Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15675

§ 0.161 Acceptance of certain offers by the

Deputy Attorney General or Associate

Attorney General, as appropriate.

(a) In all cases in which the

acceptance of a proposed offer in

compromise would exceed the authority

delegated by § 0.160, the Assistant

Attorney General concerned shall, when

he is of the opinion that the proposed

offer should be accepted, transmit his

recommendation to that effect to the

Deputy Attorney General or the

Associate Attorney General, as

appropriate.

(b) The Deputy Attorney General or

the Associate Attorney General, as

appropriate, is authorized to exercise

the settlement authority of the Attorney

General as to all claims asserted by or

against the United States.

4. Section 0.164 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 0.164 Civil claims that may be closed by

Assistant Attorneys General.

Assistant Attorneys General are

authorized, with respect to matters

assigned to their respective divisions, to

close (other than by compromise or by

entry of judgment) claims asserted by

the United States in all cases in which

they would have authority to accept

offers in compromise of such claims

under § 0.160(a), except:

(a) When for any reason, the closing

of a particular claim would, as a

practical matter, control or adversely

influence the disposition of other claims

and the closing of all the claims taken

together would exceed the authority

delegated by this section; or

(b) When the Assistant Attorney

General concerned is of the opinion that

because of a question of law or policy

presented, or because of opposition to

the proposed closing by the department

or agency involved, or for any other

reason, the proposed closing should

receive the personal attention of the

Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney

General or the Associate Attorney

General, as appropriate.

5. Section 0.165 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 0.165 Recommendations to the Deputy

Attorney General or Associate Attorney

General, as appropriate, that certain claims

be closed.

In all cases in which the closing of a

claim asserted by the United States

would exceed the authority delegated by

§§ 0.160(a) and 0.164, the Assistant

Attorney General concerned shall, when

he is of the opinion that the claim

should be closed, transmit his

recommendation to that effect, together

with a report on the matter, to the

Deputy Attorney General or the

Associate Attorney General, as

appropriate, for review and final action.

Such report shall be in such form as the

Deputy Attorney General or the

Associate Attorney General may require.

6. Section 0.168 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 0.168 Redelegation by Assistant

Attorneys General.

(a) Assistant Attorneys General are

authorized, with respect to matters

assigned to their respective divisions, to

redelegate to subordinate division

officials and United States Attorneys

any of the authority delegated by

§§ 0.160 (a) and (b), 0.162, 0.164, and

0.172(b), except that any disagreement

between a United States Attorney or

other Department attorney and a client

agency over a proposed settlement that

cannot be resolved below the Assistant

Attorney General level must be

presented to the Assistant Attorney

General for resolution.

(b) Redelegations of authority under

this section shall be in writing and shall

be approved by the Deputy Attorney

General or the Associate Attorney

General, as appropriate, before taking

effect.

(c) Existing delegations and

redelegations of authority to subordinate

division officials and United States

Attorneys to compromise or close civil

claims shall continue in effect until

modified or revoked by the respective

Assistant Attorneys General.

(d) Subject to the limitations set forth

in § 0.160(c) and paragraph (a) of this

section, redelegations by the Assistant

Attorneys General to United States

Attorneys may include the authority to:

(1) Accept offers in compromise of

claims asserted by the United States in

all cases in which the gross amount of

the original claim does not exceed

$5,000,000 and in which the difference

between the original claim and the

proposed settlement does not exceed

$1,000,000; and

(2) Accept offers in compromise of, or

settle administratively, claims against

the United States in all cases in which

the principal amount of the proposed

settlement does not exceed $1,000,000.

Dated: March 21, 1995.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 95–07460 Filed 3–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 943

Texas Permanent Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of proposed

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing its

decision to approve, with certain

additional requirements, a proposed

amendment to the Texas permanent

regulatory program (hereinafter, the

Texas program) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The proposed

amendment consisted of changes to

Texas’ existing rules pertaining to

identification of interests and

compliance information, review of

permit applications, criteria for permit

approval or denial, and Railroad

Commission of Texas (Commission)

review of outstanding permits. The

amendment was intended to revise the

Texas program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James H. Moncrief, telephone: (918)

581–6430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Texas Program.

II. Proposed Amendment.

III. Director’s Findings.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments.

V. Director’s Decision.

VI. Procedural Determinations.

I. Background on the Texas Program

On February 16, 1980, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Texas program. General background

information on the Texas program

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval of the Texas

program can be found in the February

27, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR

12998). Subsequent actions concerning

the Texas program and program

amendments are codified at 30 CFR

943.15 and 943.16.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated May 24, 1994

(Administrative Record No. TX–576),

Texas submitted to OSM a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA. Texas submitted the proposed

amendment in response to the required

amendments codified at 30 CFR 943.16
15676 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(c) (1) and (2), (d), (f), (j) (1), (2), (3), and

(4), (r), and (s) (59 FR 13200, March 21,

1994). The provisions of the Texas Coal

Mining Regulations (TCMR) at 16 Texas

Administrative Code (TAC) 11.221 and

of the Texas Surface Coal Mining and

Reclamation Act (TSCMRA) at Article

5920–11 of the Texas Revised Civil

Statutes Annotated that Texas proposed

to amend were: TCMR 778.116(m),

identification of interests and

compliance information; TCMR 786.215

(e)(1) and (f), review of permit

applications; TCMR 786.216 (i) through

(o), criteria for permit approval or

denial; TCMR 788.225 (f) through (i),

commission review of outstanding

permits; and section 21(c) of TSCMRA,

reporting notices of violations in permit

applications.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the June 30,

1994, Federal Register (59 FR 33705),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (Administrative Record

No. TX–576.07). Because no one

requested a public hearing or meeting,

none was held.

The public comment period ended

August 1, 1994.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to the

provisions of Texas’ regulations and

statute at TCMR 778.116(m),

identification of interests and

compliance information; TCMR

786.215(e)(1), review of permit

applications; TCMR 788.225(g),

Commission review of outstanding

permits; and section 21(c) of TSCMRA,

reporting notices of violations in permit

applications. OSM notified Texas of the

concerns by letter dated August 11,

1994 (Administrative Record No. TX–

576.12).

Texas responded in a letter dated

October 6, 1994, by submitting a revised

amendment (Administrative Record No.

TX–576.13). Texas proposed further

revisions to TCMR 778.116(m),

identification of interests and

compliance information; TCMR

786.215(e)(1), review of permit

applications; and TCMR 788.225(g),

Commission review of outstanding

permits. Texas also proposed to recodify

previously proposed TCMR 788.225 (h)

and (i), respectively, as TCMR

788.226(g)(2) and (h). Texas also stated

that it was not, at this time, proposing

any formal program amendment

pertaining to section 21(c) of TSCMRA.

Therefore, OSM considers section 21(c)

of TSCMRA to be withdrawn from

consideration in this amendment, and

the required amendment at 30 CFR

943.16(r) remains outstanding.

Based upon the revisions to the

proposed program amendment

submitted by Texas, OSM reopened the

public comment period in the October

27, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 53949,

Administrative Record No. TX–576.20).

The public comment period ended

November 14, 1994.

III. Director’s Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in

accordance with SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, finds, with two

additional requirements, that the

proposed regulation revisions submitted

by Texas on May 24, 1994, and as

further revised on October 6, 1994, are

consistent with the corresponding

provisions of the Federal regulations.

Accordingly, the Director approves the

proposed regulation revisions.

In taking this action, the Director

notes that, effective November 28, 1994,

OSM revised the Federal regulations at

30 CFR Parts 701, 773, 778, 840, and

843 pertaining to the applicant/violator

computer system (AVS) and procedures

for ownership and control

determinations (59 FR 54306, October

28, 1994). Also, effective November 28,

1994, the Office of Hearings and

Appeals revised related Federal

regulations at 43 CFR part 4, subpart L,

pertaining to special rules applicable to

surface coal mining hearings and

appeals (59 FR 54356, October 28,

1994). By letter dated January 18, 1995,

OSM notified Texas of these revisions to

the Federal regulations (Administrative

Record No. TX–585). The Director’s

action in this amendment does not

relieve Texas from the need to further

amend its regulations to comply with

other provisions in the revised Federal

regulations. When OSM determines

which Texas regulation provisions

pertaining to AVS and ownership and

control must be amended to be no less

effective than the revised Federal

regulations, it will notify Texas in

accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(d).

1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to Texas’

Regulations

Texas proposed to recodify its

previously-approved right of appeal

regulation at TCMR 788.225(g)

(corresponding Federal regulation at 30

CFR 773.21) as TCMR 788.225(h).

Because the proposed recodification

of this previously-approved regulation

is nonsubstantive in nature, the Director

finds that this proposed recodification is

not inconsistent with SMCRA or the

Federal regulations. The Director

approves this proposed recodification.

2. Substantive Revisions to Texas’

Regulations That Are Substantively

Identical to the Corresponding

Provisions of the Federal Regulations

In response to the required

amendments at 30 CFR 943.16(j)(1)

through (3) (finding No. 4(b), 59 FR

13200, 13205, March 21, 1994), Texas

proposed revisions to the following

regulations that are substantive in

nature and contain language that is

substantively identical to the

corresponding Federal regulation

provisions (listed in parentheses).

TCMR 788.225(f) (3) and (4) (30 CFR

773.20(c)(1)(iii) and (iv)), remedial

measures,

TCMR 788.225(g) and (g)(1) (i) through (iv)

(30 CFR 773.21 and 773.21(a)(1) through

(4)), rescission procedures, and

TCMR 788.225(g)(2) (30 CFR 773.21(b),

cessation of operations.

Because these proposed revisions to

Texas’ regulations are substantively

identical to the corresponding

provisions of the Federal regulations,

the Director finds that they are no less

effective in meeting SMCRA’s

requirements than the corresponding

provisions of the Federal regulations.

The Director approves these regulation

revisions and removes the required

amendments at 30 CFR 943.16(j)(1)

through (3).

3. TCMR 778.116(m), Identification of

Interests and Compliance Information

In response to the required

amendments at 30 CFR 943.16(c)(1) and

(2) (finding No. 2, 59 FR 13200, 13201–

13203, March 21, 1994), Texas proposed

to revise TCMR 778.116(m) to require

that a permit application must include,

For any violations of a provision of the Act,

Federal Act and its implementing Federal

regulations and all Federal and state

programs under the Federal Act, or of any

law, rule or regulation of the United States,

or of any [State] state law, rule or regulation

enacted pursuant to Federal law, rule, or

regulation pertaining to air or water

environmental protection * * * a list of all

violation notices received by the applicant

during the three year period preceding the

application date, and a list of all unabated

cessation orders and unabated air and water

quality violation notices received prior to the

date of the application * * *.

Texas proposed to add the italicized

language and to delete the bracketed

language.

The corresponding Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 778.14(c), through

the Federal definition of ‘‘violation

notice’’ at 30 CFR 773.5, require that a

permit application must include

information on violation notices

received pursuant to SMCRA, SMCRA’s

implementing Federal regulations, a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15677

State program, or any Federal or State

law, rule, or regulation pertaining to air

or water environmental protection.

At TCMR 700.003(1), Texas defines

the term ‘‘Act’’ to mean the ‘‘Texas

Surface Coal Mining Control and

Reclamation Act’’ and at TCMR

700.003(10) defines the term ‘‘Federal

Act’’ to mean the ‘‘Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(Pub. L. 95–87).’’ Therefore, when Texas

requires, at proposed TCMR 778.116(m),

that a permit application include

information ‘‘for any violations of a

provision of the Act, Federal Act and its

implementing Federal regulations and

all Federal * * * programs approved

under the Federal Act,’’ it requires a

permit application to include

information regarding violations of

TSCMRA, SMCRA, SMCRA’s

implementing regulations, and SMCRAapproved Federal programs (OSM–

administered Indian lands program and

Federal programs for States).

Furthermore, in a previously

proposed and approved amendment

(Administrative Record No. TX–562),

Texas stated that the word ‘‘State,’’

when capitalized, refers to Texas and,

when uncapitalized, refers to all States

within the United States of America.

Therefore, where Texas requires, at

proposed TCMR 778.116(m),

information for ‘‘violations of a

provision of * * * all * * * state

programs approved under the Federal

Act,’’ it requires a permit application to

include information regarding violations

of all SMCRA-approved State programs,

not just the Texas program.

Likewise, where proposed TCMR

778.116(m) requires information on

violations ‘‘of any state law, rule or

regulation enacted pursuant to Federal

law, rule or regulation pertaining to air

or water environmental protection,’’ it

requires a permit application to include

information regarding violations of a

law, rule or regulation of any State,

including Texas, enacted pursuant to

Federal law, rule or regulation

pertaining to air or water environmental

protection. However, the corresponding

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.14(c),

through the definition of ‘‘violation

notice’’ at 30 CFR 773.5, require

information on violation notices of all

State laws, rules, and regulations

pertaining to air or water environmental

protection, not just those enacted

pursuant to Federal law, rule, or

regulation.

Because proposed TCMR 778.116(m)

limits the information about violation

notices required in a permit

applications to violations of those State

laws, rules, and regulations pertaining

to air or water environmental protection

that are enacted pursuant to Federal

law, rule, or regulation, the Director

finds that proposed TCMR 778.116(m) is

less effective in meeting SMCRA’s

requirements than the corresponding

provisions of the Federal regulation at

30 CFR 778.14(c). Therefore, the

Director requires Texas to further revise

TCMR 778.116(m) to require a permit

application to include information on

all violations of any State law, rule or

regulation that pertains to air or water

environmental protection, not just those

violations that were enacted pursuant to

Federal law, rule, or regulation.

Otherwise, for the reasons discussed

above, the Director approves the

proposed addition of the phrase ‘‘and its

implementing Federal regulations and

all Federal and state programs under the

Federal Act’’ and the use of the word

‘‘state,’’ uncapitalized, in place of the

word ‘‘State’’ capitalized, and removes

the required amendments at 30 CFR

943.16(c) (1) and (2).

4. TCMR 786.215 (e)(1), and (f), and

786.216(i), Review of Permit Application

(a) TCMR 786.215(e)(1). In response to

the required amendment at 30 CFR

943.16(d), Texas proposed to revise

TCMR 786.215(e)(1) to require the

Commission to consider, as a basis for

permit denial, information on ‘‘state’’

failure-to-abate cessation orders and

unabated imminent harm cessation

orders (finding No. 3(a), 59 FR 13200,

13202, March 21, 1994).

Texas proposed to revise TCMR

786.215(e)(1) by inserting the word

‘‘state,’’ uncapitalized, in place of

‘‘State,’’ capitalized. As discussed in

finding No. 3, Texas stated in a

previously proposed and approved

amendment (Administrative Record No.

TX–562) that the word ‘‘State,’’ when

capitalized, refers to Texas and, when

uncapitalized, refers to all States within

the United States of America. Thus,

where proposed TCMR 786.215(e)(1)

requires the Commission to consider

information on ‘‘state’’ failure-to-abate

cessation orders and unabated ‘‘state’’

imminent harm cessation orders, it

means cessation order and violation

notices incurred in all States, including

those incurred in Texas.

The corresponding Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 773.15(b)(1),

through the definition of ‘‘violation

notice’’ at 30 CFR 773.5, require, in part,

that the regulatory authority consider

information on State failure-to-abate

cessation orders and unabated State

imminent harm cessation orders

incurred in all States, not just those

incurred in the State where the

application is submitted.

Because revised TCMR 786.215(e)(1)

requires, as does the Federal regulation

at 30 CFR 773.15(b)(1), that the State

regulatory authority consider, as a basis

for permit denial, cessation orders

incurred by a permit applicant in all

States, the Director finds that the

proposed revisions to TCMR

786.215(e)(1) are no less effective in

meeting SMCRA’s requirements than

the corresponding provisions of the

Federal regulation at 30 CFR

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

proposed use of the word ‘‘state,’’

uncapitalized, in place of the word

‘‘State,’’ capitalized, at TCMR

786.215(e)(1) and removes the required

amendment at 30 CFR 943.16(d).

(b) TCMR 786.215(f). In response to

the required amendment at 30 CFR

943.16(f) (finding No. 3(b), 59 FR 13200,

13203, March 21, 1994), Texas proposed

to revise TCMR 786.215(f) to require, in

part, that,

Before any final determination by the

Commission that the applicant, anyone who

owns or controls the applicant, or the

operator specified in the application, controls

or has controlled mining operations with a

demonstrated pattern of willful violation of

the Act or Federal Act and its implementing

Federal regulations and all Federal and state

programs approved under the Federal Act or

Federal or state laws as used in 30 CFR

773.15(b) of such nature, duration, and with

such resulting irreparable damage to the

environment that indicates an intent not to

comply with the provisions of the Act or

Federal Act and its implementing Federal

regulations and all Federal and state

programs approved under the Federal Act or

Federal or state laws as used in 30 CFR

773.15(b), no permit shall be issued and

[before] a hearing shall be held [and a final

determination that no pattern of willful

violations exists]. * * * The Commission

shall deny an application after a

determination has been made that a pattern

of willful violations exists.

Texas proposed to add the italicized

language and to delete the bracketed

language. The proposed regulation

further provides that the applicant or

operator shall be afforded the

opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing

in accordance with TCMR 787.222.

Section 510(c) of SMCRA and the

Federal regulation at 30 CFR

773.15(b)(3) prohibit issuance of a

permit when the regulatory authority

makes a finding that the applicant,

anyone who owns or controls the

applicant, or the operator specified in

the application, controls or has

controlled surface coal mining and

reclamation operations with a

demonstrated pattern of willful

violations of the Act of such nature and

duration, and with resulting irreparable

damage to the environment, as to
15678 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

indicate an intent not to comply with

the Act. The term ‘‘Act,’’ as used in

section 510(c) of SMCRA and 30 CFR

773.15(b)(3), includes SMCRA, its

implementing Federal regulations, and

all Federal and State programs approved

under SMCRA (48 FR 44344, 44389,

September 28, 1983). The Federal

regulation also requires that the

applicant or operator be given an

opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing

on the determination, as provided for at

30 CFR 775.11, before such a finding

becomes final.

As discussed in finding No. 3, Texas

defines the term ‘‘Act’’ to mean the

‘‘Texas Surface Coal Mining Control and

Reclamation Act’’ and defines the term

‘‘Federal Act’’ to mean the ‘‘Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (Pub. L. 95–87).’’ Therefore, where

proposed TCMR 786.215(f) requires the

Commission to consider as a

demonstrated pattern of willful

violation of or as an intent not to

comply with the provisions of ‘‘the Act

or Federal Act and its implementing

Federal regulations and all Federal

* * * programs approved under the

Federal Act,’’ it refers to violations of

provisions of TSCMRA, SMCRA,

SMCRA’s implementing regulations,

and SMCRA-approved Federal programs

(OSM-administered Indian lands

program and Federal programs for

States).

As also discussed in finding No. 3,

Texas stated in a previously proposed

and approved amendment

(Administrative Record No. TX–562)

that the word ‘‘State,’’ when capitalized,

refers to Texas and, when uncapitalized,

refers to all States within the United

States of America. Therefore, where

proposed TCMR 786.215(f) requires the

Commission to consider ‘‘state programs

approved under the Federal Act’’ it

means the SMCRA programs of any

State within the United States of

America, not just the Texas program.

Proposed TCMR 786.215(f) also requires

the Commission, when determining

whether a pattern of violations exists, to

consider, in part, violations of ‘‘Federal

or state laws as used in 30 CFR

773.15(b).’’ The Federal regulations at

30 CFR 773.15(b)(1) require the

regulatory authority to consider, as a

basis for permit denial, information

concerning, among other things,

violations of SMCRA, any Federal rule

or regulation promulgated pursuant to

SMCRA, a State program, and any

Federal or State law, rule, or regulation

pertaining to air or water environmental

protection. Because the State provision

already specifically encompasses

violations of TSCMRA, SMCRA,

SMCRA’s implementing regulations,

and SMCRA-approved Federal and State

programs, the proposed phrase ‘‘Federal

or state laws as used in 30 CFR

773.15(b)’’ must refer only to Federal

and State laws, rules, and regulations

pertaining to air or water environmental

protection.

However, the provision of the Federal

regulations dealing with pattern of

willful violation determinations, 30 CFR

773.15(b)(3), does not require the

regulatory authority to consider nonSMCRA violations of Federal and State

laws, rules, or regulations pertaining to

air or water environmental protection.

The regulatory authority is required to

consider only violations of SMCRA, its

implementing Federal regulations, and

SMCRA-approved Federal and State

programs. Thus, the proposed phrase

would require the Commission to

consider, when determining whether a

pattern of violation exists, a larger set of

violations than is required by the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

773.15(b)(3), thereby increasing the

possibility that a pattern of willful

violations exists.

In accordance with section 505(b) of

SMCRA and 30 CFR 730.11(b), a State

regulatory authority has the discretion

to impose land use and environmental

controls and regulations on surface coal

mining and reclamation operations that

are more stringent than those imposed

under SMCRA and the Federal

regulations or for which no Federal

counterpart exists. Section 505(b) of

SMCRA and 30 CFR 730.11(b)

provisions dictate that such State

provisions shall not be construed to be

inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal

regulations. Therefore, the Director

approves the proposed revisions at

TCMR 786.215(f) and removes the

required amendment at 30 CFR

943.16(f).

(c) TCMR 786.216(i). In response to

the required amendment at 30 CFR

943.16(s) (finding No. 3(b), 59 FR 13200,

13203, March 21, 1994), Texas proposed

to delete existing TCMR 786.216(i) and

recodify existing paragraphs (j) through

(o), respectively, as paragraphs (i)

through (n). Existing TCMR 786.216 sets

forth criteria for permit approval or

denial, and TCMR 786.216(i) provides

that the Commission shall not approve

an application for a permit or permit

revision unless the application

affirmatively demonstrates and the

Commission finds, in writing, that a

pattern of willful violations of TSCMRA

does not exist.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

773.15(c) pertain to written findings

required for permit application

approval. These regulations do not

require the regulatory authority to make,

as a condition for permit approval, a

written finding that a demonstrated

pattern of willful violations of the Act

does not exist. However, the Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 773.15(b)(3)

prohibits issuance of a permit if the

regulatory authority finds that the

applicant, anyone who owns or controls

the applicant, or the operator specified

in the application, controls or has

controlled surface coal mining and

reclamation operations with a

demonstrated pattern of willful

violations of SMCRA of such nature and

duration, and with resulting irreparable

damage to the environment as to

indicate an intent not to comply with

SMCRA. As discussed in finding No.

4(b), Texas has proposed at TCMR

786.215(f) requirements for patterns of

willful violations of SMCRA and

TSCMRA that are no less effective than

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

773.15(b)(3).

Because the Federal regulations do

not require the regulatory authority to

make, as a condition for permit

approval, a written finding that a

demonstrated pattern of willful

violations of the Act does not exist and

because Texas has proposed at TCMR

786.215(f) requirements concerning the

existence of a pattern of willful

violations of SMCRA and TSCMRA that

are no less effective than the Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 773.15(b)(3), the

Director finds that the provisions of

deleted TCMR 786.216(i) are duplicative

and unnecessary. Also, because

recodification does not alter the content

or meaning of the recodified regulations,

the Director finds that the proposed

recodification of TCMR 786.216 (j)

through (o) as (i) through (n) is not

inconsistent with any Federal

requirements. Therefore, the Director (1)

approves the deletion of TCMR

786.216(i) and the recodification of the

remaining paragraphs of section .216

and (2) removes the required

amendment at 30 CFR 943.16(s).

5. TCMR 788.225(g)(1), Automatic

Suspension and Rescission

In response to the required

amendment at 30 CFR 943.16(j)(4),

Texas proposed to revise TCMR

788.225(g)(1) to require that, after a

specified period of time not to exceed

90 days after the Commission has served

on the permittee a notice of a proposed

suspension and rescission, the permit

will automatically become suspended

and, after a subsequent period not to

exceed 90 days, the permit will

automatically be rescinded, unless the

permittee submits adequate proof for the

Commission to find that the permit

should not be suspended or rescinded.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15679

The corresponding Federal regulation

at 30 CFR 773.21(a) provides that,

After a specified period of time not to

exceed 90 days the permit automatically will

become suspended, and not to exceed 90

days thereafter rescinded, unless within

those periods the permittee submits proof,

and the regulatory authority finds, consistent

with the provisions of § 773.25 of this part,

that * * *.’’

With one exception, proposed TCMR

788.225(g)(1) is substantively identical

the corresponding Federal regulations at

30 CFR 773.21(a). The exception is that

proposed TCMR 788.225(g)(1) does not

include provisions equivalent to those

provided by the Federal phrase

‘‘consistent with the provisions of

§ 773.25.’’ 30 CFR 773.25 specifies

standards for challenging ownership

and control links and the status of

violations. The Texas program does not

have a direct counterpart to the Federal

standards for challenging ownership

and control links and the status of

violations at 30 CFR 773.25 or to other

requirements referred to at 30 CFR

773.25.

Therefore, the Director finds that the

proposed revisions to TCMR

788.225(g)(1) are less effective than the

corresponding Federal provisions at 30

CFR 773.21(a). The Director approves

the proposed revisions to TCMR

788.225(g)(1) and removes the required

amendment at 30 CFR 743.16(j)(4).

However, the Director requires Texas to

further revise TCMR 788.225(g)(1), or

otherwise revise the Texas program, to

require that the Commission’s findings

with regard to a permittee’s challenge of

the Commission’s decision to suspend

and rescind an improvidently issued

permit must be consistent with the

provisions of the Federal requirements

at 30 CFR 773.25.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Following are summaries of all

substantive 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. In response to

OSM’s invitation, the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission

responded on July 5, 1994, that it

supported the proposed changes and on

November 7, 1994, that it had no

comment on the proposed changes

(Administrative Record Nos. TX–576.08

and TX–576.21).

The Texas Department of Health

responded on June 16, 1994, that it

supported the proposed changes to the

Railroad Commission of Texas’ coal

mining and reclamation regulatory

program (Administrative Record No.

TX–576.05).

2. Federal Agency Comments

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

OSM solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from various

Federal agencies with an actual or

potential interest in the Texas program.

The Bureau of Land Management

responded on October 31, 1994, that it

had no comments on the revised

submittal (Administrative Record No.

TX–576.18).

The Bureau of Mines responded on

June 14, 1994, and October 31, 1994,

that it had no comments

(Administrative Record Nos. TX–576.03

and TX–576.19).

The Forest Service responded on June

15, 1994, that it had no comments to

offer and on October 20, 1994, that it

had no additions or corrections to offer

(Administrative Record Nos. TX–576.04

and TX–576.15).

The Soil Conservation Service

responded on June 22, 1994, that the

proposed amendment should have no

adverse effect on the technical aspects

of reconstruction or reclamation and on

October 20, 1994, that it had no

comments on the proposal

(Administrative Record Nos. TX–576.06

and TX–576.16).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

responded on June 8, 1994, and October

25, 1994, that it found the amendment

satisfactory to that agency

(Administrative Record Nos. TX–576.02

and TX–576.17).

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 Texas

proposed to make in its amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards.

Therefore, OSM did not request EPA’s

concurrence.

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

OSM solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from EPA, Region

VI (Administrative Record No. TX–

576.14). EPA did not respond to OSM’s

request.

4. State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP) Comments

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from the SHPO and ACHP

(Administrative Record No. TX–576.14).

Neither responded to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves, with two additional

requirements, the proposed revisions as

submitted by Texas on May 24, 1994,

and as further revised by it on October

6, 1994.

The Director approves (1) as

discussed in finding No. 1, the

recodification of existing TCMR

788.225(g) as paragraph (h), concerning

right of appeal and (2) as discussed in

finding No. 2, the proposed revisions to

TCMR 788.225(f) (3) and (4), (g), (g)(1)

(i) through (iv), and (g)(2), concerning

Commission review of outstanding

permits; finding No. 4a, the proposed

use of the word ‘‘state,’’ uncapitalized,

in place of the word ‘‘State,’’

capitalized, at TCMR 786.215(e)(1),

review of permit applications; finding

No. 4b, the proposed revisions to TCMR

786.215(f) concerning patterns of willful

violations; and finding No. 4c, the

deletion of TCMR 786.216(i) and the

recodification of existing TCMR 786.216

(j) through (o), respectively, as TCMR

786.216 (i) through (n), concerning

criteria for permit approval or denial.

With the requirement that Texas

further revise its rules, the Director

approves, as discussed in finding No. 3,

the proposed addition of the phrase

‘‘and its implementing Federal

regulations and all Federal and state

programs under the Federal Act’’ and

the use of the word ‘‘state,’’

uncapitalized, in place of the word

‘‘State’’ capitalized, at TCMR

778.116(m), concerning identification of

interests and compliance information;

and finding No. 5, the proposed

revisions to TCMR 788.225(g)(1),

concerning Commission review of

outstanding reports.

The Director approves the revisions

proposed by Texas with the provision

that they be fully promulgated in

identical form to the revisions

submitted to and reviewed by OSM and

the public.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

part 943, codifying decisions concerning

the Texas 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
15680 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

conformity with the Federal standards

without undue delay. Consistency of

State and Federal standards is required

by SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This final rule is exempted from

review by the Office of Management and

Budget 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

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 (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 effect on a

substantial number of a 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.

Hence, 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 943

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 21, 1995.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Assistant Director, Western Support

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 943—TEXAS

1. The authority citation for part 943

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 943.15 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (j) as follows:

§ 943.15 Approval of amendments to the

Texas regulatory program.

* * * * *

(j) The revisions to 16 Texas

Administrative Code 11.221, the Coal

Mining Regulations of the Railroad

Commission of Texas, as submitted on

May 24, 1994, and as further revised on

October 6, 1994, are approved effective

March 27, 1995.

Revisions to the following regulations

are approved:

TCMR 778.116(m), identification of interests

and compliance information.

TCMR 786.215(e)(1), review of violations.

TCMR 786.215(f), patterns of willful

violations.

TCMR 786.216(i), existing paragraph deleted.

TCMR 786.216(j) through (o), recodified as (i)

through (n).

TCMR 786.225(f)(3) and (4), Commission

review of outstanding permits: remedial

measures.

TCMR 786.225(g), (g)(1), (g)(1) (i) through

(iv), rescission procedures.

TCMR 786.225(g)(2), cessation of operations.

TCMR 786.225(h), recodification.

3. Section 943.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs (c),

(d), (f), (j), and (s), and adding

paragraphs (t) and (u) to read as follows:

§ 943.16 Requried program amendments.

* * * * *

(a)–(j) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(s) [Reserved]

(t) By September 25, 1995, Texas shall

formally propose an amendment to

OSM for TCMR 778.116(m) to require a

permit application to include

information on all violations of any

State law, rule, or regulation that

pertains to air or water environmental

protection, not just those violations that

were enacted pursuant to Federal law,

rule, or regulation.

(u) By September 25, 1995, Texas

shall formally propose an amendment to

OSM for TCMR 788.225(g)(1) or

otherwise revise the Texas program to

require that the Commission’s findings

with regard to the permittee’s challenge

of the Commission’s decision to

suspend and rescind an improvidently

issued permit must be consistent with

the provisions of the Federal

requirements at 30 CFR 773.25.

[FR Doc. 95–7440 Filed 3–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 944

Utah Permanent Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Utah permanent

regulatory program (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘‘Utah program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, 30

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Utah proposed

revisions to its rules pertaining to the

confidentiality of coal exploration

information. The amendment is

intended to revise the Utah program to

be consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas E. Ehmett, Telephone: (505)

766–1486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Utah Program

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Utah program for the regulation of coal

exploration and coal mining and

reclamation operations on non-Federal

and non-Indian lands. General

background information on the Utah

program, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

and an explanation of the conditions of

approval of the Utah program can be

found in the January 21, 1981, Federal