Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41845

[FR Doc. 97–20400 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 944

[UT–035–FOR]

Utah Regulatory Program and Utah

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

approving a proposed amendment to the

Utah regulatory program and Utah

abandoned mine land reclamation

(AMLR) plan (hereinafter, the ‘‘Utah

program and plan’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Utah proposed revisions

to and additions of statutes pertaining to

the definition for ‘‘adjudicative

proceeding’’; schedule of applicant’s

mining law violations and remining

operation violations resulting from

unanticipated events or conditions;

location of informal conferences;

performance standards for all coal

mining and reclamation operations and

approximate original contour variances

for surface coal mining operations;

requirements regarding surface effects of

underground coal mining, repair or

compensation for damage, replacement

of water, suspension of underground

mining upon finding of immediate

danger to inhabitants at the surface, and

applicability to other chapters; contest

of violation or amount of civil penalty;

and lands and waters eligible for

expenditure of AMLR funds. The

amendment was intended to revise the

Utah program and plan to be consistent

with SMCRA and to improve

operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field

Division; telephone: (303) 844–1424;

Internet address:

WWW.JFULTONOSMRE.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Utah Program and

Plan

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Utah program; on June 3, 1983, the

Secretary approved the Utah plan.

General background information on the

Utah program and plan, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval of the Utah program can be

found in the January 21, 1981, and June

3, 1983, publications of the Federal

Register (46 FR 5899 and 48 FR 24876).

Subsequent actions concerning Utah’s

program and program amendments can

be found at 30 CFR 944.15, 944.16, and

944.30. Subsequent actions concerning

Utah’s plan amendments can be found

at 30 CFR 944.25.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated May 27, 1997, Utah

submitted a proposed amendment to its

program and plan (administrative record

No. UT–1090) pursuant to SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Utah submitted the

proposed amendment in response to

required program amendments at 30

CFR 944.16 (e) through (i), in response

to a June 5, 1996, letter (administrative

record No. UT–1083) that OSM sent to

Utah in accordance with 30 CFR

732.17(c), and at its own initiative. The

provisions of the Utah coal mining and

reclamation statute that Utah proposed

to revise or add were: Utah Code

Annotated (UCA) 40–10–3(1), definition

for ‘‘adjudicative proceeding’’; UCA 40–

10–11 (3) and (5), schedule of

applicant’s mining law violations and

remining operation violations resulting

from unanticipated events or

conditions; UCA 40–10–13(2), location

of informal conferences; UCA 40–10–17

(2), (3), and (4), performance standards

for all coal mining and reclamation

operations and approximate original

contour variances for surface coal

mining operations; UCA 40–10–18 (1)

through (15), 18.1, and 18.2,

requirements regarding surface effects of

underground coal mining, repair or

compensation for damage, replacement

of water, suspension of underground

mining upon finding of immediate

danger to inhabitants at the surface, and

applicability of other chapter

provisions; UCA 40–10–20(2) (2)(e),

contest of violation or amount of civil

penalty; and UCA 40–10–25(6), lands

and waters eligible for expenditure of

AMLR funds.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the June 13,

1997, Federal Register (62 FR 32255),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (administrative record

No. UT–1095). Because no one

requested a public hearing or meeting,

none was held. The public comment

period ended on July 14, 1997.

III. Director’s Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in

accordance with SMCRA, 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, and 30 CFR 884.14

and 884.15, finds that the proposed

program and plan amendment

submitted by Utah on May 27, 1997, is

no less stringent than SMCRA and

consistent with SMCRA. Accordingly,

the Director approves the proposed

amendment.

1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to Utah’s

Statutes

Utah proposed revisions to the

following previously-approved statutes

concerning underground mining that are

nonsubstantive in nature and consist of

minor editorial, punctuation,

grammatical, and recodification changes

(corresponding SMCRA provisions are

listed in parentheses):

UCA 40–10–17 (2) (j)(ii)(B), (p) (ii)

and (iii); (3) (a) and (c); and (4), (4) (a)

and (d), performance standards for all

coal mining and reclamation operations,

and approximate original contour

variances for surface coal mining

operations (sections 515 (b) (10)(B)(ii),

(16) (B) and (C); (c) (2) and (6); and (d),

(d) (1) and (4) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(1), adoption of rules

for control of surface effects of

underground coal mining operations

(section 516(a) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(2), requirements for

underground coal mining permits

(section 516(b) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(3) (a), (a) (i) through

(iii), and (b), prevention of subsidence

effects (section 516(b)(1) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(4), filling or sealing of

portals, entryways, drifts, shafts, or

other openings (section 516(b)(2) of

SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(5), sealing of

exploratory holes and return of mine

waste to mine workings or excavations

(section 516(b)(3) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(6) (a), (b), and (b) (i)

through (iii), surface disposal of mine

waste (section 516(b)(4) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(7), dams or

embankments constructed of coal mine

waste (section 516(b)(5) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18 (8), (8) (a) and (b),

revegetation (section 516(b)(6) of

SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(9), protection of

offsite areas from damage (section

516(b)(7) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(10), elimination of fire

hazards and public health and safety

hazards (section 516(b)(8) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18 (11), (11)(a), and

(11)(a) (i) through (iii), minimization of

disturbances of the prevailing

hydrologic balance (section 516(b)(9)(A)

of SMCRA),
41846 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

UCA 40–10–18(11) (b) and (c),

prevention of additional contributions

of suspended solids to streamflow and

avoidance of channel deepening or

enlargement (section 516(b)(9)(B) of

SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(12) (a), (a) (i) through

(iii), and (b), applicability of UCA 40–

10–17 for roads, structures, and

facilities, and accommodation in

requirements to take into account the

distinct differences between surface and

underground coal mining methods

(section 516(b)(10) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(13), minimization of

adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, and

related environmental values (section

516(b)(11) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(14), prevention of acid

mine drainages (section 516(b)(12) of

SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(15)(a), requirements

for underground coal mining operations

conducted after October 24, 1992

(section 720(a) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(15)(b) (i) through (iv),

repair or compensation for damage

caused by subsidence to occupied

residential dwellings, related structures,

and noncommercial buildings (section

720(a)(1) of SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(15)(d), nothing to be

construed in UCA 40–10–18(15) to

prohibit or interrupt underground coal

mining operations (section 720(a)(2) of

SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18(15)(e), adoption of

rules within 1 year to implement UCA

40–10–18(15) (section 720(b) of

SMCRA),

UCA 40–10–18.1, suspension of

underground coal mining upon finding

of immediate danger to inhabitants at

the surface (section 516(c) of SMCRA),

and

UCA 40–10–18.2, applicability of

other chapter provisions (section 516(d)

of SMCRA).

Because the proposed revisions to

these previously-approved Utah statutes

are nonsubstantive in nature, the

Director finds that these proposed Utah

statutes are no less stringent than

SMCRA. The Director approves these

proposed statutes.

2. Substantive Revisions to Utah’s

Statute That Are Substantively Identical

to the Corresponding Provisions of

SMCRA

Utah proposed revisions to UCA 40–

10–25(6)(b), concerning remined lands

eligible for AMLR expenditures, that are

substantive in nature and contain

language that is substantively identical

to requirements in section 404 of

SMCRA. Because the proposed Utah

statute is substantively identical to the

corresponding provision of SMCRA, the

Director finds that it is no less stringent

than SMCRA. The Director approves the

proposed revisions to UCA 40–10–

25(6)(b).

3. UCA 40–10–3(1), Definition of

‘‘Adjudicative Proceeding’’

On July 19, 1995, OSM at 30 CFR

944.16(e) required Utah to revise its

definition of ‘‘adjudicative proceeding’’

at UCA 40–10–3(1) to include judicial

review of agency actions (finding No. 3,

60 FR 37002, 37004–37005).

In this amendment, Utah proposed to

revise the definition of ‘‘adjudicative

proceeding’’ at UCA 40–10–3(1) to

recodifying existing UCA 40–10–3(1) as

UCA 40–10–3(1)(a) and making minor,

nonsubstantive, editorial revisions to it;

and adding a new UCA 40–10–3(1)(b) so

that ‘‘adjudicative proceeding’’, in part,

means ‘‘judicial review of a division or

board ((Division or Board of Oil, Gas

and Mining)) action or proceeding

specified in Subsection (a)’’.

The Director finds that the proposed

definition of ‘‘adjudicative proceeding’’

at UCA 40–10–3(1)(b) is consistent with:

the definition of the same term at UCA

63–46b–2(1)(a), as clarified at UCA 63–

46b–1, of the Utah Administrative

Procedures Act (UAPA); the definition

of the same term in the rules at Utah

Administrative Rule (Utah Admin. R)

641–100–200 implementing UAPA; and

UCA 40–10–30(1), which provides for

the judicial review of the Division’s and

Board’s adjudicative proceedings.

The Director approves the proposed

revisions to the definition of

‘‘adjudicative proceeding’’ at UCA 40–

10–3 (1), (1) (a) and (b) and removes the

required amendment at 30 CFR

944.16(e).

4. UCA 40–10–11(3), Review of

Applicant Violations Prior to Permit

Issuance

In the July 19, 1995, Federal Register

(finding No. 7, 60 FR 37002, 37006),

OSM placed two required amendments

on the Utah program. At 30 CFR

944.16(f), OSM required Utah to revise

UCA 40–10–11(3) to require that (1) the

schedule of the applicant’s mining law

violations required in connection with a

permit application includes violations

of SMCRA and the implementing

Federal regulations and (2) the pattern

of violations determination discussed

therein includes violations of SMCRA,

the implementing Federal regulations,

any State or Federal programs enacted

under SMCRA, and other provisions of

the approved Utah program.

In response to the required

amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(f)(1), Utah

proposed to add the phrase ‘‘the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 or its implementing regulations’’ to

the first sentence of UCA 40–10–11(3).

As proposed, the sentence requires

permit applicants to file a schedule

listing any and all notices of violation

of ‘‘the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 or its

implementing regulations’’, this chapter

(UCA 40–10), any State or Federal

program or law approved under

SMCRA, and any law, rule, or regulation

of the United States or Utah pertaining

to air or water environmental protection

incurred by the applicant in connection

with any surface coal mining operation

during the 3-year period prior to the

date of application. The Director finds

that the proposed addition of the phrase

‘‘the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 or its

implementing regulations’’ makes the

first sentence of UCA 40–10–11(3) no

less stringent than the corresponding

requirement of section 510(c) of SMCRA

and satisfies the required amendment at

30 CFR 944.16(f)(1). Therefore, the

Director approves this revision to UCA

40–10–11(3) and removes the required

amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(f)(1).

Utah also proposed in the third

sentence of UCA 40–10–11(3) to (1)

make a substantive revision by adding

the phrase ‘‘and regulation’’ and (2)

make a clarifying nonsubstantive

revision by referring to ‘‘this Subsection

(3)’’ instead of ‘‘this Subsection’’. As

proposed, the sentence requires that a

permit not be issued if the schedule or

other information available to the

Division indicates that any surface coal

mining operation owned or controlled

by the applicant is in violation of this

chapter (UCA 40–10) or the laws ‘‘and

regulations’’ referred to in ‘‘this

Subsection (3)’’ (UCA 40–10–11(3)). The

substantive revision is consistent with

the first sentence of UCA 40–10–11(3),

which not only requires compliance

with this chapter and various laws, but

also various regulations. The

corresponding requirement of section

510(c) of SMCRA is that a permit not be

issued if the schedule or other

information available to the regulatory

authority indicates that any surface coal

mining operation owned or controlled

by the applicant is in violation of ‘‘this

Act’’ (SMCRA) or such other laws

referred to in section 510(c) of SMCRA.

The reference to ‘‘this Act’’ in section

510(c) of SMCRA includes SMCRA, the

implementing Federal regulations at 30

CFR Chapter VII, and all State and

Federal programs approved under

SMCRA (48 FR 44389, September 28,

1983, and 45 FR 82223, December 15,

1980). With the proposed addition of

the phrase ‘‘and regulations’’, the third
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41847

sentence of UCA 40–10–11(3) requires

compliance with the same laws and

regulations as the corresponding

requirement of section 510(c) of

SMCRA. Therefore, the Director finds

that the revised third sentence of UCA

40–10–11(3) is no less stringent than the

corresponding requirement of section

510(c) of SMCRA. The Director

approves the proposed revisions to UCA

40–10–11(3).

