Montana Regulatory Program, 217-219 [E8-31275]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations (2) Color additives not subject to certification and not otherwise required by applicable regulations in part 73 of this chapter to be declared by their respective common or usual names may be declared as ‘‘Artificial Color,’’ ‘‘Artificial Color Added,’’ or ‘‘Color Added’’ (or by an equally informative term that makes clear that a color additive has been used in the food). Alternatively, such color additives may be declared as ‘‘Colored with ________’’ or ‘‘________ color,’’ the blank to be filled in with the name of the color additive listed in the applicable regulation in part 73 of this chapter. * * * * * Dated: December 24, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8–31253 Filed 1–2–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 926 [SATS No. MT–028–FOR; Docket ID No. OSM–2008–0018] Montana Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment. SUMMARY: We are approving an amendment to the Montana regulatory program (the ‘‘Montana program’’) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (‘‘SMCRA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). Montana proposed revisions to its statute as discussed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, II. Proposed Amendment, to clarify ambiguities and improve operational efficiency. Effective Date: January 5, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casper Field Office Director Jeffrey Fleischman, Telephone: 307/261–6550, Internet address: JFleischman@osmre.gov. DATES: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Montana Program II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment III. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s (OSM’s) Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSM’s Decision VI. Procedural Determinations VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:23 Jan 02, 2009 Jkt 217001 I. Background on the Montana 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 Montana program on April 1, 1980. You can find background information on the Montana program, including the Secretary’s findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in the April 1, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 21560). You can also find later actions at 926.15, 926.16, and 926.30. II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated July 7, 2008, Montana sent us an amendment to its program (Administrative Record No. MT–025– 01, under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Montana sent the amendment for changes made at its own initiative. The provisions of the Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act that Montana proposed to revise are within MCA 82–4–232, Area mining required—bond—alternative plan. We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the August 26, 2008, Federal Register 73 FR 50265. In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the amendment’s adequacy (Administrative Record No. MT–25–05). We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on September 25, 2008. We received comments from one Federal agency. 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. A. Minor Revisions to Montana’s Statute Montana proposed minor wording changes to the following previouslyapproved Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act: MCA 82–4–232(3) and (4). Area mining required—bond—alternative plan. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 217 Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make Montana’s statute less stringent than SMCRA. B. Revisions to Montana’s Statute That Have the Same Meaning as the Corresponding Provisions of SMCRA Montana proposed revisions to its statute at MCA 82–4–232(6)(l) requiring detailed written findings when reclamation is not approved. The revised language is similar and corresponds to section 519(d) of SMCRA; and therefore, we approve it. C. Revision to Montana’s Statute That Is Not the Same as SMCRA Montana statute at MCA 82–4– 232(5)(k). Requirement to release performance bonds. MCA at 82–4–232(k)(5) states that the Department may release the bond in whole or in part if it is satisfied the reclamation covered by the bond or portion of the bond has been accomplished as required by this part according to the following schedule: Montana proposes to replace the existing term ‘‘may’’ in its statute with the more definitive term ‘‘shall.’’ The language in both SMCRA at Section 519 and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(c) use the phrase ‘‘the regulatory authority may release all or part of the bond * * *.’’ (Emphasis added). Montana’s proposed statutory change does not alter its existing requirements that all required reclamation must be completed prior to the release of the bond, the public must have been provided with the opportunity to request a hearing to contest the pending release, and the performance bond is released either in whole or in part only when the entire process is completed. With the use of the term ‘‘shall’’, Montana provides the operator conducting the required reclamation with clear assurance that bond will be released once all the requirements are met including the appropriate request by the operator. The added assurance that bond release will occur is also important to financial institutions providing funds for the reclamation bond. Surety bonds have become more difficult to obtain. Montana’s proposed use of the term ‘‘shall’’ clarifies the terms of the bond. We have, in the past, approved the use of the term ‘‘shall’’ rather than ‘‘may’’ with respect to a State’s decision to release all or part of a reclamation bond. For the reasons discussed above, we are approving Montana’s proposed change to MCA 82– 4–232(k)(5) to require bond release with use of the term ‘‘shall’’ in place of the term ‘‘may’’. E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM 05JAR1 218 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments We asked for public comments on the amendment but did not receive any (Administrative Record No. MT–25–03). Federal Agency Comments Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Montana program (Administrative Record Document ID No. MT–25–03). One comment letter was received. The Rocky Mountain Regional Office of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs replied in an August 1, 2008, letter (Administrative Record No. MT–25–04). It states that the proposed changes appear to be very beneficial to the program’s mission and that ‘‘we have no reason to object to the revision being approved.’’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), we are required to get concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). On July 21, 2008, we asked for concurrence on the amendment (Administrative Record Document ID No. MT–25–03). 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 July 21, 2008, we requested comments on Montana’s amendment (Administrative Record Document ID No. MT–25–03), but neither responded to our request. V. OSM’s Decision Based on the above findings, we approve Montana’s July 7, 2008, amendment. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 926, which codify decisions concerning the Montana program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State’s program demonstrates that the State has VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:23 Jan 02, 2009 Jkt 217001 the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this regulation effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards. 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 regulation. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ‘‘in accordance with’’ the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ‘‘consistent with’’ regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 CFR 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) et seq.). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based 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 E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM 05JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 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), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. 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. Original amendment submission date * * July 7, 2008 ................................... 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 regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction On December 19, 2008, the Postal Service filed a formal request pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq. to add Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 to the Competitive Product List.1 The Postal Service asserts that the Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 product is a competitive product ‘‘not of general applicability’’ within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3). Request at 1. The Request has been assigned Docket No. MC2009– 13. The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a contract related to the proposed new product pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. The contract has been assigned Docket No. CP2009–17. Request. The Request incorporates (1) A redacted version of the Governors’ Decision authorizing the new product; (2) a redacted version of the contract; (3) requested changes in the Mail Classification Schedule product list; (4) a statement of supporting justification as POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3020 [Docket Nos. MC2009–13 and CP2009–17; Order No. 158] New Competitive Product Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recently filed Postal Service request to add Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 to the Competitive Product List. The Postal Service has also filed one related contract. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with these filings. DATES: Comments due January 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission’s Filing Online system at https:// www.prc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202–789–6820 and stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 13:23 Jan 02, 2009 Dated: November 25, 2008. Allen D. Klein, Regional Director, Western Region. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR 926 is amended as set forth below: ■ PART 926—MONTANA 1. The authority citation for part 926 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 2. Section 926.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final Publication’’ to read as follows: ■ § 926.15 Approval of Montana’s regulatory program amendments. * * * * * * * * * January 5, 2009 ............................. Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act 82–4–232(3) and (4), 82–4–232 (5)(k), 82–4–232(5)(l). BILLING CODE 4310–05–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Citation/description [FR Doc. E8–31275 Filed 1–2–09; 8:45 am] ACTION: List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926 * Date of final publication 219 Jkt 217001 1 Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class Not of General Applicability, December 19, 2008 (Request). PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 required by 39 CFR 3020.32; and (5) certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a).2 Substantively, the Request seeks to add Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 to the Competitive Product List. Id. at 1–2. In the statement of supporting justification, Kim Parks, Manager, Sales and Communications, Expedited Shipping, asserts that the service to be provided under the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service’s total institutional costs. Id., Attachment D. Thus, Ms. Parks contends there will be no issue of subsidization of competitive products 2 Attachment A to the Request consists of the redacted Decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on Establishment of Rate and Class Not of General Applicability for Express Mail and Priority Mail Services (Governors’ Decision No. 08–23). The Governors’ Decision includes an attachment which provides an analysis of the proposed Express Mail and Priority Mail Contract 3 and certification of the Governors’ vote. Attachment B is the redacted version of the contract. Attachment C shows the requested changes to the Mail Classification Schedule product list. Attachment D provides a statement of supporting justification for the Request. Attachment E provides the certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a). E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM 05JAR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 217-219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 926

[SATS No. MT-028-FOR; Docket ID No. OSM-2008-0018]


Montana Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: We are approving an amendment to the Montana regulatory 
program (the ``Montana program'') under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (``SMCRA'' or ``the Act''). Montana proposed 
revisions to its statute as discussed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, II. 
Proposed Amendment, to clarify ambiguities and improve operational 
efficiency.

DATES: Effective Date: January 5, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casper Field Office Director Jeffrey 
Fleischman, Telephone: 307/261-6550, Internet address: 
JFleischman@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Montana Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSM's) 
Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Montana 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 Montana program on April 1, 1980. You can 
find background information on the Montana program, including the 
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of 
approval in the April 1, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 21560). You can 
also find later actions at 926.15, 926.16, and 926.30.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated July 7, 2008, Montana sent us an amendment to its 
program (Administrative Record No. MT-025-01, under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 
1201 et seq.). Montana sent the amendment for changes made at its own 
initiative. The provisions of the Montana Strip and Underground Mine 
Reclamation Act that Montana proposed to revise are within MCA 82-4-
232, Area mining required--bond--alternative plan.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the August 26, 
2008, Federal Register 73 FR 50265. In the same document, we opened the 
public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing 
or meeting on the amendment's adequacy (Administrative Record No. MT-
25-05). We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one 
requested one. The public comment period ended on September 25, 2008. 
We received comments from one Federal agency.

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.

A. Minor Revisions to Montana's Statute

    Montana proposed minor wording changes to the following previously-
approved Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act:
    MCA 82-4-232(3) and (4). Area mining required--bond--alternative 
plan.
    Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make 
Montana's statute less stringent than SMCRA.

B. Revisions to Montana's Statute That Have the Same Meaning as the 
Corresponding Provisions of SMCRA

    Montana proposed revisions to its statute at MCA 82-4-232(6)(l) 
requiring detailed written findings when reclamation is not approved. 
The revised language is similar and corresponds to section 519(d) of 
SMCRA; and therefore, we approve it.

C. Revision to Montana's Statute That Is Not the Same as SMCRA

    Montana statute at MCA 82-4-232(5)(k). Requirement to release 
performance bonds.
    MCA at 82-4-232(k)(5) states that the Department may release the 
bond in whole or in part if it is satisfied the reclamation covered by 
the bond or portion of the bond has been accomplished as required by 
this part according to the following schedule:
    Montana proposes to replace the existing term ``may'' in its 
statute with the more definitive term ``shall.'' The language in both 
SMCRA at Section 519 and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(c) 
use the phrase ``the regulatory authority may release all or part of 
the bond * * *.'' (Emphasis added). Montana's proposed statutory change 
does not alter its existing requirements that all required reclamation 
must be completed prior to the release of the bond, the public must 
have been provided with the opportunity to request a hearing to contest 
the pending release, and the performance bond is released either in 
whole or in part only when the entire process is completed. With the 
use of the term ``shall'', Montana provides the operator conducting the 
required reclamation with clear assurance that bond will be released 
once all the requirements are met including the appropriate request by 
the operator. The added assurance that bond release will occur is also 
important to financial institutions providing funds for the reclamation 
bond. Surety bonds have become more difficult to obtain. Montana's 
proposed use of the term ``shall'' clarifies the terms of the bond. We 
have, in the past, approved the use of the term ``shall'' rather than 
``may'' with respect to a State's decision to release all or part of a 
reclamation bond. For the reasons discussed above, we are approving 
Montana's proposed change to MCA 82-4-232(k)(5) to require bond release 
with use of the term ``shall'' in place of the term ``may''.

[[Page 218]]

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment but did not receive 
any (Administrative Record No. MT-25-03).

Federal Agency Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we 
requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with 
an actual or potential interest in the Montana program (Administrative 
Record Document ID No. MT-25-03). One comment letter was received.
    The Rocky Mountain Regional Office of the U.S. Bureau of Indian 
Affairs replied in an August 1, 2008, letter (Administrative Record No. 
MT-25-04). It states that the proposed changes appear to be very 
beneficial to the program's mission and that ``we have no reason to 
object to the revision being approved.''

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), we are required to get 
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that 
relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of 
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
    On July 21, 2008, we asked for concurrence on the amendment 
(Administrative Record Document ID No. MT-25-03). 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 July 21, 2008, we requested comments on Montana's 
amendment (Administrative Record Document ID No. MT-25-03), but neither 
responded to our request.

V. OSM's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve Montana's July 7, 2008, 
amendment.
    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR Part 926, which codify decisions concerning the Montana 
program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to 
make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA 
requires that the State's program demonstrates that the State has the 
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its 
purposes. Making this regulation effective immediately will expedite 
that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal 
standards.

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 regulation.

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

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

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule 
meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that 
section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual 
language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because 
each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by 
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), 
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments 
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of 
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing 
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 
730, 731, and 732 have been met.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates 
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the 
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of 
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect 
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal 
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State 
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in 
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) 
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent 
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

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

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the 
potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian Tribes 
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct 
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. 
The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way.

Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the 
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which 
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule 
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review 
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a 
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not require an environmental impact statement 
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 CFR 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) et seq.).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based 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

[[Page 219]]

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), of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    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 regulation did not impose an 
unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: November 25, 2008.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Western Region.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR 926 is amended as set 
forth below:

PART 926--MONTANA

0
1. The authority citation for part 926 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 926.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of Final Publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  926.15  Approval of Montana's regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Original amendment submission    Date of final
             date                  publication      Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
July 7, 2008..................  January 5, 2009..  Montana Strip and
                                                    Underground Mine
                                                    Reclamation Act 82-4-
                                                    232(3) and (4), 82-4-
                                                    232 (5)(k), 82-4-
                                                    232(5)(l).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-31275 Filed 1-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.