Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 28451 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 914 

[Docket No. IN–157–FOR] 

Indiana Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are approving an amendment to 

the Indiana regulatory program (Indiana 

program) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). The Indiana 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Reclamation (IDNR, Indiana, 

or department) made revisions to its 

rules to allow commercial forestry 

(trees) to be planted on reclaimed prime 

farmland provided all remaining 

reclamation requirements for prime 

farmland soil reconstruction and 

restoration are met. Indiana also 

restructured several of its provisions 

and made some minor language 

changes. Indiana intends to revise its 

program to improve operational 

efficiency. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 21, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

Division—Indianapolis Area Office. 

Telephone: (317) 226–6700. E-mail: 

IFOMAIL@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Indiana Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Indiana Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) conditionally approved the 

Indiana program effective July 29, 1982. 

You can find background information 

on the Indiana program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and the conditions of 

approval, in the July 26, 1982, Federal 

Register (47 FR 32071). You can also 

find later actions concerning the Indiana 

program and program amendments at 30 

CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated October 23, 2006 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1738), 

Indiana sent us an amendment to its 

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

et seq.) at its own initiative. The 

provisions of Title 312 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) that Indiana 

revised are: 312 IAC 25–4–102, special 

categories of mining-prime farmland 

and 312 IAC 25–6–143, prime farmlandspecial performance standards—

revegetation and restoration of soil 

productivity. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the November 

13, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 

66148). In the same document, we 

opened the public comment period and 

provided an opportunity for a public 

hearing or meeting on the adequacy of 

the amendment. We did not hold a 

public hearing or meeting because no 

one requested one. The public comment 

period ended on December 13, 2006. We 

received comments from two Federal 

agencies. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

Following are the findings we made 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment as described 

below. Any revisions that we do not 

specifically discuss below concern 

nonsubstantive wording or editorial 

changes. 

A. Minor Revisions to Indiana’s Rules 

1. Indiana restructured the following 

provisions with minor changes to the 

existing language: 312 IAC 25–4–

102(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) and (B); (b); (d)(4) 

and (6); (e)(3); and (f)(5). 

For example, at 312 IAC 25–4–

102(a)(1), Indiana restructured the 

sentence, ‘‘A map showing the 

geographical location of the area for 

which the determination is requested 

and the area previously affected by 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operation,’’ to: 

A map showing the geographical location 

of: 

(A) The area for which the determination 

is requested; and 

(B) The area previously affected by surface 

coal mining and reclamation operation. 

2. Indiana restructured the following 

provisions with minor changes to the 

existing language: 312 IAC 25–6–

143(b)(3) and (b)(8). 

For example, at 312 IAC 25–6–

143(b)(3), Indiana restructured the 

sentence, ‘‘The sampling techniques 

contained in section 60 of this rule and 

the statistical methodology contained in 

section 61 of this rule shall be used to 

measure soil productivity,’’ to: 

The: 

(A) Sampling techniques contained in 

section 60 of this rule; and 

(B) Statistical methodology contained in 

section 61 of this rule; 

shall be used to measure soil productivity. 

Because these changes are minor and 

do not alter the meaning of the affected 

regulations, we find that they will not 

make Indiana’s rules less effective than 

the corresponding Federal regulations. 

B. Other Revisions to Indiana’s Rules 

Indiana revised its prime farmland 

rules at 312 IAC 25–4–102, which 

concern application requirements for 

prime farmland mining and restoration. 

Indiana also revised 312 IAC 25–6–143, 

which concerns revegetation and 

restoration of soil productivity for prime 

farmland. The purpose of the revisions 

is to allow commercial trees to be 

planted on reclaimed prime farmland 

areas provided soil productivity is 

demonstrated according to prime 

farmland soil productivity standards. In 

other words, the revisions would 

establish standards for planting trees on 

those parts of reclaimed prime farmland 

upon which crops need not be grown to 

demonstrate restoration of soil 

productivity and revegetation success. 

There are no direct Federal 

counterparts to most of the revisions. 

However, all revisions affecting prime 

farmland restoration must be consistent 

with the Federal prime farmland 

regulations at 30 CFR 785.17 and Part 

823. 

1. 312 IAC 25–4–102 Special 

Categories of Mining—Prime Farmland 

Indiana added new subdivision (d)(8) 

to read as follows: 

(8) If the applicant proposes to establish 

commercial forest resources on the prime 

farmland, the plan must also include the 

following: 

(A) A commercial forest planting plan that 

shall include the following: 

(i) A stocking rate. 

(ii) A plan for replanting as needed. 

(B) A commercial forest management plan. 

(C) Documentation of landowner consent. 

Subsection (d) of this section 

concerns land within the proposed 

permit area that is identified as prime 

farmland. Once prime farmland is 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28452 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

identified, the applicant must submit a 

plan for mining and restoring that land. 

The requirements in subsection (d) were 

previously approved as no less effective 

than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

785.17(c). Newly added subdivision (8) 

contains additional application 

requirements for establishing 

commercial forestry (trees) on those 

portions of prime farmland upon which 

crops need not be grown to demonstrate 

restoration of soil productivity and 

revegetation success. 

2. 312 IAC 25–6–143 Prime 

Farmland—Special Performance 

Standards—Revegetation and 

Restoration of Soil Productivity 

Indiana added new subsection (c) to 

read as follows: 

(c) Commercial forest resources may be 

established on reclaimed prime farmland 

provided that productivity is demonstrated 

by subsection (b) and as follows: 

(1) The director has approved a forest 

planting plan and forest management plan in 

consultation with the division of forestry. 

(2) Landowner consent has been obtained. 

(3) Forest compatible, permanent ground 

cover sufficient to control erosion is 

established and all erosion areas must be 

repaired or otherwise stabilized. 

(4) The required soil replacement depth is 

verified and approved before trees are 

planted. 

(5) Soil productivity shall be demonstrated 

under subsection (b). 

Subsection (b) of this section contains 

Indiana’s requirements for revegetation 

and restoration of soil productivity for 

prime farmland. These requirements 

were previously approved as no less 

effective than the Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 823.15(b). Newly added 

subsection (c) contains the additional 

requirements needed for planting 

commercial trees on those portions of 

reclaimed prime farmland upon which 

crops need not be grown to demonstrate 

restoration of soil productivity and 

revegetation success. 

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

785.17(e)(1) provides that the regulatory 

authority may approve mining and 

reclamation of prime farmland only if it 

first finds that the approved postmining 

land use of those prime farmlands is 

cropland. Originally designated as 30 

CFR 785.17(d)(1) when first adopted on 

March 13, 1979, the preamble explains 

this provision as meaning that ‘‘* * * at 

the time the bond is released, the land 

must both be capable of supporting 

prime farmland use and must actually 

be in use as prime farmland.’’ See 44 FR 

15086, March 13, 1979. (That portion of 

the preamble uses the term ‘‘prime 

farmland’’ as a synonym for cropland.) 

Consistent with this preamble 

discussion, the 1979 version of the 

prime farmland revegetation success 

standards at 30 CFR 823.15(b) required 

that crops be planted on ‘‘* * * any 

portion of the permit area which is 

prime farmland * * *’’

Illinois challenged 30 CFR 

785.17(d)(1) as being inconsistent with 

section 515(b)(2) of SMCRA, which 

requires that surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations ‘‘* * * restore 

the land affected to a condition capable 

of supporting the uses which it was 

capable of supporting prior to any 

mining, or to higher or better uses 

***’’ The court rejected this 

challenge, citing what it characterized 

as ‘‘clear congressional intent to restore 

prime farmland to cropland’’ and noting 

that section 519(c)(2) of the Act 

prohibits release of bond ‘‘* * * until 

soil productivity for prime farm lands 

has returned to equivalent levels of 

yield as nonmined land of the same soil 

type in the surrounding area under 

equivalent management practices 

* * *.’’ The court stated that ‘‘[t]his 

equivalency standard could not be 

achieved absent the postmining 

employment of prime farmland as 

cropland.’’ See In Re: Permanent 

Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, 

Round II (PSMRL, Round II), 19 ERC 

1480, 1482 (D.D.C. May 16, 1980). 

The rationale set forth in that decision 

is arguably inconsistent with the court’s 

earlier decision on a similar challenge to 

the revegetation success standards for 

prime farmland—in 30 CFR 823.11(c) 

and 823.15(b) and (c)—by the National 

Coal Association (NCA). As originally 

adopted on March 13, 1979, paragraph 

(b) of 30 CFR 823.15 provided that 

‘‘* * * any portion of the permit area 

which is prime farmland must be used 

for crops commonly grown, such as 

corn, soybeans, cotton, grain, hay, 

sorghum, wheat, oats, barley, or other 

crops on surrounding prime farmland.’’

In the NCA case, the court upheld the 

challenge, finding that ‘‘* * * the Act 

fails to provide statutory support for 

requiring coal operators to engage in 

farming.’’ See In Re: Permanent Surface 

Mining Regulation Litigation, Round I 

(PSMRL, Round I), 14 ERC 1083, 1106 

(D.D.C. February 26, 1980). Referring to 

a number of statutory provisions, 

including those the court later cited as 

a basis for its conflicting decision on 30 

CFR 785.17(d)(1) in PSMRL, Round II, 

the court stated that—

These statutory enactments do not 

command a coal operator to actually farm the 

land. Instead, they direct the operator to 

demonstrate capability of prime farmlands to 

support pre-mining productivity. 

See PSMRL, Round I, 14 ERC 1083, 

1106. 

In a subsequent rulemaking, we 

incorporated aspects of both decisions. 

First, the revised rules at 30 CFR 

823.15(b) retain the requirement that 

crops be grown to demonstrate the 

restoration of soil productivity for prime 

farmland. The preamble explains that 

we ‘‘* * * determined that cropping is 

the only method currently available to 

test the restoration of the productivity of 

prime farmland soils because 

insufficient research has been published 

that demonstrates the reliability of any 

other method.’’ See 48 FR 21458, May 

12, 1983. 

Second, we did not adopt the 

proposed rule to the extent that it, like 

the 1979 rule, would have required 

crops to be grown on any portion of the 

disturbed area that is prime farmland 

historically used as cropland. Instead, 

revised section 823.15(b)(2) requires 

that soil productivity ‘‘* * * be 

measured on a representative sample or 

on all of the mined and reclaimed prime 

farmland area using the reference crop 

determined under paragraph (b)(6) of 

this section.’’ As explained in the 

preamble, the revised rule reflects an 

agreement between OSM and the Soil 

Conservation Service [since renamed 

the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service] ‘‘* * * that the amount of 

prime farmland area used to grow crops 

for proof of soil productivity could 

include the entire mined and reclaimed 

prime farmland area or a portion of the 

mined and reclaimed prime farmland 

area which would result in a 

statistically valid sample at a 90 percent 

confidence level.’’ See 48 FR 21459, 

May 12, 1983. The courts upheld the 

revised rules. See In Re: Permanent 

Surface Mining Regulation Litigation II, 

Round II, 21 ERC 1724, 1732–34 (D.D.C. 

October 1, 1984) and NWF v. Hodel, 839 

F.2d 694, 716–718 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 

Consequently, the 1979 preamble 

discussion of 30 CFR 785.17(d)(1) [since 

redesignated as paragraph (e)(1)] is no 

longer valid to the extent that it required 

all prime farmland to be planted with 

crops. That requirement now applies 

only to those portions of the reclaimed 

prime farmland that are to be used to 

demonstrate restoration of soil 

productivity and revegetation success. 

Therefore, based on the foregoing 

discussion, we find that Indiana’s 

proposed amendment is not 

inconsistent with and is no less effective 

than the Federal rules at 30 CFR 

785.17(e)(1) and 823.15. First, like the 

Federal rules at 30 CFR 785.17(e)(1), the 

Indiana rules require that the 

postmining land use of all prime 

farmland be cropland, which means 

that, consistent with 30 CFR 816.133(a), 

817.133(a), and 823.14, all disturbed 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 28453 

prime farmland must be restored to 

conditions that are capable of 

supporting cropland. Second, like the 

Federal rules at 30 CFR 823.15(b), the 

Indiana rules require, among other 

things, that measurement of soil 

productivity be initiated within 10 years 

after completion of soil replacement and 

that revegetation success be determined 

on the basis of crops grown on all or a 

representative sample of the mined and 

reclaimed prime farmland. Indiana’s 

proposed amendment at 312 IAC 25–6–

143(c) would not alter any of these 

requirements. Instead, it addresses 

revegetation of those portions of the 

reclaimed prime farmland on which 

crops will not be grown. Consistent with 

30 CFR 823.15(a), which requires that 

the soil surface be stabilized with a 

vegetation cover or other means that 

effectively controls soil loss by wind 

and water erosion, proposed 312 IAC 

25–6–143(c)(3) requires establishment of 

a permanent ground cover sufficient to 

control erosion. 

Based on the discussion above, we are 

approving Indiana’s revisions at 312 

IAC 25–4–102(d)(8) and 25–6–143(c) as 

no less effective than the Federal 

regulations. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment, but did not receive any. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On October 27, 2006, under 30 CFR 

732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of 

SMCRA, we requested comments on the 

amendment from various Federal 

agencies with an actual or potential 

interest in the Indiana program 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1740). 

We received two comments; one from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

one from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service responded on 

November 8, 2006 (Administrative 

Record No. IND–1742), stating that it 

supports Indiana’s proposed program 

amendment. The Forest Service 

responded on December 4, 2006 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1743), 

that it too supports this amendment. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Concurrence and Comments 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we 

are required to get a written concurrence 

from EPA for those provisions of the 

program amendment that relate to air or 

water quality standards issued under 

the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the 

revisions that Indiana proposed to make 

in this amendment pertain to air or 

water quality standards. Therefore, we 

did not ask EPA to concur on the 

amendment. However, on October 27, 

2006, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we 

requested comments on the amendment 

from EPA (Administrative Record No. 

IND–1740). EPA did not respond to our 

request. 

State Historical Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are 

required to request comments from the 

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that 

may have an effect on historic 

properties. On October 27, 2006, we 

requested comments on Indiana’s 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

IND–1740), but neither responded to our 

request. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve the amendment Indiana sent us 

on October 23, 2006. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 914, which codify decisions 

concerning the Indiana program. We 

find that good cause exists under 5 

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

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of 

SMCRA requires that the State’s 

program demonstrate that the State has 

the capability of carrying out the 

provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. Making this rule effective 

immediately will expedite that process. 

SMCRA requires consistency of State 

and Federal standards. 

Effect of OSM’s Decision 

Section 503 of SMCRA provides that 

a State may not exercise jurisdiction 

under SMCRA unless the State program 

is approved by the Secretary. Similarly, 

30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any 

change to an approved State program be 

submitted to OSM for review as a 

program amendment. The Federal 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit 

any changes to approved State programs 

that are not approved by OSM. In the 

oversight of the Indiana program, we 

will recognize only the statutes, rules 

and other materials we have approved, 

together with any consistent 

implementing policies, directives and 

other materials. We will require Indiana 

to enforce only approved provisions. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

The provisions in the rule based on 

counterpart Federal regulations do not 

have takings implications. This 

determination is based on the analysis 

performed for the counterpart Federal 

regulations. The revisions made at the 

initiative of the State that do not have 

Federal counterparts have also been 

reviewed and a determination made that 

they do not have takings implications. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that this rulemaking has no takings 

implications. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that this rule meets the 

applicable standards of subsections (a) 

and (b) of that section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

because each program is drafted and 

promulgated by a specific State, not by 

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of 

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

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

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

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

submitted by the States must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and 

its implementing Federal regulations 

and whether the other requirements of 

30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have 

been met. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

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

that State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28454 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that the Indiana program does not 

regulate coal exploration and surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana 

program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 

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

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

program provisions do not constitute 

major Federal actions within the 

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

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that a portion of the provisions 

in this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) because they are based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

making the determination as to whether 

this part of the rule would have a 

significant economic impact, the 

Department relied upon the data and 

assumptions for the counterpart Federal 

regulations. The Department of the 

Interior also certifies that the provisions 

in this rule that are not based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

is based upon the fact that the 

provisions are voluntary and as such are 

not expected to have a substantive effect 

on the regulated industry. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and (c) Does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based upon the fact 

that a portion of the State provisions are 

based upon counterpart Federal 

regulations for which an analysis was 

prepared and a determination made that 

the Federal regulation was not 

considered a major rule. For the portion 

of the State provisions that is not based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations, 

this determination is based upon the 

fact that the State provisions are 

voluntary and as such are not expected 

to have a substantive effect on the 

regulated industry. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of $100 million or more in any given 

year. This determination is based upon 

the fact that a portion of the State 

submittal, which is the subject of this 

rule, is based upon counterpart Federal 

regulations for which an analysis was 

prepared and a determination made that 

the Federal regulation did not impose 

an unfunded mandate. For the portion 

of the State provisions that is not based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations, 

this determination is based upon the 

fact that the State provisions are 

voluntary and as such are not expected 

to have a substantive effect on the 

regulated industry. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Ervin J. Barchenger, 

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent 

Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 914 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 914—INDIANA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 914 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 914.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission 

date Date of final publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

October 23, 2006 ........................... May 21, 2007 ................................. 312 IAC 25–4–102(a)(1) and (3); (b); (d)(4), (6), and (8); (e)(3); (f)(5); 

25–6–143(b)(3) and (8), (c). 

[FR Doc. E7–9674 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES