[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6435-6448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02278]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Parts 700, 875, 877, 879, 884, and 885

RIN 1029-AC66
[Docket ID: OSM-2012-0010; S1D1S SS08011000 SX066A00067F 134S180110; 
S2D2S SS08011000 SX066A00 33F 13XS501520]


Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program; Limited Liability for 
Noncoal Reclamation by Certified States and Indian Tribes

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSMRE or OSM), are revising our abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation 
program regulations under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). This rule allows states and 
Indian tribes that have certified completion of all known coal AML 
reclamation needs within their jurisdiction to receive limited 
liability protection for certain noncoal reclamation projects.

DATES: Effective March 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael F. Kuhns, Division of 
Regulatory Support, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20240; 
Telephone: 202-208-2860.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the AML Reclamation Program and Limited Liability 
Provision
    A. How does the AML reclamation program operate?
    B. What is the limited liability provision of SMCRA?
    C. Why are we making rule changes related to the limited 
liability provision?
II. Description of the Final Rule and Discussion of the Comments 
Received
    A. Summary of the Final Rule
    B. General Discussion of Comments
    C. Section-by-Section Analysis
    1. How are we revising part 700--General?
    2. How are we revising part 875--Certification and Noncoal 
Reclamation?
    3. How are we revising part 877--Rights of Entry?
    4. How are we revising part 879--Acquisition, Management, and 
Disposition of Lands and Water?
    5. How are we revising part 884--State Reclamation Plans?
    6. How are we revising part 885--Grants to Certified States and 
Indian Tribes?
III. Procedural Matters and Required Determinations

[[Page 6436]]

I. Background on the AML Reclamation Program and Limited Liability 
Provision

A. How does the AML reclamation program operate?

    Congress established the AML reclamation program in Title IV of 
SMCRA to remedy the extensive environmental damage caused by past coal 
mining activities. In general, the program is targeted toward 
reclaiming abandoned and inadequately reclaimed mine lands and waters 
adversely impacted by surface coal mining operations that were not 
subject to the reclamation requirements of SMCRA. Health, safety, and 
environmental problems associated with abandoned mine lands include 
polluted surface water and groundwater, dangerous entrances to 
underground mines, water-filled pits, unreclaimed or inadequately 
reclaimed mine sites (including some with dangerous highwalls) and 
refuse piles, sediment-clogged streams, damage from landslides, and 
fumes and surface instability resulting from coal seam fires and 
burning coal refuse. Restoration activities under the AML reclamation 
program correct or mitigate these problems. While the central focus of 
our AML program has been to address coal-related health, safety, and 
environmental problems, noncoal mining-related projects also are 
eligible to receive funding under certain conditions.
    A core element of the national AML program is the reclamation plan 
developed by each qualifying state and tribe. Under section 405(b) of 
SMCRA, states that have coal lands and waters eligible for reclamation 
under Title IV of SMCRA may submit a proposed plan to OSMRE for review. 
Section 405(k) of SMCRA extends the same opportunity to Indian tribes 
with eligible lands and waters. If the proposed plan demonstrates that 
the state or tribe has eligible lands and waters and the legal 
authority, policies, and administrative structure necessary to 
adequately administer the program, we will approve the plan under 
section 405(d) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 884.14, provided the proposed plan 
and the state or tribe meet all other requirements of 30 CFR 884.11 
through 884.14. Currently, 25 states, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi 
Tribe, and the Crow Tribe of Indians have approved AML reclamation 
plans.
    These states and tribes receive grant funding for their AML 
reclamation programs under section 405(f) of SMCRA. These grants are, 
in part, financed through a reclamation fee assessed on current coal 
production.\1\ The revenues generated by this reclamation fee, and from 
certain other sources, are transferred into the Abandoned Mine 
Reclamation Fund (the ``AML Fund''), which is a trust fund ``created on 
the books of Treasury,'' but administered by the Secretary of the 
Interior.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 30 U.S.C. 1232(a).
    \2\ 30 U.S.C. 1231(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the first 30 years of the program, the states of Louisiana, 
Montana, Texas, and Wyoming and the Crow Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, and the 
Navajo Nation completed reclamation of all known coal-related AML 
problems within their jurisdiction and certified to that fact in 
accordance with section 411(a) of SMCRA. Because of this certification, 
these states and tribes are known as ``certified'' states and tribes.
    Beginning on November 5, 1990, when the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
Act of 1990 (AMRA) was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, certified states and 
tribes were authorized to expend Title IV grant funding on the 
reclamation of eligible noncoal AML problems and on the construction of 
utilities and public facility projects (collectively ``noncoal 
reclamation projects'') under the provisions of subsections (b) through 
(g) of section 411 of SMCRA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(b)-(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, subsection (b) of section 411 allows certified states and 
tribes to expend AML Fund moneys on eligible noncoal lands, waters, and 
facilities without having to submit a request from the governor or 
tribal chairman. Eligible lands, waters, and facilities are defined 
under this subsection as those which were mined or processed for 
minerals or which were affected by such mining or processing, and 
abandoned or left in an inadequate reclamation status prior to August 
3, 1977, and for which there is no continuing reclamation 
responsibility under state or other Federal laws.
    Subsection (c) \4\ of section 411 requires that expenditures for 
eligible noncoal projects must reflect certain listed priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (d) \5\ specifies that sites listed for remedial action 
under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) 
\6\ or the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) \7\ are not eligible noncoal projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(d).
    \6\ 42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.
    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (e) \8\ clarifies that eligible noncoal projects can 
include projects relating to the protection, repair, replacement, 
construction, or enhancement of public facilities damaged by past 
mining practices so long as they relate to the priorities listed in 
subsection (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (f) \9\ allows the governor of a state or the head of 
the governing body of an Indian tribe to request funding for ``specific 
public facilities related to the coal or minerals industry'' even if 
the site itself was not impacted by past mining practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, subsection (g) \10\ requires that noncoal programs conform 
to the acquisition and lien provisions of SMCRA--sections 407 and 
408.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(g).
    \11\ 30 U.S.C. 1237-1238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although these 1990 provisions allowed certified states to develop 
noncoal reclamation programs under a SMCRA reclamation plan, 
uncertified states were still limited in the types of noncoal 
reclamation projects they could perform under SMCRA. Specifically, 
uncertified states could use AML grant funds on the reclamation of 
noncoal AML sites only to abate extreme dangers to public health, 
safety, general welfare, and property that arose from the adverse 
effects of mineral mining and processing and only at the request of the 
governor, as provided under section 409 of SMCRA.
    Subsections (b) through (g) of section 411 of SMCRA remained the 
governing authority for certified states performing noncoal reclamation 
projects under SMCRA until the passage of the Tax Relief and Health 
Care Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432, 120 Stat. 292 (the ``2006 
amendments''). The 2006 amendments substantially modified the AML 
reclamation program in Title IV of SMCRA.
    On November 14, 2008, we promulgated a final rule, which revised 
the OSMRE regulations for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund and the 
Abandoned Mine Land program to implement the 2006 amendments. Abandoned 
Mine Land Program, 73 FR 67576-67647 (Nov. 14, 2008) (``2008 Rule''). 
(Please refer to the preamble of the 2008 Rule for a more complete 
description of the program changes resulting from the 2006 amendments. 
73 FR at 67577-67578.)
    Of importance to this rulemaking, the 2008 Rule incorporated 
changes made by the 2006 amendments relating to the amount and use of 
funds distributed to certified states and tribes. Prior to the

[[Page 6437]]

2006 amendments, section 402(g)(1) of SMCRA allocated 50 percent of the 
total reclamation fees paid by coal mine operators for coal produced 
from operations located within each state or tribe to that state or 
tribe. These allocations within the AML Fund are referred to as ``State 
share'' or ``Tribal share'' funds. However, distribution of the State 
share and Tribal share funds was subject to annual appropriation, and 
Congress did not always appropriate the full amount allocated each 
year. This left an increasing unappropriated balance of State share and 
Tribal share allocations in the AML Fund.
    The 2006 amendments addressed this increasing unappropriated 
balance of State share and Tribal share funds, in part, by making the 
distribution of these funds to uncertified states mandatory.\12\ 
Certified states and tribes, in contrast, were barred from receiving 
what would have been their annual State share and Tribal share 
allocations from the AML Fund, beginning October 1, 2007.\13\ These 
State share and Tribal share funds were replaced with equivalent 
payments from otherwise unappropriated general funds in the U.S. 
Treasury.\14\ We refer to these payments as ``certified in lieu'' 
funds; they are scheduled by statute to continue through fiscal year 
2022. 30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(2); see also 30 U.S.C. 1202(a) and (g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 30 U.S.C. 1231(d)(3).
    \13\ 30 U.S.C. 1231(f)(3)(B).
    \14\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the 2006 amendments provided for payments to all 
states and tribes from otherwise unappropriated general funds in the 
U.S. Treasury in an amount equal to the unappropriated balance of their 
State share or Tribal share allocation in the AML Fund as of September 
30, 2007. See section 411(h)(1) of SMCRA.\15\ As required by the 2006 
amendments, distribution of these ``prior balance replacement funds'' 
occurred in seven equal annual installments, beginning with fiscal year 
2008 and ending in fiscal year 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, however, a new law (Pub. L. 112-141) amended section 
411(h) of SMCRA by capping the total annual payment to a certified 
state or tribe under that section at $15 million. In other words, the 
combined certified in lieu and prior balance replacement funds 
distributed annually to a certified state or tribe cannot exceed $15 
million annually. On October 2, 2013, Congress increased this cap to 
$28 million in fiscal year 2014 and $75 million in fiscal year 2015. 
See section 10 of the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-40).
    As mentioned earlier, the 2008 Rule revised the regulations to 
conform to the 2006 amendments. The 2008 Rule recognized the greater 
latitude that the 2006 amendments gave to certified states and tribes 
in how they could spend the certified in lieu funds or prior balance 
replacement funds. In particular, under the 2008 Rule, while certified 
programs are still required to address known and newly discovered coal 
problems in a timely manner, funding not needed to address coal 
problems may be used for a wider range of purposes than previously 
allowed, including, but not limited to, purposes related to noncoal 
reclamation projects. See 30 CFR parts 872 and 875 (2009).

B. What is the limited liability provision of SMCRA?

    Work done as part of an approved state or tribal AML reclamation 
plan receives limited liability protection. Among the many changes made 
to Title IV in 1990, AMRA added a new section--section 405(l) \16\ (the 
limited liability provision)--which specifies that ``[n]o State shall 
be liable under any provision of Federal law for any costs or damages 
as a result of action taken or omitted in the course of carrying out a 
State abandoned mine reclamation plan approved under this section.'' 
Indian tribes are also covered under this provision because section 
405(k) \17\ provides that an Indian tribe is considered a state for 
purposes of Title IV of SMCRA. Section 405(l) waives monetary liability 
for states and tribes under all Federal laws when the states and tribes 
are acting to carry out their approved abandoned mine reclamation plan, 
but it does not preclude liability for a state's or tribe's gross 
negligence or intentional misconduct. State and tribal program 
officials routinely make a broad range of decisions concerning site 
selection and abatement of serious health, safety, and environmental 
problems. Although the limited liability provision does not waive the 
applicability of Federal laws to the states and tribes, it does waive 
monetary liability for actions they take in carrying out or complying 
with those laws in furtherance of an AML reclamation plan. In so doing, 
the limited liability provision provides states and tribes with a 
degree of protection as they make difficult choices with limited 
program funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 30 U.S.C. 1235(l).
    \17\ 30 U.S.C. 1235(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 1994, we promulgated 30 CFR 874.15 and 875.19 to 
implement the limited liability provision in section 405(l) of SMCRA. 
See 59 FR 28172-28173. The language in those two regulatory sections is 
identical--30 CFR 874.15 applies to uncertified programs, while 30 CFR 
875.19 applies to certified programs.

C. Why are we making rule changes related to the limited liability 
provision?

    We are revising our rules in response to concerns that the 2008 
Rule may have created a disincentive for certified states and tribes to 
conduct noncoal reclamation projects with the moneys that they receive 
under SMCRA. In the 2008 Rule, we did not change the language of either 
30 CFR 874.15 or 875.19, which are the regulatory provisions that 
mirror SMCRA's limited liability provision. However, we concluded in 
the preamble to the 2008 Rule that, although certified programs could 
engage in noncoal reclamation projects, programs that use the two new 
sources of funding under sections 411(h)(1) and (h)(2) of SMCRA (prior 
balance replacement funds and certified in lieu funds, respectively, 
instead of AML Fund moneys) would not be operating as SMCRA noncoal AML 
reclamation programs and would not benefit from the limited liability 
protections when they conduct noncoal reclamation projects. See 73 FR 
at 67609-67611. This is because the noncoal reclamation projects for 
certified states are authorized by subsections (b) through (g) of 
section 411 of SMCRA, and those statutory provisions only refer to the 
use of State share and Tribal share funds for SMCRA noncoal AML 
reclamation programs from the AML Fund. As stated above, as a result of 
the 2006 amendments, certified states and tribes no longer receive 
State share and Tribal share funds. Since 2008, certified states and 
tribes that have chosen to expend the certified in lieu funds or prior 
balance replacement funds to work on noncoal reclamation projects could 
not comply with the regulations in 30 CFR part 875 that had implemented 
subsections (b) through (g) of Section 411 of SMCRA \18\ and, 
therefore, could not benefit from the limited liability protection 
afforded by 30 CFR 875.19 for their noncoal reclamation projects. 73 FR 
at 67613-67614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 30 CFR 875.11(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we ultimately adopted this more restrictive approach in 
the 2008 Rule, we considered other alternatives in the proposed rule 
that preceded the 2008 Rule. First, we proposed to allow certified 
states and tribes to choose to use their Title IV moneys for noncoal

[[Page 6438]]

reclamation projects under 30 CFR part 875. See Abandoned Mine Land 
Program, 73 FR 35214, 35233 (June 20, 2008). Second, we presented an 
alternative that would have required certified states and tribes to 
spend their certified in lieu funds for noncoal reclamation projects 
under 30 CFR part 875. Id.
    As part of the 2008 rulemaking, we received a number of comments 
regarding the application of the limited liability provision to 
certified states and tribes. At that time, the Interstate Mining 
Compact Commission (IMCC), the National Association of Abandoned Mine 
Land Programs (NAAMLP), and one state commented that ``certified AML 
programs should not be required to follow all of part 875 to enjoy the 
protection of the limited liability provisions of Sec.  875.19.'' \19\ 
Since we adopted the 2008 Rule, program officials in certified states 
and tribes have continued to express concern that the loss of limited 
liability protection for noncoal reclamation projects creates a 
disincentive to conduct at least some types of noncoal reclamation 
activities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 73 FR at 67613.
    \20\ See, e.g., Statement of Madeline Roanhorse, Manager, AML 
Reclamation/Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Department, 
Navajo Nation on Behalf of the National Association of Abandoned 
Mine Land Programs re Oversight Hearing on The Effect of the 
President's FY 2013 Budget and Legislative Proposals for the Office 
of Surface Mining on Private Sector Job Creation, Domestic Energy 
Production, State Programs and Deficit Reduction before the House 
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, March 6, 2012, p. 7 
(``Without this limited liability protection, these states and 
tribes potentially subject themselves to liability under the Clean 
Water Act and CERCLA for their AML reclamation work. Nothing in the 
2006 Amendments suggested that there was a desire or intent to 
remove these liability protections, and without them in place, 
certified states and tribes will need to potentially reconsider at 
least some of their more critical AML projects.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our reconsideration of these past public comments on the 
2008 Rule and our own concerns about the potential disincentive that 
the 2008 may have created, we reconsidered the position that we took in 
the 2008 Rule and concluded that a more flexible approach could 
increase reclamation of noncoal AML sites. In February 2013, we 
published a proposed rule to revise the 2008 Rule to allow certified 
states and tribes to choose to use their prior balance replacement 
funds and certified in lieu funds for noncoal reclamation projects 
under 30 CFR part 875 in accordance with an approved AML reclamation 
plan. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program; Limited Liability for 
Noncoal Reclamation by Certified States and Indian Tribes, 78 FR 8822 
(Feb. 6, 2013). Under the proposed rule, any noncoal reclamation 
projects conducted under 30 CFR part 875 in accordance with an approved 
AML reclamation plan would receive limited liability protection as 
authorized by section 405(l) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 875.19.
    The rule that we are promulgating today is designed to restore 
limited liability protections for certain noncoal reclamation projects, 
as described below.

II. Description of the Final Rule and Discussion of the Comments 
Received

A. Summary of the Final Rule

    The final rule that we are adopting today gives certified states 
and tribes two options for conducting noncoal reclamation projects. 
First, the final rule retains the ability of certified states and 
tribes to expend their prior balance replacement funds and certified in 
lieu funds on projects outside the scope of a SMCRA noncoal AML 
reclamation program but without limited liability protection. Second, 
the final rule allows certified states and tribes the ability to 
voluntarily use prior balance replacement funds and certified in lieu 
funds to conduct noncoal reclamation projects pursuant to a SMCRA 
noncoal AML reclamation program under the provisions of subsections (b) 
through (g) of section 411 of SMCRA and 30 CFR part 875 and other 
applicable regulations. The limited liability protection provided by 
section 405(l) and 30 CFR 875.19 would apply to noncoal reclamation 
projects completed pursuant to a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program. 
These two options are discussed in more detail below.
    Under the first option, if a certified state or tribe chooses to 
use some or all of its certified in lieu funds, prior balance 
replacement funds, or both, on noncoal reclamation projects outside of 
a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program, it will not be required to 
comply with subsections (b) through (g) of section 411 and the 
requirements of 30 CFR and other regulations related to SMCRA noncoal 
AML reclamation programs. Thus, for example, a state could expend 
certified in lieu funds on UMTRCA or CERCLA sites, but if it did so it 
would not receive the limited liability protections afforded by SMCRA 
because section 411(d) and 30 CFR 875.16 prohibit SMCRA noncoal AML 
reclamation programs from expending moneys on those types of sites. 
Certified states and tribes that choose this option will have the same 
administrative responsibilities that they have been subject to under 
the 2008 Rule.
    Certified states and tribes, however, can receive limited liability 
protections for noncoal reclamation projects taken under the aegis of 
the second option--a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program that is part 
of an approved AML reclamation plan in accordance with 30 CFR part 875 
and other applicable regulations. In other words, under this rule, the 
limited liability provision will apply to noncoal reclamation projects 
conducted under an approved state or tribal SMCRA noncoal AML 
reclamation program consistent with subsections (b) through (g) of 
section 411 of SMCRA and the requirements of 30 CFR part 875 and other 
applicable regulations.
    Under such a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program, limited 
liability protections will extend to onsite reclamation activities and 
to program administration, site development, environmental management, 
and other actions taken or not taken in support of noncoal reclamation 
projects. Because the protections only extend to ``action taken or 
omitted in the course of carrying out'' an approved abandoned mine 
reclamation plan for a state or Indian tribe, there must be a clear 
nexus between the action or inaction and a noncoal reclamation project 
conducted pursuant to 30 CFR part 875 that is part of an approved AML 
reclamation plan for the protections to apply. Because OSMRE must 
verify that the projects conducted under the second option meet the 
applicable statutory and regulatory criteria, certified states and 
tribes choosing this option will be subject to more administrative 
responsibilities, such as the requirement for the submittal and 
approval of a written authorization to proceed. These individual 
administrative requirements are described in the next section-by-
section analysis below.
    As we explained in our proposed rule, the approach contained in 
this final rule is consistent with section 411(h)(1) of SMCRA, which 
grants the state legislatures and tribal councils almost complete 
discretion as to how to spend prior balance replacement funds, and it 
is consistent with section 411(h)(2) of SMCRA, which contains no 
specific instruction on the use of certified in lieu funds and does not 
place any restrictions upon them. 78 FR 8825. This broad congressional 
grant of authority gives certified states and tribes discretion to 
operate an approved noncoal AML reclamation program under subsections 
(b) through (g) of section 411 of SMCRA and the implementing 
regulations with these funds, should they chose to do so. This approach 
would also be consistent with

[[Page 6439]]

our view that states and tribes may use these funds for coal 
reclamation to maintain certification, a use also not explicitly 
contained in either paragraph (h)(1) or paragraph (h)(2) of section 411 
of SMCRA.

B. General Discussion of Comments

    In response to the proposed rule, we received comments from seven 
states and one Indian tribe, each with an approved AML reclamation plan 
under Title IV of SMCRA. In addition, we also received joint comments 
from the IMCC and the NAAMLP. We did not receive any comments from 
environmental groups, the coal industry, or citizens. All comments 
timely submitted are available for public review in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    The comments that we received ranged from very specific to very 
general. All comments either supported the rule or were neutral. We 
received no comments opposing the rule. Seven states and one tribe 
urged OSMRE to enact a final rule as soon as practicable. They also 
endorsed the IMCC/NAAMLP comments, which can be summarized in the 
following excerpt: ``While we anticipated fewer changes required to 
effect the reinstatement [of limited liability coverage], our review 
indicates OSMRE has done a thorough job in correcting all areas of the 
rules necessary to support the reinstatement. OSMRE is to be commended 
for their effort.''
    Comments specific to a particular provision of the proposed rule 
are discussed below in the section-by-section analysis.

C. Section by Section Analysis

1. How are we revising part 700--General?
    To improve the clarity of the regulations, we are revising Sec.  
700.5 to add a definition of the term ``SMCRA.'' We proposed to define 
the term ``SMCRA'' as meaning the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-87), as amended. We received no 
comments about the proposed definition and are adopting it as proposed, 
with the exception that we are replacing the reference to Public Law 
95-87 in the proposed rule with the appropriate United States Code 
citation (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) because that is the more commonly 
used citation for the statute.
2. How are we revising part 875--Certification and Noncoal Reclamation?
    We are revising this part to clarify that certified states and 
tribes may voluntarily conduct noncoal reclamation activities under a 
noncoal AML reclamation program in accordance with the provisions of 30 
CFR part 875 and other applicable regulations and thus receive limited 
liability protection for noncoal reclamation projects completed under 
those provisions. In general, our revisions set forth the procedures 
that certified states and tribes must follow if they voluntarily choose 
to use their Title IV funding for noncoal reclamation projects under 
part 875, which includes reclamation of noncoal AML sites as well as 
the construction of certain utilities and public facilities as provided 
under Sec.  875.15, pursuant to an approved SMCRA noncoal AML 
reclamation plan. These procedures relate to the eligibility of sites 
and restrictions for land acquisition and management, lien 
determinations, and contractor eligibility. In addition, this part 
makes clear that certified states and Indian tribes will receive 
limited liability protection under 30 CFR 875.19 for authorized noncoal 
reclamation projects and supporting administrative and programmatic 
activities. A discussion of our revisions to individual sections of the 
rules and our response to the comments that we received specific to 
those sections follows.
Applicability (Sec.  875.11)
    We are revising Sec.  875.11(b)(2) to allow certified programs to 
use prior balance replacement funds and certified in lieu funds for 
both coal reclamation projects that are necessary to maintain 
certification and noncoal reclamation projects approved under SMCRA. 
The final rule is consistent with section 411(h)(1) of SMCRA, which 
grants the state legislatures and tribal councils discretion as to how 
prior balance replacement funds may be spent, because the state 
legislature or tribal council could direct these funds to be expended 
on noncoal reclamation projects pursuant to 30 CFR part 875. In 
addition, optional coverage is consistent with section 411(h)(2) of 
SMCRA, which contains no specific instruction on the use of certified 
in lieu funds and does not place any restrictions upon them. Therefore, 
certified states and tribes now will have the discretionary authority 
to direct some or all of these funds to SMCRA noncoal reclamation 
projects consistent with section 411 of SMCRA and 30 CFR part 875. This 
approach is also consistent with 30 CFR 875.14(b), which expressly 
allows states and tribes to use certified in lieu funds and prior 
balance replacement funds to address coal problems discovered 
subsequent to certification, a use that also is not explicitly 
contained in either subsection (h)(1) or subsection (h)(2) of section 
411 of SMCRA, which authorize the payment of prior balance replacement 
and certified in lieu funds.
    By allowing certified states and tribes the latitude to conduct 
noncoal reclamation projects under 30 CFR part 875 and an approved 
SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation plan, we will continue to promote the AML 
reclamation plan as a central component of SMCRA noncoal reclamation 
projects. Activities carried out under a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation 
program under 30 CFR part 875 will enjoy the limited liability 
protections of section 405(l) of SMCRA because the work will be 
conducted pursuant to an approved AML reclamation plan that conforms to 
subsections (e) and (f) of section 405 of SMCRA and the applicable 
regulations.
    We received no comments opposing the proposed revisions to this 
section and we are adopting the revisions to this section as proposed.
Reclamation Priorities for Noncoal Program (Sec.  875.15)
    In our proposed rule, we did not include any revisions to the 
language in Sec.  875.15, which establishes priorities for SMCRA 
noncoal AML reclamation programs. However, the IMCC/NAAMLP asked for 
clarification regarding the priorities listed in that section. In 
particular, they wanted to know whether we would require certified 
states and tribes to strictly adhere to those priorities if the 
certified state or tribe chooses to expend its AML moneys pursuant to 
new Sec.  875.11(b)(2)(ii), which authorizes those states and tribes to 
``conduct a noncoal reclamation program in accordance with the 
requirements of this part.'' The commenters then opined that, because 
the expenditure of funds on a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program 
under 30 U.S.C. part 875 is voluntary, it would be inappropriate to 
require a certified state or Indian tribe to strictly follow the 
hierarchy of priorities in this section. They suggested that certified 
states and Indian tribes should be able to choose which project or 
projects to address, and in which order. For example, they would like 
the flexibility to address a priority 3 site before all priority 1 and 
2 sites are corrected.
    We did not make any changes to Sec.  875.15 in response to this 
comment because this section is derived from subsections (c), (e), and 
(f) of section 411 of SMCRA, which are described above in section I.A 
of this preamble.\21\

[[Page 6440]]

The priorities and restrictions contained in Sec.  875.15 are part of 
the statutory requirements for a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program, 
and we must give them effect. However, we have not historically 
interpreted this language in an inflexible manner. Section 411(c) of 
SMCRA and Sec.  875.15(b) state that the expenditure of moneys ``shall 
reflect'' the priorities listed. This language is similar to the 
language used to describe the priorities for coal reclamation under 
section 403(a) of SMCRA. See 30 U.S.C. 1233(a) (``Expenditure of moneys 
. . . shall reflect the following priorities in the order stated. . . 
.''). Our longstanding approach for interpreting section 403(a) has 
been ``that reclamation programs can reclaim Priority 3 land and water 
projects before the completion of all Priority 1 and 2 projects as long 
as the overall reclamation program generally reflects the priorities.'' 
\22\ Because section 411(c) and Sec.  875.15(b) are so similar to 
section 403(a), the same approach would apply to noncoal reclamation 
projects: i.e., Priority 3 noncoal reclamation projects may be 
conducted before completion of all Priority 1 and 2 noncoal reclamation 
projects so long as the overall SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program 
generally reflects the priorities listed in section 411(c) and 30 CFR 
875.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(c), (e) and (f).
    \22\ 73 FR at 67603 (summarizing OSM's history of this 
approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exclusion of Certain Noncoal Reclamation Sites (Sec.  875.16)
    Consistent with the proposed rule, we are revising this section to 
prohibit the reclamation of sites designated for remedial action under 
UMTRCA \23\ or listed for remedial action under CERCLA \24\ by 
certified states or tribes using prior balance replacement funds or 
certified in lieu funds if they conduct the reclamation as a component 
of a voluntary SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program under part 875. 
SMCRA clearly prohibits ``[s]ites and areas designated for remedial 
action pursuant to [UMTRCA] or which have been listed for remedial 
action pursuant to [CERCLA]'' from being ``eligible for expenditures 
from the Fund under'' section 411 of SMCRA.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.
    \24\ 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
    \25\ 30 U.S.C. 1240a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revision to Sec.  875.16(b) will continue to prohibit a 
certified state or Indian tribe from expending money left over from the 
pre-2008 distributions of funds from section 402(g)(1) on UMTRCA and 
CERCLA sites. In addition, as described in the proposed rule, this 
section is being revised to prohibit the expenditure of prior balance 
replacement funds and certified in lieu funds for UMTRCA and CERCLA 
sites if the state or tribe chooses to conduct a SMCRA noncoal AML 
reclamation program under part 875. The revised rule does not prohibit 
a certified state or tribe from expending Title IV moneys on UMTRCA and 
CERCLA sites if those projects are completed outside the scope of a 
SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program operating under part 875. 
However, the certified state or tribe will not receive limited 
liability coverage under SMCRA for those projects.
    We received no comments opposing this proposed provision. We did, 
however, receive a suggestion to capitalize ``State'' in the regulatory 
text to be consistent with capitalization of this word elsewhere in our 
regulations. We are adopting the proposed rule with this editorial 
change.
Land Acquisition Authority--Noncoal (Sec.  875.17)
    As stated in the proposed rule, we are revising this section to 
confirm that the requirements specified in parts 877 (Rights of Entry) 
and 879 (Acquisition, Management and Disposition of Lands and Water) 
also apply to a state's or tribe's SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation 
projects conducted voluntarily under part 875. We received no comments 
opposing the proposed changes to this section and we are adopting the 
changes with a minor revision for clarity.
Limited Liability (Sec.  875.19)
    Consistent with the proposed rule, we are revising this section to 
clarify that no state or Indian tribe conducting noncoal reclamation 
projects, including the reclamation of noncoal AML sites and the 
construction of certain utilities and public facilities, under the 
provisions of part 875 is liable under any provision of Federal law for 
any costs or damages as a result of action taken or omitted in the 
course of carrying out an approved state or Indian tribe AML 
reclamation plan. The revision is also consistent with section 405(l) 
of SMCRA, as this section preserves state and tribal liability for 
costs or damages caused by a state's or tribe's gross negligence or 
intentional misconduct when carrying out a SMCRA noncoal program under 
an approved reclamation plan.
    Although not specifically referring to this provision, one 
commenter requested that we clarify whether the limited liability 
provisions of section 405(l) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations would 
``provide a certified state or tribal program operating under a 
federally approved state abandoned mine program with exemption from 
liability under the third-party lawsuit provision of the Clean Water 
Act[.]'' This commenter noted that the legislative history surrounding 
section 405(l) specifically refers to section 405(l) as limiting the 
liability of CERCLA for reclamation projects associated with eligible 
noncoal abandoned mine sites ``so long as the project is undertaken 
pursuant to a federally approved reclamation plan.'' See H.R. Rep. 101-
294, at 30, 37 (1989).
    We have opted not to make any changes to the regulatory text based 
on this comment. We note that the language of section 405(l) of SMCRA 
and Sec.  875.19 limits liability ``under any provision of Federal law 
for any costs or damages as a result of action taken or omitted in the 
course of carrying out an approved State or Indian tribe abandoned mine 
reclamation plan.'' 30 U.S.C. 1235(l) (emphasis added). This limited 
liability protection does not exempt states or tribes from complying 
with applicable Federal laws, including the Clean Water Act.\26\ 
Rather, it protects a state or tribe from paying for costs or damages 
that may arise as a result of the state's or tribe's actions or 
inactions while carrying out its approved abandoned mine reclamation 
plan. All grant recipients must provide assurances to OSMRE that 
activities funded by the AML Fund, certified in lieu funds, or prior 
balance replacement funds will comply with Federal laws, as well as 
state, tribal, and local laws. We are unaware of any instances where 
states or tribes have attempted to rely on this provision to avoid 
complying with the Clean Water Act or any other Federal law. 
Nevertheless, until such time as the courts define the scope of 
coverage under section 405(l), we cannot definitively state the 
parameters of the limited liability protection provision nor foresee 
all future possible factual scenarios in which a state or tribe may 
raise section 405(l) of SMCRA as a defense against a claim for costs or 
damages arising from the state's or tribe's actions or inactions while 
carrying out an approved abandoned mine reclamation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are making one minor revision to this section from the language 
as proposed. We removed the word ``certified'' from the first sentence 
of this rulemaking because, according to Sec.  875.11, this part 
applies to both noncoal reclamation projects conducted by certified 
states and tribes pursuant to SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation

[[Page 6441]]

programs under subsections (b) through (g) of section 411 of SMCRA and 
part 875 as well as to noncoal reclamation activities conducted by 
uncertified states consistent with section 409 of SMCRA and the 
applicable regulations. We originally proposed to include the word 
``certified'' to ensure that these states and tribes would be eligible 
for limited liability coverage, and we did not intend to remove this 
coverage from uncertified states. Thus, removing the word ``certified'' 
eliminates the possibility of any unintended loss of limited liability 
coverage for uncertified states performing authorized noncoal 
reclamation work.
Contractor Eligibility (Sec.  875.20)
    As described in the proposed rule, we are revising this section to 
clarify that certified states and tribes that voluntarily conduct 
noncoal reclamation activities under part 875 must comply with the 
contractor eligibility requirements. This section also applies to 
certified states and tribes that conduct coal reclamation to maintain 
certification. We received no comments opposing the proposed revisions 
to this section and we are adopting the rule as proposed with a minor 
revision for clarity.
3. How are we revising Part 877--Rights of Entry?
    We did not propose any revisions to part 877 in the proposed rule, 
but we are making minor, non-substantive revisions to Sec.  877.1 
(Scope) for clarity in response to a comment suggesting that we add 
introductory language to part 877 to clarify that ``noncoal'' replaces 
all references to ``coal'' when certified states and tribes are 
conducting noncoal reclamation projects under section 411 of SMCRA and 
part 875 of the regulations. The commenter acknowledged that the 
revisions to Sec.  875.17 would have the same effect, but the commenter 
stated that repeating this language in part 877 would improve clarity 
and avoid confusion. We agree with the commenter and are adding the 
requested language to Sec.  877.1.
4. How are we revising Part 879--Acquisition, Management, and 
Disposition of Lands and Water?
    Because the final rule modifies part 875 to allow certified states 
and tribes to voluntarily conduct noncoal reclamation projects under 
SMCRA, we are revising, consistent with the proposed rule, part 879 so 
that the procedures related to acquisition, management, and disposition 
of land and water are consistent with this option. In general, 
certified states and Indian tribes that voluntarily conduct noncoal 
reclamation projects under part 875 will be required to follow the 
provisions of part 879. Consistent with the proposed rule, we also are 
revising Sec.  879.15 to specify that all moneys received by a 
certified state or tribe in the context of their noncoal reclamation 
projects conducted under part 875 must be handled in accordance with 
Sec.  885.19 to ensure that any moneys received from the disposition of 
lands and waters are returned to the AML reclamation program. Each 
change, a summary of the comments we received, if any, and our 
responses to these comments are described below in more detail.
Scope (Sec.  879.1)
    Consistent with the proposed rule, we are revising this section to 
clarify its applicability to certified states and tribes that choose to 
conduct noncoal reclamation projects under part 875. We received no 
comments opposing our proposed revisions to Sec.  879.1. However, one 
commenter suggested that we add language to the introduction of part 
879 to clarify that ``noncoal'' replaces all references to ``coal'' 
when certified states and tribes are conducting noncoal reclamation 
projects under part 875. The commenter acknowledged that the revisions 
to Sec.  875.17 would have the same effect, but the commenter stated 
that repeating this language in part 879 would improve clarity and 
avoid confusion.
    We agree with the commenter. Accordingly, we are revising Sec.  
879.1 to reflect the changes that we proposed, and we are adopting 
additional language to clarify that ``noncoal'' replaces all references 
to ``coal'' when certified states and tribes are conducting noncoal 
reclamation projects under part 875.
Land Eligible for Acquisition (Sec.  879.11)
    As described in the proposed rule, we are revising Sec. Sec.  
879.11(a) and 879.11(b) to clarify that these sections apply to a 
certified state or Indian tribe that chooses to conduct noncoal 
reclamation activities under part 875. In addition, we determined that 
previous Sec.  879.11 was not as clear as we intended, and we 
restructured Sec.  879.11(a) to confirm that OSMRE must execute a 
written approval and make the findings required by Sec. Sec.  
879.11(a)(1) and 879.11(a)(2) when we acquire land. We received no 
comments opposing the proposed changes and we are adopting the 
revisions to this section as proposed with minor revisions to 
Sec. Sec.  879.11(a)(2) and 879.11(b) for clarity.
Disposition of Reclaimed Land (Sec.  879.15)
    As proposed, we are revising Sec.  879.15(h) to specify that moneys 
received from disposal of land by certified states and tribes 
conducting a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation program under part 875 must 
be handled as unused funds in accordance with Sec.  885.19. We received 
no comments opposing the proposed changes to this section and we are 
adopting the rule as proposed.
5. How are we revising Part 884--State Reclamation Plans?
    As described in the proposed rule, we are revising part 884 to 
specify the contents of an AML reclamation plan for certified states 
and Indian tribes. In particular, we are revising two sections--
Sec. Sec.  884.13 and 884.17. Each change, a summary of the comments we 
received, if any, and our responses to these comments are described 
below in more detail.
Content of Proposed State Reclamation Plan (Sec.  884.13)
    As proposed, we are revising this section to require that an AML 
reclamation plan for a certified state or tribe contain all components 
required for an AML reclamation plan for an uncertified state or tribe, 
plus a commitment to address eligible coal problems found or occurring 
after certification as required in Sec. Sec.  875.13(a)(3) and 
875.14(b). This is a change from the 2008 Rule that specified that a 
noncoal AML reclamation plan for a certified state or tribe need 
include only two components: (1) a designation by the governor of the 
state or the governing authority of the Indian tribe identifying the 
agency authorized to administer the AML reclamation program and to 
receive and administer grants, and (2) a commitment to address eligible 
coal problems found or occurring after certification, as required in 
Sec. Sec.  875.13(a)(3) and 875.14(b).
    We are making this change so that certified states and tribes will 
be able to avail themselves of the limited liability protections 
afforded by section 405(l) of SMCRA. To receive the protection of 
section 405(l), certified states and Indian tribes must conduct noncoal 
reclamation projects under 30 CFR part 875 in accordance with an 
approved AML reclamation plan that conforms to paragraphs (e) and (f) 
of section 405 and the applicable regulations.
    We received no comments opposing our proposed revisions to this 
section. The final rule that we are adopting

[[Page 6442]]

today is substantively identical to proposed Sec.  884.13. However, we 
are reorganizing this section for clarity and consistency with current 
rule drafting principles. The final rule consolidates the requirements 
that apply to all states and tribes (both certified and uncertified) in 
paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) contains the additional requirement that 
applies to certified states and tribes.
Other Uses by Certified States and Indian Tribes (Sec.  884.17)
    In response to a comment received on the proposed rule, we are 
revising section 884.17 in the final rule to alleviate confusion about 
whether certain restrictions in that section apply to public facility 
projects. Section 884.17 details the contents of a reclamation plan for 
a certified state or tribe that chooses to use AML funds for a specific 
type of noncoal reclamation project--a public facility project. In 
particular, this section allows certified states and tribes to expend 
money on public facility projects ``when the Governor of the State has 
certified and the Director [of OSM] has concurred that'' (1) all 
reclamation, both coal and noncoal reclamation, has been completed, (2) 
the ``specific public facilities are required as a result of coal 
development,'' and (3) other funds available under the Mineral Leasing 
Act of 1920 (MLA),\27\ as amended, or the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act 
(PILTA),\28\ are inadequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.
    \28\ Although existing 30 CFR 884.17(a)(3) refers to the 
``Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act'' as the ``Act of October 20, 1978, 
Public Law 94-565 (90 Stat. 2662)'' the correct reference to that 
Act is the ``Act of October 20, 1976.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This provision was first proposed in 1978 as Sec.  850.12(d). See 
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program Provisions, 43 FR 17918, 17930 
(Apr. 25, 1978). The preamble to the February 2013 proposed rule 
explains that we proposed Sec.  850.12 to allow states and tribes to 
include noncoal reclamation activities in their initial state or tribal 
AML reclamation plan. See 43 FR at 17921. This 1978 provision, Sec.  
850.12, helped to implement section 402(g)(2) of SMCRA, which 
originally stated:

    Fifty per centum of the funds collected annually in any State or 
Indian reservation shall be allocated to that State or Indian 
reservation by the Secretary pursuant to any approved abandoned mine 
reclamation program to accomplish the purposes of this title. Where 
the Governor of a State or the head of a governing body of a tribe 
certifies that (i) objectives of the fund set forth in sections 403 
and 409 have been achieved, (ii) there is a need for construction of 
specific public facilities in communities impacted by coal 
development, (iii) impact funds which may be available under 
provisions of the Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 
or the Act of October 20, 1976, Public Law 94-565 (90 Stat. 2662), 
are inadequate for such construction, and (iv) the Secretary concurs 
in such certification, then the Secretary may continue to allocate 
all or part of the 50 per centum share to that State or tribe for 
such construction: Provided, however, That if funds under this 
subparagraph (2) have not been expended within three years after 
their allocation, they shall be available for expenditure in any 
eligible area as determined by the Secretary.

30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(2) (1978); see also 91 Stat. 458.

    When OSMRE finalized the 1978 rule, it renumbered the provision as 
Sec.  884.12(d). See Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program 
Provisions, 43 FR 49932, 49948 (Oct. 25, 1978). In 1982, OSMRE revised 
and recodified Sec.  884.12(d) as Sec.  884.17. See Revision of the 
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program Rules, 47 FR 28574, 28600 (June 
30, 1982). As explained in the preamble to the corresponding proposed 
rule, we proposed this change so as ``to avoid confusion as to when 
impact assistance is available and how it can be obtained.'' Proposed 
Revision of the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program Regulations, 46 
FR 60778, 60786 (Dec. 11, 1981).
    Among the changes made by AMRA in 1990 was the removal of 
restrictions on public facility projects contained in the second 
sentence of section 402(g)(2), as originally enacted in 1977. AMRA also 
added paragraphs (a) through (g) to section 411, which contain the 
current restrictions on the types of noncoal reclamation projects, 
including public facility projects, that can be financed with AML 
moneys by certified states and tribes. Although we amended our 
regulations in 1994 to incorporate the amendments to SMCRA contained in 
AMRA and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, we did not make any changes to 
Sec.  884.17. See Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund Reauthorization 
Implementation, 59 FR 28136 (May 31, 1994). At that time, however, we 
did add Sec.  875.15 to incorporate the expanded authority of certified 
states and tribes to use AML funds for projects related to the 
protection, repair, replacement, or enhancement of facilities used by 
the public, if these facilities are affected by coal or noncoal mining 
activities. See 59 FR at 28161-28164.
    Although we did not amend Sec.  884.17 in 1994, we recognized that 
the restrictions contained in the second sentence of section 402(g)(2) 
of SMCRA, as originally enacted in 1977, were inapplicable and that 
certified States and Tribes would not have to meet the criteria in 
Sec.  884.17 in order to expend AML funds on public facility projects 
under SMCRA. In response to a comment that suggested that we require a 
certified state or tribe to complete all known coal and noncoal 
reclamation before allowing the construction of public facility 
projects under section 411(f), we stated:

    [A] State Governor or head of a governing body of an Indian 
tribe may request funding for activities pursuant to Section 411(f) 
at any time after certification. There is no requirement that a 
State or Indian tribe complete all known noncoal reclamation before 
utilizing this authority. The commenters' premise is based on the 
original statutory language of Section 402(g)(2) as enacted in 1977. 
This section provided that once a state had completed all of its 
coal and noncoal reclamation, it could utilize AML funds for 
community impact assistance. This old statutory scheme was deleted, 
and OSM can find no references in the legislative history which 
supports the commenter's position. . . . In the absence of 
restricting language in Section 411(f) or qualifying language in 
Section 411(c), OSM believes the proper interpretation is to permit 
States and Indian tribes to utilize the authority in Section 411(f) 
without regard to the completion of the priorities specified in 
Section 411(c) [pertaining to noncoal reclamation].

59 FR at 28163. Thus, since the enactment of AMRA and the adoption of 
Sec.  875.15, we have not required certified states and tribes to meet 
the criteria in Sec.  884.17 in order to expend AML funds on public 
facility projects under SMCRA.

    In 2008, we revised our AML regulations to implement the 2006 
amendments to SMCRA. At that time, we made editorial changes to Sec.  
884.17, such as updating a cross-reference and updating the title. We 
made no substantive changes to this section at that time. See 73 FR at 
67642. In response to a comment in the 2008 rulemaking, we explained 
that we were retaining the provision in order to accommodate unexpended 
State and Tribal share moneys distributed to certified states and 
tribes prior to the effective date of the 2006 amendments. See 73 FR at 
67617. However, we reiterated that this section should ``reflect the 
greater discretion that certified States and Indian tribes now have to 
use Title IV moneys'' and that ``Sec.  884.17(a) no longer applies to 
certified States and Indian tribes using prior balance replacement 
funds or certified in lieu funds.'' Id.
    Although we did not propose any changes to this section in the most 
recent proposed rule, we received one comment requesting that we make

[[Page 6443]]

revisions to the section, if appropriate, to clarify how the section 
relates to the flexibility granted to certified states and tribes by 
the 2006 amendments to use their Title IV funds. In response to the 
comment, we reviewed the history of this provision and verified that no 
certified state or tribe has any funds remaining in their Title IV 
grants that would be subject to these restrictions. Accordingly, we 
have decided to revise Sec.  884.17(a) to remove these outdated 
restrictions.
    New Sec.  884.17(a) incorporates the language of section 411(f) of 
SMCRA, which provides that certified states and tribes may expend AML 
moneys on public facility projects if the governor of the state or the 
head of the governing body of a tribe ``determines there is a need for 
activities or construction of specific public facilities related to the 
coal or minerals industry in States impacted by coal or minerals 
development and the Secretary concurs.'' 30 U.S.C. 1240a(f). Thus, the 
restrictions in previous Sec.  884.17(a)(1) and (3) that required 
certified states to complete all coal and noncoal reclamation projects 
and use any impact assistance funds available under the MLA or PILTA 
before AML funds could be used on specific public facility projects 
have been removed. The restriction in previous Sec.  884.17(a)(2) has 
been modified to reflect the language of section 411(f) of SMCRA and 
incorporated into new Sec.  884.17(a).
    This revision is consistent with section 405(l) of SMCRA, which 
provides that the limited liability protection of that provision 
applies only to ``action taken or omitted in the course of carrying out 
a State abandoned mine reclamation plan approved under this section 
[section 405].'' The change to this regulation allows certified states 
and tribes to revise their reclamation plans to provide for the 
construction of public facility projects under those plans in 
accordance with the current statutory and regulatory restrictions. Any 
public facilities constructed under an approved AML reclamation plan in 
accordance with part 875 would be a noncoal reclamation project and 
would receive limited liability protection as authorized by section 
405(l) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 875.19. Conversely, public facility projects 
constructed with AML funds, but which are not undertaken as part of the 
approved AML reclamation plan in accordance with part 875, will not 
receive limited liability protection.
6. How are we revising Part 885--Grants to Certified States and Indian 
Tribes?
    As described in the proposed rule and discussed in more detail 
below, we are revising this part to grant certified states and tribes 
the discretionary authority to use prior balance replacement funds and 
certified in lieu funds for noncoal reclamation projects under part 
875. To accomplish this goal, we are revising Sec.  885.12 to expand 
the list of activities eligible for certified program funding, and we 
are revising Sec.  885.16 to ensure that the appropriate project 
authorization and environmental reviews are conducted. Finally, we are 
revising Sec.  885.20 to ensure that we receive the necessary grant 
information and project reporting for all noncoal reclamation projects 
conducted under part 875.
What can I use grant funds for? (Sec.  885.12)
    As proposed, we are revising Sec.  885.12(b) to clarify that 
certified states and tribes may use prior balance replacement funds and 
certified in lieu funds for noncoal reclamation projects under section 
411 of SMCRA and 30 CFR part 875. We received no comments opposing our 
proposed revisions to this section, and we are adopting the revisions 
as proposed, along with minor non-substantive organizational changes to 
enhance clarity and be consistent with plain language principles.
What responsibilities do I have after OSMRE approves my grant? (Sec.  
885.16)
    As described in the proposed rule, we are revising Sec.  885.16(e) 
to provide that certified states and tribes that use prior balance 
replacement funds and certified in lieu funds for noncoal reclamation 
projects under part 875 must request and receive a written 
authorization from us to proceed before construction may begin on 
individual projects. Our authorization to proceed denotes that both the 
state or tribe and OSMRE have taken all actions necessary to ensure 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA),\29\ and any other applicable laws, clearances, permits, or 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To receive an authorization to proceed from us, a certified state 
or tribe must follow its approved AML reclamation plan and conduct 
administrative and site development activities within the procedural 
framework provided by 30 CFR part 875 and other applicable regulations. 
If we issue an authorization to proceed, the certified state or tribe 
will qualify under section 405(l) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 875.19 for 
limited liability protection for that project, including the 
administrative and programmatic activities directly related to that 
project. However, a certified state or Indian tribe may elect to 
conduct noncoal reclamation projects outside the parameters of a SMCRA 
noncoal AML reclamation program under 30 CFR part 875. Those activities 
may include projects at CERCLA or UMTRCA sites as provided by other 
laws. If a certified state or tribe conducts noncoal reclamation 
projects outside an approved SMCRA AML reclamation plan and part 875, 
it need not request an authorization to proceed from us, and it will 
not receive limited liability protection for that project.
    Certified states and tribes have many years of experience designing 
and carrying out noncoal reclamation projects with moneys from the AML 
Fund. As with those projects, submissions for noncoal reclamation 
projects using prior balance replacement funding and certified in lieu 
funding must contain information sufficient to comply with NEPA and AML 
grant and administrative requirements. These review elements include, 
but are not limited to, information sufficient for the conduct of 
assessments under NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, National Historic 
Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act. In addition, we will review 
proposals and conduct oversight activities as needed to ensure that our 
program requirements related to site eligibility, grants management, 
and AML Inventory management are met. Proposals that receive our 
approval as noncoal reclamation projects must be implemented consistent 
with the scope of work that we approve, and we must review changes in 
project scope or activities that would materially alter the 
environmental consequences of the reclamation. We received no comments 
opposing our proposed revisions to this section and are adopting the 
revisions as proposed, with minor editorial revisions for clarity.
What must I report? (Sec.  885.20)
    Consistent with the proposed rule, we are revising Sec.  885.20 to 
clarify that certified programs using prior balance replacement funds 
and certified in lieu funds for noncoal reclamation projects under 
section 411 of SMCRA and part 875 of the regulations must update the 
AML inventory for each noncoal reclamation project as it is funded. We 
received no comments opposing our proposed revisions to this section 
and are adopting the revisions as proposed.

[[Page 6444]]

III. Procedural Matters and Required Determinations

A. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has 
determined that this rule is not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 
12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system 
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, 
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory 
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory 
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of 
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, 
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available 
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public 
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this 
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
    Seven certified states and tribes will be affected by this rule, 
which removes a disincentive for certified states and tribes to 
undertake noncoal reclamation projects. We estimate that approximately 
30 to 60 noncoal reclamation projects will be covered by SMCRA's 
limited liability provision each year, although we cannot predict 
whether these projects would have been undertaken in the absence of 
this rule. This rule does not impose any additional mandatory costs on 
certified states and tribes because participation is voluntary. 
Reclamation projects improve the quality of the human environment and 
eliminate hazardous conditions while improving water quality, air 
quality, wildlife habitat, community aesthetics, and the visual 
landscape. In the future, other states will be subject to this rule 
upon certification.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).\30\ The revisions 
are not expected to have a significant adverse economic impact on the 
regulated community, including small entities. This rule will affect 
the states of Louisiana, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming and the Crow 
Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, and the Navajo Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act.\31\ For the reasons previously discussed, the 
rule will not--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
    b. Cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries; Federal, state, or local government agencies; or 
geographic regions.
    c. Have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

D. Unfunded Mandates

    This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect on state, 
tribal, or local governments or the private sector. A statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
\32\ is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 2 U.S.C. 1534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 12630--Takings

    The rule will not have significant takings implications because it 
is not a governmental action capable of interference with 
constitutionally protected property rights. A takings implication 
assessment is not required.

F. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule will not alter or affect the relationship between states 
and the Federal Government. Therefore, the rule will not have 
significant Federalism implications. Consequently, there is no need to 
prepare a Federalism assessment.

G. Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Office of the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior has 
determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system 
and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the 
Executive Order.

H. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the 
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes 
and have determined that the revisions will not have substantial direct 
effects 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.
    We invited tribal representatives to consult with us on our 
intention to propose this rule. In response to a request for 
consultation, we met with representatives from the Hopi Tribe and 
Navajo Nation on July 10, 2012, at Kykotsmovi, Arizona. The Crow Tribe 
did not request consultation.
    The Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation stated that they would like 
the rule to allow a tribe with an approved AML reclamation program to 
be able to request limited liability protection for some projects but 
to decline it for others. Our rule accommodates this approach by 
granting certified states and tribes discretionary authority to conduct 
noncoal reclamation projects (including construction of certain utility 
and public facility projects) pursuant to 30 CFR part 875 under the 
aegis of an approved SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation plan and the 
applicable regulations whenever the state or tribe wishes to avail 
itself of the limited liability protection of section 405(l) of SMCRA 
and 30 CFR 875.19.
    The tribes also indicated that they would prefer that the limited 
liability protections apply to all projects, including public facility 
projects, and that OSMRE should be involved in the NEPA process because 
OSMRE understands the required NEPA procedures. The final rule 
incorporates provisions accommodating these requests.
    Similarly, the tribes requested that the limited liability 
protection apply to noncoal AML projects, as they were concerned that 
they could face liability issues if they chose to remediate sites, such 
as abandoned uranium mines. As mentioned above, however, Section 411(d) 
of SMCRA, effectively specifies that sites listed for remedial action 
under UMTRCA or CERCLA are not eligible for projects under the noncoal 
reclamation program operating under part 875. Consequently, under our 
rule, certified states and tribes may not receive limited liability 
protection for noncoal AML projects at such sites. We emphasize, 
however that there is no prohibition against certified states and 
tribes using prior balance replacement funds or certified in lieu funds 
moneys at UMTRCA and CERCLA sites as long as they do so outside the 
scope of a SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation

[[Page 6445]]

program. But, because of the statutory limitation, they cannot receive 
limited liability coverage for those projects.
    States and tribes should be cognizant that, while the limited 
liability provision protects them from costs and damages under Federal 
laws, they must still comply with applicable Federal laws. All grant 
recipients, including Indian tribes, must provide assurances to OSMRE 
that expenditures of AML funding will comply with Federal laws, as well 
as state, tribal, and local laws.
    The tribes questioned how the rule might affect a tribe's AML 
reclamation plan. Certified states and tribes will need to conduct a 
detailed review of their existing approved AML reclamation plans to 
determine if any changes are necessary as a result of adoption of this 
final rule. OSMRE staff will be available to assist in this review. 
Because noncoal reclamation was routinely conducted by certified states 
and tribes prior to our 2008 Rule, it is possible that some or all of 
the approved AML reclamation plans may contain language sufficient to 
implement the rule with only minimal changes.
    The tribes also voiced concern about the extent of limited 
liability protection provided to public facility projects. The limited 
liability provision extends protections to public facility projects if 
they are conducted under an approved SMCRA noncoal AML reclamation plan 
consistent with paragraphs (b) through (g) of section 411 of SMCRA and 
30 CFR part 875. The limited liability provision in 30 CFR 875.19 
specifies that a state or Indian tribe is not liable under Federal law 
for any costs or damages as a result of any action it takes or omits to 
take while conducting noncoal reclamation activities under part 875. 
The provision does not preclude liability for gross negligence or 
intentional misconduct by a state or Indian tribe.
    In addition, the tribes commented on the relationship between 
SMCRA's limited liability provision and the Department of the 
Interior's trust responsibilities. More specifically, the tribes asked 
if OSMRE assumes liability whenever it provides funding to a tribe. The 
answer to that question is no. OSMRE distributes AML funding to a tribe 
not as part of a trust relationship but, instead, as part of a 
government-to-government relationship. The limited liability provision 
of section 405(l) of SMCRA, in turn, reduces the potential liability of 
a state or Indian tribe under Federal law for costs or damages for 
actions taken or omitted when carrying out an approved AML reclamation 
plan and the applicable regulations. All grant recipients, including 
Indian tribes, must provide assurances to OSMRE that expenditures of 
AML funding will comply with Federal laws, as well as state, tribal, 
and local laws. By providing funding, OSMRE assumes no liability for 
actions taken by the tribe or tribal officials. This rule does not 
affect or relate to the Department's trust responsibilities.

I. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not considered a significant energy action under 
Executive Order 13211 because it is not classified as a significant 
rule under Executive Order 12866 and because the revisions will not 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. Therefore, a statement of energy effects is not required.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains no new information collection requirements that 
are not already covered by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control numbers 1029-0059 (for 30 CFR parts 735, 885 and 886 and grant 
forms OSM-47, OSM-49 and OSM-51) and 1029-0087 (for the OSM-76--Problem 
Area Description Form). We anticipate that the rule will not result in 
an increase in either the number of respondents who prepare grant forms 
or the burden per respondent.

K. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that the revisions in this rule are 
categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment 
or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental 
Policy Act,\33\ as provided in 43 CFR 46.205(b). The specific 
categorical exclusion that applies is the exclusion in 43 CFR 
46.210(i). This exclusion includes policies, directives, regulations, 
and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal, 
technical, or procedural nature. In this case, extension of the limited 
liability provision of section 405(l) to noncoal reclamation projects 
conducted by certified states is a legal matter. Moreover, this 
categorical exclusion also covers policies, directives, regulations, 
and guidelines ``whose environmental effects are too broad, 
speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis 
and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or 
case-by-case.'' 43 CFR 46.210(i). In this case, because of the amount 
of discretion that certified states and tribes have in expending their 
AML funding, it is unclear if or how this limited liability coverage 
will affect the number of noncoal reclamation projects performed. 
However, as required by this rule at 30 CFR 885.16(e), any noncoal 
reclamation project that is eligible for limited liability protection 
must undergo specific NEPA review during the grant application process. 
Thus, this categorical exclusion applies because, to the extent that 
this rule generates any environmental effects, these effects will be 
analyzed at a later date when the environmental effects are less 
``broad, speculative, or conjectural.'' In addition, none of the 
extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Information Quality Act

    In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, 
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information 
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, section 15).

List of Subjects

30 CFR Part 700

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining.

30 CFR Part 875

    Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, Indian lands, Reclamation fees, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground 
mining.

30 CFR Part 877

    Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, Indian lands, Reclamation fees, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground 
mining.

30 CFR Part 879

    Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, Indian lands, Reclamation fees, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground 
mining.

30 CFR Part 884

    Grant programs--natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining.

30 CFR Part 885

    Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, Indian lands, Reclamation fees, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground 
mining.


[[Page 6446]]


    Dated: December 3, 2014.
Janice M. Schneider,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department is 
amending 30 CFR parts 700, 875, 877, 879, 884, and 885 as set forth 
below.

PART 700--GENERAL

0
1. The authority citation for part 700 is revised to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  700.5 by adding a definition for the term ``SMCRA'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  700.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    SMCRA means the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 
30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., as amended.
* * * * *

PART 875--CERTIFICATION AND NONCOAL RECLAMATION

0
3. The authority citation for part 875 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. In Sec.  875.11, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  875.11  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) If you are a State or Indian tribe that has certified under 
section 411(a) of the Act--
    (1) You must use State share or Tribal share funds distributed to 
you under section 402(g)(1) of the Act before October 1, 2007, in 
accordance with this part; and
    (2) You may use prior balance replacement funds distributed to you 
under section 411(h)(1) of the Act, certified in lieu funds distributed 
to you under section 411(h)(2) of the Act, or both, to--
    (i) Maintain certification as required by Sec. Sec.  875.13 and 
875.14 of this part; or
    (ii) Conduct a noncoal reclamation project in accordance with the 
requirements of this part.

0
5. In Sec.  875.16, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  875.16  Exclusion of certain noncoal reclamation sites.

* * * * *
    (b) You, the certified State or Indian tribe, may not reclaim sites 
and areas designated for remedial action under the Uranium Mill 
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) or that 
have been listed for remedial action under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 
U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) using--
    (1) Moneys distributed from the Fund under section 402(g)(1) of the 
Act.
    (2) Prior balance replacement funds distributed to you under 
section 411(h)(1) of the Act where you are conducting reclamation under 
the provisions of this part.
    (3) Certified in lieu funds distributed to you under section 
411(h)(2) of the Act where you are conducting reclamation under the 
provisions of this part.

0
6. Revise Sec.  875.17 to read as follows:


Sec.  875.17  Land acquisition authority--noncoal.

    The requirements of parts 877 (Rights of Entry) and 879 
(Acquisition, Management and Disposition of Lands and Water) of this 
chapter apply to a State's or Indian tribe's noncoal reclamation 
projects conducted under this part, except that, for purposes of this 
section, the term ``noncoal'' replaces all references to ``coal'' in 
parts 877 and 879 of this chapter.

0
7. Revise Sec.  875.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  875.19  Limited liability.

    No State or Indian tribe conducting noncoal reclamation activities 
under the provisions of this part is liable under any provision of 
Federal law for any costs or damages as a result of action taken or 
omitted in the course of carrying out an approved State or Indian tribe 
abandoned mine reclamation plan. This section does not preclude 
liability for costs or damages as a result of gross negligence or 
intentional misconduct by the State or Indian tribe. For purposes of 
the preceding sentence, reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct will 
constitute gross negligence or intentional misconduct.

0
8. Revise Sec.  875.20 to read as follows:


Sec.  875.20  Contractor eligibility.

    Every successful bidder for any contract by an uncertified State or 
Indian tribe under this part, or for any contract by a certified State 
or Indian tribe to undertake a noncoal reclamation project under this 
part, must be eligible under Sec. Sec.  773.12, 773.13, and 773.14 of 
this chapter at the time of contract award to receive a permit or be 
provisionally issued a permit to conduct surface coal mining 
operations. This section applies only to any contracts by a certified 
State or Indian tribe that are for coal reclamation or that are for a 
noncoal reclamation project under this part.

PART 877--RIGHTS OF ENTRY

0
9. The authority citation for part 877 is revised to read as follows:

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



0
10. Revise Sec.  877.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  877.1  Scope.

    This part establishes procedures for entry upon lands or property 
by OSMRE, States, and Indian tribes for reclamation purposes. For 
certified States or Indian tribes conducting noncoal reclamation 
projects under the provisions of part 875, the term ``noncoal'' 
replaces all references to ``coal'' in this part.

PART 879--ACQUISITION, MANAGEMENT, AND DISPOSITION OF LANDS AND 
WATERS

0
11. The authority citation for part 879 continues to read as follows:

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



0
12. Revise Sec.  879.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  879.1  Scope.

    This part establishes procedures for acquisition of eligible land 
and water resources for emergency abatement activities and reclamation 
purposes by you, a State or Indian tribe, with an approved reclamation 
program that has not certified completion of coal reclamation or a 
certified State or Indian tribe conducting noncoal reclamation 
activities under part 875 of this chapter, or by us. It also provides 
procedures for the management and disposition of lands acquired by the 
State, the Indian tribe, or us. For certified States or Indian tribes 
conducting noncoal reclamation projects under the provisions of part 
875, the term ``noncoal'' replaces all references to ``coal'' in this 
part.

0
13. In Sec.  879.11, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  879.11  Land eligible for acquisition.

    (a)(1) We may acquire land adversely affected by past coal mining 
practices with moneys from the Fund.
    (2) You, an uncertified State or Indian tribe or a certified State 
or Indian tribe conducting noncoal reclamation projects under part 875 
of this chapter, may acquire land adversely affected by past coal 
mining practices with moneys from the Fund or with prior balance 
replacement funds and certified in lieu funds provided under Sec. Sec.  
872.29 and 872.32 of this chapter, provided that we first approve the 
acquisition in writing.
    (3) Before acquiring land under paragraph (a)(1) of this section or 
approving land acquisition under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, we 
must

[[Page 6447]]

make a finding that the land acquisition is necessary for successful 
reclamation and that--
    (i) The acquired land will serve recreation, historic, 
conservation, and reclamation purposes or provide open space benefits 
after restoration, reclamation, abatement, control, or prevention of 
the adverse effects of past coal mining practices; and
    (ii) Permanent facilities will be constructed on the land for the 
restoration, reclamation, abatement, control, or prevention of the 
adverse effects of past coal mining practices. For the purposes of this 
paragraph, ``permanent facility'' means any structure that is built, 
installed, or established to serve a particular purpose or any 
manipulation or modification of the site that is designed to remain 
after the reclamation activity is completed, such as a relocated stream 
channel or diversion ditch.
    (b) You, an uncertified State or Indian tribe or a certified State 
or Indian tribe conducting noncoal reclamation projects under part 875 
of this chapter, if approved in advance by us, may acquire coal refuse 
disposal sites, including the coal refuse, with moneys from the Fund 
and with prior balance replacement funds and certified in lieu funds 
provided under Sec. Sec.  872.29 and 872.32 of this chapter. We, OSMRE, 
also may use moneys from the Fund to acquire coal refuse disposal 
sites, including the coal refuse.
    (1) Before the approval of the acquisition, the reclamation program 
seeking to acquire the site will make a finding in writing that the 
acquisition is necessary for successful reclamation and will serve the 
purposes of the reclamation program.
    (2) Where an emergency situation exists and a written finding as 
set forth in Sec.  877.14 of this chapter has been made, we may acquire 
lands where public ownership is necessary and will prevent recurrence 
of the adverse effects of past coal mining practices.
* * * * *

0
14. In Sec.  879.15, revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  879.15  Disposition of reclaimed land.

* * * * *
    (h) You must return all moneys received from disposal of land under 
this part to us. We will handle all moneys received under this 
paragraph as unused funds in accordance with Sec. Sec.  885.19 and 
886.20 of this chapter.

PART 884--STATE RECLAMATION PLANS

0
15. The authority citation for part 884 continues to read as follows:


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


0
16. Amend Sec.  884.13 as follows:
0
a. Remove the introductory text;
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (a) through (f) as paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(6), respectively;
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(3), redesignate paragraphs (1) 
through (7) as paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vii), respectively;
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(4), redesignate paragraphs (1) 
through (4) as paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv), respectively;
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(5), redesignate paragraphs (1) 
through (3) as paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iii), respectively;
0
f. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(6), redesignate paragraphs (1) 
through (3) as paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii), respectively; and
0
g. Add new paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  884.13  Content of proposed State reclamation plan.

    (a) Requirements applicable to all eligible States and Indian 
tribes. You must submit the proposed reclamation plan to the Director 
in writing. The plan must include the information in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) Additional requirement applicable to certified States and 
Indian tribes. If you are a certified State or Indian tribe, the plan 
must include a commitment to address eligible coal problems found or 
occurring after certification as required in Sec. Sec.  875.13(a)(3) 
and 875.14(b) of this chapter.

0
17. In Sec.  884.17, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  884.17  Other uses by certified States and Indian tribes.

    (a) The reclamation plan for a certified State or Indian tribe may 
provide for the construction of specific public facilities related to 
the coal or minerals industries in States impacted by coal or minerals 
development. This form of assistance is available when the Governor of 
the State or the head of a governing body of an Indian tribe determines 
there is a need for such activities or construction and the Director 
concurs.
* * * * *

PART 885--GRANTS FOR CERTIFIED STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

0
18. The authority citation for part 879 continues to read as follows:

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

0
19. In Sec.  885.12, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  885.12  What can I use grant funds for?

* * * * *
    (b)(1) You may use grant funds as established for each type of 
funds you receive.
    (2) You may use prior balance replacement funds as provided under 
Sec.  872.31 of this chapter.
    (3) You may use certified in lieu funds as provided under Sec.  
872.34 of this chapter.
    (4) You may use the following moneys for noncoal reclamation 
projects under section 411 of the Act and part 875 of this chapter:
    (i) Moneys that may be available to you from the Fund.
    (ii) Prior balance replacement funds made available under Sec.  
872.31 of this chapter.
    (iii) Certified in lieu funds as provided under Sec.  872.34 of 
this chapter.
* * * * *

0
20. In Sec.  885.16, revise the section heading and paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  885.16  What responsibilities do I have after OSMRE approves my 
grant?

* * * * *
    (e) If you conduct a coal reclamation project under part 874 of 
this chapter or noncoal reclamation project under part 875 of this 
chapter, you must not expend any construction funds until you receive a 
written authorization from us to proceed on an individual project. Our 
authorization to proceed ensures that both you and we have taken all 
actions necessary to ensure compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and any other applicable 
laws, clearances, permits, or requirements.
* * * * *

0
21. In Sec.  885.20, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  885.20  What must I report?

* * * * *
    (c) You must use the AML inventory to maintain a current list of 
AML problems and to report annual reclamation accomplishments with 
grant funds.
    (1) If you conduct coal reclamation projects or noncoal reclamation 
projects under part 875 of this chapter, you must update the AML 
inventory for each reclamation project as you fund it.
    (2) You must update the AML inventory for each reclamation project 
you complete as you complete it.
    (3) We must approve any amendments to the AML inventory after 
December 20, 2006. We define amendment as any

[[Page 6448]]

coal problems added to the AML inventory in a new or existing problem 
area.

[FR Doc. 2015-02278 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P