In this amendment, Utah did not, in

response to the required amendment at

30 CFR 944.16(f)(2), propose to revise

the second half of the third sentence of

UCA 40–10–11(3) that still requires that

no permit be issued if the applicant or

operator controls or has controlled

mining operations with a demonstrated

pattern of willful violations of ‘‘this

chapter’’ (UCA 40–10). As explained in

the July 19, 1995, Federal Register

(finding No. 7, 60 FR 37002, 37006),

‘‘this chapter’’ encompasses only

violations of the State statute. It does

not, as required by section 510(c) of

SMCRA, encompass violations of

SMCRA, the implementing Federal

regulations, any State and Federal

programs enacted under SMCRA, or

other provisions of the approved Utah

program. Because the second half of the

third sentence of UCA 40–10–11(3) is

still less stringent than section 510(c) of

SMCRA, the Director lets stand the

required amendment at 30 CFR

944.16(f)(2).

5. UCA 40–10–11(5)(a), Remining

Operation Violations Resulting From

Unanticipated Events or Conditions

In the July 19, 1995, Federal Register

(finding No. 8, 60 FR 37002, 37006),

OSM at 30 CFR 944.16(g) required Utah

to revise UCA 40–10–11(5)(a) to reflect

an effective date ‘‘after October 24,

1992’’.

In response to the required

amendment, Utah proposed in this

amendment at UCA 40–10–11(5)(a) that

after October 24, rather than 14, 1992,

the prohibition of UCA 40–10–11(3) for

issuing permits does not apply to a

permit application, if the violation

resulted from an unanticipated event or

condition that occurred at a surface coal

mining operation on lands eligible for

remining under a permit held by the

person making the application. The

Director finds that the proposed date

change makes UCA 40–10–11(5)(a)

substantively identical to section 510(e)

of SMCRA and satisfies the required

amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(g).

Therefore, the Director approves this

proposed revision to UCA 40–10–

11(5)(a) and removes the required

amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(g).

6. UCA 40–10–13(2)(b), Location of

Informal Conferences

In the July 19, 1995, Federal Register

(finding No. 9, 60 FR 37002, 37006–

37007), OSM at 30 CFR 944.16(h)

required Utah to revise UCA 40–10–

13(2)(b) to require that informal

conferences for permits and permit

revisions ‘‘shall’’, instead of ‘‘may’’, be

held in the locality of the coal mining

and reclamation operation if requested

within a reasonable time after written

objections or the request for an informal

conference are received by the Division.

In response to the required

amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(h), Utah

proposed to change ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ in

UCA 40–10–13(2)(b). Utah, at its own

initiative, also proposed a

nonsubstantive revision to previously

approved language at UCA 40–10–

13(2)(b). It proposed that the informal

conference shall be conducted in

accordance with the procedures

described in ‘‘this Subsection (b)’’,

instead of ‘‘Subsection (b)’’, irrespective

of the requirements of section 63–46b–

5, the Utah Administrative Procedures

Act. In making this revision, Utah

clarified that the reference is to UCA

40–10–13(2)(b) itself rather than another

subsection of Utah’s statute.

The Director finds that Utah’s

proposed revisions to USA 40–10–

13(2)(b) are no less stringent than

section 513(b) of SMCRA. Therefore, the

Director approves the proposed revision

to UCA 40–10–13(2)(b) and removes the

required amendment at 30 CFR

944.16(h).

7. UCA 40–10–18(15)(c), Water

Replacement by Operators of

Underground Coal Mines

Utah proposed new UCA 40–10–

18(15)(c) as follows:

(c) Subject to the provisions of Section 40–

10–29, the permittee shall promptly replace

any state-appropriated water in existence

prior to the application for a surface coal

mining and reclamation permit, which has

been affected by contamination, diminution,

or interruption resulting from underground

coal mining operations.

For the reasons discussed below, the

Director finds that proposed UCA 40–

10–18(15)(c) is no less stringent than

sections 720(a)(2) and 717(a) of SMCRA.

Therefore, the Director approves the

proposed addition of UCA 40–10–

18(15)(c).

a. The Phrase ‘‘Subject to the Provisions

of Section 40–10–29’’

In UCA 40–10–18(15)(c), Utah

proposed water replacement provisions

that are ‘‘Subject to the provisions of

Section 40–10–29’’. In a January 29,

1997, letter to OSM (administrative

record No. UT–1094), Utah clarified that

the phrase ‘‘Subject to the provisions of

Section UCA 40–10–29’’ was intended

as a reference to subsection (1) of UCA

40–10–29.

UCA 40–10–29(1) states that

‘‘[n]othing in this chapter shall be

construed as affecting in any way the

right of any person to enforce or protect,

under applicable law, his interest in

water resources affected by a surface

coal mining operation.’’ This

requirement is substantively identical to

section 717(a) of SMCRA.

Utah explained that the phrase

‘‘Subject to the provisions of Section

40–10–29’’ was included in UCA 40–

10–18(15)(c) expressly at the request of

Utah water users because they wanted

to make it clear that the water

replacement provisions of UCA 40–10–

18 supplement, rather than replace, any

common law or other statutory remedies

otherwise available to them

(administrative record No. UT–1094).

Utah also stated that its own

interpretation is that the underground

mine water replacement requirements of

proposed UCA 40–10–18(15)(c) are

intended to supplement, not replace,

any other remedies that may be

available to water users.

On the basis of this rationale, the

Director finds that the phrase ‘‘Subject

to the provisions of Section 40–10–29’’

in proposed UCA 40–10–18(15)(c) is

consistent with the requirements of

sections 720(a)(2) and 717(a) of SMCRA.

b. Replacement of State-Appropriated

Water

In UCA 40–10–18(15)(c), Utah

proposed that ‘‘the permittee shall

promptly replace any state-appropriated

water in existence prior to the

application for a surface coal mining

and reclamation permit, which has been

affected by contamination, diminution,

or interruption resulting from

underground coal mining operations’’

(emphasis added). This proposed

provision is the same as the counterpart

provision at section 720(a)(2) of

SMCRA, except that the SMCRA

provision protects ‘‘any drinking,

domestic, or residential water supply

from a well or spring’’ instead of ‘‘any

state-appropriated water’’.

Utah explained that, under Utah

water law, ‘‘a person or entity cannot be

a ‘legitimate’ water user if he/she/it is

using water that not has been

appropriated by the State’’. Utah then

went on to explain that ‘‘[t]he

deliberately broad phrase ‘any stateappropriated water’ covers the universe

of legal Utah water users * * * ’’

(administrative record No. UT-1094).
41848 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

OSM interprets sections 720(a)(2) and

717(a) of SMCRA to mean that the water

replacement requirements of section

720(a)(2) do not supersede the deference

provided by section 717 to State water

law on matters of allocation and use.

(See March 31, 1995, 60 FR 16722,

16733.) Utah’s proposed phrase ‘‘any

state-appropriated water’’ incorporates

this concept of deferral to State water

law provisions concerning allocation

and use, as set forth in section 717(a) of

SMCRA, while protecting drinking,

domestic, or residential water supplies

from wells or springs, as required by

section 720(a)(2) of SMCRA.

Furthermore, the proposed term ‘‘any

state-appropriated water’’ protects more

types of water supplies than drinking,

domestic, or residential water supplies

from wells or springs. For instance, it

protects agricultural, commercial, and

industrial water supplies that are not

used for direct human consumption,

human sanitation, or domestic use. In

this respect, proposed USA 40–10–

18(15)(c) is more stringent than section

720(a)(2) of SMCRA.

For these reasons, the Director finds

that the proposed requirements in UCA

40–10–18(15)(c) that ‘‘the permittee

shall promptly replace any stateappropriated water in existence prior to

the application for a surface coal mining

and reclamation permit, which has been

affected by contamination, diminution,

or interruption resulting from

underground coal mining operations’’

are no less stringent than the

requirements of sections 720(a)(2) and

717(a) of SMCRA.

8. UCA 40–10–20(2)(e)(ii), Contest of

Violation or Amount of Civil Penalty

In the September 27, 1994, Federal

Register, the Director deferred decision

on a proposed revision to UCA 40–10–

20(2) (finding No. 5, 59 FR 49185,

49187). Subsequently, in the July 19,

1995, Federal Register (finding No. 13,

60 FR 37002, 37008), OSM placed a

required amendment on the revised

version of the same section of the Utah

program. At 30 CFR 944.16(i), OSM

required Utah to revise UCA 40–10–

20(2)(e)(ii) to provide for a waiver of the

operator’s right to contest the amount of

the civil penalty when the operator fails

to forward the amount of the penalty to

the regulatory authority within 30 days

of the operator’s receipt of the results of

the informal conference.

In response to the Director’s decision

deferral and the required amendment at

30 CFR 944.16(i), Utah proposed to add

the phrases ‘‘fact of the’’ and ‘‘amount

of the civil penalty assessed for the’’ to

UCA 40–10–20(2)(e)(ii). The proposed

provision requires that if the operator

fails to forward the amount of the civil

penalty to the Division within 30 days

of receipt of the results of the informal

conference, the operator waives any

opportunity for further review of the

‘‘fact of the’’ violation or to contest the

‘‘amount of the civil penalty assessment

for the’’ violation.

The Director finds that the proposed

addition of the phrases ‘‘fact of the’’ and

‘‘amount of the civil penalty assessed

for the’’ make UCA 40–10–20(2)(e)(ii) no

less stringent than the counterpart

requirements of section 518(c) of

SMCRA.

Utah’s proposed revisions to the civil

penalty procedures at UCA 40–10–20–

(2)(e)(ii) address the issues raised in the

Director’s September 27, 1994, decision

deferral and satisfy the required

amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(i).

Therefore, the Director approves the

proposed revisions to UCA 40–10–

20(2)(e)(ii) and removes the required

amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(i).

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Following are summaries of all

written comments on the proposed

amendment that were received by OSM,

and OSM’s responses to them.

1. Public Comments

In response to OSM’s invitation for

public comments, the Utah Mining

Association responded on June 25,

1997, that it supported the proposed

amendment and encouraged OSM to

approve it (administrative record No.

UT–1096). It stated that it was heavily

involved in the drafting the two pieces

of legislation that comprise the

amendment. The mining association

indicated that it had worked closely

with water users on the legislation

language and had worked with the State

Engineer to ensure that the legislation

adequately protected water rights.

2. Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),

884,15(a), and 884.14(a)(2), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Utah program and plan.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Utah Field Office, responded on July 7,

1997, that it had received the proposed

amendment but had no comments on it

(administrative record No. UT–1097).

3. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Concurrence and Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii),

OSM is required to solicit the written

concurrence of EPA with respect to

those provisions of the proposed

amendments that relate to air or water

quality standards promulgated under

the authority of the Clean Water Act (33

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

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

None of the revisions that Utah

proposed to make in its amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards.

Therefore, OSM did not request EPA’s

concurrence.

Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from EPA (administrative

record No. UT–1091). It did not respond

to OSM’s request.

4. State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from the SHPO and ACHP

(administrative record No. UT–1091).

Neither SHPO nor ACHP responded to

OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approved Utah’s proposed

amendment as submitted on May 27,

1997.

The Director approves, as discussed

in:

Finding No. 1, revisions to UCA 40–

10–17 (2) (j)(ii)(B), (p) (ii) and (iii), (3)

(a) and (c), and (4), (4) (a) and (d),

performance standards for all coal

mining and reclamation operations, and

approximate original contour variances

for surface coal mining operations; UCA

40–10–18(1), adoption of rules for

control of surface effects of underground

coal mining operations; UCA 40–10–

18(2), requirements for underground

coal mining permits; UCA 40–10–18(3)

(a), (a) (i) through (iii), and (b),

prevention of subsidence effects; UCA

40–10–18(4), sealing of portals,

entryways, drifts, shafts, or other

openings; UCA 40–10–18(5), filling or

sealing of exploratory holes and return

of mine waste to mine workings or

excavations; UCA 40–10–18(6) (a), (b),

and (b) (i) through (iii), surface disposal

of mine waste; UCA 40–10–18(7), dams

or embankments constructed of coal

mine waste; UCA 40–10–18 (8), (8) (a)

and (b), revegetation; UCA 40–10–18(9),

protection of offsite areas from damage;

UCA 40–10–18(10), elimination of fire

hazards and public health and safety

hazards; UCA 40–10–18 (11), (11)(a),

and (11)(a) (i) through (iii),

minimization of disturbances of the

prevailing hydrologic balance; UCA 40–

10–18(11) (b) and (c), prevention of

additional contributions of suspended

solids to streamflow and avoidance of

channel deepening or enlargement; UCA
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41849

40–10–18(12) (a), (a) (i) through (iii),

and (b), applicability of UCA 40–10–17

for roads, structures, and facilities, and

accommodation in requirements to take

into account the distinct differences

between surface and underground coal

mining methods; UCA 40–10–18(13),

minimization of adverse impacts to fish,

wildlife, and related environmental

values; UCA 40–10–18(14), prevention

of acid mine drainages; UCA 40–10–

18(15)(a), requirements for underground

coal mining operations conducted after

October 24, 1992; UCA 40–10–18(15)(b)

(i) through (iv), repair or compensation

for damage caused by subsidence to

occupied residential dwellings, related

structures, and noncommercial

buildings; UCA 40–10–18(15)(d),

nothing to be construed in UCA 40–10–

18(15) to prohibit or interrupt

underground coal mining operations;

UCA 40–10–18(15)(e), adoption of rules

within 1 year to implement UCA 40–10–

18(15); UCA 40–10–18.1, suspension of

underground coal mining upon finding

of immediate danger to inhabitants at

the surface; and UCA 40–10–18.2,

applicability of other chapter

provisions;

Finding No. 2, revisions to UCA 40–

10–25(6)(b), remined lands eligible for

AMLR expenditures;

Finding No. 3, revisions to UCA 40–

10–3 (1), (1) (a) and (b), definition of

‘‘adjudicative proceeding’’;

Finding No. 4, revisions to UCA 40–

10–11(3), review of applicant violations

prior to permit issuance;

Finding No. 5, revisions to UCA 40–

10–11(5)(a), remining operation

violations resulting from unanticipated

events or conditions;

Finding No. 6, revisions to UCA 40–

10–13(2)(b), location of informal

conferences;

Finding No. 7, revisions to UCA 40–

10–18(15)(c), water replacement by

operators of underground coal mines;

and

Finding No. 8, revisions to UCA 40–

10–20(2)(e)(ii), contest of violation or

amount of civil penalty.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 944, codifying decisions concerning

the Utah program and plan, are being

amended to implement this decision.

This final rule is being made effective

immediately to expedite the State

program and plan amendment process

and to encourage States to bring their

programs and plans into conformity

with the Federal standards without

undue delay. Consistency of State and

Federal standards is required by

SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) 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, State AMLR plans, and

program and plan amendments since

each such program, plan, and

amendment 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 submittals

are consistent with SMCRA and its

implementing Federal regulations and

whether the other requirements of 30

CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been

met. Under Title IV SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1231–1243), decisions on proposed

State AMLR plans and plan

amendments must be based on a

determination of whether the submittals

meet the requirements of the

implementing Federal regulations at 30

CFR parts 884 and 888.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since 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)).

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since agency

decisions on proposed State AMLR

plans and revisions thereof are

categorically excluded from compliance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of

the Department of the Interior (516 DM

6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

4. 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.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined 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

that 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.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. 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.

6. Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining,

Abandoned mine reclamation programs.

Dated: July 23, 1997.

Peter A. Rutledge,

Acting Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 30, chapter VII,

subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 944—UTAH

1. The authority citation for part 944

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 944.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 944.15 Approval of Utah regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *
41850 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

May 27, 1997 ..................... August 4, 1997 ................... Definition of ‘‘adjudicative proceeding’’ at UCA 40–10–3(1), (a), (b); 40–10–11 (3),

(5)(a); 40–10–13(2)(b); 40–10–17 (2) (j) (ii) (B), (p) (ii), (iii), (3) (a), (c), (4), (a), (d);

40–10–18 (1), (2), (3)(a), (i) through (iii), (b), (4), (5), (6) (a), (b), (i) through (iii),

(7), (8), (a), (b), (9), (10), (11), (a), (i) through (iii), (b), (c), (12)(a), (i) through (iii),

(b), (13), (14), (15)(a), (b) (i) through (iv), (c), (d), (e); 40–10–18.1, .2, 40–10–

20(2)(e)(ii).

3. Section 944.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs (e)

and (f)(1) and removing paragraphs (g),

(h), and (i).

4. Section 944.25 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 944.25 Approval of Utah abandoned

mine land reclamation plan.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

May 27, 1997 ..................... August 4, 1997 ................... UCA 40–10–25(6)(b).

[FR Doc. 97–20401 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control

31 CFR Chapter V

Blocked Persons, Specially Designated

Nationals, Specially Designated

Terrorists, Specially Designated

Narcotics Traffickers, and Blocked

Vessels: Additional Designations and

Removal of Two Individuals

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets

Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Amendment of final rule.

SUMMARY: The Treasury Department is

adding to appendices A and B to 31 CFR

chapter V the names of 7 individuals

and 7 entities who have been

determined to be owned or controlled

by, or to act for or on behalf of, other

specially designated narcotics

traffickers. Two individuals previously

designated as specially designated

narcotics traffickers are being removed

from the appendices. In addition,

identifying information is corrected for

two specially designated nationals of

Iraq.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact the

Office of Foreign Assets Control,

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC 22201; tel.: 202/622–

2420.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

This document is available as an

electronic file on The Federal Bulletin

Board the day of publication in the

Federal Register. By modem, dial 202/

512–1387 and type ‘‘/GO FAC,’’ or call

202/512–1530 for disk or paper copies.

This file is available for downloading

without charge in WordPerfect 5.1,

ASCII, and Adobe AcrobatTM readable

(*.PDF) formats. For Internet access, the

address for use with the World Wide

Web (Home Page), Telnet, or FTP

protocol is: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov. The

document is also accessible for

downloading in ASCII format without

charge from Treasury’s Electronic

Library (‘‘TEL’’) in the ‘‘Business, Trade

and Labor Mall’’ of the FedWorld

bulletin board. By modem, dial 703/

321–3339, and select the appropriate

self–expanding file in TEL. For Internet

access, use one of the following

protocols: Telnet = fedworld.gov

(192.239.93.3); World Wide Web (Home

Page) = http://www.fedworld.gov; FTP

= ftp.fedworld.gov (192.239.92.205).

Additional information concerning the

programs of the Office of Foreign Assets

Control is available for downloading

from the Office’s Internet Home Page:

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/

services/fac/fac.html, or in fax form

through the Office’s 24–hour fax–on–

demand service: call 202/622–0077

using a fax machine, fax modem, or

(within the United States) a touch–tone

telephone.

Background

Appendices A and B to 31 CFR

chapter V contain the names of blocked

persons, specially designated nationals,

specially designated terrorists, and

specially designated narcotics traffickers

designated pursuant to the various

economic sanctions programs

administered by the Office of Foreign

Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) (62 FR 34934,

June 27, 1997). Pursuant to Executive

Order 12978 of October 21, 1995,

‘‘Blocking Assets and Prohibiting

Transactions with Significant Narcotics

Traffickers’’ (the ‘‘Order’’), and the

Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions

Regulations, 31 CFR part 536, 7

additional Colombian entities and 7

additional Colombian individuals are

added to the appendices as persons who

have been determined to be owned or

controlled by, or to act for or on behalf

of, persons designated in or pursuant to

the Order (collectively ‘‘Specially

Designated Narcotics Traffickers’’ or

‘‘SDNTs’’). Any property subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States in

which an SDNT has an interest is

blocked, and U.S. persons are

prohibited from engaging in any

transaction or in dealing in any property

in which an SDNT has an interest.

The names of two individuals

previously designated as SDNTs are

being removed because they no longer

meet the applicable criteria for

designation. All real and personal

property of these individuals, including

all accounts in which they have any

interest, are unblocked; and all

transactions involving U.S. persons and

these individuals are permissible.

In addition, an address now listed for

two ‘‘Specially Designated Nationals’’

(‘‘SDNs’’) of Iraq is being removed from

appendices A and B.

Designations of foreign persons

blocked pursuant to the Order are