Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 201 / Thursday, October 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59005 

§ 1000.103 How may IHBG funds be used 

for tenant-based or project-based rental 

assistance? 

(a) IHBG funds may be used for 

project-based or tenant-based rental 

assistance. 

(b) IHBG funds may be used for 

project-based or tenant-based rental 

assistance that is provided in a manner 

consistent with section 8 of the United 

States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 

1437f). 

(c) IHBG funds used for project-based 

or tenant-based rental assistance must 

comply with the requirements of 

NAHASDA and this part. 

Dated: October 11, 2007. 

Orlando J. Cabrera, 

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing. 

[FR Doc. E7–20525 Filed 10–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 914 

[Docket No. IN–156–FOR, Administrative 

Cause No. 06–046R] 

Indiana Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are approving, with certain 

exceptions, an amendment to the 

Indiana regulatory program (Indiana 

program) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). The Indiana 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Reclamation (IDNR, 

department, or Indiana) revised its rules 

concerning the definition of 

‘‘government-financed construction’’; 

underground mining reclamation plans 

for siltation structures, impoundments, 

dams, embankments, and refuse piles; 

requirements for performance bond 

release; surface mining permanent and 

temporary impoundments; surface 

mining primary roads; and inspections 

of sites. Indiana revised its program to 

be consistent with the corresponding 

Federal regulations, to clarify 

ambiguities, and to improve operational 

efficiency. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

Division—Indianapolis Area Office. 

Telephone: (317) 226–6700. E-mail: 

IFOMAIL@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Indiana Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Indiana Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

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

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

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the Indiana 

program effective July 29, 1982. You can 

find background information on the 

Indiana program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and the conditions of 

approval, in the July 26, 1982, Federal 

Register (47 FR 32071). You can also 

find later actions concerning the Indiana 

program and program amendments at 30 

CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated December 11, 2006 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1741), 

Indiana sent us an amendment to its 

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

et seq.) in response to a required 

program amendment at 30 CFR 

914.16(ff) and to include changes made 

at its own initiative. The provisions of 

312 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 

25 that Indiana proposed to revise were: 

312 IAC 25–1–57, definition of 

‘‘government-financed construction’’; 

25–4–87, underground mining 

reclamation plans for siltation 

structures, impoundments, dams, 

embankments, and refuse piles; 25–5–

16, requirements for performance bond 

release; 25–6–20, surface mining 

permanent and temporary 

impoundments; 25–6–66, surface 

mining primary roads; and 25–7–1, 

inspections of sites. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the February 6, 

2007, Federal Register (72 FR 5374). In 

the same document, we opened the 

public comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the adequacy of the 

amendment. We did not hold a public 

hearing or meeting because no one 

requested one. The public comment 

period ended on March 8, 2007. We 

received comments from two Federal 

agencies. 

During our review of the amendment, 

we identified concerns about 

requirements for performance bond 

release. We notified Indiana of these 

concerns by letter dated May 9, 2007, 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1748). 

We also met with Indiana staff on June 

26, 2007, to discuss the concerns 

regarding the amendment and 

corresponded with the State via email 

on June 23, 2007 (Administrative 

Record No. IND–1752). Indiana 

responded by email on July 24, 2007 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1752), 

that it would not submit revisions to 

this portion of the amendment at this 

time and that we should proceed with 

processing the other portions of the 

amendment. Therefore, we are 

proceeding with the final rule Federal 

Register document. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

Following are the findings we made 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment with 

exceptions as described below. Any 

revisions that we do not specifically 

discuss below concern nonsubstantive 

wording or editorial changes. 

A. Minor Revisions to Indiana’s Rules 

Indiana made minor wording, 

editorial, punctuation, grammatical, 

restructuring, and recodification 

changes to the following previouslyapproved rules: 

Topic State rule 

Underground mining reclamation plans for siltation structures, impoundments, dams, embankments, and refuse piles.312 IAC 25–4–87(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2)(A) and (C), (c), (e)(1) and (e)(4), 

and (f)(1). 

Requirements for performance bond release. ......................................... 312 IAC 25–5–16(b). 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
59006 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 201 / Thursday, October 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Topic State rule 

Surface mining permanent and temporary impoundments ...................... 312 IAC 25–6–20(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (B), and (C), (a)(5), (a)(6), 

(a)(7)(B)(iii), (a)(9)(A), (D), (E)(iii), (b)(3), (b)(8)(B), (c)(1) and (2), (d) 

and (e). 

Surface mining primary roads .................................................................. 312 IAC 25–6–66(2)(A) and (C), (2)(H), and (4)(B)(i). 

Inspections of sites ................................................................................... 312 IAC 25–7–1(f)(3)(E) and (F), (g)(2), (h)(1)(D)(ii), and (h)(3)(A). 

1. For example, 312 IAC 25–4–

87(a)(2)(A) was restructured from: 

(A) Be prepared by, or under the direction 

of, and certified by a qualified registered 

professional engineer with assistance from 

experts in related fields such as geology, land 

surveying, and landscape architecture. 

to: 

(A) Be prepared by, or under the direction 

of, and certified by a qualified registered 

professional engineer with assistance from 

experts in related fields, such as the 

following: 

(i) Geology. 

(ii) Land surveying. 

(iii) Landscape architecture. 

2. For example, 312 IAC 25–5–16(b) 

was recodified as 312 IAC 25–5–16(c). 

3. For example, at 312 IAC 25–6–

20(a)(3)(C), the phrase ‘‘in lieu of’’ was 

replaced by the phrase ‘‘instead of’’. 

Because these changes are minor, we 

find that they will not make Indiana’s 

previously approved rules less effective 

than the corresponding Federal 

regulations. 

B. Revisions to Indiana’s Rules That 

Have the Same Meaning as the 

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal 

Regulations 

Indiana’s rules listed in the table 

below contain language that is the same 

as or similar to the corresponding 

Federal regulations. 

Topic State [rule] Federal counterpart 

[regulation] 

Definition of ‘‘Government-financed construction’’ ........... 312 IAC 25–1–57 ............................................................ 30 CFR 707.5. 

Surface Mining Primary Roads ......................................... 312 IAC 25–6–66(2) ........................................................ 30 CFR 816.151(b). 

Because the above State rules contain 

language that is the same as or similar 

to the corresponding Federal 

regulations, we find that they are no less 

effective than the Federal counterpart 

regulations. 

C. 312 IAC 25–4–87 Underground 

Mining Reclamation Plans for Siltation 

Structures, Impoundments, Dams, 

Embankments, and Refuse Piles 

1. At subsection (g)(3), Indiana 

proposed to remove the following 

sentence: 

If necessary to protect the health or safety 

of persons or property or the environment, 

even though the volume of water impounded 

is less than one hundred (100) acre feet, the 

director may require an application to be 

made. 

There is no Federal counterpart to 

Indiana’s rule at subsection (g)(3). On 

November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69283), we 

approved the removal of a similar 

requirement at 312 IAC 25–4–49(g)(3) 

for surface mining reclamation plans. 

Therefore, we find the revision made to 

previously approved 312 IAC 25–4–

87(g)(3) will not make the Indiana rules 

less effective than the Federal 

regulations or SMCRA. 

D. 312 IAC 25–5–16 Requirements for 

Performance Bond Release 

1. Indiana proposed to revise its rule 

at subsection (a) concerning what a 

permittee must include in the 

newspaper advertisement that is part of 

the bond release application. Currently, 

Indiana’s rule requires the permittee to 

state in the newspaper advertisement 

that, ‘‘any person with a valid legal 

interest that might be adversely affected 

by release of bond, or the responsible 

officer or head of any federal, Indiana, 

or local governmental agency that has 

jurisdiction by law or is authorized to 

develop and enforce environmental 

standards with respect to the operations, 

may file written comments or objections 

or may request a public hearing or 

informal conference.’’ Indiana proposed 

to revise this requirement by deleting 

the words ‘‘informal conference.’’

The counterpart Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 800.40(a)(2) specifies that the 

advertisement must contain the name 

and address of the regulatory authority 

to which written comments, objections, 

or requests for public hearings and 

informal conferences on the specific 

bond release may be submitted pursuant 

to 30 CFR 800.40(f) and (h). The Federal 

regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(f) provides 

that certain persons may file written 

objections and request a ‘‘public 

hearing’’ regarding the proposed bond 

release. The Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 800.40(h) provides that ‘‘without 

prejudice to the right of an objector or 

the applicant, the regulatory authority 

may hold an informal conference * * * 

to resolve such written objections.’’

