5548 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 925 

[Docket No. MO–738] 

Termination of Federal Enforcement 

for Parts of the Missouri Permanent 

Regulatory Program and Return of Full 

Regulatory Authority to the State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are announcing our decision 

under the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act) to terminate direct Federal 

enforcement for those parts of the 

Missouri permanent regulatory program 

(Missouri program) for which we 

substituted Federal enforcement. We 

announced our decision to substitute 

Federal enforcement for parts of the 

Missouri program on August 22, 2003. 

On June 2, 2005, the Governor of 

Missouri petitioned us to consider 

returning to the Missouri Land 

Reclamation Commission (MLRC) the 

authority to enforce those parts of the 

Missouri program for which we 

substituted Federal enforcement. The 

Missouri Land Reclamation Program 

(MLRP), within the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR), implements and enforces the 

Missouri program for the MLRC. Based 

on the Missouri Governor’s petition for 

return of the Missouri program and 

MLRP’s completion of the required 

remedial actions, we are terminating 

Federal enforcement for those parts of 

the Missouri program for which we 

substituted Federal enforcement and 

returning full enforcement authority to 

Missouri. This document also removes 

those sections of the Federal regulations 

that address: Direct Federal enforcement 

for parts of the Missouri program; the 

remedial actions required of Missouri to 

regain full enforcement authority; and 

the requirements and procedures for 

terminating direct Federal enforcement. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

Division. Telephone: (618) 463–6460. Email: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Missouri Program 

II. OSM’s Findings on Missouri’s 

Responses to Required Remedial 

Actions 

III. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

IV. OSM’s Decision 

V. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Missouri 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 Missouri 

program on November 21, 1980. You 

can find background information on the 

Missouri program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and conditions of approval, 

in the November 21, 1980, Federal 

Register (45 FR 77017). You can also 

find later actions concerning the 

Missouri program and program 

amendments at 30 CFR 925.10, 925.12, 

925.15, 925.16, 925.17, 925.18, and 

925.19. 

On June 19, 2003, MLRP notified us 

that the Missouri Legislature passed 

House Bill (HB) 6 that appropriated 

funds for the Missouri program. In HB 

6, the Missouri Legislature did not fully 

fund the Missouri program for the 

period beginning July 1, 2003, and 

ending June 30, 2004. The Missouri 

Legislature only appropriated funds for 

bond forfeiture reclamation activities. 

The Governor of Missouri signed the 

appropriation bill on May 30, 2003 

(Administrative Record No. MO–664). 

On July 2, 2003, we met with the 

MLRP at the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources’ office in Jefferson 

City, Missouri (Administrative Record 

No. MO–664.1). During the meeting, 

MLRP made a presentation describing 

the recently approved appropriation 

bill. HB 6 contained a severe cut in 

general revenue dollars available as 

State matching funds for the regulatory 

program. MLRP advised us that the 

moneys that were available for the 

regulatory program could only be used 

for bond forfeiture reclamation 

activities. Also, MLRP advised us that 

the State Legislature appropriated 

Federal funds for the abandoned mine 

land reclamation (AMLR) program. In 

addition, MLRP explained that as of July 

18, 2003, existing regulatory program 

staff, with the exception of four fulltime employees, would be transferred to 

other programs and that MLRP would 

not be able to implement and maintain 

its inspection, enforcement, permitting, 

or bond release responsibilities under 

the currently approved Missouri 

program. The four full-time employees 

would perform the bond forfeiture 

reclamation activities that were 

authorized by the State Legislature. 

MLRP indicated that it would try to gain 

full program funding from the Missouri 

Legislature for its 2005 fiscal year (FY). 

On July 21, 2003, the Governor of 

Missouri notified us that the State of 

Missouri was experiencing difficult 

budget and revenue shortfalls 

(Administrative Record No. MO–664.3). 

As a result of the revenue shortfalls, he 

requested assistance with permit 

reviews, inspection activities, and 

general oversight of the active coal 

mining operations in the State. He 

indicated that Missouri had adequate 

funding and staff available to maintain 

design and reclamation efforts for bond 

forfeiture sites, as well as sufficient 

funding and staff to maintain the AMLR 

program, including the emergency 

program. He also indicated that he was 

hopeful his request would be temporary 

and that he would continue to work 

with the Legislature in an attempt to 

assure adequate funding for all of 

Missouri’s regulatory program 

responsibilities. 

On August 4, 2003, we notified the 

Governor of Missouri that we were 

obligated, in accordance with 30 CFR 

733.12(e), to substitute Federal 

enforcement for parts of the Missouri 

program. We cited Missouri’s failure to 

fund and staff the Missouri program in 

several areas including inspection, 

enforcement, permitting, and bonding 

activities (Administrative Record No. 

MO–664.4). 

In accordance with the provisions of 

30 CFR 733.12(f), we announced our 

decision, effective August 22, 2003, to 

institute direct Federal enforcement for 

those parts of the Missouri program that 

were not fully funded and staffed. We 

suspended the authority of Missouri to 

enforce all portions of the Missouri 

program except bond forfeiture 

reclamation activities. We determined 

that MLRP had sufficient funding and 

staff to implement and maintain bond 

forfeiture reclamation activities. We did 

not provide additional grant funds to 

the MLRP for initiating new projects 

under the approved Missouri AMLR 

program under Title IV of SMCRA. We 

withheld further AMLR grant awards in 

accordance with 30 CFR 886.18(a)(3), 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 5549 

which requires us to terminate AMLR 

grants if an agency fails to implement, 

enforce, or maintain any part of an 

approved State regulatory program. 

With this substitution of Federal 

enforcement authority, we outlined a 

process, including remedial actions, by 

which Missouri could regain full 

authority for its program (68 FR 50944). 

On April 15, 2004, we clarified our 

substitution of Federal enforcement for 

parts of the Missouri program and made 

findings on the status of the Missouri 

program (69 FR 19927). 

On May 3, 2004, MLRP notified us 

that the Missouri Legislature failed to 

fully fund the Missouri program for the 

period beginning July 1, 2004, and 

ending June 30, 2005 (Administrative 

Record No. MO–664.22). In the same 

letter, MLRP outlined its financial and 

organizational plans to submit a request 

to its division and department 

legislative staff to propose funding and 

staffing that would be needed to 

reassume authority of the complete 

active coal regulatory program 

beginning July 1, 2005. On May 25, 

2004, we notified MLRP that based on 

its May 3, 2004, submittal, we would 

continue the current Federal 

substitution plan for one more year 

(Administrative Record No. MO–

664.24). 

By letter dated May 2, 2005, MLRP 

notified us that the Director of the 

MDNR had agreed to seek full return of 

the regulatory program to Missouri. 

MLRP also requested a meeting with us 

to discuss the plan for the return of the 

program to Missouri. MLRP noted that 

the State budget includes the necessary 

funding and staffing allocations and that 

it plans to use remaining past coal fee 

funds to match the Federal regulatory 

grant for FY 2006 (Administrative 

Record No. MO–664.39). 

By letter dated May 12, 2005, we 

advised MLRP that before Missouri can 

reassume full authority to implement 

and enforce the Missouri program, 

MLRP must complete the remedial 

measures specified in 30 CFR 925.18. In 

accordance with 30 CFR 925.18(c), we 

requested that MLRP submit a detailed 

description of the past coal fee funds 

that it proposed to use to match the 

Federal regulatory grant. We also 

requested that MLRP provide us with a 

Missouri Attorney General’s opinion on 

the legality of using these funds for 

implementation of its permanent 

regulatory program (Administrative 

Record No. MO–664.40). 

On May 26, 2005, we met with the 

Deputy Director of MDNR to discuss (1) 

funding; (2) current staff for the 

forfeiture program and AMLR plan; (3) 

cooperative agreement funding 

beginning July 1, 2005, and ending on 

December 31, 2005, or until we approve 

or disapprove the return of authority to 

Missouri; (4) procedural matters; (5) 

program issues; and (6) bond forfeiture 

site reclamation progress 

(Administrative Record No. MO–

664.44). 

By letter dated May 27, 2005, the 

Governor of Missouri petitioned us to 

consider returning to Missouri the 

authority to implement and enforce 

those parts of the Missouri program for 

which we substituted Federal 

enforcement (Administrative Record No. 

MO–664.42). 

On June 28, 2005, the Director of 

MDNR submitted information on the 

funding and staffing plans that MLRP 

would use to assume full enforcement 

authority for the Missouri program as 

required by 30 CFR 925.18(c). The 

Director of MDNR also provided the 

Missouri Attorney General’s written 

opinion on the legality of the funding 

proposal (Administrative Record No. 

MO–664.48). 

Also on June 28, 2005, we awarded a 

cooperative agreement to MDNR for a 

period of six months to facilitate startup 

activities for MLRP, to hire and train 

staff, and to take other actions necessary 

to resume full regulatory program 

authority. This cooperative agreement 

was effective July 1, 2005. On 

September 15, 2005, MDNR received an 

amendment to its Title V cooperative 

agreement, which extended the 

cooperative agreement through June 30, 

2006, or such time that we approve or 

disapprove Missouri’s petition to 

assume full enforcement authority. We 

also awarded Missouri an FY 2005 AML 

Simplified Grant on June 28, 2005. The 

FY 2005 AML grant was initially funded 

for the period July 1, 2005, to June 30, 

2006, to facilitate startup operations. No 

non-emergency project construction 

funds were included (Administrative 

Record No. MO–664.53A). 

OSM and the State met face to face on 

nearly a monthly basis and held 

numerous conference calls between 

meetings to discuss actions required 

under the cooperative agreement. To 

date, Missouri inspectors are 

accompanying OSM on all inspections. 

Missouri staff is working with OSM on 

permitting requests, and the State and 

OSM are working on a plan to complete 

reclamation of the forfeiture sites. 

Missouri has made leadership and 

organizational changes as part of its 

implementation of the cooperative 

agreement (Administrative Record No. 

MO–664.63), and has met with coal 

mining operators to discuss these 

changes. 

II. OSM’s Findings on Missouri’s 

Responses to Required Remedial 

Actions 

A. In order for MLRP to demonstrate 

its intent and capability to fully 

implement and enforce the Missouri 

program as approved by the Secretary, 

we required MLRP to complete certain 

remedial actions, which we codified at 

30 CFR 925.18(a) through (e). The 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 925.19 

provides that we will consider returning 

to Missouri the authority suspended 

under 30 CFR 925.17 provided that the 

State has accomplished all remedial 

actions specified under 30 CFR 925.18; 

and petitions us in writing to consider 

returning authority to the State. On May 

27, 2005, we received a written petition 

from the Governor of Missouri 

requesting that we return, to the State, 

the enforcement authority that was 

suspended under 30 CFR 925.17 

(Administrative Record No. MO–

664.42). We reviewed the current status 

of Missouri’s responses to the required 

remedial actions at 30 CFR 925.18, and 

we are making the following findings: 

B. 30 CFR 925.18 State Remedial 

Actions. 1. 30 CFR 925.18(a)—We 

required MLRP to submit to us, by 

August 22, 2003, a list of all outstanding 

enforcement actions specifying the 

abatement date set for each cited 

violation. On July 22, 2003, the Missouri 

Attorney General’s office provided us 

with a copy of all outstanding 

enforcement actions (Administrative 

Record No. MO–664.13). The notices of 

violation and cessation orders specified 

the abatement date set for each cited 

violation. On April 15, 2004, we found 

that MLRP had satisfied this required 

remedial action, and we removed 

paragraph (a) from 30 CFR 925.18. See 

69 FR 19932, dated April 15, 2004. 

2. 30 CFR 925.18(b)—In accordance 

with the requirements of the approved 

Missouri program, MLRP was to 

complete administrative disposition of 

all enforcement actions that were 

initiated before August 22, 2003. As 

applicable, MLRP was to conduct 

penalty assessments, hold informal 

conferences and hearings, collect 

penalties, and terminate or vacate 

enforcement actions. On November 25, 

2003, MLRP notified us that it had 

completed administrative disposition of 

five enforcement actions that were 

initiated before August 22, 2003 

(Administrative Record No. MO–

664.17). Additionally, on February 18, 

2004, MLRP notified us that it had 

completed administrative disposition of 

the balance of its enforcement actions 

(Administrative Record No. MO–

664.18A). Based on the above 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
5550 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

discussion, we find that MLRP has 

satisfied this required remedial action, 

and we are removing 30 CFR 925.18(b). 

3. 30 CFR 925.18(c)—Within 30 days 

of the date on which OSM has received 

and acknowledged an accurate 

description of available funding for the 

regulatory program, MLRP must submit 

to OSM a plan to reassume full 

authority for the Missouri program. At 

a minimum, the proposal must provide 

specific and adequate provisions that 

address funding, staffing, and adherence 

to the approved program. On June 28, 

2005, the Director of MDNR submitted 

information on the funding and staffing 

plans that MLRP would use to assume 

full enforcement authority for the 

Missouri program as required by 30 CFR 

925.18(c). The Director of MDNR also 

provided the Missouri Attorney 

General’s written opinion on the legality 

of the funding proposal (Administrative 

Record No. MO–664.48). Based on the 

above discussion and upon our 

knowledge of the level of staffing and 

the various expertise necessary to fully 

implement a successful program, we 

find that MLRP has satisfied this 

required remedial action. Therefore, we 

are removing 30 CFR 925.18(c). 

4. 30 CFR 925.18(d)—Starting on 

April 1, 2004, MLRP was to submit to 

us a report once a month on its progress 

in obtaining full funding for the 

Missouri program. MLRP is submitting 

monthly update reports on its progress 

in obtaining the funding and staffing 

needed to reassume its program 

(Administrative Record Nos. MO–

644.22, MO–664.23, MO–664.26—

MO.664.34, MO–664.36—MO–664.45, 

MO–664.50, and MO–664.54). Based on 

these monthly submittals, we find that 

MLRP has satisfied this required 

remedial action, and we are removing 

30 CFR 925.18(d). 

5. 30 CFR 925.18(e)—Effective 

September 8, 2003, MLRP was to take 

all steps necessary to ensure that all 

records, documents, correspondence, 

inspector logs, etc. were made secure 

and to supply copies of all documents 

to us upon request. Beginning in July 

2003, MLRP provided access to all 

materials that we requested 

(Administrative Record No. MO–

664.13). MLRP also provided us with 

copies of all items, such as permit 

review documents and bond release 

applications, that were pending when it 

lost funding for the State program. On 

April 15, 2004, we found that MLRP had 

satisfied this required remedial action, 

and we removed paragraph (e) from 30 

CFR 925.18. See 69 FR 19932, dated 

April 15, 2004. 

III. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

On August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48925), we 

announced receipt of the Governor of 

Missouri’s petition to consider returning 

to Missouri the authority to enforce 

those parts of the Missouri program for 

which we substituted Federal 

enforcement. In that document, we 

opened the public comment period and 

provided for a public hearing. We also 

published notice of the public hearing 

in three newspapers located within the 

areas of active mining operations and 

one newspaper located in the city of the 

Missouri regulatory authority. We held 

the public hearing on September 22, 

2005. The public comment period 

ended on September 29, 2005. The 

public comment period and hearing 

provided interested persons an 

opportunity to comment on matters 

relevant to whether OSM should grant 

the Governor of Missouri’s petition to 

reassume authority for those parts of the 

Missouri regulatory program currently 

being enforced by OSM. Three persons 

representing two State agencies 

attended the public hearing and two of 

them registered to speak at the hearing. 

We received written comments from 

two State agencies and the Interstate 

Mining Compact Commission (IMCC). 

1. Public Hearing Oral Comments 

The first person to speak at the public 

hearing represented the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) and commented that MDEQ 

supported OSM’s action to return full 

enforcement authority for the Missouri 

program back to MLRP (MO–664.60). 

The second person to speak at the 

public hearing represented MLRP and 

supported OSM’s action to return full 

enforcement authority for the Missouri 

program (MO–664.60). The speaker 

commented on the following: 

(1) The loss of funding and staffing in 

2003 that prevented Missouri from 

operating the approved State program. 

Missouri and OSM entered into a 

cooperative agreement to fund startup of 

the State program in July 2005, so that 

Missouri could work toward assuming 

full responsibility for the State program. 

[See Section I, Background on the 

Missouri Program, for more information 

on the July 2005 cooperative agreement 

(Administrative Record No. MO–

664.53A)]; 

(2) Missouri’s realization that changes 

in its operation are appropriate. The 

new program will have a much smaller 

and different staff. It will be one set of 

staff that will work on coal, bond 

forfeiture, and abandoned mine land 

reclamation activities; 

(3) The intent to change the Missouri 

regulations to phase out the regulatory 

process known as the bond pool and to 

convert to full cost bonding; 

(4) The need to reclaim abandoned 

mine lands for future generations; and 

(5) Missouri looking forward to once 

again implementing the full regulatory 

and reclamation programs. 

2. Written Comments 

By letters dated September 15, 2005, 

the Executive Director of IMCC and the 

Chairman of MLRC, commented that 

they strongly endorse and support the 

petition submitted by Governor Blunt to 

allow Missouri to reassume authority for 

those parts of the Missouri regulatory 

program that have recently been 

enforced by OSM. The IMCC and MLRC 

believe that Missouri has demonstrated 

its intent and capability to reassume full 

authority to implement and enforce its 

regulatory program (Administrative 

Record Nos. MO–664.56 and MO–

664.57). 

By letter dated September 19, 2005, 

the Director of MDEQ also commented 

that the MDEQ strongly endorses and 

supports the petition submitted by 

Governor Blunt to allow Missouri to 

reassume authority for those parts of the 

Missouri regulatory program that have 

recently been enforced by OSM. The 

MDEQ also believes that Missouri has 

demonstrated its intent and capability to 

reassume full authority to implement 

and enforce its regulatory program 

(Administrative Record No. MO–

664.58). 

3. Response to All Commenters 

We agree that OSM should approve 

Governor Blunt’s petition to allow 

Missouri to reassume authority for the 

State program. See Section IV, OSM’s 

Decision. 

IV. OSM’s Decision 

After a review of all available 

information on Missouri’s actions to 

seek return of the Missouri program, we 

found that Missouri has demonstrated 

that it has the resources, capability, 

policy, procedures, and commitment 

necessary to assure proper 

implementation of the program. 

Therefore, we are approving the 

Governor of Missouri’s petition to return 

full regulatory authority to MLRP for 

implementation and enforcement of the 

Missouri program, and we are 

terminating Federal enforcement of the 

Missouri program. This finding and 

decision are based on the following: 

1. The Governor of Missouri 

submitted a petition to consider 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 5551 

returning authority to the State and 

signed legislation that appropriated the 

necessary funds for MLRP to implement 

and enforce the Missouri program. 

2. MLRP provided a satisfactory 

source of funding for implementation 

and enforcement of the Missouri 

program. 

3. MLRP provided us a staffing plan 

and has made good progress in hiring 

and training staff to implement and 

enforce the Missouri program. 

4. Our staff has worked with the 

Missouri staff and management during 

the period beginning on July 1, 2005, 

and our observations and review of 

assignments made to Missouri indicate 

both staff and management are ready to 

assume full enforcement 

responsibilities. 

5. MLRP accomplished to our 

satisfaction all required remedial 

actions at 30 CFR 925.18. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 925, which codify decisions 

concerning the Missouri program. We 

find that good cause exists under 5 

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

effective February 1, 2006. Section 

503(a)(3) of SMCRA requires that a 

State’s program demonstrate that the 

State regulatory authority has sufficient 

administrative and technical personnel 

and sufficient funding to enable the 

State to regulate surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations in accordance 

with the requirements of SMCRA. 

Missouri is now in compliance with the 

requirements of section 503(a)(3). 

V. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based upon the nature of the action 

being taken. 

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. 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 State 

regulatory programs must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

program 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 there are no Federally-recognized 

Indian tribes in the State of Missouri 

and that the Missouri program does not 

regulate coal exploration and surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on Indian lands. Therefore, the Missouri 

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. 

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 State regulatory programs 

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 the return of regulatory 

authority to the State of Missouri for 

those portions of the Missouri 

permanent regulatory program for 

which we are currently substituting 

Federal enforcement 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 rule is not 

expected to result in additional costs to 

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 the rule is not expected to result in 

additional costs to the regulated 

industry. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The return of regulatory authority to 

the State of Missouri for those portions 

of the Missouri permanent regulatory 

program for which we are currently 

substituting Federal enforcement 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 nature of the action 

being taken. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
5552 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 925 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: January 6, 2006. 

R.M. ‘‘Johnnie’’ Burton, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 925 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 925—MISSOURI 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 925 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Part 925 is amended by removing 

§§ 925.17, 925.18, and 925.19 in their 

entirety. 

[FR Doc. 06–883 Filed 1–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES2