Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10925 

42 CFR Part 121 

Healthcare, Hospitals, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ Therefore, under the Public Health 

Service Act and under authority 

delegated to the Commissioner of Food 

and Drugs and to the Administrator, 

Health Resources and Services 

Administration, 21 CFR part 1271 and 

42 CFR part 121 are amended as 

follows: 

21 CFR Chapter I 

PART 1271—HUMAN CELLS, TISSUES, 

AND CELLULAR AND TISSUE-BASED 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 1271 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 216, 243, 263a, 264, 

271. 

■ 2. Section 1271.3 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1271.3 How does FDA define important 

terms in this part? 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(8) Blood vessels recovered with an 

organ, as defined in 42 CFR 121.2, that 

are intended for use in organ 

transplantation and labeled ‘‘For use in 

organ transplantation only.’’

* * * * * 

42 CFR Chapter I 

PART 121—ORGAN PROCUREMENT 

AND TRANSPLANTATION NETWORK 

■ 3. The authority citation for 42 CFR 

part 121 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 215, 371–376 of the 

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 

273–274d); and sections 1102, 1106, 1138, 

and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1302, 1306, 1320b–8 and 1395hh). 

■ 4. Section 121.2 is amended by adding 

a sentence at the end of the definition 

of ‘‘Organ’’ to read as follows: 

§ 121.2 Definitions 

* * * * * 

Organ * * * Blood vessels recovered 

from an organ donor during the recovery 

of such organ(s) are considered part of 

an organ with which they are procured 

for purposes of this part if the vessels 

are intended for use in organ 

transplantation and labeled ‘‘For use in 

organ transplantation only.’’

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 121.7 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph 

(f) and by adding paragraph (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 121.7 Identification of organ recipient. 

* * * * * 

(e) Blood vessels considered part of an 

organ. A blood vessel that is considered 

part of an organ under this part shall be 

subject to the allocation requirements 

and policies pertaining to the organ 

with which the blood vessel is procured 

until and unless the transplant center 

receiving the organ determines that the 

blood vessel is not needed for the 

transplantation of that organ. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 8, 2006. 

Elizabeth M. Duke, 

Administrator, Health Resources and Services 

Administration. 

Dated: February 2, 2007. 

Jeffrey Shuren, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy, Food and 

Drug Administration. 

[FR Doc. 07–1131 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

21 CFR Part 1310 

[Docket No. DEA–137F3] 

RIN 1117–AA31 

Exemption of Chemical Mixtures 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 15, 2004, the 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) published a Final Rule corrected 

January 4, 2005) that implemented new 

regulations concerning chemical 

mixtures that contain any of the 27 

listed chemicals. The Final Rule added 

a new provision not previously raised 

by DEA in any proposed rulemaking. 

This newly introduced provision 

exempted domestic and import 

transactions in chemical mixtures that 

are regulated solely due to the presence 

of the List II solvent chemicals acetone, 

ethyl ether, 2-butanone, or toluene from 

the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. Because this exemption 

was not previously proposed in any 

rulemaking, DEA implemented this 

exemption on an interim basis and 

requested public comment on this 

exemption provision. 

Based upon a review of all comments, 

DEA is finalizing this exemption. As 

such, domestic and import transactions 

in chemical mixtures containing the List 

II chemicals acetone, ethyl ether, 2- 

butanone, and toluene shall be exempt 

from CSA chemical recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

DATES: This Final Rule is effective 

March 12, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine A. Sannerud, Ph.D., Chief, 

Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section, 

Office of Diversion Control, Drug 

Enforcement Administration, 

Washington, DC 20537, telephone (202) 

307–7183. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Historical Legal Status of Chemical 

Mixtures 

The Chemical Diversion and 

Trafficking Act of 1988 (CDTA), (Pub. L. 

100–690) created the definition of 

‘‘chemical mixture’’ (21 U.S.C. 802(40)), 

and exempted chemical mixtures from 

regulatory control. The CDTA 

established 21 U.S.C. 802(39)(A)(vi), as 

amended by Title VII of Public Law 

109–177, to exclude ‘‘any transaction in 

a chemical mixture’’ from the definition 

of a ‘‘regulated transaction.’’ The 

exemption of all chemical mixtures, 

however, provided traffickers with an 

unregulated source for obtaining listed 

chemicals for use in the illicit 

manufacture of controlled substances. 

To remedy this situation, the 

Domestic Chemical Diversion Control 

Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–200) (DCDCA), 

enacted in April 1994, subjected 

chemical mixtures containing listed 

chemicals to CSA regulatory 

requirements, unless specifically 

exempted by regulation. The DCDCA, 

therefore, subjected all regulated 

chemical mixtures to recordkeeping, 

reporting, and security requirements of 

the CSA. Additionally, the DCDCA 

added a registration requirement for 

handlers of regulated List I chemical 

mixtures. 

The DCDCA, however, also amended 

21 U.S.C. 802(39)(A)(vi), as amended by 

Title VII of Public Law 109–177, to 

provide the Attorney General with the 

authority to establish regulations 

exempting chemical mixtures from the 

definition of a ‘‘regulated transaction’’

‘‘based on a finding that the mixture is 

formulated in such a way that it cannot 

be easily used in the illicit production 

of a controlled substance and that the 

listed chemical or chemicals contained 

in the mixture cannot be readily 

recovered’’ (21 U.S.C. 802(39)(A)(vi) as 

amended by Title VII of Pub. L. 109–

177). This authority has been delegated 

to the Administrator of DEA by 28 CFR 

0.100 and redelegated to the Deputy 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10926 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Administrator under 28 CFR Appendix 

to Subpart R, section 12. 

Prior to publication of a final 

rulemaking, chemical mixtures 

containing listed chemicals have been 

treated as exempt from CSA regulatory 

control. Regulations regarding the 

exemption of chemical mixtures were 

initially proposed by DEA on October 

13, 1994, as part of its proposed 

regulations to implement the DCDCA 

(59 FR 51888). In response to industry 

concerns, the proposed regulations were 

withdrawn on December 9, 1994, (59 FR 

63738). 

DEA proposed new regulations 

regarding the exemption of chemical 

mixtures by publishing a new NPRM 

entitled ‘‘Exemption of Chemical 

Mixtures’’ on September 16, 1998 (63 

FR 49506). DEA proposed the following 

three-tiered approach to identify which 

chemical mixtures qualify for automatic 

exemption: (1) It contains a listed 

chemical at or below an established 

concentration limit; or (2) it falls within 

a specifically defined category; or (3) the 

manufacturer of the mixture applies for 

and is granted a specific exemption for 

the product. 

On December 15, 2004, DEA 

published a final rule which specified 

criteria used to determine whether 

chemical mixtures qualify for automatic 

exemption from CSA chemical 

regulatory controls for 27 listed 

chemicals (69 FR 74957; corrected at 70 

FR 294, January 4, 2005). Those 

chemical mixtures that do not meet the 

exemption criteria are treated as 

regulated chemicals and therefore, 

subject to CSA chemical regulatory 

controls. 

Chemical Mixture Definition 

Title 21 U.S.C. 802(40) defines the 

term ‘‘chemical mixture’’ as ‘‘a 

combination of two or more chemical 

substances, at least one of which is not 

a List I chemical or a List II chemical, 

except that such term does not include 

any combination of a List I chemical or 

a List II chemical with another chemical 

that is present solely as an impurity.’’

Therefore, a chemical mixture contains 

any number of listed chemicals along 

with any number of non-listed 

chemicals. A combination of only listed 

chemicals is, therefore, not a chemical 

mixture pursuant to the CSA definition. 

As such, the regulatory controls 

pertaining to each individual listed 

chemical are applicable. 

It is DEA’s longstanding policy that 

the combination of a listed chemical in 

an inert carrier is not considered a 

chemical mixture. An inert carrier can 

be any chemical that does not interfere 

with the listed chemical’s function but 

is present to aid in the delivery of the 

listed chemical so it can be used in 

some chemical process. Examples 

include, but are not limited to, solutions 

of listed chemicals such as methylamine 

in water or hydrogen chloride dissolved 

in water or alcohol. Persons who 

question if their formulations are 

chemical mixtures should contact DEA 

for guidance. 

New Interim Chemical Mixture 

Exemption Category 

The Final Rule published on 

December 15, 2004, (69 FR 74957; 

corrected at 70 FR 294, January 4, 2005) 

also added, on an interim basis, a new 

exemption category. DEA determined 

that certain solvent-based mixtures 

involving silicon-based products, paintrelated materials, and other solventbased chemical mixtures containing 

acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone, and 

toluene are not likely to be diverted 

domestically. These solvent chemicals 

are mostly a concern because they are 

used in cocaine and heroin processing, 

which occurs outside the United States. 

Therefore, the December 15, 2004 

rulemaking created a new exemption 

category for these mixtures. Domestic 

and import transactions in chemical 

mixtures that are regulated solely due to 

the presence of the List II solvent 

chemicals acetone, ethyl ether, 2- 

butanone, or toluene were removed, on 

an interim basis, from the definition of 

a regulated transaction by adding a new 

paragraph to 21 CFR 1310.08. Methyl 

isobutyl ketone, also a List II solvent 

chemical, was not included because 

domestic and import transactions in that 

chemical have already been excluded 

from the definition of a regulated 

transaction at 21 CFR 1310.08. 

This new exemption (for domestic 

and import transactions in chemical 

mixtures containing the List II 

chemicals acetone, ethyl ether, 2- 

butanone, and toluene) was not 

discussed in the original NPRM 

published on September 16, 1998 (63 FR 

49506). Therefore, this exemption was 

implemented on an interim basis with 

opportunity for public comment in the 

December 15, 2004 rulemaking (69 FR 

74957; corrected at 70 FR 294, January 

4, 2005). DEA solicited comments on 

this portion of the rulemaking. 

II. Comments Received Regarding the 

Interim Regulations 

DEA received three comments in 

response to the December 15, 2004, 

rulemaking (69 FR 74957) from 

interested parties. Two comments were 

from trade associations, and one 

comment was from a chemical 

manufacturer. In general, the comments 

supported efforts by DEA to regulate 

chemical mixtures that have potential 

use to drug traffickers. Each comment 

specifically supported finalization of the 

exemption for domestic and import 

transactions for chemical mixtures 

containing the List II solvent chemicals 

acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone, and 

toluene. 

Two comments, however, requested 

that the exemption be expanded to 

include certain exports of such chemical 

mixtures. The comments suggested that 

DEA only regulate exports of such 

mixtures to certain specific countries of 

concern. Given the applicability of such 

solvents for both cocaine and heroin 

processing, however, the geographic 

regions of concern are extremely 

widespread. Additionally, DEA has 

concerns that exports of solvent 

chemical mixtures can be subject to reexportation from destination countries. 

DEA believes that such exports of 

chemical mixtures should not be 

exempted since exports of these 

chemical mixtures could have 

significant potential for diversion. 

Therefore, these chemical mixtures, 

unless otherwise exempt, are subject to 

the export and other CSA chemical 

regulatory requirements. 

One commenter expressed concerns 

regarding the regulatory language found 

in 21 CFR 1310.08(l) stating that, 

‘‘Domestic and import transactions in 

chemical mixtures that contain acetone, 

ethyl ether, 2-butanone, or toluene 

unless regulated because of being 

formulated with another listed chemical 

above the concentration limit’’ shall be 

excluded transactions. The commenter 

stated that the regulatory language does 

not make it clear that this exemption 

applies if the mixture contains more 

than one of these chemicals (i.e. 

contains two or more of the following: 

acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone or 

toluene). The commenter expressed 

concerns that enforcement officials may 

deem chemical mixtures containing 

more than ‘‘one’’ of these solvents as 

regulated if the total quantity exceeded 

the List II concentration limits. DEA 

agrees. Therefore, DEA is modifying 21 

CFR 1310.08(l) to read, ‘‘Domestic and 

import transactions in chemical 

mixtures that contain acetone, ethyl 

ether, 2-butanone, and/or toluene, 

unless regulated because of being 

formulated with other List I or List II 

chemical(s) above the concentration 

limit’’ shall be excluded. 

Clarification of Concentration Limits 

As DEA stated in its Final Rule 

establishing concentration limits for the 

vast majority of chemical mixtures (69 

FR 74957, December 15, 2004), and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10927 

codified at 21 CFR 1310.14(c), mixtures 

containing a listed chemical in 

concentrations equal to or less than 

those specified in the ‘‘Table of 

Concentration Limits’’ are designated as 

exempt from specified provisions set 

forth in that section. The concentration 

limit is set at 35 percent (by weight or 

volume) for the cumulative amount of 

acetone, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), 

methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), toluene, 

and ethyl ether. Therefore, the table in 

21 CFR 1310.14(c) specifies that for 

exports, the limit applies to the specific 

chemical or any combination of acetone, 

ethyl ether, 2-butanone, methyl isobutyl 

ketone, and toluene, if present in the 

mixture by summing the concentrations 

for each chemical. For example, an 

export involving a chemical mixture 

containing 20 percent acetone and 20 

percent ethyl ether would not be exempt 

because the cumulative total of 40 

percent exceeds the 35 percent 

concentration limit. 

Final Action Taken in This Rulemaking 

After considering all comments, DEA 

has decided to exempt domestic and 

import transactions in chemical 

mixtures that contain acetone, ethyl 

ether, 2-butanone, and/or toluene under 

21 CFR 1310.08 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

802(39)(A)(iii) because regulation of 

such transactions has been determined 

to be unnecessary for the enforcement of 

the CSA. DEA determined that there is 

not a significant risk of domestic 

diversion for these chemical mixtures. 

Specific Requirements That Will Apply 

to Regulated Chemical Mixtures 

Containing List II Chemicals Upon 

Publication of This Final Rule 

The above exemption only exempts 

such chemical mixtures from the 

domestic recordkeeping and import 

notification requirements. All other CSA 

chemical regulatory provisions, as 

specified in detail in the December 15, 

2004 rule [69 FR 74957; corrected at 70 

FR 294, January 4, 2005], shall apply. 

III. Exemption Authority 

The CSA authorizes DEA, pursuant to 

21 U.S.C. 802(39)(A)(iii), to remove 

certain transactions in listed chemicals 

from the definition of a regulated 

transaction that are unnecessary for 

enforcement of the CSA. Based on 

comments to the Federal Register 

proposed rule ‘‘Exemption of Chemical 

Mixtures’’ (63 FR 49506, September 16, 

1998), DEA identified certain 

transactions in mixtures of acetone, 

ethyl ether, 2-butanone, and toluene 

that are unlikely sources for diversion. 

DEA was informed that tens of 

thousands of domestic transactions in 

these chemical mixtures occur annually. 

DEA determined that the regulation of 

domestic and import transactions in 

mixtures containing the chemicals 

acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone, and 

toluene were unnecessary for 

enforcement of the CSA and should be 

removed from the definition of a 

regulated transaction. 

Since the NPRM to this rulemaking 

did not discuss this exemption, the 

public did not have the opportunity to 

comment on the exclusion of these 

transactions from the definition of a 

regulated transaction. 

However, to avoid unnecessary 

burdens on affected companies during 

the pendency of proceedings in this 

matter, DEA decided to include as part 

of its December 15, 2004, Final Rule an 

interim rule, with request for comment, 

removing these transactions from the 

definition of a regulated transaction. 

Now that DEA has had the opportunity 

to solicit and review comments, the 

exemption is being finalized in this rule. 

IV. Regulatory Certifications 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DEA has become aware that a 

substantial number of chemical 

mixtures that are not useful to 

traffickers could potentially be regulated 

if the chemical mixtures that are subject 

to this rulemaking were not excluded 

from certain regulatory requirements. 

DEA determined that the regulation of 

these chemical mixtures is not 

necessary for enforcement of the CSA. 

Therefore, DEA decided to exempt these 

chemical mixtures from regulatory 

controls by exemption of certain types 

of transactions. 

DEA notes that the List II solvent 

chemicals acetone, ethyl ether, 2- 

butanone, and toluene contribute to the 

largest number of potentially regulated 

chemical mixtures of List II chemicals. 

To limit the number of potentially 

regulated chemical mixtures to those 

necessary for enforcement of the CSA, 

DEA decided to define all domestic and 

import transactions of mixtures in these 

List II solvent chemicals as exempt 

transactions. This exemption applies to 

all persons that handle these chemical 

mixtures and not only to those who are 

represented in the comments. DEA 

previously implemented this exemption 

and is finalizing the exemption in this 

rulemaking. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 

Deputy Administrator has reviewed this 

regulation and by approving it certifies 

that this regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact upon a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12866 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, Section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation. DEA has determined that 

this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

Section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and 

Review, and accordingly this rule has 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. This rule 

finalizes an exemption for domestic and 

import transactions involving the List II 

chemicals acetone, ethyl ether, 2- 

butanone, and toluene. 

Executive Order 12988 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rulemaking does not preempt or 

modify any provision of state law; nor 

does it impose enforcement 

responsibilities on any state; nor does it 

diminish the power of any state to 

enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this 

rulemaking does not have federalism 

implications warranting the application 

of Executive Order 13132. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $118,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Congressional Review Act 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by Section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional 

Review Act). This rule will not result in 

an annual effect on the economy of 

$100,000,000 or more; a major increase 

in costs or prices; or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rulemaking finalizes an 

exemption provision which reduced the 

paperwork burden on handlers of 

acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone and 

toluene. By exempting domestic and 

import transactions involving chemical 

mixtures containing these List II 

chemicals DEA is not subjecting these 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10928 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

transactions to CSA recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. Domestic and 

import transactions involving chemical 

mixtures containing acetone, ethyl 

ether, 2-butanone and toluene are not 

subject to the following information 

collections: DEA information collection 

1117–0023: Import/Export Declaration 

for List I and List II Chemicals [imports 

only]; and DEA information collection 

1117–0029: Annual Reporting 

Requirement for Manufacturers of Listed 

Chemicals. 

List of Subjects In 21 CFR Part 1310 

Drug traffic control, List I and List II 

chemicals, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR 

part 1310 is amended to read as follows: 

PART 1310—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1310 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 802, 827(h), 830, 

871(b), 890. 

■ 2. Section 1310.08 is amended by 

revising paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 1310.08 Excluded Transactions. 

* * * * * 

(l) Domestic and import transactions 

in chemical mixtures that contain 

acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone, and/or 

toluene, unless regulated because of 

being formulated with other List I or 

List II chemical(s) above the 

concentration limit. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–4314 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 925 

[Docket No. MO–039–FOR] 

Missouri Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are approving an amendment to 

the Missouri regulatory program 

(Missouri program) regarding bonding 

under the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). Previously, we approved an 

emergency rule that allowed Missouri to 

transition from a ‘‘bond pool’’ approach 

to bonding to a ‘‘full cost bond’’

approach in a timely manner. We are 

now approving Missouri’s permanent 

rule concerning this same topic. 

Missouri proposed to revise its program 

to improve operational efficiency. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Missouri Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the 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, and 925.16. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated October 11, 2006 

(Administrative Record No. MO–666), 

Missouri sent us a ‘‘permanent rule’’

amendment to its program regarding 

bonding under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 

et seq.). This amendment was sent as a 

replacement for Missouri’s ‘‘emergency 

rule’’ that we previously approved on 

June 8, 2006 (71 FR 33243). The 

‘‘emergency rule’’ allowed Missouri to 

transition from a ‘‘bond pool’’ approach 

to bonding to a ‘‘full cost bond’’

approach in a timely manner. The 

‘‘permanent rule’’ amendment, when 

approved, will become a permanent part 

of Missouri’s program. 

We announced receipt of Missouri’s 

proposed ‘‘emergency rule’’ amendment 

in the November 29, 2005, Federal 

Register (70 FR 71425). In the same 

document, we opened the public 

comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the adequacy of the 

amendment. We did not hold a public 

hearing or meeting because no one 

requested one and we did not receive 

any comments. We also stated in this 

Federal Register document that if 

Missouri submitted a ‘‘permanent rule’’

with language that has the same 

meaning as the ‘‘emergency rule,’’ we 

would publish a final rule and 

Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’ would 

become part of the Missouri program. 

Because Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’

has the same meaning as the 

‘‘emergency rule,’’ we are proceeding 

with the final rule. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

Following are the findings we made 

concerning Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’

amendment under SMCRA and the 

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 

and 732.17. We are approving the 

amendment as described below. Any 

revisions that we do not specifically 

discuss below concern nonsubstantive 

wording or editorial changes. 

A. Minor Revisions to Missouri’s 

Regulations 

Missouri’s definition for ‘‘regulatory 

authority,’’ found at 10 CSR [Code of 

State Regulations] 40–8.010(82), means 

the Land Reclamation Commission 

(commission), the director, or their 

designated representatives and 

employees unless otherwise specified in 

the State’s rules. Missouri proposed to 

replace the words ‘‘commission’’ or 

‘‘regulatory authority’’ with the word 

‘‘director’’ in the following regulations: 

10 CSR 40–7.011(2)(A), (3)(C), (4)(B), 

(6)(B)1., 5., 6., and 7., (6)(C)1. and 8., 

(6)(D)2., and (6)(D)2.B, 3.B, 3.B(I) and 

5.C; and 10 CSR 40–7.041(1)(A), (B)1. 

and (B)2. Missouri proposed to improve 

operational efficiency by specifying that 

the director is to perform certain duties. 

We find that the substitution of the 

word ‘‘director’’ for the words 

‘‘commission’’ or ‘‘regulatory authority’’

will not render Missouri’s regulations 

less effective than the Federal 

regulations because in accordance with 

Missouri’s definition for regulatory 

authority, the director is a regulatory 

authority as is the commission and the 

certain duties specified in the 

regulations cited above are not duties 

reserved solely for the commission 

according to section 444.810 of 

Missouri’s surface coal mining law. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES