergency rule 
amendment.
    On November 10, 2005, and December 13, 2005, under 30 CFR 
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the emergency rule 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 emergency rule 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 11, 2006.
    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR part 925, which codify decisions concerning the Missouri 
program to include the original amendment submission date and the date 
of final publication for this rulemaking.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Administrative Procedure Act

    This final rule has been issued without prior public notice or 
opportunity for public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 
(5 U.S.C. 553) provides an exception to the notice and comment 
procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with 
such procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary 
or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that under 5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for dispensing with the notice 
of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule. The 
provisions being approved in this rulemaking are substantively 
identical to those approved in the emergency rulemaking on June 8, 
2006. At that time, notice and an opportunity to comment were provided 
to members of the public and no comments were received. Consequently, 
an additional comment period on the same provisions is viewed as 
unnecessary. In addition, 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.

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.

[[Page 10933]]

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.

    Dated: February 2, 2007.
Ervin J. Barchenger,
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 of final
             date                  publication      Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
October 11, 2006..............  March 12, 2007...  10 CSR 40-7.011(1)(C)
                                                    and (D), (2)(A) and
                                                    (B), (3)(C), (4) and
                                                    (5), (6)(A)6., 8.
                                                    and 9., (6)(B)1.,
                                                    2., and 4. through
                                                    7., (6)(C)1. through
                                                    4., 8. and 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 10934]]

 [FR Doc. E7-4416 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P