[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 168 (Tuesday, September 1, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45116-45120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21053]


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

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#553f332039213a3b151a061807107b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3d9d5c6dfc7dcddf3fce0fee1f69dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 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 <greek-i> 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

[[Page 45118]]

(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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 45120]]

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.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 944 is amended as 
set forth below:

PART 944--UTAH

0
1. The authority citation for part 944 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 944.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of Final Publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  944.15  Approval of Utah regulatory program amendments

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Original amendment 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>