Utah Regulatory Program, 32648-32651 [2014-13294]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32648
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2014–13293 Filed 6–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 944
[SATS No. UT–049–FOR; Docket ID No.
OSM–2012–0015; S1D1SSS08011000
SX066A00067F144S180110;
S2D2SSS08011000SX066A00033F14
XS501520]
Utah Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; Approval of
Amendment.
AGENCY:
We are approving an
amendment to the Utah regulatory
program (the ‘‘Utah program’’) under the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (‘‘SMCRA’’ or
‘‘the Act’’). Utah proposed revisions to
and additions of rules about ownership
and control. Utah revised its program to
be consistent with the corresponding
Federal regulations.
DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Fleischman, Chief, Denver Field
Division, Telephone: 307–261–6550,
Internet address: jfleischman@
OSMRE.gov.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Utah 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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background on the Utah Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its State program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
requirements of this Act . . . and rules
and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Utah
program on January 21, 1981. You can
find background information on the
Utah program, including the Secretary’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
findings, the disposition of comments,
and conditions of approval of the Utah
program in the January 21, 1981,
Federal Register (46 FR 5899). You can
also find later actions concerning Utah’s
program and program amendments at 30
CFR 944.15 and 944.30.
II. Submission of the Proposed
Amendment
By letter dated June 25, 2012, Utah
sent us an amendment to its program
(Administrative Record Number OSM–
2012–0015–0002) under SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Utah sent the
amendment in response to an October 2,
2009 letter (Administrative Record No.
OSM–2012–0015–0003) we sent to Utah
in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c).
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the September
5, 2012 Federal Register (77 FR 54491).
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. OSM–2012–
0015–0001). We did not hold a public
hearing or meeting because no one
requested one. The public comment
period ended on October 5, 2012. We
received comments from three Federal
agencies.
By letter dated November 2, 2012,
Utah sent us a supplemental to the June
25, 2012 amendment proposal
(Administrative Record No. OSM–2012–
0015–0008). Utah sent the supplemental
amendment to address two minor
revisions that were inadvertently
omitted from the June 25th submittal.
We announced receipt of the
supplemental proposed amendment in
the December 12, 2012 Federal Register
(77 FR 73966). In the same document,
we reopened the public comment period
on the amendment’s adequacy
(Administrative Record No. OSM–2012–
0015–0010). That public comment
period ended on December 27, 2012. We
did not receive any additional
comments during the second comment
period.
III. OSM’s Findings
Following are the findings we made
concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment.
Revisions to Utah’s Rules That Have the
Same Meaning as the Corresponding
Provisions of the Federal Regulations
Utah proposed revisions to the
following rules containing language that
is the same as or similar to the
corresponding sections of the Federal
regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
R643–874–160 corresponding to 30
CFR 874.16, AML contractor eligibility
(general);
R643–875–200 corresponding to 30
CFR 875.20, AML contractor eligibility
(noncoal);
R645–100–200 corresponding to 30
CFR 701.5, Definitions of ‘‘Applicant/
Violator System,’’ ‘‘Control or
Controller,’’ ‘‘Knowingly’’ (deleted),
‘‘Knowing or Knowingly,’’ ‘‘ ‘Owned or
controlled’ and ‘Owns or Controls’ ’’
(deleted), ‘‘Own, Owner, or
Ownership,’’ ‘‘Transfer, Assignment or
Sale of Permit Rights,’’ ‘‘Violation,’’
‘‘Violation, Failure, or Refusal,’’
‘‘Violation Notice,’’ ‘‘Willful or
Willfully,’’ and ‘‘Willful Violation;’’
R645–300–132 corresponding to 30
CFR 773.8, Review of compliance and
entry of information into the AVS;
R645–300–132.100 corresponding to
30 CFR 773.9 through 773.11, Review of
applicant, operator and ownership and
control information, permit history, and
compliance history;
R645–300–132.120 through –132.121
corresponding to 30 CFR 773.14(3) & (4),
Challenging ownership and control
listings;
R645–300–132.150 through
–132.150.11 corresponding to 30 CFR
773.25 through 773.28, Challenging
ownership and control listings;
R645–300–132.200 corresponding to
30 CFR 773.14, Provisionally issued
permits;
R645–300–132.400 corresponding to
30 CFR 773.12, Permit eligibility
determinations;
R645–300–132.500 corresponding to
30 CFR 773.13, Unanticipated events or
conditions at remining sites;
R645–300–133 corresponding to 30
CFR 773.15, Written findings for permit
application approval;
R645–300–148 corresponding to 30
CFR 774.12(c), Updating ownership and
control information;
R645–300–160 through –162
corresponding to 30 CFR 773.21,
Improvidently issued permits;
R645–300–164 corresponding to 30
CFR 773.22 and 773.23, Improvidently
issued permit rescission procedures;
R645–300–171 through –173
corresponding to 30 CFR 778.9,
Certifying and updating permit
application information;
R645–300–180 though –183.2
corresponding to 30 CFR 774.11, Postpermit issuance requirements based on
ownership and control information;
R645–301–111 corresponding to 30
CFR 778.11, Minimum requirements for
legal, financial, compliance, and related
information;
R645–301–112.200 through –112.420
corresponding to 30 CFR 778.11 and
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
778.12, Providing permit history
information;
R645–301–113 corresponding to 30
CFR 778.14, Providing violation
information;
R645–302–240 corresponding to 30
CFR 785.25, Remining;
R645–303–310 corresponding to 30
CFR 774.17(a), Transfer, assignment, or
sale of permit rights;
R645–400–319 corresponding to 30
CFR 843.11, Notices in the event of a
cessation order; and
R645–403 corresponding to 30 CFR
847; Alternative enforcement.
Utah revised the listed provisions to
closely mirror Federal counterpart
language and requirements. These
revisions encompass all required
program amendments identified through
our October 2, 2009 letter. Because the
proposed rules contain language that is
the same as or similar to the
corresponding Federal regulations, we
find that they are no less effective than
the corresponding Federal regulations.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment (Administrative Record
Document ID No. OSM–2012–0015–
0001), but did not receive any.
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 Utah program
(Administrative Record Document ID
No. OSM–2012–00015–0007).
On August 1, 2012 we received an
email comment from the United States
Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, Intermountain Region
(Administrative Record No. OSM–2012–
0015–0006). The Forest Service stated
that it did not have specific comments
on the proposed amendment.
By letter dated August 3, 2012 we
received a comment from the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM)
(Administrative Record No. OSM–2012–
0015–0004). The BLM stated that the
changes appear to provide clarification
of the definition of responsible parties
and certain procedural steps. The BLM
understands that the changes will
continue to be implemented by the Utah
Coal Regulatory Program. We agree with
the BLM comments and are approving
the amendment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and
(ii), we are required to get concurrence
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
from EPA for those provisions of the
program amendment that relate to air or
water quality standards issued under
the authority of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
None of the revisions that Utah
proposed to make in this amendment
pertains to air or water quality
standards. Therefore, we did not ask
EPA to concur on the amendment.
However, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),
OSM requested comments on the
amendment from EPA (Administrative
Record Document ID No. OSM–2012–
0015–0007. EPA responded on August
7, 2012, by stating it has no substantive
comments on the proposed amendment
(Administrative Record Document ID
No. OSM–2012–0015–0005).
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 2, 2012 we requested
comments on Utah’s amendment
(Administrative Record Document ID
No. OSM–2012–0015–0007), but neither
responded to our request.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve Utah’s June 25, 2012
amendment as supplemented November
2, 2012.
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR Part 944, which codify decisions
concerning the Utah program. We find
that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) to make this final rule
effective immediately. Section 503(a) of
SMCRA requires that the State’s
program demonstrates that the State has
the capability of carrying out the
provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this regulation
effective immediately will expedite that
process. SMCRA requires consistency of
State and Federal standards.
Effect of OSM’s Decision
Section 503 of SMCRA provides that
a State may not exercise jurisdiction
under SMCRA unless the State program
is approved by the Secretary. Similarly,
30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any
change of an approved State program be
submitted to OSM for review as a
program amendment. The Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit
any changes to approved State programs
that are not approved by OSM. In the
oversight of the Utah program, we will
recognize only the statutes, regulations
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32649
and other materials we have approved,
together with any consistent
implementing policies, directives and
other materials. We will require Utah to
enforce only approved provisions.
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.
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
32650
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Paperwork Reduction Act
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
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).
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
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 944
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: February 25, 2014.
Allen D. Klein,
Director, Western Region.
Editorial Note: This document was
received by the Office of the Federal Register
on June 3, 2014.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 944 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 944—UTAH
1. The authority citation for part 944
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 944.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 944.15 Approval of Utah regulatory
program amendments
*
*
*
*
*
Date of final
publication
Citation/description
*
June 25, 2012 ........
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Original amendment
submission date
*
June 6, 2014 ..........
*
*
*
*
*
R643–874–160; –875–200; R645–100–200 (Definitions); R645–300–132 (et seq); –133.1000;
–148.100; –161; –162 (et seq); 164 (et seq); –171 through –185.700; R645–301–111.400 through
–112.420; –113.100 through –113.120; –113.300; –113.340 through –113.360; R645–302–240
through –242; –245.210; –245.300; –245.410 through –245.420; R645–303–310; R645–400–319;
R645–403 (et seq).
[FR Doc. 2014–13294 Filed 6–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0037; CFDA
Number 84.229A]
Final Priority; Language Resource
Centers Program
Office of Postsecondary
Education (OPE), Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final Priority.
AGENCY:
The Acting Assistant
Secretary for Postsecondary Education
announces a priority under the
Language Resource Centers (LRC)
Program administered by the
International and Foreign Language
Education Office. The Acting Assistant
Secretary may use this priority for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014
and later years. We take this action to
focus Federal financial assistance on an
identified national need. We intend the
priority to make international education
opportunities available to more
American students.
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is
effective July 7, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Guilfoil. Telephone: (202)
502–7625 or by email: michelle.guilfoil@
ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The LRC
Program provides grants to institutions
of higher education or consortia of these
institutions for establishing,
strengthening, and operating centers
that serve as resources for improving the
Nation’s capacity for teaching and
learning foreign languages through
teacher training, research, materials
development, and dissemination
projects.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR parts 655 and 669.
We published a notice of proposed
priority for this program in the Federal
Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR
15074). That notice contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing this particular priority.
There are differences between the
proposed priority and this final priority
as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
priority, three parties submitted
comments on the proposed priority.
Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and any
changes in the priority since publication
of the notice of proposed priority
follows.
Comment: A commenter endorsed the
proposed priorities and expressed
appreciation for the Department of
Education’s efforts to facilitate stronger
participation of MSIs. In addition, the
commenter urged us to use these
priorities as absolute or competitive
preference priorities.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support. However, it is our
practice to specify the priority types for
each competition in the notice inviting
applications, not in an NFP.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we include a priority for
applications that include collaboration
activities with MSIs to enhance access
to international activities and foreign
language learning.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter and believe that the final
priority, consistent with the proposed
priority, clearly accomplishes this goal.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that it would be helpful if we provide
a list of institutions eligible under Title
III, part A; Title III, part B; and Title V
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA).
Discussion: We agree that making this
information readily available to
applicants will help them in addressing
and meeting this priority.
Change: None. We will provide the
information on the institutions that
currently meet this definition in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications (NIA).
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we remove the
singular modifier before minorityserving institutions (MSIs) and before
community college to clarify that
collaborative activities may be proposed
with more than one MSI or more than
one community college.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter’s suggestion and are making
this change to ensure we do not limit
the number of entities that are able to
collaborate under this priority.
Change: We have revised this priority
to make it clear that an institution can
collaborate with multiple MSIs or
community colleges.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32651
Comment: One commenter
encouraged the Department to consider
as broad a definition of MSI as possible
so as to provide the greatest
opportunities for applicant institutions
to positively influence students and
instructors alike at these underserved
institutions.
Discussion: We believe that the
definition of an MSI to be used with this
priority will serve a wide range of
institutions and fulfill the Department’s
intention of addressing the gap in the
types of institutions, faculty, and
students that have historically
benefitted from the instruction, training,
and outreach available at LRCs.
Institutions that are eligible to receive
assistance under Title III, part A; Title
III part B; and Title V of the HEA
include MSIs, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
predominately black institutions,
Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal
colleges, among others. This range of
institutional types provides sufficient
options to language resource center
institutions in terms of collaboration.
Considering, too, that community
colleges are included in this priority,
there is flexibility, opportunity, and
latitude for the Language Resource
Center institutions to meet the intended
outcomes of this priority. We, therefore,
do not agree that the definition of an
MSI for the purposes of this proposed
priority is too narrow.
Change: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal
deliberation, and consistent with a
change made to a similar priority for the
National Resource Centers program in
response to a comment, we have revised
the final priority to allow an applicant
that itself is an MSI or community
college to propose to meet the priority
by conducting intra-campus
collaborative activities instead of, or in
addition to, collaborative activities with
other MSIs or community colleges. An
example of an intra-campus
collaborative activity would be a project
involving the faculty in the Department
of Social Sciences and the Yoruba
language instructors to develop a
language across the curriculum course
about human rights issues in Africa.
Changes: We have revised the priority
language to permit institutions that are
MSIs or community colleges to propose
intra-campus collaborative activities
instead of, or in addition to,
collaborative activities with other MSIs
or community colleges.
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32648-32651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13294]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 944
[SATS No. UT-049-FOR; Docket ID No. OSM-2012-0015;
S1D1SSS08011000SX066A00067F144S180110;
S2D2SSS08011000SX066A00033F14XS501520]
Utah 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 Utah regulatory program
(the ``Utah program'') under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 (``SMCRA'' or ``the Act''). Utah proposed revisions to and
additions of rules about ownership and control. Utah revised its
program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations.
DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Fleischman, Chief, Denver
Field Division, Telephone: 307-261-6550, Internet address:
jfleischman@OSMRE.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Utah 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 Utah Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its State program includes, among other things, ``a State law which
provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act . . . and
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the
Secretary pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Utah program on January 21, 1981. You can
find background information on the Utah program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of
approval of the Utah program in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register
(46 FR 5899). You can also find later actions concerning Utah's program
and program amendments at 30 CFR 944.15 and 944.30.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated June 25, 2012, Utah sent us an amendment to its
program (Administrative Record Number OSM-2012-0015-0002) under SMCRA
(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Utah sent the amendment in response to an
October 2, 2009 letter (Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0015-0003)
we sent to Utah in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c).
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September 5,
2012 Federal Register (77 FR 54491). 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. OSM-2012-0015-0001). We did not hold a public hearing or meeting
because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on
October 5, 2012. We received comments from three Federal agencies.
By letter dated November 2, 2012, Utah sent us a supplemental to
the June 25, 2012 amendment proposal (Administrative Record No. OSM-
2012-0015-0008). Utah sent the supplemental amendment to address two
minor revisions that were inadvertently omitted from the June 25th
submittal.
We announced receipt of the supplemental proposed amendment in the
December 12, 2012 Federal Register (77 FR 73966). In the same document,
we reopened the public comment period on the amendment's adequacy
(Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0015-0010). That public comment
period ended on December 27, 2012. We did not receive any additional
comments during the second comment period.
III. OSM's Findings
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment.
Revisions to Utah's Rules That Have the Same Meaning as the
Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations
Utah proposed revisions to the following rules containing language
that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the
Federal regulations.
R643-874-160 corresponding to 30 CFR 874.16, AML contractor
eligibility (general);
R643-875-200 corresponding to 30 CFR 875.20, AML contractor
eligibility (noncoal);
R645-100-200 corresponding to 30 CFR 701.5, Definitions of
``Applicant/Violator System,'' ``Control or Controller,'' ``Knowingly''
(deleted), ``Knowing or Knowingly,'' `` `Owned or controlled' and `Owns
or Controls' '' (deleted), ``Own, Owner, or Ownership,'' ``Transfer,
Assignment or Sale of Permit Rights,'' ``Violation,'' ``Violation,
Failure, or Refusal,'' ``Violation Notice,'' ``Willful or Willfully,''
and ``Willful Violation;''
R645-300-132 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.8, Review of compliance
and entry of information into the AVS;
R645-300-132.100 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.9 through 773.11,
Review of applicant, operator and ownership and control information,
permit history, and compliance history;
R645-300-132.120 through -132.121 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.14(3)
& (4), Challenging ownership and control listings;
R645-300-132.150 through -132.150.11 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.25
through 773.28, Challenging ownership and control listings;
R645-300-132.200 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.14, Provisionally
issued permits;
R645-300-132.400 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.12, Permit eligibility
determinations;
R645-300-132.500 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.13, Unanticipated
events or conditions at remining sites;
R645-300-133 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.15, Written findings for
permit application approval;
R645-300-148 corresponding to 30 CFR 774.12(c), Updating ownership
and control information;
R645-300-160 through -162 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.21,
Improvidently issued permits;
R645-300-164 corresponding to 30 CFR 773.22 and 773.23,
Improvidently issued permit rescission procedures;
R645-300-171 through -173 corresponding to 30 CFR 778.9, Certifying
and updating permit application information;
R645-300-180 though -183.2 corresponding to 30 CFR 774.11, Post-
permit issuance requirements based on ownership and control
information;
R645-301-111 corresponding to 30 CFR 778.11, Minimum requirements
for legal, financial, compliance, and related information;
R645-301-112.200 through -112.420 corresponding to 30 CFR 778.11
and
[[Page 32649]]
778.12, Providing permit history information;
R645-301-113 corresponding to 30 CFR 778.14, Providing violation
information;
R645-302-240 corresponding to 30 CFR 785.25, Remining;
R645-303-310 corresponding to 30 CFR 774.17(a), Transfer,
assignment, or sale of permit rights;
R645-400-319 corresponding to 30 CFR 843.11, Notices in the event
of a cessation order; and
R645-403 corresponding to 30 CFR 847; Alternative enforcement.
Utah revised the listed provisions to closely mirror Federal
counterpart language and requirements. These revisions encompass all
required program amendments identified through our October 2, 2009
letter. Because the proposed rules contain language that is the same as
or similar to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they
are no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative
Record Document ID No. OSM-2012-0015-0001), but did not receive any.
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 Utah program (Administrative
Record Document ID No. OSM-2012-00015-0007).
On August 1, 2012 we received an email comment from the United
States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Region
(Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0015-0006). The Forest Service
stated that it did not have specific comments on the proposed
amendment.
By letter dated August 3, 2012 we received a comment from the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-
0015-0004). The BLM stated that the changes appear to provide
clarification of the definition of responsible parties and certain
procedural steps. The BLM understands that the changes will continue to
be implemented by the Utah Coal Regulatory Program. We agree with the
BLM comments and are approving the amendment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), we are required to get
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that
relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
None of the revisions that Utah proposed to make in this amendment
pertains to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask
EPA to concur on the amendment. However, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),
OSM requested comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record
Document ID No. OSM-2012-0015-0007. EPA responded on August 7, 2012, by
stating it has no substantive comments on the proposed amendment
(Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2012-0015-0005).
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 2, 2012 we requested comments on Utah's amendment
(Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2012-0015-0007), but neither
responded to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve Utah's June 25, 2012
amendment as supplemented November 2, 2012.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR Part 944, which codify decisions concerning the Utah program.
We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this
final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that
the State's program demonstrates that the State has the capability of
carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making
this regulation effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA
requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
Effect of OSM's Decision
Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the
Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any change of an
approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program
amendment. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit any
changes to approved State programs that are not approved by OSM. In the
oversight of the Utah program, we will recognize only the statutes,
regulations and other materials we have approved, together with any
consistent implementing policies, directives and other materials. We
will require Utah to enforce only approved provisions.
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.
[[Page 32650]]
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 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 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 944
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: February 25, 2014.
Allen D. Klein,
Director, Western Region.
Editorial Note: This document was received by the Office of the
Federal Register on June 3, 2014.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 944 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 944--UTAH
0
1. The authority citation for part 944 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 944.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 944.15 Approval of Utah regulatory program amendments
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment Date of final
submission date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
June 25, 2012........... June 6, 2014............ R643-874-160; -875-
200; R645-100-200
(Definitions); R645-
300-132 (et seq); -
133.1000; -148.100;
-161; -162 (et
seq); 164 (et seq);
-171 through -
185.700; R645-301-
111.400 through -
112.420; -113.100
through -113.120; -
113.300; -113.340
through -113.360;
R645-302-240
through -242; -
245.210; -245.300;
245.410 through -
245.420; R645-303-
310; R645-400-319;
R645-403 (et seq).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-13294 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