We find that Indiana’s proposed 

revision is no less effective than the 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.40(a)(2) because this Federal 

regulation does not require the 

newspaper advertisement to contain 

information on who may request a 

public hearing or informal conference. 

Instead, it requires the advertisement to 

contain information on where requests 

for public hearings or informal 

conferences may be submitted. 

Therefore, we are approving Indiana’s 

revision. 

2. Indiana proposed to add a new rule 

at subsection (b) that allows the director 

of IDNR to initiate an application for the 

release of bond. If a bond release 

application is initiated by the director of 

IDNR, the department will have to 

perform the notification and 

certification requirements otherwise 

imposed on the permittee. While the 

counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 800.40(a) allows a permittee to file 

an application for bond release, the 

Federal regulations are silent as to 

whether a regulatory authority may 

initiate bond release proceedings. 

However, a similar provision was 

approved for the Kentucky program on 

December 31, 1990 (55 FR 53490) and 

the Illinois program on April 7, 2000 (65 

FR 18239). Also, on September 14, 2004, 

we approved a similar change for 

Indiana’s statute at IC 14–34–6–7 (69 FR 

55348). We approved the statutory 

change with the understanding that 

Indiana would revise its implementing 

rule at 312 IAC 25–5–16. Indiana’s 

revision at 312 IAC 25–5–16(b) meets 

this requirement. 

Under Indiana’s proposal, bond 

release proceedings initiated by the 

director of IDNR must conform to the 

same procedural steps as a bond release 

initiated by the permittee. Thus, the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 201 / Thursday, October 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59007 

public participation and notification 

requirements of section 519 of SMCRA 

and the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.40 would still apply when the 

director of IDNR initiates a bond release 

in Indiana. For the above reasons, we 

find that allowing the director of IDNR 

to initiate bond release does not make 

Indiana’s performance bond release 

requirements at 312 IAC 25–5–16(b) less 

effective than the Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 800.40(a). Therefore, we are 

approving the new provision. 

3. Indiana proposed to redesignate 

existing subsections (c) through (f) as 

new subsections (d) through (g) and to 

revise new subsection (d). Indiana also 

proposed to delete existing subsections 

(g) and (i) and to add new subsection 

(h). In addition, Indiana proposed to 

revise existing subsection (h) and 

redesignate it as new subsection (i). 

Finally, Indiana proposed to add new 

subsection (j). 

In a letter dated May 9, 2007 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1748), 

we notified Indiana that we completed 

our review of the State’s proposed 

amendment and identified some 

provisions that appeared to be less 

effective than the Federal regulations. 

We also met with Indiana staff on June 

26, 2007, to discuss our concerns 

regarding the amendment. 

We advised Indiana that 312 IAC 25–

5–16, starting at new subsection (d), 

contains deficiencies that include 

inappropriate reference citations and 

the removal and/or absence of required 

program provisions, thus making the 

Indiana rules less effective than the 

Federal regulations. During our 

discussions and in an email dated July 

24, 2007 (Administrative Record No. 

IND–1752), Indiana advised us that it 

would submit revisions to the 

amendment to address these concerns at 

a later date and that we should proceed 

with processing the amendment. 

Therefore, we cannot approve Indiana’s 

proposed revisions at 312 IAC 25–5–16 

new subsections (d) through (j). 

E. 312 IAC 25–6–20 Surface Mining 

Permanent and Temporary 

Impoundments 

1. At subsection (a)(3)(B) regarding 

criteria for stability of impoundments, 

Indiana proposed to remove the 

language ‘‘and located where failure 

would not be expected to cause loss of 

life or serious property damage.’’

The counterpart Federal regulation at 

30 CFR 816.49(a)(4)(ii) does not contain 

the deleted language. Therefore, we find 

that the removal of the language will not 

make Indiana’s rule at 312 IAC 25–6–

20(a)(3)(B) less effective than the 

counterpart Federal regulation. 

2. At subsection (a)(9)(E)(ii) regarding 

inspection of impoundments, Indiana 

proposed to add the following type of 

impoundment to its list of those nonhazardous impoundments that are 

exempt from its quarterly examination 

requirements: 

(ii) Impoundments that are entirely 

contained within an incised structure such 

that the incised structure would completely 

contain the waters of the impoundment 

should failure occur and failure would not 

create a potential threat to public health and 

safety or threaten significant environmental 

harm. 

The impoundments listed in 

subsection (a)(9)(E) are among those that 

do not meet the size or other criteria of 

30 CFR 77.216(a) or do not meet the 

Class B or C criteria for dams in the 

NRCS publication, Technical Release 

No. 60. 

There is no Federal counterpart to the 

added provision. The Federal regulation 

at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(12) requires 

quarterly inspections of impoundments 

for appearance of structural weakness 

and other hazardous conditions. 

Because incised structures do not have 

dams, there is no probability of 

impoundment failure. Therefore, we 

find that 312 IAC 25–6–20(a)(9)(E)(ii) is 

no less effective than the counterpart 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

816.49(a)(12), and we are approving it. 

F. 312 IAC 25–7–1 Inspections of Sites 

At subsection (h)(1)(D)(i) regarding 

the definition of ‘‘abandoned site,’’

Indiana proposed to remove the 

language ‘‘or permit revocation 

proceedings have been initiated and are 

being pursued diligently.’’

On November 29, 2004, we required 

Indiana to revise its regulation at 312 

IAC 25–7–1(h)(1)(D)(i) to allow a site to 

be classified as abandoned only in cases 

where a permit has expired or been 

revoked (69 FR 69287). We codified this 

requirement at 30 CFR 914.16(ff). 

Indiana’s removal of the above quoted 

language meets this requirement. 

Therefore, we find that 312 IAC 25–7–

1(h)(1)(D)(i) is no less effective than 30 

CFR 840.11(g)(4)(i), and we approve it. 

We are also removing the required 

amendment at 30 CFR 914.16(ff). 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment, but did not receive any. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On January 4, 2007, under 30 CFR 

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

SMCRA, we requested comments on the 

amendment from various Federal 

agencies with an actual or potential 

interest in the Indiana program 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1744). 

We received comments from two 

agencies. The U.S. Department of the 

Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 

responded on January 22, 2007 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1745), 

that it had no specific comments on the 

proposed amendment. The U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service (Forest Service) responded on 

February 9, 2007 (Administrative 

Record No. IND–1746), by 

recommending that Indiana retain, 

instead of deleting, the provision at 312 

IAC 25–4–87(g)(3) that requires a permit 

application and prior approval from the 

director of IDNR before the construction 

of structures that impound less than 100 

acre-feet of water. The Forest Service 

also recommended that Indiana add one 

or more criteria to 312 IAC 25–6–66(4) 

that encourages design parameters that 

foster the passage of aquatic organisms 

instead of having only criteria that 

approaches the design of water crossing 

structures strictly from an engineering 

standpoint. Because the Federal 

regulations do not contain requirements 

related to the Forest Service’s above two 

recommendations, Indiana is not 

required to have them in the State’s 

approved regulatory program. However, 

we sent a copy of the Forest Service’s 

comments to Indiana for consideration. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Concurrence and Comments 

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

are required to get a written concurrence 

from EPA for those provisions of the 

program amendment that relate to air or 

water quality standards issued under 

the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 

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

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

revisions that Indiana proposed to make 

in this amendment pertain to air or 

water quality standards. Therefore, we 

did not ask EPA to concur on the 

amendment. 

On January 4, 2007, under 30 CFR 

732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested 

comments on the amendment from EPA 

(Administrative Record No. IND–1744). 

EPA did not respond to our request. 

State Historical Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

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

required to request comments from the 

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that 

may have an effect on historic 

properties. On January 4, 2007, we 

requested comments on Indiana’s 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
59008 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 201 / Thursday, October 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

IND–1744), but neither responded to our 

request. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on our discussions in OSM’s 

Findings III.A. through D.2., and E. and 

F. above, we approve those revisions to 

Indiana’s rules sent to us on December 

11, 2006. We do not approve Indiana’s 

newly redesignated subsections (d) 

through (g) and (i) and new subsections 

(h) and (j) at 312 IAC 25–5–16 as 

discussed in OSM’s Findings III.D.3. For 

those rules we approve, Indiana must 

fully promulgate them in identical form 

to the rules submitted to and reviewed 

by OSM and the public. 

To implement our decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 914, which codify decisions 

concerning the Indiana program. We 

find that good cause exists under 5 

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

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of 

SMCRA requires that the State’s 

program demonstrate that the State has 

the capability of carrying out the 

provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. Making this rule effective 

immediately will expedite that process. 

SMCRA requires consistency of State 

and Federal standards. 

Effect of OSM’s Decision 

Section 503 of SMCRA provides that 

a State may not exercise jurisdiction 

under SMCRA unless the State program 

is approved by the Secretary. Similarly, 

30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any 

change to an approved State program be 

submitted to OSM for review as a 

program amendment. The Federal 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit 

any changes to approved State programs 

that are not approved by OSM. In the 

oversight of the Indiana program, we 

will recognize only the statutes, rules 

and other materials we have approved, 

together with any consistent 

implementing policies, directives and 

other materials. We will require Indiana 

to enforce only approved provisions. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

The provisions in the rule based on 

counterpart Federal regulations do not 

have takings implications. This 

determination is based on the analysis 

performed for the counterpart Federal 

regulations. The revisions made at the 

initiative of the State that do not have 

Federal counterparts have also been 

reviewed and a determination made that 

they do not have takings implications. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that this rulemaking has no takings 

implications. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that this rule meets the 

applicable standards of subsections (a) 

and (b) of that section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

because each program is drafted and 

promulgated by a specific State, not by 

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of 

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

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

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

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

submitted by the States must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and 

its implementing Federal regulations 

and whether the other requirements of 

30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have 

been met. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

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

that State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that the Indiana program does not 

regulate coal exploration and surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana 

program has no effect on federallyrecognized Indian tribes. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 

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

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

program provisions do not constitute 

major Federal actions within the 

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

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that a portion of the provisions 

in this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

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

et seq.) because they are based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

making the determination as to whether 

this part of the rule would have a 

significant economic impact, the 

Department relied upon the data and 

assumptions for the counterpart Federal 

regulations. The Department of the 

Interior also certifies that the provisions 

in this rule that are not based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations will not 

have a significant economic impact on 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 201 / Thursday, October 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59009 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

is based upon the fact that the 

provisions are administrative and 

procedural in nature and are not 

expected to have a substantive effect on 

the regulated industry. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

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

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and (c) Does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based upon the fact 

that a portion of the State provisions are 

based upon counterpart Federal 

regulations for which an analysis was 

prepared and a determination made that 

the Federal regulation was not 

considered a major rule. For the portion 

of the State provisions that is not based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations, 

this determination is based upon the 

fact that the State provisions are 

administrative and procedural in nature 

and are not expected to have a 

substantive effect on the regulated 

industry. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of $100 million or more in any given 

year. This determination is based upon 

the fact that a portion of the State 

submittal, which is the subject of this 

rule, is based upon counterpart Federal 

regulations for which an analysis was 

prepared and a determination made that 

the Federal regulation did not impose 

an unfunded mandate. For the portion 

of the State provisions that is not based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations, 

this determination is based upon the 

fact that the State provisions are 

administrative and procedural in nature 

and are not expected to have a 

substantive effect on the regulated 

industry. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: September 27, 2007. 

William Joseph, 

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent 

Regional Office. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 914 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 914—INDIANA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 914 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 914.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission date Date of final 

publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

October 18, 2007 ...... 312 IAC 25–1–57; 25–4–87; 25–5–16(a), (b) [new], and (c) [formerly (b)]; 25–

6–20; 25–6–66; and 25–7–1. 

§ 914.16 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 914.16 is amended by 

removing paragraph (ff) and removing 

reserved paragraphs (gg) through (mm). 

[FR Doc. 07–5144 Filed 10–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 946 

[VA–125–FOR] 

Virginia Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We are approving an 

amendment to the Virginia regulatory 

program under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). The program 

amendment revises the Virginia Coal 

Surface Mining Reclamation 

Regulations concerning review of a 

decision not to inspect or enforce. The 

amendment is intended to specify the 

time limit for filing a request for review 

of a decision and to identify with whom 

a request for review should be filed. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Earl Bandy, Director, Knoxville Field 

Office; Telephone: (276) 523–4303. 

Internet: ebandy@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Virginia Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Virginia Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘* * * a 

State law which provides for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations in accordance 

with the requirements of the Act * * *; 

and rules and regulations consistent 

with regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to the Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

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

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the Virginia 

program on December 15, 1981. You can 

find background information on the 

Virginia program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and conditions of approval 

of the Virginia program in the December 

15, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 

61088). You can also find later actions 

concerning Virginia’s program and 

program amendments at 30 CFR 946.12, 

946.13, and 946.15. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES