69280 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

FDA concludes that the labeling 

requirement in this document is not 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget because it does 

not constitute a ‘‘collection of 

information’’ under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). Rather, the labeling statements 

are a ‘‘public disclosure of information 

originally supplied by the Federal 

government to the recipient for the 

purpose of disclosure to the public’’ (5 

CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).

V. Environmental Impact

FDA has determined under 21 CFR 

25.31(a) that this action is of a type that 

does not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required.

VI. Federalism

FDA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles set forth 

in Executive Order 13132. FDA has 

determined that the rule does not 

contain policies that have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Accordingly, the 

agency has concluded that the rule does 

not contain policies that have 

federalism implications as defined in 

the Executive order and, consequently, 

a federalism summary impact statement 

is not required.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 201

Drugs, Labeling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 201 is 

amended as follows:

PART 201—LABELING

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 201 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 

353, 355, 358, 360, 360b, 360gg–360ss, 371, 

374, 379e; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 264.

■ 2. Section 201.64 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:

§ 201.64 Sodium labeling.

* * * * *

(k) The labeling of OTC drug products 

intended for rectal administration 

containing dibasic sodium phosphate 

and/or monobasic sodium phosphate 

shall contain the sodium content per 

delivered dose if the sodium content is 

5 milligrams or more. The sodium 

content shall be expressed in milligrams 

or grams. If less than 1 gram, milligrams 

should be used. The sodium content 

shall be rounded-off to the nearest 

whole number if expressed in 

milligrams (or nearest tenth of a gram if 

expressed in grams). The sodium 

content per delivered dose shall follow 

the heading ‘‘Other information’’ as 

stated in § 201.66(c)(7). Any product 

subject to this paragraph that contains 

dibasic sodium phosphate and/or 

monobasic sodium phosphate as an 

active ingredient intended for rectal 

administration and that is not labeled as 

required by this paragraph and that is 

initially introduced or initially 

delivered for introduction into interstate 

commerce after November 29, 2005, is 

misbranded under sections 201(n) and 

502(a) and (f) of the act.

Dated: November 18, 2004.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–26269 Filed 11–26–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 914

[Docket No. IN–141–FOR] 

Indiana 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, with an 

additional requirement, an amendment 

to the Indiana regulatory program 

(Indiana program) under the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Indiana 

proposed revisions to and additions of 

rules about definitions, identification of 

interests, topsoil, siltation structures, 

impoundments, refuse piles, prime 

farmland, lands eligible for remining, 

permitting, performance bond release, 

surface and ground water monitoring, 

roads, inspection, and civil penalties. 

Indiana intends to revise its program to 

be consistent with the corresponding 

Federal regulations, clarify ambiguities, 

and improve operational efficiency.

DATES: Effective: November 29, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

Division. Telephone: (317) 226–6700. Email: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Indiana 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 Indiana 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 Indiana 

program effective July 29, 1982. You can 

find background information on the 

Indiana program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and the conditions of 

approval, in the July 26, 1982, Federal 

Register (47 FR 32071). You can also 

find later actions concerning the Indiana 

program and program amendments at 30 

CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated May 19, 2004 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1726), 

the Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Reclamation 

(Indiana or IDNR) sent us an 

amendment to its program under 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Indiana 

sent the amendment in response to a 

June 17, 1997, letter (Administrative 

Record No. IND–1575) that we sent to 

Indiana in accordance with 30 CFR 

732.17(c) and in response to the 

required program amendments at 30 

CFR 914.16(f), (s), and (hh) through 

(mm). The amendment also included 

changes made at Indiana’s own 

initiative. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the July 19, 

2004, Federal Register (69 FR 42931). In 

the same document, we opened the 

public comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the adequacy of the 

amendment. We did not hold a public 

hearing or meeting because no one 

requested one. The public comment 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 69281

period ended on August 18, 2004. We 

received comments from one Federal 

agency. 

During our review of the amendment, 

we identified concerns about inspection 

of abandoned sites and several editorialtype errors. We notified Indiana of these 

concerns by letter dated July 26, 2004, 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1732). 

By letter dated September 14, 2004 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1733), 

Indiana responded to our July 26, 2004, 

letter. Indiana intends to make changes 

to its inspection of abandoned sites rule 

and to correct the editorial-type errors 

through the errata and program 

amendment processes at a later date. 

Therefore, we are proceeding with this 

final rule Federal Register document. 

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 with an 

additional requirement as described 

below. 

A. Minor Revisions to Indiana’s Rules

Indiana proposed minor wording, 

editorial, punctuation, grammatical, and 

recodification changes to the following 

previously-approved rules: 

312 Indiana Administrative Code 

(IAC) 25–4–17(a)(1), Surface mining 

permit applications—identification of 

interests; 25–4–115(a)(3), Permit 

approval or denial; 25–4–118(8), Permit 

conditions; 25–6–17(b)(2)(J), Surface 

mining-siltation structures; 25–6–

23(a)(2), Surface mining-surface and 

ground water monitoring; and 25–7–

1(a)(1) and (d)(2), Inspections of sites. 

Because these changes are minor, we 

find that they will not make Indiana’s 

rules less effective than the 

corresponding Federal regulations. 

B. Revisions to Indiana’s Rules That 

Have the Same Meaning as the 

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal 

Regulations 

Indiana’s rules listed in the table 

below contain language that is the same 

as or similar to the corresponding 

sections of the Federal regulations.

Topic State Rule 312 IAC Federal Regulation 30 CFR 

Definition of lands eligible for remining .............. 25–1–75.5 ........................................................ 701.5. 

Definition of unanticipated event or condition .... 25–1–155.5 ...................................................... 701.5. 

Prime farmland ................................................... 25–4–102(d)(1), (e), (f) .................................... 785.17(c)(1), (d)(4), (e). 

Performance bond release ................................. 25–5–16(b), (c) ................................................ 800.40(a)(3), (b). 

Surface mining and underground mining; hydrologic balance; siltation structures.25–6–17(a)(3), (d)(2), (d)(3); 25–6–81(a)(3), 

(d)(2), (d)(3).

816.46(b)(3), (c)(2); 817.46(b)(3), (c)(2). 

Surface mining and underground mining; hydrologic balance; permanent and temporary impoundments.25–6–20(a), (c); 25–6–84(a), (c) ..................... 816.49(a), (c); 817.49(a), (c). 

Civil penalties; hearing request .......................... 25–7–20 ........................................................... 845.19(a). 

Because the above State rules have the 

same meaning as the corresponding 

Federal regulations, we find that they 

are no less effective than the Federal 

regulations. We also find that Indiana’s 

revisions at 25–6–20(a)(9)(E) and 25–6–

84(a)(9)(E) that change the term 

‘‘subsection’’ to the term ‘‘clause’’ in the 

phrase ‘‘the following impoundments 

shall be exempt from the examination 

requirements of this subsection’’ satisfy 

the required amendment at 30 CFR 

914.16(ii)(3), and we are removing it. 

C. 312 IAC 25–1–8 Definition of 

Affected Area

1. 312 IAC 25–1–8(a)(1) through (7).

Indiana designated the existing 

provision as subsection (a) and 

amended the definition of ‘‘affected 

area’’ to mean ‘‘any land or water 

surface area that is used to facilitate, or 

is physically altered by, surface coal 

mining and reclamation operations.’’

Subdivisions (a)(1) through (7) specify 

those areas of a permit that will be 

considered affected areas. At 

subdivisions (a)(2), (4), and (6), Indiana 

replaced the terms ‘‘an’’ with the term 

‘‘any’’ to refer to areas that would be 

considered ‘‘affected areas.’’ At 

subdivision (a)(3), Indiana added the 

word ‘‘any’’ before the word ‘‘adjacent.’’

At subdivision (a)(4), Indiana added the 

language ‘‘except as provided in this 

section’’ at the end of the subdivision. 

Indiana restructured subdivision (a)(5) 

and changed the words ‘‘a site’’ to ‘‘any 

area.’’ At subdivision (a)(6), Indiana 

made minor wording revisions by 

adding the word ‘‘property’’ between 

the words ‘‘other’’ and ‘‘material’’; 

changing the word ‘‘incidental’’ to 

‘‘incident’’; and adding the word ‘‘and’’

after the word ‘‘mining.’’ At subdivision 

(a)(7), Indiana removed the words ‘‘of a 

mine’’ from the end of the subdivision. 

We find that the revised language at 

subsection (a) is substantively the same 

as the counterpart language in the 

Federal definition of ‘‘affected area’’ at 

30 CFR 701.5. Therefore, we are 

approving 312 IAC 25–1–8(a). 

2. 312 IAC 25–1–8(b) and (c). Indiana 

added introductory language at 

subsection (b) to identify the roads 

associated with the permit area that are 

considered affected areas and added 

subdivisions (b)(1) through (4) to 

identify the criteria for exemption of 

those roads that are not considered 

affected areas. Roads must meet all of 

the criteria listed in subdivisions (b)(1) 

through (4) before being considered for 

exemption. Subsection (b) identifies as 

affected areas those roads used for the 

purposes of access to, or for hauling coal 

to or from, any surface coal mining and 

reclamation operation unless they meet 

the criteria in subdivisions (b)(1) 

through (4). Subdivision (b)(1) specifies 

that for a road to be exempt, it must be 

‘‘designated as a public road pursuant to 

the laws of the jurisdiction in which it 

is located.’’ Subdivision (b)(2) specifies 

that the road must be ‘‘maintained with 

public funds, and constructed in a 

manner similar to other public roads of 

the same classification within the 

jurisdiction.’’ Subdivision (b)(3) 

provides that the road must have a 

‘‘substantial (more than incidental) 

public use.’’ Finally, subdivision (b)(4) 

specifies that ‘‘the extent and the effect 

of mining-related uses of the road by the 

permittee must not warrant regulation 

as part of the surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations.’’ Indiana added 

subsection (c) to require the director of 

the IDNR (director) to determine on a 

case-by-case basis whether a road 

satisfies the requirements of subdivision 

(b)(4) based on the mining related use of 

the road and consistent with Indiana’s 

definition of ‘‘surface coal mining 

operation.’’

The language at subsection (b) and 

subdivisions (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) is 

substantively the same as language 

found in the counterpart Federal 

definition of ‘‘affected area’’ at 30 CFR 

701.5. On November 20, 1986 (51 FR 

41952), we suspended the definition of 

‘‘affected area’’ at 30 CFR 701.5 insofar 

as it might limit jurisdiction over roads 

69282 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

covered by the definition of ‘‘surface 

coal mining operations.’’ Our revised 

road rules were published on November 

8, 1988 (53 FR 45192). In finalizing 

those rules, we declined to add a 

reference to ‘‘affected area’’ to the 

definition of road on the basis that the 

definition of ‘‘affected area’’ as partially 

suspended no longer provides 

additional guidance as to which roads 

are included in the definition of surface 

coal mining operations. At the same 

time, we declined to expressly exclude 

public roads from the definition of road. 

In the preamble, we stated that we are 

concerned that roads constructed to 

serve mining operations should not 

avoid compliance with performance 

standards by being deeded to public 

entities, but it was not our intent to 

automatically extend jurisdiction into 

the existing public road network. 

Instead, jurisdiction decisions are to be 

made by the regulatory authorities on a 

case-by-case basis. Indiana intends to 

continue to use the definition of 

‘‘affected area’’ in determining which 

roads are subject to jurisdiction. The 

provisions at 312 IAC 25–1–8(b)(4) and 

(c) clarify when a public road will be 

regulated and adequately address the 

concerns we expressed in the November 

8, 1988, preamble (53 FR 45192) 

regarding public roads. Therefore, we 

find that Indiana’s definition of 

‘‘affected area’’ is no less effective than 

the Federal regulations concerning 

jurisdiction over public roads and is 

consistent with the Federal definition of 

‘‘affected area.’’ Based on this finding, 

we are approving 312 IAC 25–1–8(b) 

and (c). 

D. Recodification Corrections 

Indiana’s August 21, 2001, 

amendment concerned the 

recodification of its rules to comply 

with formatting guidelines set forth by 

the Indiana Legislative Services Agency 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1712). 

In recodifying some of its rules, Indiana 

inadvertently removed previouslyapproved language. In its May 19, 2004, 

amendment, Indiana made corrections 

to the following rules, which were 

recodified (Administrative Record No. 

IND–1726). 

1. 312 IAC 25–4–17 Surface Mining 

Permit Applications; Identification of 

Interests

Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 25–4–17 

specifies the information that must be 

included in a surface mining permit 

application for identification of 

interests. In recodifying 312 IAC 25–4–

17(d), (e), and (f), Indiana inadvertently 

removed language that required an 

applicant to submit the specified 

information with an application. 

Therefore, in our approval of Indiana’s 

recodified rule on November 16, 2001 

(66 FR 57655), we required Indiana to 

submit an amendment or otherwise 

modify its program to clarify that the 

information specified in 312 IAC 25–4–

17(d), (e), and (f) must be submitted 

with the permit application. We 

codified this requirement at 30 CFR 

914.16(jj). In its May 19, 2004, 

amendment, Indiana revised 312 IAC 

25–4–17 by adding the language ‘‘shall 

be submitted with the application’’ to 

the end of subsections (d), (e), and (f). 

With the addition of the language that 

requires the information specified in the 

subsections to be submitted with the 

application, we find that Indiana’s rules 

at 312 IAC 25–4–17(d), (e), and (f) are 

no less effective than the counterpart 

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.13(a), 

(b), and (d), respectively. Therefore, we 

are approving the revisions. We further 

find that Indiana’s revisions satisfy the 

required amendment at 30 CFR 

914.16(jj), and we are removing it. 

2. 312 IAC 25–4–45 Surface Mining 

Permit Applications; General 

Requirements for Reclamation Plans 

Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 25–4–45 

specifies the information that must be 

included in the reclamation plan for a 

surface mining permit. In recodifying 

312 IAC 25–4–45(b)(4), Indiana 

inadvertently removed ‘‘total depth’’ as 

one of the factors that the operator is to 

analyze to demonstrate the suitability of 

topsoil substitutes or supplements. We 

consider ‘‘total depth’’ to be one of the 

factors that must be evaluated to 

demonstrate the suitability of topsoil 

substitutes or supplements. Therefore, 

in our approval of Indiana’s recodified 

rule on November 16, 2001 (66 FR 

57655), we required Indiana to submit 

an amendment or otherwise modify its 

program to require the demonstration of 

the suitability of topsoil substitutes or 

supplements to also be based upon 

analysis of the ‘‘total depth’’ of the 

different kinds of soils. We codified this 

requirement at 30 CFR 914.16(ll). In its 

May 19, 2004, amendment, Indiana 

restructured 312 IAC 25–4–45(b)(4) and 

added ‘‘total depth’’ to the list of factors 

that must be analyzed to demonstrate 

the suitability of topsoil substitutes or 

supplements. 

With the addition of ‘‘total depth’’ to 

the list of factors to be analyzed for the 

different kinds of soils proposed for 

topsoil substitutes or supplements, we 

find that Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 25–

4–45(b)(4) is no less effective than the 

counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 780.18(b)(4). Therefore, we are 

approving the revision. We further find 

that Indiana’s revision satisfies the 

required amendment at 30 CFR 

914.16(ll), and we are removing it. 

3. 312 IAC 25–4–113 Public 

Availability of Permit Application 

Information 

Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 25–4–113 

provides the exceptions to public 

availability of permit application 

information. In recodifying 312 IAC 25–

4–113, Indiana inadvertently removed 

its previously-approved provision that 

allowed a person to oppose or seek 

disclosure of confidential information. 

Indiana also inadvertently removed its 

previously-approved provision 

concerning the confidentiality of 

information on the nature and location 

of archaeological resources on public 

and Indian land. Therefore, in our 

approval of Indiana’s recodified rule on 

November 16, 2001 (66 FR 57655), we 

required Indiana to revise 312 IAC 25–

4–113 or otherwise modify the Indiana 

program to allow a person to oppose or 

seek disclosure of confidential 

information. We also required Indiana 

to revise 312 IAC 25–4–113 or otherwise 

modify the Indiana program to add a 

provision that classifies information on 

the nature and location of archeological 

resources on public land and Indian 

land as qualified confidential 

information. We codified these 

requirements at 30 CFR 914.16(mm)(1) 

and (2). In its May 19, 2004, 

amendment, Indiana revised 312 IAC 

25–4–113 by adding new subsection (f) 

to specify that information on the nature 

and location of archaeological resources 

on public and Indian land is 

confidential. Indiana also redesignated 

existing subsection (f) as subsection (g) 

and revised the first sentence to allow 

a person who opposes or seeks 

disclosure of confidential information to 

submit a request under 312 IAC 25–4–

110.

With the addition of new subsection 

(f) and the revisions to subsection (g), 

we find that Indiana’s rules at 312 IAC 

25–4–113(f) and (g) are no less effective 

than the counterpart Federal regulations 

at 30 CFR 773.6(d)(3) and (d)(3)(iii), and 

we are approving them. We further find 

that Indiana’s revisions satisfy the 

required amendments at 30 CFR 

914.16(mm)(1) and (2), and we are 

removing them. 

E. Permit Applications; Reclamation 

Plan for Siltation Structures, 

Impoundments, Dams, Embankments, 

and Refuse Piles 

On October 20, 1994 (59 FR 53022), 

we revised the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR 780.25 (Surface Mining) and 784.16 

(Underground Mining) concerning 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 69283

reclamation plan requirements for 

siltation structures, impoundments, 

banks, dams, and embankments. On 

June 17, 1997, we sent Indiana a letter 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1575) 

in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c). 

We notified Indiana that it must amend 

its rules to be no less effective than the 

revised Federal regulations. Also, in our 

October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55743), 

approval of Indiana’s September 26, 

1994, amendment, as revised on August 

16, 1995, we required Indiana to amend 

310 IAC 12–3–49 (Surface Mining) and 

310 IAC 12–3–83 (Underground Mining) 

[currently 312 IAC 25–4–49 and 312 

IAC 25–4–87, respectively] to add the 

requirement concerning stability 

analysis of each structure as is required 

by 30 CFR 780.25(f) and 784.16(f). We 

codified this requirement at 30 CFR 

914.16(ii)(1). In response to our June 17, 

1997, letter and the required 

amendment at 30 CFR 914.16(ii)(1), 

Indiana proposed the following 

revisions to its rules. 

1. 312 IAC 25–4–49(a) and 25–4–

87(a). Indiana revised the first sentence 

of subsection (a) by requiring an 

application to include ‘‘a general plan 

and a detailed design plan’’ instead of 

‘‘a plan’’ for each proposed structure 

within the proposed permit area. 

Indiana also added ‘‘refuse pile’’ to the 

list of coal processing waste structures 

for which a general plan and a detailed 

design plan were needed. 

The counterpart Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 780.25(a) and 784.16(a) also 

require that a permit application 

include ‘‘a general plan and detailed 

design plan’’ for each proposed 

structure. Although the Federal 

regulations do not include the term 

‘‘coal processing refuse pile,’’ Indiana’s 

use of the term is equivalent to the 

Federal term ‘‘coal processing waste 

bank.’’ Therefore, we find that 312 IAC 

25–4–49(a) and 25–4–87(a), as revised, 

are no less effective than the counterpart 

Federal regulations, and we are 

approving the revisions. 

2. 312 IAC 25–4–49(c) and 25–4–87(c).

Indiana revised 312 IAC 25–4–49(c) by 

requiring that permanent and temporary 

impoundments be designed to comply 

with the requirements of 312 IAC 25–6–

20 and the requirements of the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration at 30 

CFR 77.216–1 and 30 CFR 77.216–2. 

Indiana revised 312 IAC 25–4–87(c) by 

requiring that permanent and temporary 

impoundments be designed to comply 

with the requirements of 312 IAC 25–6–

84 and the requirements of the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration at 30 

CFR 77.216–1 and 30 CFR 77.216–2. 

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

780.25(c) and 784.16(c) contain 

substantively the same requirements. 

Therefore, we find that 312 IAC 25–4–

49(c) and 25–4–87(c), as revised, are no 

less effective than the counterpart 

Federal regulations, and we are 

approving the revisions. 

3. 312 IAC 25–4–49(d) and 25–4–

87(d). Indiana added a new subsection 

(d) to 312 IAC 25–4–49 that requires 

refuse piles to be designed to comply 

with 312 IAC 25–6–36 through 312 IAC 

25–6–39. Indiana added a new 

subsection (d) to 312 IAC 25–4–87 that 

requires refuse piles to be designed to 

comply with 312 IAC 25–6–98 through 

312 IAC 25–6–102. For both rules, 

Indiana redesignated existing subsection 

(d) as subsection (e). 

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

780.25(d) and 784.16(d) contain 

substantively the same requirements. 

Therefore, we find that Indiana’s new 

rules at 312 IAC 25–4–49(d) and 25–4–

87(d) are no less effective than the 

counterpart Federal regulations, and we 

are approving them. 

4. 312 IAC 25–4–49(f) and 25–4–87(f).

In response to the required amendment 

at 30 CFR 914.16(ii)(1), Indiana added 

new subsection (f). For structures that 

meet the Class B or C criteria for dams 

in Technical Release 60 (TR–60) or that 

meet the size and other criteria of 30 

CFR 77.216(a), each reclamation plan 

under subsections (b), (c), and (e) must 

include a stability analysis of the 

structure. The stability analysis must 

include strength parameters, pore 

pressures, and long term seepage 

conditions. The plan must also include 

a description of each engineering design 

assumption and calculation. 

We find that Indiana’s rules at 312 

IAC 25–4–49(f) and 25–4–87(f) contain 

requirements that are substantively the 

same as the counterpart Federal 

regulation requirements at 30 CFR 

780.25(f) and 784.16(f). Therefore, we 

are approving them. We further find that 

Indiana’s rules at 312 IAC 25–4–49(f) 

and 25–4–87(f) satisfy the required 

amendment at 30 CFR 914.16(ii)(1), and 

we are removing it. 

5. 312 IAC 25–4–49(g) and 25–4–87(g).

Indiana’s rule at subsection (g) requires 

that applications for specified types of 

proposed permanent structures that 

impound water and meet specified 

criteria must be submitted to the 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water for approval before 

construction of the structure begins. 

Indiana redesignated existing subsection 

(e) as subsection (g) and added 

introductory language to clarify the 

types of structures for which 

applications must be submitted. These 

structures include proposed permanent 

siltation structures, water 

impoundments, coal processing waste 

dams, or embankments. Indiana also 

removed the last sentence from 

subdivision (g)(3).

There are no Federal counterparts to 

Indiana’s rules at 312 IAC 25–4–49(g) 

and 25–4–87(g). However, we find that 

the revisions made to these previouslyapproved rules will not make the 

Indiana rules less effective than the 

Federal regulations or SMCRA. 

F. Lands Eligible for Remining 

On September 11, 1995, Indiana 

submitted an amendment concerning 

statutory requirements for lands eligible 

for remining (Administrative Record No. 

IND–1509). After reviewing the 

amendment, we determined that 

Indiana’s amendment did not include 

all of the necessary requirements of 

section 510(e) of SMCRA and the 

implementing Federal regulations for 

lands eligible for remining. Therefore, in 

our approval of Indiana’s amendment 

on April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15891), we 

required Indiana to amend its program 

to provide implementing regulations for 

the statutory requirements. We codified 

this requirement at 30 CFR 914.16(hh). 

In response to this requirement, Indiana 

proposed the following revisions to its 

rules. 

1. 312 IAC 25–4–105.5 Special 

Categories of Mining; Lands Eligible for 

Remining 

At 312 IAC 25–4–105.5, Indiana 

added the permitting requirements for 

lands eligible for remining. An 

application for a permit must contain an 

identification of potential 

environmental and safety problems 

related to prior mining activity at the 

site that could be reasonably anticipated 

to occur. The identification is based on 

an investigation that includes visual 

observations, record reviews of past 

mining, and environmental sampling 

tailored to the site conditions. An 

application must also contain 

descriptions of the mitigative measures 

that will be taken to ensure the 

applicable reclamation requirements of 

the regulatory program can be met. 

Indiana also provided that the 

requirements of 312 IAC 25–4–105.5 do 

not apply after September 30, 2004. 

Indiana’s September 11, 1995, 

proposed statute at IC 14–34–4–10.5 did 

not contain the proviso that the 

permitting requirements for lands 

eligible for remining will not apply after 

September 30, 2004. This proviso is 

required by section 510(e) of SMCRA 

and the implementing Federal 

regulation at 30 CFR 785.25. See 60 FR 

58480, November 27, 1995. In our April 

10, 1996, approval of Indiana’s statute, 

69284 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

we required Indiana to amend its 

program by adding a counterpart to 30 

CFR 785.25 to implement IC 14–34–4–

10.5. Indiana added this counterpart at 

312 IAC 25–4–105.5 for lands eligible 

for remining. Indiana’s proposed rule 

contains requirements that are 

substantively the same as the 

counterpart Federal regulation, 

including the proviso that the 

requirements do not apply after 

September 30, 2004. The effective date 

of our decision in this final rule is after 

the September 30, 2004, expiration date 

for these requirements. However, 

Indiana established the September 30, 

2004, date in its rule to clarify that its 

statute at IC 14–34–4–10.5 and its 

implementing rule at 312 IAC 25–4–

105.5 only apply to permits issued 

before September 30, 2004. Therefore, 

we find that 312 IAC 25–4–105.5 is no 

less effective than the counterpart 

Federal regulation, and we are 

approving it. 

2. 312 IAC 25–4–114 Review of Permit 

Applications 

At 312 IAC 25–4–114, Indiana added 

new subsection (d) to require that the 

prohibitions on the issuance of a permit 

at subsection (b) do not apply to a 

violation resulting from an 

unanticipated event or condition at a 

surface coal mining operation on lands 

eligible for remining under a permit 

held by the applicant. The violation 

must have occurred after October 24, 

1992, and be a result of an 

unanticipated event or condition on a 

permit. The permit must have been 

issued before September 30, 2004, 

including subsequent renewals, and 

held by the person making application 

for a new permit. For a permit issued 

under 312 IAC 25–4–105.5, concerning 

lands eligible for remining, an event or 

condition is presumed to be 

unanticipated if the event or condition 

arose after permit issuance, was related 

to prior mining, and was not identified 

in the permit. 

Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 25–4–114(d) 

contains substantively the same 

requirements as the counterpart Federal 

regulation at 30 CFR 773.13 concerning 

unanticipated events or conditions at 

remining sites. Therefore, we find that 

312 IAC 25–4–114(d) is no less effective 

than the counterpart Federal regulation, 

and we are approving it. 

3. 312 IAC 25–4–115 Permit Approval 

or Denial—Written Findings 

At 312 IAC 25–4–115(a)(13), Indiana 

added a requirement that the director 

make a written finding for permits to be 

issued for lands eligible for remining. 

For these permits, the director must find 

that the permit applications contain: (1) 

Lands eligible for remining; (2) an 

identification of any potential 

environmental and safety problems 

related to prior mining activity; and (3) 

mitigation plans to address potential 

environmental and safety problems.

Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 25–4–

115(a)(13) is substantively the same as 

the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 773.15(m), concerning written 

findings for permits to be issued for 

lands eligible for remining. Therefore, 

we find that Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 

25–4–115(a)(13) is no less effective than 

the counterpart Federal regulation, and 

we are approving it. 

4. 312 IAC 25–5–7 Period of Liability 

At 312 IAC 25–5–7(b), Indiana added 

a provision that allows lands eligible for 

remining included in permits issued 

before September 30, 2004, or any 

renewals thereof, to have a liability 

period of two years. To the extent that 

success standards are established by 312 

IAC 25–6–59(c)(1) or 25–6–120(c)(1), the 

lands must equal or exceed the 

standards during the growing season of 

the last year of the responsibility period. 

Indiana’s new provision at 312 IAC 

25–5–7(b) is substantively the same as 

the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 816.116(c)(2)(ii), concerning the 

period of liability for lands eligible for 

remining. Therefore, we find that the 

new provision at 312 IAC 25–5–7(b) is 

no less effective than the counterpart 

Federal regulation, and we are 

approving it. 

5. Based on the above findings, 

Indiana’s revisions at 312 IAC 25–4–

105.5, 25–4–114, 25–4–115, and 25–5–

7(b) satisfy the required amendment at 

30 CFR 914.16(hh), and we are 

removing it. 

G. 312 IAC 25–4–118 Permit 

Conditions 

On August 21, 2001 (Administrative 

Record No. IND–1712), Indiana’s 

recodified rules included a rule at 312 

IAC 25–4–118 that we had not 

previously-approved. This rule 

specified the conditions under which a 

permit is issued. In our approval of 

Indiana’s rule on November 16, 2001 (66 

FR 57655), we required Indiana to revise 

312 IAC 25–4–118(4) or otherwise 

modify its program to require permittees 

to allow authorized representatives of 

the Secretary of the Interior to have right 

of entry to surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations for purposes of 

inspections, monitoring, and 

enforcement and to be accompanied by 

private persons under specified 

conditions. We codified this 

requirement at 30 CFR 914.16(kk). In its 

May 19, 2004, amendment, Indiana 

revised 312 IAC 25–4–118(4) by 

changing the phrase ‘‘authorized 

representatives of the director’’ to 

‘‘authorized representatives of the 

director and the Secretary of the 

Interior.’’ With this revision, the 

permittee must allow the authorized 

representatives of the director and the 

Secretary of the Interior, rather than just 

the director, to have the right of entry 

to a mine site for the purpose of 

conducting inspections and to be 

accompanied by private persons when 

the inspection is in response to an 

alleged violation. 

Based on the above discussion, we 

find that Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 25–

4–118(4) is no less effective than the 

counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 773.17(d), and we are approving it. 

We further find that Indiana’s revision 

satisfies the required amendment at 30 

CFR 914.16(kk), and we are removing it. 

H. 312 IAC 25–6–23 Surface Mining; 

Hydrologic Balance; Surface and 

Ground Water Monitoring 

On March 26, 1992, as clarified on 

November 5, 1992, February 1, 1993, 

and May 19, 1993, Indiana submitted an 

amendment that included revisions to 

310 IAC 12–5–27(a) [currently 312 IAC 

25–6–23(a)]. In our August 16, 1993, 

approval of the revisions (58 FR 43248), 

we required Indiana to amend 310 IAC 

12–5–27(a)(4) [currently 312 IAC 25–6–

23(a)(4)] or otherwise amend the 

Indiana program to be no less effective 

than 30 CFR 816.41(c)(2), which 

references and requires compliance with 

30 CFR 773.17(e). We codified the 

required amendment at 30 CFR 

914.16(s). In response to this 

requirement, Indiana proposed to add 

312 IAC 25–6–23(a)(4)(C) to require that 

if the analysis of a ground water sample 

indicates noncompliance with a permit 

condition, the permittee must minimize 

any adverse impact to the environment 

or public health and safety resulting 

from the noncompliance, including: (1) 

Accelerated or additional monitoring to 

determine the nature and extent of the 

noncompliance and the results of the 

noncompliance; (2) immediate 

implementation of measures necessary 

to mitigate the noncompliance; and (3) 

as soon as practicable issue warning to 

any person whose health and safety is 

in imminent danger due to the 

noncompliance.

The counterpart Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 816.41(c)(2) references the 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.17(e), 

rather than restating its requirements. 

However, we find that Indiana’s 

addition of the substantive requirements 

of 30 CFR 773.17(e) at 312 IAC 25–6–

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 69285

23(a)(4)(C), rather than referencing its 

counterpart to 30 CFR 773.17(e), is no 

less effective than the counterpart 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

816.41(c)(2). Therefore, we are 

approving 312 IAC 25–6–23(a)(4)(C) and 

removing the required amendment at 30 

CFR 914.16(s). 

I. 312 IAC 25–6–25 Hydrologic 

Balance; Water Rights and Replacement 

In our August 2, 1991 (56 FR 37013), 

approval of Indiana’s amendment 

concerning water rights and 

replacement, we required Indiana to 

amend 310 IAC 12–5–29 (currently 312 

IAC 25–6–25) or otherwise amend the 

Indiana program to clearly require the 

replacement of water supplies that are 

affected by contamination, diminution, 

or interruption proximately resulting 

from surface mining activities which do 

not involve a legitimate water use by a 

person conducting these surface mining 

activities. We codified this requirement 

at 30 CFR 914.16(f). In response to this 

requirement, Indiana revised 312 IAC 

25–6–25 by removing the language 

‘‘pursuant to a lawful order of an agency 

or court under IC 14–25–4 or another 

state water rights law’’ from the first 

sentence. Indiana also removed the 

existing second sentence, which stated 

that water replacement rights are not 

determined by the Indiana program. 

Indiana added a provision that requires 

the use of baseline hydrologic 

information to determine the extent of 

the impact of mining on ground water 

and surface water, as well as other 

relevant information. 

Indiana’s proposed revisions make 

312 IAC 25–6–25 substantively identical 

to the counterpart Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 816.41(h). Therefore, we find 

that 312 IAC 25–6–25 is no less effective 

than the counterpart Federal regulation, 

and we are approving the revisions. We 

further find that Indiana’s revisions 

satisfy the required amendment at 30 

CFR 914.16(f), and we are removing it. 

J. 312 IAC 25–6–66 (Surface Mining) 

and 312 IAC 25–6–130 (Underground 

Mining); Primary Roads 

1. On September 26, 1994 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1401), 

as revised on August 16, 1995 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1506), 

Indiana submitted an amendment that 

included revisions to 310 IAC 12–5–

69.5(2) and 12–5–137.5(2) [currently 

312 IAC 25–6–66(2) and 25–6–130(2)] 

concerning primary roads. On October 

29, 1996, we approved Indiana’s 

revisions except to the extent that the 

provisions allowed the use of a 

maximum slope of 3h:1v without 

providing engineering design standards 

that ensure compliance with the 

minimum static safety factor of 1.3 (61 

FR 55743). We required Indiana to 

remove the language that we did not 

approve and notify us when the removal 

was complete or propose engineering 

design standards for a slope of 3h:1v 

that ensures compliance with the 1.3 

minimum static safety factor 

requirements. In response to this 

requirement, Indiana revised 312 IAC 

25–6–66 and 25–6–130 by removing the 

language that allowed the use of a 

maximum slope of 3h:1v. We find that 

with the removal of this language, 312 

IAC 25–6–66(2) and 25–6–130(2) are no 

less effective than the counterpart 

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.151(b) 

and 817.151(b) for primary roads, and 

we are approving them. 

2. In its May 19, 2004, amendment, 

Indiana also proposed engineering 

design standards at 312 IAC 25–6–

130(2)(A) through (H) for underground 

mining primary roads. The design 

standards allow the use of a maximum 

slope of 2h:1v as an alternative to the 

1.3 static safety factor requirement for 

primary road embankments. 

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

780.37(c) and 784.24(c) allow regulatory 

authorities to establish engineering 

design standards for primary roads in 

lieu of engineering tests to establish 

compliance with the minimum static 

safety factor of 1.3 for primary road 

embankments. In its September 26, 

1994, amendment, Indiana had 

proposed substantively identical design 

standards for surface mining primary 

roads. We conducted a technical review 

of Indiana’s surface mining design 

standards, found them to be acceptable, 

and approved them on October 29, 

1996. Therefore, we find that Indiana’s 

proposed design standards for 

underground mining primary roads 

meet the requirement at 30 CFR 

784.24(c), and we are approving them. 

K. 312 IAC 25–7–1 Inspections of Sites

On November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60876), 

we revised the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR 840.11 concerning inspection 

procedures. On June 17, 1997, we sent 

Indiana a letter (Administrative Record 

No. IND–1575) in accordance with 30 

CFR 732.17(c). We notified Indiana that 

it must amend its rules to be no less 

effective than the revised Federal 

regulations. In response to this 

requirement, Indiana proposed revisions 

to its rule at 312 IAC 25–7–1. Indiana 

removed existing subdivision (a)(2) and 

redesignated existing subdivisions (a)(3) 

and (4) as subdivisions (a)(2) and (3). 

Indiana also redesignated existing 

subsection (f) as subsection (h) and 

added new subsections (f) and (g). 

1. New subsection (f) provides that in 

lieu of the inspection frequency 

established in subsection (a), the 

regulatory authority must inspect each 

abandoned site on a set frequency 

commensurate with the public health 

and safety and environmental 

considerations present at each specific 

site, but in no case will the inspection 

frequency be set at less than one 

complete inspection per calendar year. 

Subdivisions (f)(1) through (3) provide 

the procedures that the regulatory 

authority must follow to establish an 

alternative inspection frequency for 

abandoned sites. 

The requirements of Indiana’s new 

rule at 312 IAC 25–7–1(f) are 

substantively identical to the 

counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 840.11(h)(1). Therefore, we find 

that 312 IAC 25–7–1(f) is no less 

effective than the counterpart Federal 

regulation, and we are approving it. 

2. New subdivision (g)(1) provides the 

procedures for publishing a public 

notice and offering the public an 

opportunity to comment on the 

alternative inspection frequency for an 

abandoned site. New subdivision (g)(2) 

provides information on the content of 

a public notice. 

The requirements of Indiana’s new 

rule at 312 IAC 25–7–1(g) are 

substantively identical to the 

counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 840.11(h)(2). Therefore, we find 

that 312 IAC 25–7–1(g) is no less 

effective than the counterpart Federal 

regulation, and we are approving it. 

3. In our June 17, 1997, letter, we 

notified Indiana that we had revised 30 

CFR 840.11(g)(4) to allow a site to be 

classified as abandoned only in cases 

where a permit has either expired or 

been revoked. Previously, 30 CFR 

840.11(g)(4) allowed a site to be 

classified as abandoned on the basis that 

the permit has expired or been revoked 

or permit revocation proceedings have 

been initiated and are being pursued 

diligently. Indiana did not revise its rule 

at 312 IAC 25–7–1 to reflect this new 

requirement of the revised Federal 

regulation. Therefore, we are requiring 

Indiana to revise 312 IAC 25–7–

1(h)(2)(D)(i) to allow a site to be 

classified as abandoned only in cases 

where a permit has expired or been 

revoked. We are codifying this 

requirement at 30 CFR 914.16. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment, but did not receive any. 

69286 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal Agency Comments 

On June 10, 2004, 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 Indiana program 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1729). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) responded on July 12, 2004 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1731), 

that the amendment contains some 

items of interest to the FWS related to 

language concerning prime farmland 

soils. FWS commented that for 

conservation of wildlife resources, it is 

important that pre-mining forest on 

prime farmland soils can continue to be 

restored as forest. FWS then stated that 

it understood from discussions with the 

IDNR staff that the proposed changes 

will not adversely affect forest 

restoration; therefore, it had no specific 

comments on the amendment. 

We agree that the proposed changes to 

Indiana’s prime farmland rule will not 

adversely affect forest restoration. 

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 Indiana proposed to make 

in this amendment pertain to air or 

water quality standards. Therefore, we 

did not ask EPA to concur on the 

amendment. 

On June 10, 2004, under 30 CFR 

732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested 

comments on the amendment from EPA 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1729). 

EPA did not respond to our request.

State Historical 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 June 10, 2004, we 

requested comments on Indiana’s 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

IND–1729), but neither responded to our 

request. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve with an additional requirement 

the amendment Indiana sent us on May 

19, 2004. As discussed in Finding 

III.K.3, we are requiring Indiana to 

revise its rule at 312 IAC 25–7–

1(h)(2)(D)(i) to allow a site to be 

classified as abandoned only in cases 

where a permit has expired or been 

revoked. 

We approve the rules proposed by 

Indiana with the provision that they be 

fully promulgated in identical form to 

the rules submitted to and reviewed by 

OSM and the public. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 914, which codify decisions 

concerning the Indiana program. We 

find that good cause exists under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule 

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of 

SMCRA requires that the State’s 

program demonstrate that the State has 

the capability of carrying out the 

provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. Making this rule effective 

immediately will expedite that process. 

SMCRA requires consistency of State 

and Federal standards. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

The provisions in the rule based on 

counterpart Federal regulations do not 

have takings implications. This 

determination is based on the analysis 

performed for the counterpart Federal 

regulations. The revisions made at the 

initiative of the State that do not have 

Federal counterparts have also been 

reviewed and a determination made that 

they do not have takings implications. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that the provisions are administrative 

and procedural in nature and are not 

expected to have a substantive effect on 

the regulated industry. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

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 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 Indiana program does not 

regulate coal exploration and surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 69287

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 a portion of the provisions 

in 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.) because they are 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 part of the rule would have a 

significant economic impact, the 

Department relied upon the data and 

assumptions for the counterpart Federal 

regulations. The Department of the 

Interior also certifies that the provisions 

in this rule that are not based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This determination 

is based upon the fact that the 

provisions are administrative and 

procedural in nature and are not 

expected to have a substantive effect on 

the regulated industry. 

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 a portion of the State provisions are 

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. For the portion 

of the State provisions that is not based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations, 

this determination is based upon the 

fact that the State provisions are 

administrative and procedural in nature 

and are not expected to have a 

substantive effect on the regulated 

industry. 

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 a portion of 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. For the portion 

of the State provisions that is not based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations, 

this determination is based upon the 

fact that the State provisions are 

administrative and procedural in nature 

and are not expected to have a 

substantive effect on the regulated 

industry.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: October 14, 2004. 

Charles E. Sandberg, 

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional 

Coordinating Center.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

30 CFR part 914 is amended as set forth 

below:

PART 914—INDIANA

■ 1. The authority citation for part 914 

continues to read as follows:

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

■ 2. Section 914.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory 

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission 

date 

Date of final

publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

May 19, 2004 ................................. November 29, 2004 ....................... 312 IAC 25–1–8; 25–1–75.5; 25–1–155.5; 25–4–17(a)(1), (d), (e), and 

(f); 25–4–45(b)(4); 25–4–49(a), (c), (d), (f), and (g); 25–4–87(a), (c), 

(d), (f), and (g); 25–4–102(d)(1), (e), and (f); 25–4–105.5; 25–4–

113(f) and (g); 25–4–114(d); 25–4–115(a)(3) and (13); 25–4–118(4) 

and (8); 25–5–7(b); 25–5–16(b) and (c); 25–6–17(a)(3), (b)(2), 

(d)(2), and (d)(3); 25–6–20(a) and (c); 25–6–23(a)(2) and (4)(C); 

25–6–25; 25–6–66(2); 25–6–81(a)(3), (d)(2) and (3); 25–6–84(a) 

and (c); 25–6–130(2); 25–7–1(a), (d)(2), (f), and (g); 25–7–20. 

■ 3. Section 914.16 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs (f), 

(s), (hh), (ii), (jj), (kk), (ll), and (mm) and 

by adding paragraph (ff) to read as 

follows:

§ 914.16 Required program amendments.

* * * * *

(ff) By February 28, 2005. Indiana 

must submit either an amendment or a 

description of an amendment to be 

proposed, together with a timetable for 

adoption of proposed revisions to 312 

IAC 25–7–1(h)(2)(D)(i) to allow a site to 

be classified as abandoned only in cases 

where a permit has expired or been 

revoked.

§ 914.25 [Amended]

■ 4. Section 914.25 is amended by:

■ a. Removing the designation ‘‘(a)’’ from 

paragraph (a); and

■ b. Removing paragraph (b).

[FR Doc. 04–26196 Filed 11–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P