Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 16047

principles of OMB Circular A–25 have

guided various fee studies conducted by

the Department.

Under Delegation of Authority No.

198, the Secretary of State delegated to

the Under Secretary for Management all

management-related functions arising

out of the activities or certain bureaus,

including the Bureau of Consular

Affairs. Pursuant to this Delegation, the

Under Secretary of Management has the

authority to establish the fingerprinting

fee and to promulgate this regulation.

The fingerprint fee is set at $25.00 to

recover the cost to the Department of

paying the F.B.I.’s $18.00 fee for

examining and checking the fingerprints

against its fingerprint records. Added to

the F.B.I. charge of $18.00 is $7.00 in

administrative costs for each set of

fingerprints which will cover the cost to

the Department of taking the applicant’s

fingerprints, transmitting them to the

F.B.I., and obtaining and reviewing

records from the F.B.I. It will also cover

the costs of equipment, renovations,

furnishings, and supplies used in

connection with the fingerprint

program. This $7.00 figure was

determined by calculating the estimated

cost of fingerprinting 205,000 immigrant

visa applicants (the estimated number of

applicants that will be affected by

section 140(d) of Public Law 103–236

and by section 505 of Public Law 103–

317), and then dividing that figure by

the number of affected immigrant visa

applicants to arrive at the pro rata unit

cost of implementing the new

fingerprinting requirement.

Section 140(d) of the Foreign

Relations Authorization Act, FY 94–95

(Public Law 103–236), enacted April 30,

1994, authorizes the Department of State

to obtain the full content of criminal

history records of those applicants for

immigrant visas whose names are

indexed in the Interstate Identification

Index of the National Crime Information

Center.

Section 505(e) of the Departments of

Commerce, Justice, and State, and the

Judiciary and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, FY 95 (Public Law

103–317), enacted August 26, 1994,

requires the Department of State, in the

ten countries with the highest volume of

immigrant visa issuance for the most

recent fiscal year for which data are

available, to submit records of

fingerprints for all immigrant visa

applicants over sixteen years of age to

the F.B.I. to ascertain whether such

applicants have been previously

convicted of a felony under State or

Federal law in the United States.

The implementation of this rule as an

interim rule, with provision for postpromulgation comments, is based upon

the ‘‘good cause’’ exception found at 5

U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Department of

State is statutorily authorized to obtain

the full content of criminal history

records as described above. In

accordance with this requirement, the

Department has already begun

transmitting the names of immigrant

visa applicants to the F.B.I. This rule

must take effect upon publication to

ensure that the Department is

reimbursed for the expenses it will

incur in obtaining those records.

This rule is not expected to have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In addition, this rule does not impose

information collection requirements

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980. This rule has

been reviewed as required by Executive

Order 12778 and certified to be in

compliance therewith. This rule is

exempt from review under Executive

Order 12866, but has been reviewed

internally by the Department to ensure

consistency with the objectives thereof.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 22

Passport and visas.

Accordingly, 22 CFR part 22 is

amended as follows:

PART 22—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 22 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 8. U.S.C. 1182, 1351; 22 U.S.C.

211a, 214, 2651, 2658, 3921, 4219; 31 U.S.C.

9701; EO 10718, 22 FR 4632, 3 CFR, 1954–

1958 Comp., p. 382; EO 11295, 31 FR 10603,

3 CFR, 1966–1970 Comp., p. 570.

2. In § 22.1, the table is amended

under the undesignated centered

heading, ‘‘Visa Services for Aliens’’ by

revising the parenthetical after item 25

and adding items 27 and 28 and a

parenthetical after the items to read as

follows:

§ 22.1 Schedule of fees.

Item No. Fee

* * * * * * *

(Item No. 26 vacant.)

27. For the taking of fingerprints for those applicants for immigrant visas whose names are indexed in the Interstate Identification

Index of the National Crime Information Center .................................................................................................................................. $25.00

28. For the taking of fingerprints from immigrant visa applicants pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182 ............................................................... 25.00

(Item No. 29 vacant.)

* * * * * * *

Dated: March 11, 1995.

Richard Moose,

Under Secretary for Management,

Department of State.

[FR Doc. 95–7687 Filed 3–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–06–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 936

Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Oklahoma program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

proposed amendment consists of

recodification of Oklahoma’s coal

mining rules and revisions to the rules

pertaining to hydrologic balance

requirements for siltation structures,

sedimentation pond storage volume,

subsidence control and public notice,

road systems, protection of underground
16048 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

mining, and soil removal, stockpiling,

and replacement requirements for prime

farmland. Oklahoma submitted the

amendment with the intent of revising

its rules to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations,

clarifying ambiguities, and improving

operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James H. Moncrief, Telephone: (918)

581–6430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Oklahoma

Program

On January 19, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Oklahoma program. General background

information on the Oklahoma program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval of the Oklahoma

program can be found in the January 19,

1981, Federal Register (46 FR 4902).

Subsequent actions concerning

Oklahoma’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

936.15, 936.16, and 936.30.

II. Submission of Amendment

On September 14, 1994, Oklahoma

submitted a proposed amendment to its

program pursuant to SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1201 et seq., administrative record No.

OK–963). Oklahoma submitted the

proposed amendment in part at its own

initiative and in part with the intent of

revising the Oklahoma program to be

consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations.

Oklahoma proposed to revise the

Oklahoma Coal Rules and Regulations at

Department of Mines/Rules and

Regulations (DOM/RR) sections 816.46

and 817.46, hydrologic balance and

siltation structures; section 823.12,

prime farmland soil removal; section

823.13, prime farmland soil stockpiling;

and section 823.14, prime farmland soil

replacement. Oklahoma also proposed

to recodify its rules in accordance with

the standards set forth by the Oklahoma

State Legislature and the Office of

Administrative Code.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the September

27, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR

49223), provided an opportunity for a

public hearing or meeting on its

substantive adequacy, and invited

public comment on its adequacy

(administrative record No. OK–963.03).

Because no one requested a public

hearing or meeting, none was held. The

public comment period ended on

October 27, 1994.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to the

provisions of recodified Oklahoma

Administrative Code (OAC) 460:20–27–

20(b) and 460:20–31–17(b), primary

road certification requirements for road

systems and transportation facilities.

OSM also identified concerns with

Oklahoma’s proposed rule

recodification relating to OAC 460:20–

43–12(f)(8), sedimentation pond storage

volume; OAC 460:20–43–47 and

460:20–43–48, subsidence control for

surface mining activities; OAC 460:20–

45–28, protection of underground

mining; and various editorial and

citation inconsistencies. OSM notified

Oklahoma of the concerns by letter

dated November 22, 1994

(administrative record No. OK–963.08).

By letter dated December 20, 1994,

Oklahoma responded to the concerns

identified in OSM’s November 22, 1994,

letter by submitting the revised

amendment and additional explanatory

information (administrative record No.

OK–963.10). The provisions that

Oklahoma proposed to revise and add

were: OAC 460:20–27–20(b) and

460:20–31–17(b), concerning the asbuilt requirements regarding primary

road certification for road systems and

transportation facilities; OAC 460:20–

43–12(f)(8), concerning the requirement

that sediment shall be removed from a

structure when the sediment storage

volume is 80 percent filled; OAC

460:20–45–47 and 460:20–45–48,

concerning subsidence control for

surface mining activities; and OAC

460:20–45–28, concerning the

protection of underground mining.

Oklahoma also proposed revisions to

and provided additional explanatory

information for the recodification of its

coal mining rules.

Based upon the revisions to and

additional explanatory information for

the proposed program amendment

submitted by Oklahoma, OSM reopened

the public comment period in the

December 30, 1994, Federal Register (59

FR 67694; administrative record No.

OK–963.12). The public comment

period closed on January 17, 1995.

After the closing of the reopened

comment period, OSM became aware

that both Oklahoma’s September 14,

1994, and December 20, 1994,

amendment submittals contained a

number of rule revisions that were

previously approved by OSM on

December 18, 1990 (55 FR 51902), and

promulgated by Oklahoma on July 25,

1994. Because the previously approved

provisions were formatted in such a

manner so as to appear as if they were

being submitted for the first time, OSM,

in both the September 27, 1994, and

December 30, 1994, Federal Register

notices opening and reopening the

public comment period, inadvertently

identified those previously approved

Oklahoma rules as being currently

proposed revisions to the Oklahoma

program. To alleviate confusion as to

which provisions were actually

unapproved when submitted to OSM for

approval, this notice addresses only the

unapproved provisions submitted by

Oklahoma.

III. Director’s Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in

accordance with SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, finds that the

proposed program amendment

submitted by Oklahoma on September

14, 1994, and as revised by it on

December 20, 1994, is no less effective

than the corresponding Federal

regulations. The Director approves the

proposed amendment.

1. Nonsubstantive Recodification of

Oklahoma’s Rules

Oklahoma, in accordance with the

standards set forth by the Oklahoma

State Legislature and the Oklahoma

Office of Administrative Code, proposed

to recodify its coal mining rules as OAC

title 460, chapter 20, with underlying

subchapters specifying the various

surface and underground coal mining

provisions.

Oklahoma’s proposed recodification

of its rules is nonsubstantive in nature,

and the Director finds that the

recodification does not make its rules

less effective than the Federal

regulations. Therefore, the Director

approves the proposed recodification.

OSM uses Oklahoma’s recodified rule

citations throughout this Federal

Register notice.

2. Substantive Revisions to Oklahoma’s

Rules That Are Substantively Identical

to the Corresponding Provisions of the

Federal Regulations

Oklahoma proposed revisions to OAC

460:20–49–5(a)(1), 460:20–49–6, and

460:20–49–7(5), concerning soil

removal, stockpiling, and replacement

requirements for prime farmland, that

are substantive in nature and contain

language that is substantively identical

to the requirements of the

corresponding Federal regulations at 30

CFR 701.5, 823.12(c)(1), and 823.14(e).

Because these proposed Oklahoma

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 16049

3. OAC 460:20–27–20(b), 460:20–31–

17(b), 460:20–43–53(1), and 460:20–45–

53(1), Primary Road Certification

Requirements for Road Systems and

Transportation Facilities

Oklahoma proposed to revise its rules

by moving the ‘‘as-built’’ certification

requirements for primary roads from its

permitting rules at OAC 460:20–27–

20(b) and 460:20–31–17(b) to its

performance standard rules at 460:20–

43–53(1) and 460:20–45–53(1). As-built

certifications ensure that structures are

constructed as designed.

The Federal as-built regulations at 30

CFR 816.151(a) and 817.151(a) require,

in pertinent part, that the construction

or reconstruction of primary roads shall

be certified in a report to the regulatory

authority by a qualified, registered,

professional engineer, or in any State

which authorizes land surveyors to

certify the construction or

reconstruction of primary roads, a

qualified, registered, professional land

surveyor with experience in the design

and construction of roads.

Oklahoma’s moving of its as-built

requirements for primary roads from the

permitting requirements of OAC

460:20–27–20(b) and 460:20–31–17(b) to

the performance standard requirements

of OAC 460:20–43–53(1) and 460:20–

45–53(1) is consistent with the as-built

counterpart Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.151(a) and 817.151(a), which

are contained in the Federal road

performance standards.

The Director finds that Oklahoma’s

proposed revisions to OAC 460:20–43–

53(1), and 460:20–45–53(1) are no less

effective than the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 816.151(a) and 817.151(a). The

Director approves Oklahoma’s rule

revisions.

4. OAC 460:20–43–12(b)(3) and 460:20–

45–12(b)(3), Certification of

Construction of Siltation Structures by

Qualified, Registered Professional

Engineers and Land Surveyors

At OAC 460:20–43–12(b)(3) and

460:20–45–12(b)(3), Oklahoma proposed

to delete the references to OAC 460:20–

27–14(a) and 460:20–31–9(a). Existing

OAC 460:20–43–12(b)(3) and 460:20–

45–12(b)(3) authorize both qualified,

registered professional engineers and

land surveyors in Oklahoma to certify

the construction of siltation structures;

existing referenced OAC 460:20–27–

14(a) and 460:20–31–9(a) authorize only

qualified, registered professional

engineers to certify design plans for

siltation structures. OSM approved

these existing rules on December 18,

1990, (finding No. 2, 55 FR 51902,

51903–4) on the basis that the by-laws

of the Oklahoma State Board of

Registration of Professional Engineers

and Surveyors authorizes qualified,

registered professional engineers to

certify the construction and design of

siltation structures but authorizes

qualified, professional land surveyors to

certify only the construction of siltation

structures. In this approval, OSM found

Oklahoma’s rules to be no less effective

than the corresponding Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.46(b)(3) and

817.46(b)(3).

Oklahoma’s proposed deletions in the

construction certification rules at OAC

460:20–43–12(b)(3) and 460:20–45–

12(b)(3) of the references to the design

certification rules at OAC 460:20–27–

14(a) and 460:20–31–9(a) eliminate any

possible confusion on what

certifications qualified, registered

professional engineers and land

surveyors can make under the approved

Oklahoma program.

Oklahoma’s proposed revisions to

OAC 460:20–43–12(b)(3) and 460:20–

45–12(b)(3) deleting the references to

OAC 460:20–27–14(a) and 460:20–31–

9(a) are consistent with OSM’s previous

approval and are no less effective than

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.46(b)(3) and 817.46(b)(3).

Accordingly, the Director approves

Oklahoma’s rule revisions.

5. OAC 460:20–43–12(f)(8),

Sedimentation Pond Storage Volume

Oklahoma proposed to revise OAC

460:20–43–12(f)(8) to delete the

requirement that sediment be removed

from a sedimentation pond when the

sediment storage volume is 80 percent

filled. It did so to be consistent with its

rule at OAC 460:20–43(c)(1)(C)(vi) and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.46(c)(iii)(F) that require that ponds

be maintained to provide periodic

sediment removal sufficient to maintain

adequate volume for the design event.

Oklahoma’s proposed deletion of OAC

460:20–43–12(f)(8) alleviates the

regulatory inconsistency in its rules

with the provision at OAC 460:20–43–

12(c)(1)(C)(vi) and is consistent with

and no less effective than the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.46(c)(iii)(F).

Accordingly, the Director approves

Oklahoma’s proposed rule revision.

6. OAC 460:20–43–47 and 48,

Subsidence Control and Public Notice

Oklahoma proposed to revise its

surface mining activities performance

standards provisions at OAC 460:20–

43–47 and 48 to add subsidence control

and public notice measures that apply

to underground mining activities.

Oklahoma explained that it was doing

so because it issues underground mine

permits pursuant to the surface mine

requirements included in Subchapter 43

(administrative record No. OK–963.10).

The Federal regulations

corresponding to OAC 460:20–43–47

and 48 are at 30 CFR 817.121 and

817.122. These Oklahoma rules include

the same subsidence control and notice

requirements as these Federal

regulations. However, OSM notes it has

proposed revisions to 30 CFR 817.121 to

comply with revisions to SMCRA made

by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (58 FR

50174, September 24, 1993). Once OSM

promulgates new regulations, it will

notify Oklahoma in accordance with 30

CFR 732.17(d) of any necessary

revisions to Oklahoma’s program. Until

such time the Director finds that

Oklahoma’s proposed subsidence

control and notice rules at OAC 460:20–

43–47 and 48 are no less effective than

the currently promulgated regulations at

30 CFR 817.121 and 817.122. Therefore,

the Director approves the proposed rule

revisions.

7. OAC 460:20–45–28, Protection of

Underground Mining

Oklahoma proposed to revise its

underground mining performance

standards at OAC 460:20–45–28 to

delete a provision regarding the

protection of underground mining

operations from the effects of surface

mining activities. However, Oklahoma

still retains in its surface mining

performance standards at OAC 460:20–

43–28 an identical requirement.

Therefore, the Oklahoma rules still

provide an identical level of protection

to underground mining operations from

the adverse effects of surface mining

activities.

There are no Federal underground

mining regulations that correspond to

the deleted Oklahoma rule. However,

the Federal surface mining regulation at

30 CFR 816.79 sets forth provisions

regarding the protection of underground

mining operations from the effects of

surface mining activities that are

substantively identical to the Oklahoma

surface mining requirements at OAC

460:20–43–28. Therefore, the Director

finds that the proposed deletion of the

underground mining protection

provision at OAC 460–20–45–28 and

retention of an identical provision at

OAC 460:20–43–28 is no less effective

than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.79. The Director approves the

proposed rule revision.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

The Director notes that the following

public and Federal agency comments

were received in response to the
16050 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

September 27, 1994, and December 30,

1994, proposed rule Federal Register

notices that inadvertently identified

certain previously approved Oklahoma

rules as being currently proposed

revisions to the Oklahoma program.

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 Oklahoma program

(administrative record No. OK–963.02).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

responded on September 30, 1994, that

Oklahoma’s proposed revisions were

satisfactory (administrative record No.

OK–963.04).

The U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM)

responded on September 27, 1994, that

while Oklahoma’s proposed rule to OAC

460:20–27–14(a)(1)(A) deletes the

reference to preparation and

certification of the design of ponds,

impoundments, banks, dams and

embankments, by a ‘‘professional

geologist, or a qualified, registered,

professional land surveyor,’’ the

proposed rule to OAC 460:20–43–

12(b)(3) then adds the statement that

siltation structure construction may be

certified by a ‘‘registered professional

land surveyor’’ (administrative record

No. OK–963.05). BOM further stated

that this appears to be a contradiction in

that in one instance, qualified,

registered, professional land surveyors

are not allowed to design the ponds, yet

they are allowed to certify that the

ponds are constructed correctly. Finally,

BOM commented that this same

contradiction occurs in OAC 460:20–

45–12 for underground mining

activities.

As discussed in finding No. 4 and

OSM’s December 18, 1990, final rule

Federal Register notice, Oklahoma’s bylaws of the State Board of Registration

for Professional Engineers and

Surveyors do not authorize registered

land surveyors in Oklahoma to prepare

and/or certify engineered designs, but

they do authorize land surveyors to

certify the construction of siltation

structures since certification that a

structure is built according to design

does not require the same qualified

expertise as the actual design of the

structure (finding No. 2, 55 FR 51902,

51903–4). Accordingly, Oklahoma’s

rules at OAC 460:20–27–14(a)(1)(A),

460:20–31–9(a)(1)(A, 460:20–43–

12(b)(3), and 460:20–45–12(b)(3) do not

contradict each other.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) responded on October 12, 1994,

by commenting that under OAC 460:20–

45–12(b)(3), a registered professional

land surveyor is authorized to certify

that siltation structures are constructed

as designed, but the authorization for a

registered professional land surveyor to

prepare and certify siltation structure

plans designs has been removed

elsewhere in Oklahoma’s rules

(administrative record No. OK–963.06).

BLM then inquired as to whether OSM

intended to retain the certification

authorization for registered professional

land surveyors at OAC 460:20–45–

12(b)(3). In response to this comment,

the Director refers BLM to the

discussion above, which responds to

BOM concerns regarding the same issue.

BLM further commented that it

questioned the practicality of the change

under the prime farmland soil removal

rule at OAC 460:20–49–5(a)(1) where

Oklahoma proposed to delete language

that would have allowed surface coal

mining and reclamation operations on

prime farmland to remove other suitable

soil materials which will create a final

soil having productive capacity equal to

that which existed prior to mining.

BLM commented that when soil is

removed, stockpiled, and reapplied

there is some loss and mixing due to the

limitations of the handling process

itself. When soil is removed and

stockpiled there is a mycorrhyzal

degradation within the soil. Further,

more significant mycorrhyzal

degradation occurs over time within the

stockpile. Mycorrhyzal degradation

lowers soil productivity. BLM also

stated that expecting greater

productivity from soil which has

undergone such disturbance is not

reasonable and that it would be more

productive for the guidelines to

recommend seeding topsoil piles with a

temporary cover grass for the duration

of stockpiling. Finally, BLM commented

that such seeding would maintain some

of the mycorrhyzal community within

the stockpiled topsoil.

The Director acknowledges BLM’s

concerns regarding diminished soil

productivity. However, section

515(b)(7)(A) of SMCRA requires, in

pertinent part, that ‘‘[f]or all prime farm

lands * * * the operator shall, as a

minimum, be required to * * *

segregate the A horizon of the natural

soil, except where it can be shown that

other available soil materials will create

a final soil having a greater productivity

capacity * * *’’ (emphasis added).

Also, the corresponding Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 823.12(c)(1)

require, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[s]oil

removal and stockpiling operations on

prime farmland shall be conducted to

* * * remove other suitable soil

materials where such other soil

materials will create a final soil having

a greater productive capacity than that

which exist prior to mining’’ (emphasis

added). OSM previously approved

Oklahoma’s rule revision in the

December 18, 1990, final rule Federal

Register notice (55 FR 51902, 51903), as

being substantively identical to the

corresponding provisions of the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 823.12(c)(1).

Accordingly, Oklahoma’s deletion of the

aforementioned phrase ‘‘an equal or’’ is

no less stringent than section

515(b)(7)(A) of SMCRA and no less

effective than the corresponding Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 823.12(c)(1).

In addition, the Director notes that the

State and Federal requirements that a

final soil have a greater productive

capacity than that which existed prior to

mining applies only to topsoil

substitutes, and not the original topsoil

material. Finally, the Director refers

BLM to the Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.22(c)(2)(iii), which require, in

pertinent part, that ‘‘[s]tockpiled topsoil

materials shall be protected from wind

and water erosion through prompt

establishment and maintenance of an

effective, quick growing vegetative cover

or through other measures approved by

the regulatory authority.’’ Oklahoma’s

counterpart rule at OAC 460:20–43–

7(c)(2)(C) is substantively identical to 30

CFR 816.22(c)(2)(iii). While OSM cannot

dictate that Oklahoma always require

operators to seed topsoil, by virtue of

the fact that nearly all operators in

Oklahoma do seed topsoil, BLM’s

recommendation for seeding topsoil

piles is almost always implemented in

Oklahoma.

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 Oklahoma

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

(administrative record No. OK–963.02).

It responded on October 13, 1994, that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 16051

it had no objections to the approval of

Oklahoma’s proposed regulations

(administrative record No. OK–963.07).

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. OK–963.02).

Neither SHPO nor ACHP responded to

OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves Oklahoma’s proposed

amendment as submitted on September

14, 1994, and as revised on December

20, 1994.

The Director approves, as discussed

in: Finding No. 1, concerning

Oklahoma’s proposed recodification of

its coal mining rules; finding No. 2,

OAC 460:20–49–5(a)(1), 460:20–49–6,

and 460:20–49–7(5), concerning soil

removal, stockpiling, and replacement

requirements for prime farland; finding

No. 3, OAC 460:20–27–20(b), 460:20–

31–17(b), 460:20–43–53(1), and 460:20–

45–53(1), concerning primary road

certification requirements for road

systems and transportation facilities;

finding No. 4, OAC 460:20–43–12(b)(3)

and 460:20–45–12(b)(3), concerning

certification of construction of siltation

structures by qualified, registered

professional engineers and land

surveyors; finding No. 5, OAC 460:20–

43–12(f)(8), concerning sedimentation

pond storage volume; finding No. 6,

OAC 460:20–43–47 and –48, concerning

subsidence control and public notice;

and finding No. 7, OAC 460:20–45–28,

concerning protection of underground

mining.

The Director approves the rules as

proposed by Oklahoma with the

provision that they be fully promulgated

in identical form to the rules submitted

to and reviewed by OSM and the public.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 936, codifying decisions concerning

the Oklahoma 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.

VI. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12886

(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

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

which 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 936

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 25, 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 936—OKLAHOMA

1. The authority citation for Part 936

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 936.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:

§ 936.15 Approval of amendments to the

Oklahoma regulatory program.

* * * * *

(p) Recodification of Oklahoma’s rules

and revisions to the following

provisions of Oklahoma’s recodified

rules, as submitted to OSM on

September 14, 1994, and as revised on

December 20, 1994, are approved

effective March 29, 1995:

OAC 460:20–43–12(b)(3) and 460:20–

45–12(b)(3), certification of

construction of siltation structures by

qualified, registered professional

engineers and land surveyors;

OAC 460: 20–43–12(f)(8), sedimentation

pond storage volume;

OAC 460: 20–43–47 and 48, subsidence

control for surface mining activities;

OAC 460: 20–43–53(1) and 460:20–45–

53(1), primary road certification

requirements for road systems and

transportation facilities;

OAC 460: 20–45–28, protection of

underground mining; and

OAC 460: 20–49–5(a)(1), 460: 20–49–6,

and 460:20–49–7(5), soil removal, soil

stockpiling, and soil replacement

requirements for prime farmland.

[FR Doc. 95–7697 Filed 3–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M