This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

64115

Vol. 60, No. 240

Thursday, December 14, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Parts 300, 301, 318–322, 330,

340, 352, 354–356, 360, and 380

9 CFR Parts 1–3, 49–54, 70–75, 77–80,

82, 85, 91–114, 116–118, 124, 130, 145,

147, 151, 156, 160–162, and 166–167

[Docket No. 95–091–1]

Revision of Delegations of Authority

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending our

regulations to reflect the recent revision

of the delegations of authority from the

Secretary of Agriculture to the Assistant

Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory

Programs and redelegation to the

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Kathy Holmes, Regulatory

Coordination Specialist, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3CO3, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238,

(301) 734–8682.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A final rule effective and published in

the Federal Register on November 8,

1995 (60 FR 56392–56458) revised the

delegations of authority from the

Secretary of Agriculture and general

officers of the Department due to a

reorganization of the Department. This

document amends the authority

citations in titles 7 and 9 of the Code of

Federal Regulations to reflect the

changes made by that final rule.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 CFR 2.22 and

2.80.

In 7 CFR parts 300, 301, 318–322, 352,

354–356, 360, and 380 and in 9 CFR

parts 1–3, 49–54, 70–75, 77–80, 82, 85,

91–114, 116–118, 124, 130, 145, 147,

151, 156, 160–162, and 166–167 the

authority citations are amended by

removing ‘‘7 CFR 2.17, 2.51’’ and adding

‘‘7 CFR 2.22, 2.80’’ in its place.

Done at Washington, DC, this 8th day of

December 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–30459 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

12 CFR Part 3

[Docket No. 95–22]

RIN 1557–AB14

Risk-Based Capital Requirements—

Small Business Loan Obligations;

Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency.

ACTION: Correction to interim rule with

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the interim rule which was

published Wednesday, September 13,

1995, (60 FR 47455). The interim rule

related to the risk-based capital

requirements for small business loan

obligations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Thede, Senior Attorney, (202)

874–5210, 250 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

amendatory instructions to the interim

rule did not redesignate existing

paragraph (c) of appendix A to part 3,

section 3 as paragraph (d) before adding

a new paragraph (c).

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on

September 13, 1995 of the interim rule

which was the subject of FR Doc. 95–

22666, is corrected as follows:

On page 47458, in the first column,

amendatory instruction 2 is corrected to

read: ‘‘In appendix A to part 3, section

3 is amended by redesignating

paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and by

adding a new paragraph (c) to read as

follows:’’.

Dated: November 30, 1995.

Eugene A. Ludwig,

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 95–30424 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 906

[SPATS NO. CO–028–FOR]

Colorado Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with one

exception and additional requirement, a

proposed amendment to the Colorado

regulatory program (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘‘Colorado program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

Colorado proposed revisions and

explanatory information for rules

pertaining to the applicability of

Colorado’s rules; permit application

requirements for legal, financial, and

related information; permit application

requirements for operation and

reclamation plans; requirements for

special categories of mining; public

participation and approval of permit

applications; performance standards for

revegetation; performance standards for

subsidence control; the definition of

‘‘road;’’ adjustments in bond amount;

the bond liability period on land

reclaimed for industrial or commercial,

or residential use; bond forms; terms

and conditions of irrevocable letters of

credit; the criteria and schedule for

release of performance bonds; and

erosion control on mine support

facilities within areas where the preand postmining land use is industrial or

commercial. The amendment was

intended to revise the Colorado program
64116 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

to be consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations, and improve

operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. Fulton, Telephone: (303) 672–

5524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Colorado Program

On December 15, 1980, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the Colorado program. General

background information on the

Colorado program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval of the Colorado program can

be found in the December 15, 1980,

Federal Register (45 FR 82173).

Subsequent actions concerning

Colorado’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

906.11, 906.15, 906.16, and 906.30.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated July 12, 1995,

Colorado submitted a proposed

amendment to its program

(administrative record No. CO–670)

pursuant to SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et

seq.). Colorado submitted the proposed

amendment at its own initiative, in

response to a February 7, 1990, letter

(administrative record No. CO–484) that

OSM sent to Colorado in accordance

with 30 CFR 732.17(c), and in response

to a required program amendment at 30

CFR 906.16(g).

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the July 28,

1995 Federal Register (60 FR 38773),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (administrative record

No. CO–670–4). Because no one

requested a public hearing or meeting,

none was held. The public comment

period ended on August 28, 1995.

During its review of the proposed

amendment and previously approved

rules for which Colorado proposed

further revisions upon promulgation,

OSM identified issues and notified

Colorado of the concerns by letter dated

August 31, 1995 (administrative record

No. CO–670–7). Colorado responded in

a letter dated September 26, 1995, by

submitting additional explanatory

information (administrative record No.

CO–670–8).

Based upon the additional

explanatory information for the

proposed program amendment

submitted by Colorado, OSM reopened

the public comment period in the

October 16, 1995, Federal Register (60

FR 53562, administrative record No.

CO–670–10) and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing or

meeting on its substantive adequacy.

Because no one requested a public

hearing or meeting, none was held. The

public comment period ended on

November 15, 1995.

III. Director’s Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in

accordance with SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, finds, with one

exception and additional requirement,

that the proposed program amendment

submitted by Colorado on July 12, 1995,

and as supplemented with additional

explanatory information on September

26, 1995, is no less effective than the

corresponding Federal regulations.

Accordingly, the Director approves,

with one exception and additional

requirement, the proposed amendment.

1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to

Colorado’s Rules

Colorado proposed revisions to the

following previously-approved rules

that are nonsubstantive in nature and

consist of minor editorial changes

(corresponding Federal regulation

provisions are listed in parentheses):

Rule 2.03.7(1) (30 CFR 778.16(a)),

concerning lands unsuitable for surface coal

mining operations, to correctly cite the

reference to 30 CFR part 769;

Rule 2.05.3(8)(c) (30 CFR 784.16(e)),

concerning design of coal processing waste

dams and embankments, to correctly cite the

reference to Rule 4.11.5;

Rule 2.05.6(2)(iii)(A) (30 CFR 780.16(a)(2)),

concerning the fish and wildlife plan in a

permit application, to correctly cite the

reference to Section 33–2–101 et seq. of the

Colorado Revised Statute;

Rule 2.07.2 (30 CFR 773), concerning

public participation and approval of permit

applications, to remove the ‘‘.2’’ from

‘‘2.07.2’’ in the Objective title line;

Rule 3.02.4(1)(d) (30 CFR 800.12),

concerning alternative bonding systems

approved by the Division, to correctly cite

the reference to Rule 3.02.4(2)(f);

Rule 4.08.6(1) (30 CFR 816.67(d)),

concerning airblast limitations, to correctly

cite the reference to Rule 4.08.4(10)(b)(i).

Because the proposed revisions to

these previously-approved rules are

nonsubstantive in nature, the Director

finds that these proposed Colorado rules

are no less effective than the Federal

regulations. The Director approves these

proposed rules.

2. Substantive Revisions to Colorado’s

Rules That Are Substantively Identical

to the Corresponding Provisions of the

Federal Regulations

Colorado proposed revisions to the

following rules that are substantive in

nature and contain language that is

substantively identical to the

requirements of the corresponding

Federal regulation provisions (listed in

parentheses).

Rule 1.04(80) (30 CFR 700.5), concerning

the definition of ‘‘operator,’’

Rule 1.04(92) (30 CFR 700.5), concerning

the definition of ‘‘person,’’ and

Rule 3.02.2(5) (30 CFR 800.15(c)),

concerning when a permittee may request

reduction of the required performance bond

amount.

Because these proposed Colorado

rules are substantively identical to the

corresponding provisions of the Federal

regulations, the Director finds that they

are no less effective than the Federal

regulations. The Director approves these

proposed rules.

3. Rules 1.04(21), 2.03.3(4), and

2.06.6(2), Definition of ‘‘Coal,’’ Water

Quality Sampling and Laboratory

Analyses, and Application Contents for

Prime Farmland

Colorado’s proposed definition of

‘‘coal’’ at Rule 1.04(21) and proposed

Rule 2.03.3(4), concerning water quality

sampling and laboratory analyses, are

substantively identical to the respective

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 700.5

(definition of ‘‘coal’’) and 30 CFR

780.21(a), with the exception that

Colorado is specifying the exact edition

of ‘‘Standard Specifications for

Classification of Coal by Rank’’ which is

referenced in both State rules. Both

proposed Rules 1.04(21) and 2.03.3(4)

have been revised to incorporate the

referenced material with the statement

that ‘‘[t]his publication is hereby

incorporated by reference as it exists on

the date of adoption of these

regulations.’’

Proposed Rule 2.06.6(2)(i), concerning

permit application contents for prime

farmland, is no less effective than 30

CFR 785.17(c). Both State and Federal

rules reference the U.S. Natural

Resources Conservation Service’s

‘‘National Soils Handbook’’ for current

acceptable procedures for conducting

soil surveys. However, Colorado’s

proposed Rule 2.06.6(2)(i), which

references a 1983 publication of the

handbook, has been revised to state that

‘‘[t]his rule does not include later

amendments to or editions of the

incorporated material,’’ and to specify

that the handbook is available at, among

other places, Colorado’s Denver office.

OSM previously approved Colorado’s

existing Rule 1.01(9) (56 FR 1363, 1364,

finding No. 2; January 14, 1991) which

states that ‘‘[t]he materials incorporated

in these rules by reference do not

include later amendments to or editions

of the incorporated materials.’’ Colorado

stated that this rule was necessary to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 64117

comply with the terms of Colorado’s

Administrative Procedures Act at

Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.; 1989)

24–4–103(12.5)(c). The effect of Rule

1.01(9) is that any Federal regulations or

technical publications incorporated by

Colorado’s rules would be incorporated

as they existed at the time that Colorado

initially proposed its rules.

The Director is approving Colorado

proposed Rules 1.04(21), 2.03.3(4), and

2.06.6(2), as no less effective than the

respective counterpart Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 700.5, 780.21(a),

and 785.17(c). However, should

revisions to these technical publications

be incorporated into the Federal

program, OSM would require Colorado

to submit a program amendment to

incorporate the revisions.

4. Rule 1.04(111), Definition of ‘‘Road’’

Colorado’s proposed definition of

‘‘road’’ at Rule 1.04(111) is, with one

exception, substantively identical to the

Federal definition of ‘‘road’’ at 30 CFR

701.5. The exception is that Colorado’s

rule specifically excludes ‘‘public road.’’

The Federal definition of ‘‘road’’ at 30

CFR 701.5 does not address the

regulation of public roads. However, as

discussed below, this issue has been

addressed by SMCRA, other OSM

regulations, and the court.

Section 506(a) of SMCRA provides in

part that ‘‘ * * * no person shall engage

in or carry out on lands within a State

any surface coal mining operations

unless such person has first obtained a

permit * * * ’’ (30 U.S.C. 1256(a);

emphasis added). The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 773.11(a) contain

the same requirement.

Thus, under SMCRA and the

corresponding Federal regulations a

permit is required before a person may

engage in or carry out ‘‘surface coal

mining operations.’’ Among other

things, such ‘‘operations’’ include

certain roads. Specifically, under

section 701(28)(B) of SMCRA, ‘‘surface

coal mining operations’’ include ‘‘all

lands affected by the construction of

new roads or the improvement or use of

existing roads to gain access to the site

of such activities [as are specified in

paragraph (A) of this section] and for

haulage’’ (30 U.S.C. 1291(28)(B)). The

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 700.5, in

paragraph (b) of the definition of

‘‘surface coal mining operations,’’

contain the same requirement.

In the development of the Federal

regulations, a significant issue has been

the extent to which the term ‘‘roads’’ in

the definition of ‘‘surface coal mining

operations’’ applies to public roads. In

paragraph (c) of the Federal definition of

‘‘affected area’’ at 30 CFR 701.5, OSM

previously interpreted the term

‘‘affected area’’ as not applying to roads

for which ‘‘there is substantial (more

than incidental) public use’’ (48 FR

14814, 14819, 14822; April 5, 1983),

However, that interpretation was

successfully challenged in In re

Permanent Surface Mining Regulation

Litigation (In re Permanent, 620 F Supp.

1519, 1581–82 (D.D.C. 1985), modified

sub nom., National Wildlife Federation

v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

The court (in In re Permanent) accepted

the Secretary’s premise that not every

road when used to some degree for coal

haulage or mine access falls within the

definition of ‘‘surface coal mining

operation.’’ The court then noted that,

presumably, when hauling or access are

among many uses made of a road, such

as an interstate highway, the effect from

the mining use is relatively minor, and

thus the road need not be included as

part of the surface coal mining

operation. However, the court held that

the Federal definition of ‘‘affected area’’

went beyond what is called for in

section 701(28) in exempting essentially

all public roads without regard to the

degree of effect that mining use has on

the road. Therefore, the court ruled that

roads experiencing substantial public

use may also need to be included in the

affected area on a case-by basis, based

on the extent of mining-related use.

Pursuant to court order in In re

Permanent, OSM modified its

interpretation of the extent to which

SMCRA applied to public roads.

Specifically, OSM suspended the

regulatory definition of ‘‘affected area’’

‘‘to the extent that it excludes public

roads which are included in the

definition of ‘surface coal mining

operation’s’’ (51 FR 41952, 41953;

November 20, 1986). OSM said that

‘‘[t]he suspension will have the effect of

including in the ‘affected area’ all lands

affected by the construction of new

roads or the improvement or use of

existing roads to gain access to the site

of the regulated activities or for

haulage’’ (51 FR 41953; emphasis

added).

In the preamble to the final rule

establishing, among other things,

performance standards for roads

associated with surface coal mining

operations (the November 8, 1988, roads

rule), OSM expressed concern ‘‘that

roads constructed to serve mining

operations not avoid compliance with

the performance standards by being

deeded to public entities’’ (53 FR 45190,

45193; November 8, 1988). In that

preamble, OSM also said that SMCRA

jurisdiction over mine roads is best

determined on a case-by-case basis and

did not adopt a comment that ‘‘public

roads be excluded from applicability of

the performance standards’’ (Id. at

45192). Thus, in determining which

mining-related roads are subject to

regulation, OSM currently relies on the

applicable language of the Federal

definitions of ‘‘surface coal mining

operations’’ at section 701(28) of

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 700.5. This may require, in

appropriate circumstances, that OSM

and State regulatory authorities issue,

and surface coal mine operators obtain,

permits for certain public roads.

Colorado previously submitted on

June 30, 1993, and revised on November

3, 1994, a definition of ‘‘road’’ and

implementing policy that (1) provided

for a determination of the jurisdictional

reach of its approved program into the

public road system, and (2) took into

consideration the extent and effect of

mining-related use as factors in

determining whether a road is subject to

the requirement for a permit, as

contemplated by the Federal regulations

(administrative record Nos. CO–552 and

CO–587). The Director of OSM

approved on June 1, 1994 (59 FR 28248,

administrative record No. CO–624),

Colorado’s definition of ‘‘road’’ at Rule

1.04(111), as supplemented by the

implementing policy for determining

when a public road would fall under the

jurisdiction of its program.

Colorado’s proposed definition of

‘‘road’’ at Rule 1.04(111) now under

review unconditionally excludes all

‘‘public roads’’ from regulation as a road

under Colorado’s rules and is, therefore,

less stringent and less effective that,

respectively, the Federal definitions of

‘‘surface coal mining operations’’ at

section 701(28) of SMCRA and at 30

CFR 700.5 of the Federal regulations.

The Director does not approve

Colorado’s unconditional exemption for

public roads at Rule 1.04(111). To be

consistent with SMCRA and the Federal

regulations, Colorado must revise the

definition of ‘‘road’’ at Rule 1.04(111) to

either delete the exemption for public

roads or qualify the exemption for

public roads to consider the degree of

effect that mining use has on the road.

5. Rules 104(132) and 1.05.1(1),

Definition of ‘‘Surface Coal Mining

Operations’’ and Applicability of

Colorado’s Rules

a. Deletion of allowance for a 2-acre

exemption. Colorado proposed to revise

Rule 1.05.1(1)(b), concerning

applicability of the Colorado program,

to delete allowance for an exemption for

operations affecting 2-acres or less.

As originally enacted, section 528(2)

of SMCRA exempted from the

provisions of SMCRA coal extraction
64118 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

operations affecting 2 acres or less.

However, on May 7, 1987, the President

signed Pub. L. 100–34, which repealed

this exemption and preempted any

corresponding acreage-based

exemptions included in State laws or

regulations (52 FR 21228, June 4, 1987).

Colorado’s proposed deletion of

reference to a 2-acre exemption at Rule

1.05.1(1)(b) is consistent with SMCRA

as amended to delete the 2-acre

exemption. Therefore, the Director finds

that the deletion of the 2-acre exemption

from Rule 1.05.1(1)(b) is no less

stringent than SMCRA as amended by

Public Law 100–34 and approves it.

b. Deletion of the allowance for an

exemption for extraction of coal

incidental to the extraction of other

minerals where coal does not exceed 16

and 2⁄3 percent of the mineral tonnage

removed for commercial use or sale.

Colorado proposed to revise the

definition of ‘‘surface coal mining

operations’’ at Rule 104(132) and Rule

1.05.1(1)(b), concerning applicability of

the Colorado program, by deleting an

exemption from the Colorado program

for the extraction of coal incidental to

the extraction of other minerals where

coal does not exceed 16 and 2⁄3 percent

of the tonnage of minerals removed for

purposes of commercial use or sale.

The counterpart Federal definition of

‘‘surface coal mining operations’’ at 30

CFR 700.5 and provisions for

applicability of the Federal program at

30 CFR 700.11(a)(4) include provisions

for this exemption. However, because

Colorado’s deletion of this provision

means that the Colorado program would

regulate operations extracting coal

incidental to the extraction of other

minerals where coal does not exceed 16

and 2⁄3 percent of the tonnage of

minerals removed for purposes of

commercial use or sale, Colorado’s

deletion of the provision causes its

program to be more inclusive of

operations to be regulated than does the

Federal program.

The Director finds that proposed

Rules 104(132) and 1.05.1(1)(b) are no

less effective than the respective Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 700.5 and

700.11(a)(4). The Director approves the

proposed rules.

6. Rule 2.05.3(3)(c)(iv), Permit

Application Requirements in the

Operations Plan for Roads, Conveyors,

or Rail Systems Within the Permit Area

Colorado’s proposed Rule

2.05.3(3)(c)(iv), concerning the required

description in a permit application of

the measures, other than use of a rock

headwall, to be taken to protect the inlet

end of a ditch relief culvert for roads,

conveyors, or rail systems within the

permit area, has been revised to

reference approval of the culvert design

under Rule 4.03.1(4)(e)(vi)(C).

Referenced Rule 4.03.1(4)(e)(vi)(C)

requires approval of drainage by

culverts for haul roads.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

780.37(a)(1) and 784.24(a)(1) require

that ‘‘(a) [e]ach applicant for a surface

coal mining and reclamation permit

shall submit plans and drawings for

each road, as defined in Sec. 701.5 of

this chapter, to be constructed, used, or

maintained within the proposed permit

area. The plans and drawings shall

‘‘[i]nclude a map, appropriate cross

sections, design drawings and

specifications for road widths,

gradients, surfacing materials, cuts, fill

embankments, culverts, bridges,

drainage ditches, low-water crossings,

and drainage structures.’’ There is no

Federal counterpart to Colorado’s

requirement for descriptions of

measures to protect the inlet end of a

ditch relief culverts for roads,

conveyors, or rail systems within the

permit area. The Federal regulations

concerning permit applications pertain

to all roads but include only a general

requirement for design of culverts.

However, this specificity in the

Colorado rule does not cause it to be

inconsistent with the Federal

regulations and ensures a greater degree

of environmental protection than does

the Federal regulation.

Therefore, the Director finds that

Colorado’s proposed Rule

2.05.3(3)(c)(iv) is no less effective than

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

780.37(a)(1) and 784.24(a)(1), and

approves the proposed rule.

7. Rules 2.06.8(5)(c)(i) (A) and (B),

Criteria for Determining Material

Damage to Water Quality or Quantity in

Alluvial Valley Floors

Colorado’s existing Rule 2.06.8(5)(c)(i)

specifies specific conductance, which

affects water quality and crop

production, as the particular factor to

evaluate to determine whether material

damage to surface or ground water

systems has occurred. The existing rule

requires that specific conductance be

measured by ‘‘Maas, E.V., ‘Salt

Tolerance of Plants,’ Tables 2 and 3.’’

Colorado proposes to delete from Rules

2.06.8(5)(c)(i) (A) and (B) the

requirement for the use of Maas’

publication to set crop salt tolerance

threshold values. Instead, Colorado

proposes that published research or

testing be used to establish the salt

tolerance threshold values for specific

crop yields. Colorado’s proposed rules

further require that probable increases

in specific conductance of water

supplied to an alluvial valley floor shall

not exceed the salt tolerance threshold

value of any crop grown on the alluvial

valley floor, unless the applicant

demonstrates that the projected decrease

in productivity is negligible to the

production of one or more farms.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

822.12(a)(2) essentially prohibit mining

operations from causing material

damage to the quality or quantity of

surface or ground water systems that

supply alluvial valley floors. The

Federal regulations are more general in

scope than Colorado’s rules, simply

stating that water in alluvial valleys

shall not be materially damaged by

mining. The Federal regulations do not

state how to determine that material

damage has occurred. Colorado’s

proposed Rules 2.06.8(5)(c)(i) (A) and

(B) set forth a technically acceptable

method for evaluating whether a mining

operation will damage the water system

of an alluvial valley floor.

Therefore, the Director finds that

Colorado’s proposed Rules

2.06.8(5)(c)(i) (A) and (B) are consistent

with and no less effective than the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

822.12(a)(2). The Director approves the

proposed rules.

8. Rule 3.02.3(c), Bond Liability Period

for Lands With Approved Industrial or

Commercial, or Residential Post-mining

Land Use

OSM required, at 30 CFR 906.16(g),

that Colorado amend its program by

revising Rule 3.02.3(c) to require that

prior to release of bond liability, the

permittee must demonstrate that

development of the industrial,

commercial, or residential land use has

substantially commenced and is likely

to be achieved (59 FR 62574, 62577,

finding No. 6.a, December 6, 1994,

administrative record No. CO–650).

In response to this required

amendment, Colorado proposed to

revise Rule 3.02.3(c), concerning the

bond liability period for lands with

approved industrial or commercial, or

residential post-mining land use, by

adding the phrase ‘‘until the permittee

demonstrates that development of such

land use has substantially commenced

and is likely to be achieved.’’

Colorado has satisfied the

requirement at 30 CFR 906.16(g).

Therefore, the Director finds that

Colorado’s proposed Rule 3.02.3(c) is

consistent with and no less effective

than the broad requirements of the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.13(a)(1), 816.116(b)(4), 816.133(c),

817.116(b)(4), and 817.133(c). The

Director approves proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 64119

3.02.3(c) and removes the required

amendment at 30 CFR 906.16(g).

9. Rules 3.02.4(1), 3.02.4(1)(b), and

3.02.4(2)(c)(ix), Bond Forms

a. Allowance for use of real property

as collateral bond. Colorado proposed to

revise Rule 3.02.4(1) by adding the

discretionary allowance, upon approval

of the Board, for ‘‘conditioned

acceptance of performance bonds as

described in 3.02.4(2)(c)(ix).’’ Colorado

also proposed to reinstate the previously

deleted Rule 3.02.4(2)(c)(ix), concerning

use of a perfected first-lien security

interest in real property located in

Colorado, and to recodify existing Rule

3.02.4(2)(c)(ix), concerning a person’s

right to request notification of actions

pursuant to collateral bonds, as Rule

3.02.4(2)(c)(x). The effect of these

revisions is to allow real property as an

allowable form of collateral bond in the

Colorado program.

The Federal definition of ‘‘collateral

bond’’ at 30 CFR 800.5(b)(5) provides

that a perfected, first-lien security

interest in real property, in favor of the

regulatory authority, may be used to

support a collateral bond. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 800.21(c) set forth

the conditions applicable to the use of

real property as collateral bond.

Colorado’s proposed Rules 3.02.4(1)

and 3.02.4(2)(c)(ix) are no less effective

than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.21(c). Therefore, the Director

approves proposed Rules 3.02.4(1) and

3.02.4(2)(c)(ix), and the recodification of

3.02.4(2)(c)(ix) as 3.02.4(2)(c)(x).

b. Clarification of requirements

pertaining to collateral bonds. Colorado

proposed to revise Rule 3.02.4(1)(b),

concerning the allowance for collateral

bonds, by adding a reference to Rules

3.02.4(2) (c) and (d). Existing Rule

3.02.4(2)(c) contains requirements for all

collateral bonds, and existing Rule

3.02.4(2)(d) contains requirements for

an irrevocable letters of credit, which is

a form of collateral bond specified in

Rule 3.02.4(1)(b). The reference

provides clarification that collateral

bonds are indeed subject to Rules

3.02.4(2) (c) and (d), but does not

substantively alter the implementation

of the rules.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.12 provide for the use of a surety

bond, a collateral bond, a self-bond, or

a combination of any of these bonding

methods. The Federal regulations at 30

CFR 800.21(a) sets forth the conditions

applicable to collateral bonds, except for

letters of credit, cash accounts, and real

property. The Federal regulations at 30

CFR 800.21(b) sets forth the conditions

applicable to letters of credit. There is

no reference at 30 CFR 800.12 to the

conditions applicable to each bond

form.

The Director finds that Colorado’s

revision of Rule 3.02.4(1)(b) to reference

the conditions set forth at Rules

3.02.4(2) (c) and (d) provides a degree of

specificity that is no less effective than

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.12

and 800.21 (a) and (b). The Director

approves the proposed rule.

10. Rule 3.02.4(d)(i), Irrevocable Letters

of Credit

Colorado proposed to revise Rule

3.02.4(d)(i), concerning irrevocable

letters of credit, by modifying the

requirement that the letter may only be

issued by a bank organized or

authorized to do business in the United

States ‘‘and located in the state of

Colorado,’’ to state that ‘‘the bank need

not be located in the state of Colorado

if the letter of credit can be exercised at

an affiliate or subsidiary located in the

State of Colorado.’’

The counterpart Federal regulation at

30 CFR 800.21(b)(1) requires that letters

of credit ‘‘may be issued only by a bank

organized or authorized to do business

in the United States.’’

Colorado’s proposed Rule 3.02.4(d)(i)

provides requirements for letters of

credit as forms of collateral bond that

are in addition to those provided in the

Federal program, but that are not

inconsistent with the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 800.21(b)(1). The

Director finds that proposed Rule

3.02.4(d)(i) is no less effective than the

Federal regulation at 30 CFR

800.21(b)(1). The Director approves the

proposed rule.

11. Rule 3.03.1(2)(b), Requirements for

Establishment of Vegetation Which

Must Be Demonstrated Prior to Phase II

Bond Release

Colorado proposed to revise Rule

3.03.1(2)(b), concerning requirements

for establishment of vegetation which

must be demonstrated prior to phase II

bond release, to (1) delete the

requirement that vegetation must

‘‘exhibit[s] seasonality and species

composition consistent with the

ultimate achievement of the success

standards’’ and (2) add the requirement

that vegetation must ‘‘support[s] the

approved postmining land use.’’

The seasonality and species

composition of vegetation is determined

by the approved postmining land use. In

effect, Colorado has restated the

requirement using somewhat broader

language. The counterpart Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2) does

not contain this level of specificity as it

refers only to ‘‘revegetation [that] has

been established on the regraded mined

lands in accordance with the approved

reclamation plan.’’ Colorado’s existing

Rule 4.15.8(2) requires that vegetative

cover be evaluated for determination of

revegetation success; it also requires

that the seasonality be the same as that

native to the disturbed land or that

which supports the approved

postmining land use. Therefore, the

requirement (for demonstration at phase

II bond release) that the vegetation must

support the approved postmining land

use is consistent with the Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2) and is

consistent with Colorado’s requirement

at Rule 4.15.8(2) for final determination

of revegetation success.

Colorado also proposed to review

Rule 3.03.1(2)(b) by adding the

requirement that ‘‘with the exception of

prime farmlands, evaluation of

vegetation establishment pursuant to

this paragraph is based on statistically

valid data collected during a single year

of the liability period.’’ This

requirement ensures that data collected

over several years and averaged, which

may compromise the validity of the

demonstration, could not be used.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.40(c)(2), with the exception of the

reference to other regulations

concerning prime farmlands, do not

address a time period during which the

data used to demonstrate establishment

of revegetation is collected at phase II

bond release. Colorado’s addition of the

requirement that, with the exception of

prime farmlands, the data must be

collected during a single year is not

inconsistent with the Federal

regulations.

Therefore, the Director finds that

Colorado’s proposed revisions of Rule

3.03.1(2)(b) are no less effective than the

counterpart requirements in the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2). The

Director approves the proposed rule.

12. Rule 4.15.10(3), Mine Support

Facilities and Commercial or Industrial

Postmining Land Use Designations

Colorado proposed to review Rule

4.15.10(3), concerning a variance from

the requirement for living ground cover

to control erosion for mine support

facilities located within areas where the

pre- and postmining land use is

industrial or commercial, by deleting

the requirement that the permittee

demonstrate that ‘‘retention of mine

support facilities will support the

approved post-mining land use.’’

OSM previously approved Rule

4.15.10(3) (59 FR 62574, 62578, finding

No. 6.b, December 6, 1994,

administrative record No. CO–650) as

submitted by Colorado on April 18,

1994 (administrative record No. CO–
64120 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

611). Colorado, in its ‘‘Statement of

Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and

Purpose,’’ for the April 18, 1994,

submission, cited the example of an preexisting rail loadout facility, and stated

that in such limited cases, living ground

cover could be in conflict with the

proposed use and alternative erosion

control measures such as gravel

surfacing and appropriate site grading

would effectively control erosion. While

there is no Federal counterpart to the

variance proposed in Rule 4.15.10(3),

OSM found that it was consistent with

OSM’s ten day notice appeal decisions

and did not conflict with any Federal

requirement. However, OSM is

concerned that deletion of the required

demonstration that ‘‘retention of mine

support facilities will support the

approved post-mining land use’’ may be

interpreted to allow the retention of

mine support facilities when they do

not support the approved commercial or

industrial postmining land use.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.133(a) and 817.133(a) require that

all disturbed areas shall be restored in

a timely manner to conditions that are

capable of supporting either (1) the uses

they were capable of supporting before

any mining, or (2) higher or better uses.

Because Colorado’s example

discussed in its April 18, 1994,

‘‘Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory

Authority, and Purpose’’ does not

conflict with the requirements of the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.133(a)

and 817.133(a), Colorado’s proposed

revision of Rule 4.15.10(3) does not

cause it to be less effective than the

requirements of the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 816.133(a) and 817.133(a).

Therefore, the Director approves the

proposed Rule 4.15.10(3). However, the

Director’s approval may not be

interpreted to allow retention of mine

support facilities when they do not

support the approved commercial or

industrial postmining land use.

13. Rule 4.20.3(2), Subsidence-Caused

Damages

Colorado proposed to revise Rule

4.20.3(2) to require that each person

who conducts underground mining

activities which result in subsidence

that causes material damage or reduces

the value or reasonably foreseeable use

of surface lands shall:

(a) Promptly restore or rehabilitate any

renewable resource lands for which the value

or reasonably foreseeable use has been

reduced or which have been materially

damaged. Such lands shall be restored or

rehabilitated to a condition capable of

maintaining the value and reasonably

foreseeable and appropriate uses they were

capable of supporting before subsidence, to

the extent technologically and economically

feasible.

(b)(i) Promptly repair, rehabilitate, restore,

or replace damaged occupied residential

dwellings and related structures or

noncommercial buildings; or (ii) Compensate

the owner of the damaged occupied

residential dwelling and related structure or

noncommercial building in the full amount

of the diminution in value resulting from the

subsidence. Compensation may be

accomplished by the purchase, prior to

mining, of a noncancellable, premiumprepaid insurance policy.

(c) Nothing in 4.20.3 shall be deemed to

grant or authorize an exercise of power of

condemnation or the right of eminent domain

by any person engaged in underground

mining activities.

Colorado’s proposed Rules 4.20.3(2)

(a) through (c), concerning repair of

damage to renewable resource lands and

repair or compensation of damage to

occupied residential dwellings and

related structures or noncommercial

buildings, incorporate, in part, the

revised provisions of the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 817.121

concerning subsidence-caused damages.

Colorado’s proposed Rule 4.20.3(2)(a),

concerning repair of damage to

renewable resource lands, is no less

effective than the Federal regulations,

concerning repair of damage to surface

lands, at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(1).

Colorado’s proposed Rules 4.20.3(2)(b)

(i) and (ii) are no less effective than the

Federal regulations, concerning repair

or compensation of damage to occupied

residential dwellings and related

structures or noncommercial buildings,

at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(2). Colorado’s

rules do not include the October 24,

1992, date, as do the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(2), after which the

Federal regulation became effective.

This is not an issue because Colorado

received no legitimate complaints, with

respect to this issue, between October

24, 1992, and August 1, 1995, the

promulgation effective date of this

proposed rule. There is no Federal

counterpart to Colorado’s proposed Rule

4.20.3(2)(c), concerning powers of

condemnation or right of eminent

domain by any person engaged in

underground mining activities.

However, this rule is not inconsistent

with the Federal regulations.

For these reasons, the Director finds

that Colorado’s proposed Rules 4.20.3(2)

(a) through (c) are no less effective than

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

817.121(c) (1) and (2) and approves

them.

However, the Director notes that

Colorado lacks certain counterpart

provisions to the Federal regulations

that were promulgated on March 31,

1995 (60 FR 16722). Colorado lacks (1)

definitions for ‘‘material damage,’’

‘‘non-commercial building,’’ and

‘‘occupied residential dwelling and

structures related thereto;’’ (2) rules

concerning the conditional requirement

to minimize material damage to the

extent technologically and economically

feasible to noncommercial buildings

and occupied residential dwellings and

structures related thereto; (3) rules

concerning repair or compensation

according to State law of all other

structures; (4) rules concerning

rebuttable presumption of causation by

subsidence and adjustment of bond

amount for subsidence damage; and (5)

counterparts to the Federal regulations

concerning permitting requirements for

the presubsidence survey and the

subsidence control plan.

In a future 30 CFR Part 732 letter,

OSM will notify Colorado of the

additional revisions in its program that

are necessary to be no less effective than

the revised March 31, 1995, Federal

regulations concerning subsidencecaused damages.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Following are summaries of all

substantive oral and written comments

on the proposed amendment that were

received by OSM, and OSM’s responses

to them.

1. Public Comments

OSM invited public comments on the

proposed amendment, but none were

received.

2. Federal Agency Comments

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Colorado program.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

responded on July 24, 1995, that it had

no comments on the proposed

amendment, and on October 31, 1995,

that due to budgetary constraints it was

unable to comment on the proposed

amendment (administrative record Nos.

CO–670–2 and CO–670–14).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

responded on August 1 and October 25,

1995, that Colorado’s proposed

revisions were satisfactory

(administrative record Nos. CO–670–3

and CO–670–12).

The U.S. Forest Service responded on

August 17 and November 11, 1995, that

it had no comments on Colorado’s

proposed amendment (administrative

record No. CO–670–5 and CO–670–15).

The U.S. Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA) responded on

October 24, 1995, that Colorado’s
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 64121

proposed amendment did not conflict

with current MSHA standards

(administrative record No. CO–670–11).

The U.S. Natural Resources

Conservation Service responded on

October 31, 1995, that it had no

comments on Colorado’s proposed

amendment (administrative record No.

CO–670–13).

3. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Concurrence and Comments

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

OSM is required to solicit the written

concurrence of EPA with respect to

those provisions of the proposed

program amendment that relate to air or

water quality standards promulgated

under the authority of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean

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

None of the revisions that Colorado

proposed to make in its amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards.

Therefore, OSM did not request EPA’s

concurrence.

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from EPA (administrative

record No. CO–670–1). It did not

respond to OSM’s request.

4. State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from the SHPO and ACHP

(administrative record No. CO–670–1).

Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded

to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves, with one exception

and additional requirement, Colorado’s

proposed amendment as submitted on

July 12, 1995, and as supplemented

with additional explanatory information

on September 26, 1995.

With the requirement that Colorado

further revise the definition of ‘‘road’’ at

Rule 1.04(111), the Director does not

approve, as discussed in finding No. 4,

the unconditional exemption for

regulation of public roads under

Colorado’s approved program.

The Director approves, as discussed

in:

Finding No. 1, Rules 2.03.7(1),

2.05.3(8)(c), 2.05.6(2)(iii)(A), 2.07.2,

3.02.4(1)(d), and 4.08.6(1), concerning

nonsubstantive revisions to previously

approved rules that consist of editorial

revisions;

Finding No. 2, Rules 1.04(80),

1.04(92), and 3.02.2(5), concerning

substantive revisions to previously

approved rules that are substantively

identical to the Federal regulations;

Finding No. 3, Rules 1.04(21),

2.03.3(4), and 2.06.6(2), concerning the

definition of ‘‘coal,’’ water quality

sampling and laboratory analyses, and

application contents for prime farmland;

Finding No. 5, Rules 104(132) and

1.05.1(1), concerning the definition of

‘‘surface coal mining operations’’ and

the applicability of Colorado’s rules;

Finding No. 6, Rule 2.05.3(3)(c)(iv),

concerning permit application

requirements in the operations plan for

roads, conveyors, or rail systems within

the permit area;

Finding No. 7, Rules 2.06.8(5)(c)(i) (A)

and (B), concerning criteria for

determining material damage to water

quality or quantity in alluvial valley

floors;

Finding No. 8, Rule 3.02.3(c),

concerning bond liability period for

lands with approved industrial or

commercial, or residential post-mining

land use;

Finding No. 9, Rules 3.02.4(1),

3.02.4(1)(b), and 3.02.4(2)(c)(ix),

concerning bond forms;

Finding No. 10, Rule 3.02.4(d)(i),

concerning irrevocable letters of credit;

Finding No. 11, Rule 3.03.1(2)(b),

concerning requirements for

establishment of vegetation which must

be demonstrated prior to phase II bond

release;

Finding No. 12, Rule 4.15.10(3),

concerning mine support facilities and

commercial or industrial postmining

land use designations as augmented by

Colorado’s April 18, 1994, ‘‘Statement of

Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and

Purpose;’’ and

Finding No. 13, Rule 4.20.3(2),

concerning subsidence-caused damages.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 906, codifying decisions concerning

the Colorado program, are being

amended to implement this decision.

This final rule is being made effective

immediately to expedite the State

program amendment process and to

encourage States to bring their programs

into conformity with the Federal

standards without undue delay.

Consistency of State and Federal

standards is required by SMCRA.

Effect of Director’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

alteration of an approved State program

be submitted to OSM for review as a

program amendment. Thus, any changes

to the State program are not enforceable

until approved by OSM. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit

any unilateral changes to approved State

programs. In the oversight of the

Colorado program, the Director will

recognize only the statutes, regulations

and other materials approved by OSM,

together with any consistent

implementing policies, directives and

other materials, and will require the

enforcement by Colorado of only such

provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such 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.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

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

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a
64122 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 906

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: December 5, 1995.

Richard J. Seibel,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 906—COLORADO

1. The authority citation for Part 906

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 906.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:

§ 906.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(s) With the exception of Rule

1.04(111), concerning the exemption for

public roads in the definition of ‘‘road,’’

revisions to the following rules, as

submitted to OSM on June 12, 1995, and

as supplemented with explanatory

information on September 26, 1995, are

approved effective December 14, 1995:

Definition of ‘‘coal’’—Rule 1.04(21),

Definition of ‘‘operator’’—Rule 1.04(80),

Definition of ‘‘person’’—Rule 1.04(92),

Definition of ‘‘road’’—Rule 1.04(111),

Definition of ‘‘surface coal mining

operations’’—Rule 104(132),

Applicability of the Colorado program—

Rule 1.05.1(1)(b),

Water quality sampling and laboratory

analyses—Rule 2.03.3(4),

Lands unsuitable for surface coal

mining operations—Rule 2.03.7(1),

Permit application information

regarding the measures, other than

use of a rock headwall, to be taken to

protect the inlet end of a ditch relief

culvert for roads, conveyors, or rail

systems within the permit area—Rule

2.05.3(3)(c)(iv),

Design of coal processing waste dams

and embankments—Rule 2.05.3(8)(c),

Permit application contents of the fish

and wildlife plan—Rule

2.05.6(2)(iii)(A),

Permit application contents for prime

farmland—Rule 2.06.6(2),

The use of published research or testing

to establish the salt tolerance

threshold values for specific crop

yields in order to assess material

damage to the quality or quantity of

surface or ground water systems that

supply alluvial valley floors—Rules

2.06.8(5)(c)(i) (A) and (B),

Public participation and approval of

permit applications—Rule 2.07.2,

Reductions in the required performance

bond amount—Rule 3.02.2(5),

Bond liability period for lands with

approved industrial or commercial, or

residential post-mining land use—

Rule 3.02.3(c),

Bond forms—Rule 3.02.4(1),

3.02.4(1)(b), and 3.02.4(2)(c)(ix),

Alternative bonding systems—Rule

3.02.4(1)(d),

Irrevocable letters of credit—Rule

3.02.4(d)(i),

Requirements for establishment of

vegetation which must be

demonstrated prior to phase ii bond

release—Rule 3.03.1(2)(b),

Airblast limitations—Rule 4.08.6(1),

Mine support facilities and commercial

or industrial postmining land use

designations—Rule 4.15.10(3), as

augmented by Colorado’s April 18,

1994, ‘‘Statement of Basis, Specific

Statutory Authority, and Purpose,’’

and

Subsidence-caused damages—Rule

4.20.3(2).

3. Section 906.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (g)

and adding paragraph (h) to read as

follows:

§ 906.16 Required program amendments.

* * * * *

(h) By February 12, 1996, Colorado

shall revise Rule 1.04(111), to delete the

exemption for regulation of public roads

under Colorado’s program, or otherwise

modify its program to qualify the

exemption for public roads to consider

the degree of effect that mining use has

on the road.

[FR Doc. 95–30331 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW

BOARD

36 CFR Part 1415

Rules Implementing the Privacy Act

AGENCY: Assassination Records Review

Board.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This part contains the

regulations of the Assassination Records

Review Board (Review Board)

implementing the Privacy Act of 1974.

The regulations inform the public that

the Review Board is responsible for

carrying out the provisions of the

Privacy Act and for issuing internal

Review Board orders and directives in

connection with the Privacy Act. These

regulations apply to all records that are

contained in systems of records

maintained by the Review Board and

that are retrieved by an individual’s

name or personal identifier. Elsewhere

in today’s Federal Register appears a

notice describing the Review Board’s

systems of records.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is

effective January 16, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.

Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel,

Assassination Records Review Board,

600 E Street NW., 2nd Floor,

Washington, DC 20530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 3(f) of the Privacy Act of

1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(f), requires each

Federal agency to promulgate rules that

set forth procedures by which

individuals can examine and request

correction of agency records containing

personal information. The Review

Board, established by the President John

F. Kennedy Assassination Records

Collection Act of 1992, is therefore

obligated to publish such regulations.

Because Privacy Act regulations are

intended for use by the general public,

the Review Board has tried to keep its

rule simple and straightforward. Some

aspects of the Privacy Act dealing solely

with the Review Board’s internal

procedures and safeguards may be dealt

with by directive to the Review Board’s

staff rather than by rule.

Notice and Comment Process

The Review Board received no public

comments in response to its Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking. The staff, in

consultation with the Office of

Management and Budget, proposed

some technical amendments to the

regulations. The following changes have

been incorporated into the final rule: