45116 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Consultants within three years of plan 

approval. 

(k) Illinois and OSHA will develop a 

plan for joining the OSHA Integrated 

Management Information System to 

report State plan activity, including 

specific information on inspections, 

consultation visits, etc., in conjunction 

with OSHA, within six months of plan 

approval. Illinois will convert to the 

new OSHA Information System upon its 

deployment. In the interim, Illinois will 

provide monthly reports on its activity 

in an agreed upon format. 

(l) Illinois will coordinate with the 

Illinois Department of Public Health and 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics to expand 

the current Illinois survey to provide 

more detailed injury/illness/fatality 

rates on State and local government, 

within two years of plan approval. 

(m) Illinois will revise and submit a 

State poster for posting at all public 

sector workplaces in the State within 

one year of plan approval. 

§ 1956.82 [Reserved] 

§ 1956.83 [Reserved] 

§ 1956.84 Location of plan for inspection 

and copying. 

A copy of the plan may be inspected 

and copied during normal business 

hours at the following locations: Office 

of State Programs, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room N–3700, 

Washington, DC 20210; OSHA’s 

Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois, at 

230 South Dearborn Street, 32nd Floor, 

Room 3244, Chicago, IL 60604; and at: 

the Offices of the Illinois Department of 

Labor, Safety Inspection and Education 

Division at 1 West Old State Capitol 

Plaza, 3rd floor, Springfield, IL 62701; 

160 North LaSalle Street, Suite C–1300, 

Chicago, IL 60601; or 2309 West Main 

Street, Suite 115, Marion, IL 62959. 

[FR Doc. E9–21044 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 944 

[SATS No. UT–045–FOR; Docket ID No. 

OSM–2008–0011] 

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 the sealing 

of wells and boreholes, Division of Oil, 

Gas and Mining (‘‘Division’’ or 

‘‘DOGM’’) responsibilities when 

requesting additional information 

during permit reviews, and the 

definition of intermittent stream. Utah is 

revising its program to be consistent 

with the corresponding Federal 

regulations, to achieve greater scientific 

accuracy, and to improve operational 

efficiency. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 1, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field 

Division, (303) 293–5015, 

jfulton@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 May 28, 2008 Utah 

sent us an amendment to its program 

(Document ID No. OSM–2008–0011– 

0001) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et 

seq.). Utah sent the amendment at its 

own initiative. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the June 24, 

2008, Federal Register (73 FR 35607). 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 

(Document ID No. OSM–2008–0011– 

0001). We did not hold a public hearing 

or meeting because no one requested 

one. We received comments from two 

industry groups and one Federal agency. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

The following are our findings 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment. 

A. The Casing and Sealing of 

Underground Openings 

Utah is amending R645–301–551 to 

read: 

Casing and Sealing of Underground 

Openings. When no longer needed for 

monitoring or other use approved by the 

Division upon a finding of no adverse 

environmental or health and safety effects, 

each shaft, drift, adit, tunnel, drill hole, or 

other opening to the surface from 

underground will be capped, sealed and 

backfilled, or otherwise properly managed, as 

required by the Division and consistent with 

MSHA, 30 CFR 75.1711 and all other 

applicable state and federal regulations as 

soon as practical. Permanent closure 

measures will be designed to prevent access 

to the mine workings by people, livestock, 

fish and wildlife, machinery and to keep acid 

or other toxic drainage from entering ground 

or surface waters. With respect to drill holes, 

unless otherwise approved by the Division, 

compliance with the requirements of 43 CFR 

3484.1(a)(3) or R649–3–24 will satisfy these 

requirements. 

This amendment adds ‘‘drill holes’’ to 

the list of underground openings 

specified in R645–301–551. The 

amendment also adds a requirement 

that the casing and sealing of 

underground openings be consistent 

with ‘‘all other applicable State and 

Federal regulations as soon as 

practical.’’ Finally, the amendment adds 

the following sentence to the end of the 

regulatory provision: ‘‘With respect to 

drill holes, unless otherwise approved 

by the Division, compliance with the 

requirements of 43 CFR 3484.1(a)(3) or 

R649–3–24 will satisfy these 

requirements.’’ 

‘‘Drill hole’’ is defined by the 

Dictionary of Mining, Minerals, and 

Related Terms (2nd ed. 1997.) as ‘‘a hole 

in rock or coal made with an auger or 

a drill’’. Drill holes, unlike other types 

of openings to underground mines, such 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45117 

as shafts, adits, tunnels, slope, and drift 

openings are not large holes that 

provide access to the mine workings for 

personnel or for the purpose of coal 

removal. Drill holes tend to be smaller 

than other types of openings and can 

serve multiple purposes, including but 

not limited to, ventilation, water quality 

monitoring wells, and coal exploration. 

Drill holes were already governed by 

R645–301–551 prior to this amendment, 

as the provision encompasses not just 

the underground openings specifically 

listed in the regulation, but all openings 

to the surface from underground. The 

addition of the term ‘‘drill hole’’ to the 

first sentence of the provision thus 

merely adds a specific reference to one 

particular type of underground opening 

encompassed by the regulation. 

The proposed addition of the 

requirement that the capping, sealing, 

backfilling, or other proper management 

of underground openings be done in a 

manner ‘‘consistent with * * * all other 

applicable State and Federal regulations 

as soon as practical’’ modifies the 

regulation in two ways. First, the 

amendment acknowledges that other 

State or Federal laws may apply to the 

casing and sealing of underground 

openings and, second, it requires 

expeditious reclamation of underground 

openings once they are no longer 

needed for monitoring or other use 

approved by the Division. 

Utah’s proposed addition of a new 

sentence providing that ‘‘[w]ith respect 

to drill holes, unless otherwise 

approved by the Division, compliance 

with the requirements of 43 CFR 

3484.1(a)(3) or R649–3–24 will satisfy 

these requirements’’ has the effect of 

specifying two alternate methods by 

which an operator can comply with the 

casing and sealing requirements for drill 

holes, unless otherwise approved by 

DOGM. 

SMCRA requires, among other things, 

that underground coal mining permits 

require an operator to seal all portals, 

entryways, drifts, shafts, or other 

openings between surface and 

underground mine workings when no 

longer needed for the conduct of mining 

operations and to fill or seal exploratory 

holes no longer needed for the conduct 

of mining operations. 30 U.S.C. 

1266(b)(2) and (3). Both Federal and 

State regulations require, among other 

things, that openings to the surface from 

underground no longer needed for uses 

approved by the regulatory authority be 

capped, sealed, backfilled or otherwise 

properly managed as required by the 

regulatory authority and consistent with 

30 CFR 75.1711. Federal and State 

regulations also require that permanent 

closure measures be designed to prevent 

access to the mine workings by people, 

livestock, fish and wildlife, and 

machinery and to prevent acid or toxic 

drainage from entering ground or 

surface water. Finally, all capping, 

sealing and backfilling or other proper 

management of underground openings 

must be consistent with Mine Safety 

and Health Administration (MSHA) 

regulations at 30 CFR 75.1711. See 30 

CFR 816.13/817.13 and 816.15/817.15 

and Utah R645–301–551. 

30 CFR 75.1711 requires that 

openings of coal mines declared 

inactive by the operator, permanently 

closed, or abandoned for more than 90 

days be sealed by the operator in a 

manner prescribed by the Secretary of 

Labor. 30 CFR 75.1711 also requires that 

openings of all other mines be 

adequately protected to prevent 

entrance by unauthorized persons in a 

manner prescribed by the Secretary of 

Labor. 75 CFR 75.1711–3 includes 

fencing and signage requirements 

prohibiting the entrance of 

unauthorized persons into the openings 

of all mines not declared by the operator 

to be inactive, permanently closed, or 

abandoned for less than 90 days. Utah’s 

proposed modifications to R645–301– 

551 do not cause any inconsistency of 

the Utah provision with the MSHA 

requirements at 75 CFR 75.1711 and 

75.1711–3. 

The MSHA regulations at 30 

C.F.R.75.1711–1 and 75.1711–2 deal 

specifically with the sealing of shaft 

(75.1711–1) and slope or drift (75.1711– 

2) openings. Drill holes are relatively 

small diameter openings made with 

drills rather than shaft, slope or drift 

openings which are larger diameter 

holes made with larger equipment. The 

Division’s requirements for sealing drill 

holes do not conflict with the 

requirements of 30 CFR 75.1711–1 and 

75.1711–2. Therefore, this change does 

not raise any issue of inconsistency. 

Under Utah’s proposed modifications 

to R645–301–551, unless otherwise 

approved by DOGM, an operator’s 

compliance with one of two alternate 

regulatory provisions (43 CFR 

3484.1(a)(3) or R649–3–24) will be 

deemed to satisfy casing and sealing 

requirements for drill holes. As the 

regulatory authority, the Division has 

the authority to approve alternative 

means of accomplishing the casing and 

sealing of underground openings so long 

as Utah’s program remains no less 

effective than the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 816.13/817.13 and 816.15/ 

817.15 in meeting the requirements of 

SMCRA. 

The first regulation cited by Utah, 43 

CFR 3484.1(a) (3), is a Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) regulation 

pertaining to coal exploration and 

mining activities. The BLM regulation 

requires that exploration drill holes be 

capped with at least 5 feet of cement 

and filled with a permanent plugging 

material that is unaffected by water and 

hydrocarbon gases and will prevent the 

migration of gases and water in the drill 

hole under normal hole pressures. 

Additional plugging requirements apply 

under the BLM regulation for 

exploration holes drilled deeper than 

stripping limits, i.e., deeper than the 

material to be removed during the 

mining process. 30 CFR 4384.1(a)(3) 

allows a BLM authorized officer to 

approve a lesser cap or plug. Finally, the 

BLM regulation provides that 

exploration activities shall be managed 

to prevent water pollution and mixing 

of ground and surface waters and to 

ensure the safety of people, livestock, 

and wildlife. 

The BLM regulation, like the Federal 

regulations at 30 CFR 816.13/817.13 and 

816.15/817.15, serves to prevent the 

migration of water and hydrocarbon 

gases between strata, prevent water 

pollution, minimize disturbance to the 

hydrologic balance, and ensure the 

safety of people, livestock and wildlife. 

OSM finds that the Division’s proposal 

to allow an operator’s compliance with 

43 CFR 4384.1(a)(3) to satisfy the casing 

and sealing requirements of R645–301– 

551 as applicable to drill holes is no less 

effective than the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 816.13/817.13 and 816.15/ 

817.15 in meeting the requirements of 

SMCRA. 

Utah’s proposal would also deem an 

operator’s compliance with the 

performance standards of another Utah 

regulation, R649–3–24, to constitute 

compliance with R645–301–551, as 

applicable to drill holes. The R649 rules 

were written to apply to oil and gas 

mining and generally would not apply 

to coal mining. Utah clarified its 

intention that the pertinent provisions 

are the performance standards found in 

subsection (3) & (4) (see Administrative 

Record # OSM–2008–0011–0007). 

R649–3–24(3) requires that a dry or 

abandoned well be plugged so that oil, 

gas, water, or other substances will not 

migrate through the well bore from one 

formation to another. R649–3–24(3.1) 

through (3.8) specify methods and 

procedures for plugging a well, require 

cement as the primary plugging 

material, and allow intervals between 

plugs to be filled with noncorrosive 

fluid of adequate density to prevent 

migration of formation water into or 

though the well bore. R649–3–24(3.4) 

requires the surface of the opening to be 

completely plugged with cement. The 

requirements of R649–3–24(3) through 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

45118 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(3.8), like the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR 816.13/817.13 and 816.15/817.15, 

serve to prevent the migration of gases 

and fluids between strata, minimize 

damage to the hydrologic balance, and 

prevent access to the mine workings, 

and thereby eliminate safety hazards 

posed by underground openings. 

We find all changes to R645–301–551 

to be no less effective than the Federal 

regulations at 30 CFR 816.13/817.13 and 

816.15/817.15 in meeting the 

requirements of SMCRA and approve 

them. 

Utah is also amending R645–301–631, 

R645–301–631.200, and R645–301–765 

to add a reference to R645–301–551 

(proposed for revision above). These 

provisions deal with the casing and 

sealing of exploration holes, boreholes, 

and wells. Exploration holes, boreholes, 

and wells are all holes made with drills, 

or ‘‘drill holes.’’ R645–301–551 has been 

revised to deal specifically with drill 

holes. As such, this is the appropriate 

reference for performance standards 

regarding the casing and sealing of drill 

holes. Because R645–301–551 is no less 

effective than its Federal counterpart, 

we find these cross-references to R645– 

301–551 to be no less effective than 

Federal requirements and approve them. 

B. Requests for Additional Information 

Utah is adding subsection R645–300– 

131.300 which reads: 

R645–300–130 Review of Permit 

Application. * * * 131.300. If, after review 

of the application for a permit, permit 

change, or permit renewal, additional 

information is required, the Division will 

issue a written finding providing justification 

as to why the additional information is 

necessary to satisfy the requirements of the 

R645 Rules and issue a written decision 

requiring the submission of the information. 

In the event that additional 

information is required in a permit 

application review, the Division must 

now issue a written decision that the 

information is necessary and legal 

justification as to why. This will create 

a written record of the request and 

provide specific legal guidance to the 

applicant. Applicants will then clearly 

understand which regulation’s 

requirements have not been 

satisfactorily met. Because this is a 

written decision the applicant, 

permitee, or any person with an interest 

which is or may be adversely affected 

may appeal the decision (see R645–300– 

211). 

A permit applicant has the burden of 

establishing that their application is 

complete. However, when the Division 

is reviewing an application and finds 

that additional information is necessary 

to complete that review, the information 

must be requested from the applicant. 

When the Division needs more 

information to complete a permit 

application review it is because the 

applicant has not submitted sufficient 

supporting documentation to make the 

necessary findings for the type of 

permitting action being requested. The 

Division will know what the application 

is lacking and what provision(s) 

requires the information by conducting 

its standard review. The Division will 

cite the unsatisfied regulation to ensure 

that the applicant understands exactly 

what is being requested and why. 

This addition does not have a Federal 

counterpart. Under the Federal program 

requests for additional information 

would be made through comment 

letters. Federal comment letters do not 

carry the right of appeal. However, if the 

applicant does not respond by 

submitting the necessary information, 

OSM must then issue a decision 

denying the application based on the 

deficiency of information. This decision 

would have the right of appeal. DOGM’s 

addition will allow appeals earlier in 

the permit review process. 

The existing provision continues to be 

no less effective than Federal 

requirements under SMCRA. The 

addition proposed here would be no 

less effective than Federal regulations 

and we approve it. 

C. Intermittent Streams 

Utah proposes to revise R645–100– 

200 to read: 

‘‘Intermittent Stream’’ means a stream, or 

reach of stream, that is below the local water 

table for at least some part of the year and 

obtains its flow from both surface runoff and 

groundwater discharge. 

The Federal definition of 

‘‘intermittent stream’’ at 30 CFR 701.5 

includes two parts, (a) and (b). Under 

this definition ‘‘intermittent stream’’ 

means: (a) A stream or reach of a stream 

that drains a watershed of at least one 

square mile, or (b) A stream or reach of 

a stream that is below the local water 

table for at least some part of the year, 

and obtains its flow from both surface 

runoff and ground water discharge. 

Utah’s definition of ‘‘intermittent 

stream’’ formerly included parts (a) and 

(b) similar to the Federal definition. 

Utah proposed to eliminate part (a) 

which incorporated into the definition 

of intermittent stream any stream or 

reach of stream that drains a watershed 

of at least one square mile. The change 

is intended to adopt a more 

hydrologically accurate definition of 

intermittent streams as well as to clarify 

the distinction between intermittent and 

ephemeral streams. Ephemeral streams 

continue to be defined as ‘‘a stream 

which flows only in direct response to 

precipitation in the immediate 

watershed, or in response to the melting 

of a cover of snow and ice, and which 

has a channel bottom that is always 

above the local water table.’’ This 

amendment separates the terms 

completely, with the basic distinction 

being that intermittent streams receive 

some groundwater contributions and 

ephemeral streams do not. 

The Federal definition with two parts 

includes ephemeral streams that drain a 

watershed of at least one square mile 

within the definition of intermittent 

stream. By itself, Utah’s proposed 

change to the definition of intermittent 

steam is deficient because it does not 

include all the streams that would be 

covered by the Federal definition. To 

remedy the deficiency, Utah proposed 

to add specific language to all 

regulations involving intermittent 

streams to include ephemeral streams 

that drain a watershed of at least one 

square mile (additional changes 

approved below). 

As a result of all proposed changes, 

all coal mining and reclamation 

activities affecting any stream or 

drainage channel will be subject to the 

same requirements as before this 

definition change. Taking into account 

all proposed changes, we find this 

definition change to be no less effective 

than Federal regulations and we 

approve it. 

Utah is adding language to the 

following rules: R645–301–535.210, 

R645–301–535.223, R645–301–731.610, 

R645–301–742.320, and R645–301– 

742.321, R645–301–742.323, R645–301– 

742.324, R645–301–742.331, and R645– 

301–742.412. These additions rectify the 

potential problem created by the change 

in definition of ‘‘intermittent stream.’’ 

By adding ‘‘or ephemeral streams that 

drain a watershed of at least one square 

mile,’’ the Division reinstates channels 

that drain a watershed of at least one 

square mile and flow only in response 

to surface runoff to the regulations 

where the above definition change 

would have excluded them. 

All provisions pertaining to 

intermittent streams in the Utah 

Administrative Rules are being revised 

here. Because these additions only 

reinstate drainages which would have 

been excluded through the definition 

change, these are nonsubstantive 

changes. With the definition change, 

these additions ensure that the Utah 

Administrative Rules are inclusive of all 

watercourses defined as intermittent 

streams under Federal Regulations at 30 

CFR 701.5. We approve these changes. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45119 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment (Document ID No. OSM– 

2008–0011–0001). We received 

comments from one Federal agency and 

two industry groups. 

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 

(Document ID No. OSM–2008–0011– 

0003). 

We received a comment from the 

Bureau of Land Management on July 3, 

2008 (Document ID No. OSM–2008– 

0011–0005.1). This comment points out 

a citation error in the Code of Federal 

Regulations at 30 CFR 817.15. The 

citation is of ‘‘30 CFR 75.1771’’, which 

does not exist. The correct citation 

should be ‘‘30 CFR 75.1711’’. OSM 

acknowledges this error and will 

address it in a future rulemaking action. 

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 June 2, 2008, we 

requested comments on Utah’s 

amendment (Document ID No. OSM– 

2008–0011–0003), but neither 

responded to our request. 

Industry Group Comments 

We received a comment from the Utah 

Mining Association (UMA) on August 5, 

2008 (Document ID No. OSM–2008– 

0011–0006.1). The UMA supports this 

amendment and recommends adoption 

of the new definition of ‘‘intermittent 

stream’’. They state that it will provide 

clarification between ‘‘intermittent’’ and 

‘‘ephemeral’’ and will provide more 

hydrologically accurate definitions of 

these terms. We agree and are approving 

these changes. 

We received a comment from the Law 

Office of Snell & Wilmer on behalf of 

UtahAmerican Energy, Inc (UEI) on July 

25, 2008 (Document ID No. OSM–2008– 

0011–0004.1). This comment indicates 

that UEI supports the ‘‘intermittent 

stream’’ definition change and 

recommends that OSM approve it. They 

state that this change clarifies the 

distinction between the terms 

‘‘ephemeral’’ and ‘‘intermittent’’ and 

will help DOGM determine baseline 

hydrologic data and monitoring 

requirements. We agree and are 

approving these changes. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve Utah’s May 28, 2008 

amendment. 

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. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulation. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review). 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that this rule meets the 

applicable standards of subsections (a) 

and (b) of that section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

because each program is drafted and 

promulgated by a specific State, not by 

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

submitted by the States must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and 

its implementing Federal regulations 

and whether the other requirements of 

30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have 

been met. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires 

that State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’ 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes. 

The rule does not involve or affect 

Indian Tribes in any way. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect The Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 

CFR U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that 

agency decisions on proposed State 

regulatory program provisions do not 

constitute major Federal actions within 

the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) et seq.). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

45120 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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: July 10, 2009. 

James F. Fulton, 

Acting Regional Director, Western Region. 

■ 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 

* * * * * 

Original amendment 

submission date Date of final publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

May 28, 2008 ....................... September 1, 2009 ............ Utah Admin. R.645–100–200 definition of intermittent stream; 645–301–131.300; 

645–301–535.210; 645–301–535.223; 645–301–551; 645–301–631; 645–301– 

631.200; 645–301–731.610, 645–301–742.320; 645–301–742.321; 645–301– 

742.323, 645–301–742.324, 645–301–742.331, 645–301–742.412; 645–301– 

765. 

[FR Doc. E9–21053 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[USCG–2009–0561] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, 

USACE Revetment, Mile Marker 869 to 

303 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary moving safety 

zone on the Lower Mississippi River 

from mile marker 869.0 to 303.0, 

extending the entire width of the river, 

0.5 mile downriver and 0.5 mile upriver 

from the 2009 US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) revetment work 

throughout the Lower Mississippi River. 

This moving safety zone is needed to 

protect persons and vessels from the 

potential safety hazards created by the 

2009 USACE revetment project. Entry 

into this zone is prohibited to all vessels 

and mariners unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Lower 

Mississippi River or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

September 1, 2009, at 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. 

to November 1, 2009. The safety zone 

has been enforced with actual notice 

since July 4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

0561 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–0561 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at two locations: the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays and Sector 

Lower Mississippi River, 2 Auction 

Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38105 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail Chief Warrant Officer 

Ray Bartlett, Sector Lower Mississippi 

River Waterways Management Branch, 

at (866) 777–2784, e-mail: 

Raymond.J.Bartlett@USCG.MIL. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, at (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES