17458 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

handling in trial courts, subject to the

limitations imposed by paragraph (c) of this

section. United States Attorneys are hereby

delegated the authority to take all necessary

steps to protect the interests of the United

States, without prior approval of the

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, or

his representations, subject to the limitations

set forth in section 1(e) of this directive.

Agencies may, however, if special handling

is desired, refer these cases to the Civil

Division. Also, when constitutional questions

or other significant issues arise in the course

of such litigation, or when an appeal is taken

by any party, the Civil Division should be

consulted.

(1) Money claims by the United States,

except claims involving penalties and

forfeitures, where the gross amount of the

original claim does not exceed $1,000,000.

(2) Single family dwelling house

foreclosures arising out of loans made or

insured by the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, the Veterans

Administration and the Farmers Home

Administration.

(3) Suits to enjoin violations of, and to

collect penalties under, the Agricultural

Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. 1376, the

Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. 203,

207(g), 213, 215, 216, 222, and 228a, the

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act,

1930, 7 U.S.C. 499c(a) and 499h(d), the Egg

Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 1031 et

seq., the Potato Research and Promotion Act,

7 U.S.C. 2611 et seq., the Cotton Research

and Promotion Act of 1966, 7 U.S.C. 2101 et

seq., the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21

U.S.C. 601 et seq., and the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as

amended, 7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

(4) Suits by social security beneficiaries

under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 402

et seq.

(5) Social Security disability suits under 42

U.S.C. 423 et seq.

(6) Black lung beneficiary suits under the

Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of

1969, 30 U.S.C. 921 et seq.

(7) Suits by Medicare beneficiaries under

42 U.S.C. 1395ff.

(8) Garnishment actions authorized by 42

U.S.C. 659 for child support or alimony

payments and actions for general debt, 5

U.S.C. 5520a.

(9) Judicial review of actions of the

Secretary of Agriculture under the food

stamp program, pursuant to the provisions of

7 U.S.C. 2022 involving retail food stores.

(10) Cases referred by the Department of

Labor for the collection of penalties or for

injunctive action under the Fair Labor

Standards Act of 1938 and the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970.

(11) Cases referred by the Department of

Labor solely for the collection of civil

penalties under the Farm Labor Contractor

Registration Act of 1963, 7 U.S.C. 2048(b).

(12) Cases referred by the Interstate

Commerce Commission to enforce orders of

the Interstate Commerce Commission or to

enjoin or suspend such orders pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1336.

(13) Cases referred by the United States

Postal Service for injunctive relief under the

nonmailable matter laws, 39 U.S.C. 3001 et

seq.

(b) Delegation to United States Attorneys.

Upon the recommendation of the appropriate

Director, the Assistant Attorney General,

Civil Division may delegate to United States

Attorneys suit authority involving any claims

or suits where the gross amount of the

original claim does not exceed $5,000,000

where the circumstances warrant such

delegations. United States Attorneys may

compromise any case redelegated under this

subsection in which the gross amount of the

original claim does not exceed $5,000,000, so

long as the difference between the gross

amount of the original claim and the

proposed settlement does not exceed

$1,000,000. United States Attorneys may

close cases redelegated to them under this

subsection only upon the authorization of the

appropriate authorized person within the

Department of Justice. All delegations

pursuant to this subsection shall be in

writing and no United States Attorney shall

have authority to compromise or close any

such delegated case or claim except as is

specified in the required written delegation

or in section 1(c) of this directive. The

limitations of section 1(e) of this directive

also remain applicable in any case or claim

delegated hereunder.

(c) Cases not covered. Regardless of the

amount in controversy, the following matters

normally will not be delegated to United

States Attorneys for handling but will be

personally or jointly handled or monitored

by the appropriate Branch or Office within

the Civil Division:

(1) Civil actions in the Court of Federal

Claims.

(2) Cases within the jurisdiction of the

Commercial Litigation Branch involving

patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc.

(3) Cases before the United States Court of

International Trade.

(4) Any case involving bribery, conflict of

interest, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of

employment contract, or exploitation of

public office.

(5) Any fraud or False Claims Act case

where the amount of single damages, plus

civil penalties, if any, exceeds $1,000,000.

(6) Any case involving vessel-caused

pollution in navigable waters.

(7) Cases on appeal, except as determined

by the Director of the Appellate Staff.

(8) Any case involving litigation in a

foreign court.

(9) Criminal proceedings arising under

statutes enforced by the Food and Drug

Administration, the Consumer Product Safety

Commission, the Federal Trade Commission,

and the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (relating to odometer

tampering), except as determined by the

Director of the Office of Consumer Litigation.

(10) Nonmonetary civil cases, including

injunction suits, declaratory judgment

actions, and applications for inspection

warrants, and cases seeking civil penalties

including but not limited to those arising

under statutes enforced by the Food and Drug

Administration, the Consumer Product Safety

Commission, the Federal Trade Commission,

and the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (relating to odometer

tampering), except as determined by the

Director of the Office of Consumer Litigation.

(11) Administrative claims arising under

the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Section 5. Adverse Decisions

All final judicial decisions adverse to the

Government involving any direct reference or

delegated case must be reported promptly to

the Assistant Attorney General, Civil

Division, attention Director, Appellate Staff.

Consult title 2 of the United States Attorney’s

Manual for procedures and time limitations.

An appeal cannot be taken without approval

of the Solicitor General. Until the Solicitor

General has made a decision whether an

appeal will be taken, the Government

attorney handling the case must take all

necessary procedural actions to preserve the

Government’s right to take an appeal,

including filing a protective notice of appeal

when the time to file a notice of appeal is

about to expire and the Solicitor General has

not yet made a decision. Nothing in the

foregoing directive affects this obligation.

Section 6. Supersession

This directive supersedes Civil Division

Directive No. 176–91 regarding redelegation

of the Assistant Attorney General’s authority

in Civil Division cases to Branch Directors,

heads of offices and United States Attorneys.

Section 7. Applicability

This directive applies to all cases pending

as of the date of this directive and is effective

immediately.

Approved: March 27, 1995.

Frank W. Hunger,

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division.

Dated March 27, 1995.

John R. Schmidt,

Associate Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 95–8482 Filed 4–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 915

Iowa 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 Iowa regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Iowa program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Iowa proposed revisions

to rules pertaining to rulemaking

petitions, definitions, permit processing,

permit revisions, bonding, backfilling

and grading, alternative enforcement,

and individual civil penalties. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Iowa program to be consistent with the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17459

corresponding Federal standards, to

clarify ambiguities, and to improve

operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael C. Wolfrom, Telephone: (816)

374–6405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Iowa Program

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Iowa program. General background

information on the Iowa program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval of the Iowa

program can be found in the January 21,

1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5885).

Subsequent actions concerning Iowa’s

program and program amendments can

be found at 30 CFR 915.15 and 915.16.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated April 13, 1994, Iowa

submitted a proposed amendment to its

program pursuant to SMCRA

(Administrative Record No. IA–397).

Iowa submitted the proposed

amendment with the intent of satisfying

the required program amendments

codified at 30 CFR 915.6 (a) and (b), and

at Iowa’s own initiative to improve the

operation of its program. The provisions

of the Iowa Administrative Code (IAC)

that Iowa proposed to revise were: IAC

27–40.3(207), 27–40.4(9), 27–40.31(14),

27–40.32(207), 27–40.51(7), 27–40.63(2),

27–40.74(3), and 27–40.75(2).

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the May 5,

1994, Federal Register (59 FR 23177),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (Administrative Record

No. IA–402). Because no one requested

a public hearing or meeting, none was

held. The public comment period ended

on June 6, 1994.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to the

provisions of IAC 27–40.32 (permit

revisions), 27–40.51(7) (application for

bond release), and 27–40.75(2)

(individual civil penalties). OSM

notified Iowa of the concerns by issue

letter dated October 3, 1994

(Administrative Record No. IA–407).

Iowa responded in a letter dated

November 8, 1994, by submitting a

revised amendment (Administrative

Record No. IA–408). Iowa proposed

additional revisions to IAC 27–40.32

(permit revisions), 27–40.51(7) (bond

release application), and 27–40.75(2)

(individual civil penalties).

Based upon the revisions to the

proposed program amendment

submitted by Iowa, OSM reopened the

public comment period in the

November 23, 1994, Federal Register

(59 FR 60341; Administrative Record

No. IA–410). The public comment

period ended on December 8, 1994.

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 Iowa on April 13, 1994,

and as revised by it on November 8,

1994, is no less effective than the

corresponding Federal regulations in

meeting SMCRA’s requirements.

Accordingly, the Director approves the

proposed amendment.

1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to Iowa’s

Rules

Iowa proposed revisions to the

following previously-approved rules

that are nonsubstantive in nature and

consist of minor editorial and

recodification changes (corresponding

Federal regulation provisions are listed

in parentheses):

IAC 27–40.32(3)a. 3. & 4. (no

corresponding Federal provisions),

requirements for permit amendment

or revision;

IAC 27–40.32(5) (30 CFR 773.11(a)),

permit renewal not required when

only Phase III bond liability remains

on the permit area;

IAC 27–40.32(6) (no corresponding

Federal provision, additions to the

Federal requirements at 30 CFR

774.15(b)), contents of permit renewal

application; and

IAC 27–40.32(7) (no corresponding

Federal provision), modification of

the incorporation of Federal

regulations by reference so that they

cite the correct regulatory authority.

Because the proposed revisions to

these previously-approved rules are

nonsubstantive in nature, the Director

finds that these proposed revisions to

the Iowa rules are no less effective than

the Federal regulations in meeting

SMCRA’s requirements, and approves

these proposed revisions.

2. Substantive Revisions to Iowa’s Rules

That Are Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal

Regulations

Iowa 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).

IAC 27–40.4(9) (30 CFR 701.5,

definition of ‘‘previously mined

area’’).

IAC 27–40.32(3)a. (introductory text) (30

CFR 774.13(a)), permittee right to

submit application for permit

revision/amendment.

IAC 27–40.32(3)a.2. (30 CFR 774.11 (b)

& (c)), right of regulatory authority to

order permit revision/amendment,

and administrative and judicial

review of such orders.

Because these proposed Iowa 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 in meeting SMCRA’s

requirements and approves these

proposed revisions.

The Director further notes that the

revision to IAC 27–40.4(9) (definition of

‘‘previously mined area’’) satisfies a

required program amendment codified

at 30 CFR 915.16(a)(1) that was imposed

on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56578,

56594), and is removing this

requirement.

3. IAC 27–40.3(207). General Provisions

of Regulatory Program

Iowa proposes to add a new paragraph

providing that ‘‘[i]n lieu of the

regulations deleted at 30 CFR 700.12

concerning ‘Petitions to initiate

rulemaking,’ rules of the Iowa

Department of Agriculture and Land

Stewardship at 21 IAC Chapter 3,

‘Petitions for Rulemaking’ shall serve as

the basis for submitting petitions to

initiative rulemaking.’’

Iowa had previously submitted the

referenced rules as part of an earlier

program amendment, and OSM found

them to be no less effective than the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 700.12

that Iowa chose not to incorporate by

reference in its program. However, in

that earlier amendment Iowa was

required to further amend its program to

include a clear reference to these State

rules within its regulatory program (see

59 FR 5709, 5712; February 8, 1994;

Finding No. 8). The Director finds that

Iowa’s current proposed program

amendment clearly informs the public

of where to locate the procedures and

requirements for petitions for

rulemaking under the Iowa regulatory

program, and approves the proposal.

Additionally, the proposal satisfies a

required program amendment codified

at 30 CFR 915.16(b)(1) that was imposed

on February 8, 1994 (59 FR 5709, 5723);

therefore the Director is removing this

requirement.
17460 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

4. IAC 27–40.31(14). Requirements for

Permits and Permit Processing

Iowa proposes to delete and reserve

this subrule, which adds to Iowa’s

incorporation by reference of 30 CFR

773.15(a)(2) the words ‘‘[i]n case willful

suppressing or falsifying of any facts or

data is identified, the division may

require the applicant to reapply for the

same area.’’ OSM notes that 30 CFR

773.15(a)(2) provides that in the review

of applications for permits or permit

revisions, the applicant has the burden

of proof that the application is in

compliance with all requirements of the

regulatory program.

Iowa previously proposed this added

language in a program amendment, but

OSM found that under SMCRA Section

510(b)(1) and 30 CFR 773.15(c)(1) (Iowa

counterpart provisions at Iowa Code

207.9(2)(a) and (IAC 27–40.31), if such

willful suppressing or falsification of

any facts or data in a permit application

is identified, the regulatory authority

would have no discretion and would be

required to deny the permit. OSM thus

found this Iowa subrule to conflict with

SMCRA and the Federal regulations,

and did not approve this subrule (see 59

FR 5709, 5714; February 8, 1994;

Finding No. 13b). Iowa, in response, is

now proposing to delete this

unapproved language. OSM notes that

the Iowa program, in the general

incorporation by reference at IAC 27–

40.31(207) of the Federal regulations at

30 CFR Part 773, continues to

incorporate 30 CFR 773.15(a)(2) by

reference. For the reasons specified in

the February 8, 1994, Federal Register,

the Director finds that the proposed

deletion of this added language is not

inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal

regulations, and is approving the

deletion.

5. IAC 27–40.32(207). Permit Revision/

Amendment, Renewal, Transfer

Iowa proposes to delete its

incorporation by reference of the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 774,

as in effect on July 1, 1992 (with some

exceptions and additions), and to add a

new incorporation by reference of those

same Federal regulations, but with a

different set of exceptions and

additions. Some of these new

exceptions and additions are

substantively the same as the old

exceptions and additions, and have

been addressed in Finding No. 1 above;

others of the new additions are

substantively the same as certain

Federal regulatory provisions, and have

been addressed in Finding No. 2 above;

and the remainder of the exceptions and

additions are discussed below.

a. IAC 27–40.32(1) Permit Revision/

Amendment Orders

Iowa proposes at IAC 27–40.32(1) not

to incorporate into its program by

reference the Federal requirements at 30

CFR 774.11 (b) and (c). However, as

noted in Funding No. 2 above, Iowa is

also proposing to add at IAC 27–

40.32(3)a.2. requirements that are

substantively the same as these Federal

requirements. Therefore the Director

approves the proposal at IAC 27–

40.32(1) to delete 30 CFR 774.11 (b) and

(c) from the new incorporation by

reference.

b. IAC 27–40.32(2) Revisions Versus

Amendments

Iowa proposes to use the term

‘‘revision’’; to describe changes to

permits that constitute significant

departures from the approved permit,

and to use the term ‘‘amendment’’ to

describe changes that do not constitute

significant departures. Iowa further

proposes that significant departures

shall be any change in permit area,

mining method or reclamation

procedure which would, in the opinion

of the Iowa regulatory authority,

significantly change the effect that

mining operations would have on

persons impacted by the permitted

operation, on cultural resources, or on

the environment. Finally, Iowa proposes

to delete the incorporation by reference

of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

774.13 (permit revisions), except that

the notice, public participation, and

notice of decision requirements of 30

CFR 773.13, 773.19(b), and 778.21

would apply to all ‘‘revisions’’ (i.e., to

all significant departures). A related

requirement at proposed IAC 227–

40.32(3)c. would require that any

application for either revision or

amendment must provide replacement

documentation fully describing the

proposed changes, in the same detail as

required in the original permit.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

774.13(b)(2) require regulatory

authorities to establish guidelines which

establish the scale or extent of permit

revisions for which all of the permit

application information requirements

and permit application procedures of

the Federal regulations (including the

notice, public participation, and notice

of decision requirements of §§ 773.13,

773.19(b) (1) & (3), and 778.21) shall

apply, with the proviso that such

requirements and procedures must

apply at a minimum to all significant

revisions.

The Director finds that Iowa, by (1)

defining ‘‘revision’’ and ‘‘amendment,’’

(2) requiring that the specified

procedural requirements (notice, public

participation, etc.) apply to all

‘‘revisions,’’ and (3) requiring that

revision and amendment applications

contain replacement documentations in

the same detail as the original permit,

has established guidelines as required

by 30 CFR 774.13(b)(2). Further, Iowa’s

proposed definitions assure that these

requirements and procedures

requirements will apply to all

significant permit changes, as required

by the proviso in that Federal

regulation.

Regarding Iowa’s proposal to delete

the incorporation by reference of the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.13,

OSM has reviewed Iowa’s proposal and

has determined that it incorporates

counterpart requirements for each of the

provisions of § 774.13 other than the

one specifically discussed above

(§ 774.13(b)(2)). As discussed in Finding

No. 2 above and Finding No. 5c below,

counterparts of those Federal provisions

are incorporated in Iowa’s proposed

rules as follows (proposed IAC

counterparts in parentheses): § 774.13(a)

(IAC 27–40.32(3)a, introductory text);

§ 774.13(b)(1) (IAC 27–40.32(3)b.);

§ 774.13(c) (IAC 27–40.32(3)d.); and

§ 774.13(d) (IAC 27–40.32(3)e.). Based

on the discussion in Finding Nos. 2 and

5c regarding these provisions, the

Director finds that Iowa’s proposal at

IAC 27–40.32(2) not to incorporate 30

CFR 774.13 does not render the Iowa

program less effective than § 774.13 in

meeting SMCRA’s requirements.

In summary, the Director finds Iowa’s

definitions of ‘‘revision’’ and

‘‘amendment’’ to be in accordance with

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

774.13(b)(2), and the deletion of the

incorporation by reference of most of 30

CFR 774.13 to be no less effective than

the Federal regulations in meeting

SMCRA’s requirements; the Director is

therefore approving proposed IAC 27–

40.32(2). Additionally, the proposal

satisfies a required program

amendment, codified at 30 CFR

915.16(a)(5), that was imposed on

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56578, 56594),

and later modified on February 8, 1994

(59 FR 5709, 5723); the Director is

therefore removing this requirement.

c. IAC 27–40.32(3) Requirements for

Revisions and Amendments

1. Permit changes that require either

a permit revision or a permit

amendment. Iowa proposes at IAC 27–

40.32(3)a.1. that either a revision or an

amendment is required for any change

in the approved permit; further, all

information related to approved

revisions or amendments must be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17461

updated in all public copies of the

permit.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

774.13 do not directly address this

issue. However, in the preamble to the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

774.13(b)(2), dated September 28, 1993

(48 FR 44344, 44377), OSM clarified its

interpretation of these regulations that

all changes must be approved and

incorporated into the permit:

Under the final rule, the regulatory

authority will establish the guidelines for

revisions. However, all revisions must be

approved and incorporated into the permit

since they are changes to that document. The

permit and all public copies of it should

reflect all revisions approved by the

regulatory authority so that all interested

persons, including inspectors, the operator,

and the public, will have an accurate copy

of the permit. The permit is the document

which authorizes the operator to mine and

must be accurate.

The Director finds Iowa’s proposal to

be consistent with this interpretation

and is approving the proposal.

2. Timeframes for decisions on

applications. Iowa proposes at IAC 27–

40.32(3)b. that applications for permit

revisions will be approved or

disapproved within 90 days following a

determination of completeness, and that

an application for an amendment will

be approved or disapproved within 60

days of submittal of the application.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

774.13(b)(1) do not specify timeframes

for action on revision applications, but

rather require regulatory authorities to

establish time periods for such

approvals or disapprovals. The Director

finds that Iowa’s proposal establishes

such time periods and that the time

periods will ensure that operators

receive timely decisions. Therefore the

Director is approving the proposal.

3. Administrative and judicial review.

Iowa proposes at IAC 27–40.32(3)c. that:

‘‘[a]ny application for an amendment or

a revision under these rules shall, at a

minimum, be subject to the

requirements of Part 9 of these rules

* * *.’’ OSM notes that Part 9 of Iowa’s

rules contains, among other things, the

requirements for administrative and

judicial review of Iowa permit actions;

it thus contains the Iowa program

counterparts to 30 CFR Part 775

(administrative and judicial review of

permit decisions).

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

775.11(a) provide that decisions on

applications for any permit revision

(whether significant or insignificant) are

subject to administrative review; under

section 775.13(a), any administrative

review decision (including

administrative review of any permit

revision application decision) is subject

to judicial review. The Director finds

that Iowa’s proposal is consistent with

these requirements and is approving the

proposal.

4. Criteria for approval. Iowa proposes

to add at IAC 27–40.32(3)d. three

criteria for the approval of applications

for permit revisions and amendments.

The criteria proposed are: (1) That no

such application shall be approved

unless the application demonstrates,

and the Iowa regulatory authority finds,

that the reclamation as required by

Iowa’s Act and the regulatory program

can be accomplished; (2) that the

application complies with all

requirements of the Act and the

regulatory program; and (3) that ‘‘any

applicable requirements of written

findings for the permit have also been

met.’’

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

774.13(c) require that no application for

a permit revision shall be approved

unless the application demonstrates and

the regulatory authority finds: (1) That

reclamation as required by SMCRA and

the regulatory program can be

accomplished; (2) that the application

complies with all requirements of

SMCRA and the regulatory program;

and (3) that ‘‘applicable requirements

under section 773.15(c) which are

pertinent to the revision are met.’’ The

cited rule, 30 CFR 773.15(c), specifies

written findings for application

approval, and, as applied to an

application for a significant revision,

requires that the application not be

approved unless the application

affirmatively demonstrates, and the

regulatory authority finds in writing,

that several specified requirements,

where applicable, have been met.

The first two of Iowa’s proposed

criteria are substantively the same as

those specified in the Federal

regulations. The third criterion, written

findings, is in one way more stringent

than the Federal requirement because it

is applied to both revision and

amendment applications, whereas

under the Federal regulations this

criterion is applied only to applications

for significant revisions. Under SMCRA

section 505(b) and 30 CFR 730.11(b), no

State regulation which provides for

more stringent regulation of surface coal

mining and reclamation operations than

do the Federal regulations shall be

construed to be inconsistent with

SMCRA or with the Federal regulations.

OSM does not find, however, that this

proposed third criterion (‘‘and any

applicable requirements of written

findings for the permit have also been

met’’) clearly requires that new findings

be written (if applicable) for approval of

the amendment or revision. Instead,

Iowa’s proposed language could be

interpreted to be limited to requiring

consistency of the revision/amendment

application with the written findings of

the original permit approval; such an

interpretation would be less effective

than the third criterion of the Federal

regulation. However, OSM notes that

Iowa added this criterion in its revised

amendment of November 8, 1994

(Administrative Record No. IA–408),

which responded to OSM’s letter of

October 3, 1994 (Administrative Record

No. IA–407); in that letter, OSM had

indicated to Iowa that its initial

submittal was deficient in not

containing a counterpart to OSM’s

criterion for written findings. In its

revised amendment of November 8,

1994, Iowa indicates that this proposed

language was intended to address that

deficiency. OSM therefore concludes

that Iowa intends its language to be

interpreted in accordance with the

requirements of the Federal regulation

criterion; i.e., that Iowa intends that

new written findings are required, if

applicable, prior to approving an

application for permit amendment or

revision. Based on this understanding,

the Director finds Iowa’s proposal at

IAC 27–40.32(3)d. to be no less effective

than 30 CFR 774.13(c) in meeting

SMCRA’s requirements, and the

Director is approving the proposal.

5. Additions of area. Iowa proposes at

IAC 27–40.32(3)e. that any increase in

permit area, except incidental boundary

revisions (hereinafter, ‘‘IBR’s’’), shall

not be approved under ‘‘this subrule’’

(i.e., neither as a permit revision nor as

an amendment), but rather ‘‘shall be

treated as’’ a new permit application.

Iowa additionally proposes that IBR’s

are considered as significant departures

and hence shall be treated as revisions;’

that a total of 20 acres of IBR’s would

be allowed over the life of the permit,

with individual increments subject to

approval by Iowa (presumably under

other criteria for determining

‘‘incidental’’); and lastly, that

applications for IBR’s shall include a

demonstration that the proposed

additional permit area is contiguous to

the approved permit.

OSM interprets Iowa’s proposed

language that increases in permit area

(other than IBR’s) ‘‘shall be treated as a

new permit application’’ to mean that

any application for increased area

(unless it meets the criteria for an IBR)

will be subjected to all the entire

procedural and substantive

requirements for a new permit

application under IAC 27–40.31(207,

27–40.33(207), 27–40.34(207), 40–27.35

or .37(207), 27–40.36 or .38(207), and
17462 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

27–40.39(207). Under IAC 27–40.4(207)

and 27–40.31(207), this would include

the requirement that increases in permit

area (other than IBR’s) be made by

means of an ‘‘administratively complete

application.’’

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

774.13(d) provide that any extension to

the permit area, except IBR’s, shall be

made by application for a new permit.

The Federal regulations provide no

guidance as to what constitutes an

‘‘incidental’’ boundary revision.

Iowa’s proposal, under OSM’s

interpretation stated above, would

require additions other than IBR’s to be

made by application for a new permit.

It places an upper limit on the amount

of area that may be added by IBR’s and

requires that IBR’s be contiguous to the

permit; these proposed requirements

add specificity to aid Iowa in

determining what constitutes an

‘‘incidental’’ boundary revision. For

these reasons the Director finds

proposed IAC 27–40.32(3)e. to be

consistent with the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 774.13(d) in meeting

SMCRA’s requirements, and is

approving the proposal.

6. IAC 27–40.51(7). Time Requirements

for Processing of Bond Release

Applications

At IAC 27–40.51(7), Iowa previously

proposed to modify 30 CFR 800.40(a)(2)

(as incorporated by reference) by

requiring the regulatory authority to

determine that an application for bond

release is complete before the bond

release application is advertised. OSM

did not approve that proposal because it

would create conflicts with other

required time frames in the processing

of bond release applications (see 59 FR

5709, 5718; February 8, 1994; Finding

No. 22).

Iowa now proposes to delete that

unapproved modification of 30 CFR

800.40(a)(2); thus, under IAC 27–

40.51(207), 30 CFR 800.40(a)(2) would

be incorporated without modification.

Iowa further proposes to add a new rule

at IAC 27–40.51(7) which would

provide that an application for bond

release will not be considered filed until

a written determination of completeness

for the bond release application has

been provided to the applicant by Iowa,

and would further provide that Iowa

will make a determination of

completeness within 30 days of receipt.

Under the Federal regulations at 30

CFR 800.40, the starting point for all

time requirements related to processing

bond release applications is the date a

bond release application is ‘‘filed;’’ but

no clarification is provided regarding

whether an application must be found

to be complete before being considered

‘‘filed.’’

In the absence of any contrary

indication in the Federal regulations,

the concept of requiring a determination

of completeness before considering a

bond release application ‘‘filed’’ would

not be considered inconsistent with

those Federal regulations, providing

other aspects of the bond release process

are not adversely affected. One such

aspect to be considered is the

procedural protection afforded operators

by assuring them of timely decisions on

bond release applications. Iowa’s

proposal, by providing a maximum of

30 days for Iowa to make a

determination of completeness,

provides assurance that decisions on

bond release applications will not be

unduly delayed.

Further, OSM believes that this

proposal will assist Iowa in the efficient

administration of its program, and may

also serve the interests of operators in

obtaining bond releases: if incomplete

applications are entered into the strict

time frames of these procedures, there

may not be sufficient time to resolve all

problems before a decision must be

rendered, resulting in the automatic

denial of the application. This would

require the operator to file a new

application, which would delay the

potential bond release and create an

additional unnecessary workload for

both the regulatory authority and the

operator.

Based on the above discussion, the

Director finds that Iowa’s proposal at

IAC 27–40.51(7) is not inconsistent with

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.40, and is approving the proposal.

7. IAC 27–40.63(2). Backfilling &

Grading: Time and Distance

Requirements

Iowa proposes to incorporate by

reference 30 CFR 816.100 and delete the

incorporation by reference of 816.101

(both as in effect on July 1, 1992), and

add that the following shall apply:

rough backfilling and grading for surface

mining activities shall be completed

within 180 days following coal removal,

and not more than four spoil ridges

behind the pit being worked (spoil from

the active pit constituting the first

ridge); except that Iowa may extend the

time allowed for the entire permit area

or for a specified portion of it if the

permittee demonstrates (in accordance

with IAC 27–40.36 [30 CFR

780.18(b)(3)]) that additional time is

necessary. Iowa adds in a narrative note

to the submittal that it intends to adopt

time and distance standards only for

area mining.

OSM’s time and distance

requirements at 30 CFR 816.101 were

suspended on July 31, 1992 (57 FR

33874). Therefore OSM must evaluate

State time and distance requirements

against the general contemporaneous

reclamation requirements of 30 CFR

816.100. This regulation requires that all

reclamation efforts (including

backfilling, grading, topsoil

replacement, and revegetation) on all

land that is disturbed by surface mining

activities shall occur as

contemporaneously as practicable with

mining operations (except when

variances are granted for concurrent

surface and underground mining

activities).

As noted above, Iowa’s proposal

incorporates the general

contemporaneous reclamation

requirement of 30 CFR 816.100 by

reference. The additional proposed time

and distance requirements provide

additional specificity to one aspect of

the general requirement and is not

inconsistent with the general

requirement. Regarding Iowa’s intention

to specify time and distance standards

only for area mining, OSM is aware that

all recent coal mining in Iowa has been

area mining, and because of the geology

and geography of Iowa’s coal fields it is

likely that only area mining will occur

in the near future. Should any other

type of surface mining occur, it would

still be subject to the general

requirement of 30 CFR 816.100, which

is consistent with the current Federal

regulations (given that § 816.101 is

suspended).

Based on the above discussion, the

Director finds Iowa’s proposal at IAC

27–40.63(2) to be consistent with the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.100,

and is approving the proposal. The

Director further notes that the

incorporation by reference of 30 CFR

816.100 requires that topsoil

replacement occur as

contemporaneously as practicable with

mining operations, and thus satisfies the

required amendment codified at 30 CFR

915.16(b)(2) that was imposed on

February 8, 1994 (59 FR 5709, 5723).

Therefore the Director is removing this

requirement.

8. IAC 27–40.74(3). Alternate

Enforcement

Iowa proposes to revise existing

incorrect cross-references to the Iowa

Code that in this rule replace the crossreferences to SMCRA in Iowa’s

incorporation by reference of 30 CFR

845.15(b)(2). Specifically, Iowa proposes

to replace (in its incorporation of 30

CFR 845.15(b)(2) by reference) SMCRA

Section 518(e) with Iowa Code Section
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17463

207.15(6), SMCRA Section 518(f) with

Iowa Code Section 207.15(7), SMCRA

Section 521(a)(4) with Iowa Code

Section 207.14(3), and SMCRA Section

521(c) with Iowa Code Section

207.14(8).

The Director finds that Iowa has cited

the correct Iowa Code counterparts to

the cited SMCRA Sections, and that the

proposal is thus no less effective than 30

CFR 845.15(b)(2) in meeting SMCRA’s

requirements, and is approving the

proposal. The Director further notes that

this approval fulfills the required

amendment codified at 30 CFR

915.16(b)(3) that was imposed on

February 8, 1994 (59 FR 5709, 5723).

Therefore the Director is removing this

requirement.

9. IAC 27–40.75(2). Definition of

‘‘Violation, Failure, or Refusal’’

Iowa proposes to replace the

definition of ‘‘violation, failure, or

refusal’’ in the Federal regulations at 30

CFR 846.5 with a new definition that is

substantively the same as the Federal

definition, with one exception. The

second part of the Federal definition

includes failure or refusal to comply

with certain orders, but excludes orders

issued under SMCRA Sections 518(b) or

703. Iowa’s corresponding statutory

provisions (Iowa Code sections 207.15

and 207.28, respectively) do not

specifically refer to the issuance of

‘‘orders.’’ Therefore in this proposed

definition, Iowa has replaced citations

to its statute with citations to its

implementing rules (IAC 27–40.74(7)

and 27–40.7(207)), since these

implementing rules do specifically refer

to orders issued by Iowa. This

replacement of statutory citations with

regulatory citations renders Iowa’s

proposed definition substantively the

same as the Federal definition.

Therefore the Director is approving the

proposal.

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

In response to OSM’s invitation of

public comments, the State Historical

Society of Iowa responded on June 17,

1994, with a suggestion that Iowa’s

proposed definition of ‘‘significant

departure’’ (at proposed IAC 27–

40.32(2)) be revised to include any

change in the permit area, mining

method, or reclamation procedure

which would, in the opinion of the

regulatory authority, significantly

change the effect that mining operations

would have on cultural resources

(Administrative Record No. IA–404).

OSM forwarded the suggestion to Iowa

in the issue letter dated October 3, 1994

(Administrative Record No. IA–407).

Iowa included this suggestion in its

revised amendment dated November 8,

1994 (Administrative Record No. IA–

408). The Director is approving this

proposed definition, as discussed in

Finding No. 5.b above.

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 Iowa program. No

comments were received.

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 Iowa 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. IA–400). EPA 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. IA–400).

Neither SHPO nor ACHP responded to

OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves Iowa’s proposed

amendment as submitted on April 13,

1994, and as revised on November 8,

1994.

In accordance with 30 CFR

732.17(f)(1), the Director is also taking

this opportunity to clarify in the

required amendment section at 30 CFR

915.16 that, within 60 days of the

publication of this final rule, Iowa must

either submit a proposed written

amendment, or a description of an

amendment to be proposed that meets

the requirements of SMCRA and 30 CFR

Chapter VII and a timetable for

enactment that is consistent with Iowa’s

established administrative or legislative

procedures.

The Director approves the rules as

proposed by Iowa 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 915, codifying decisions concerning

the Iowa 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 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 12550) 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 (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).
17464 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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

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 915

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Russell F. Price,

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 915—IOWA

11. The authority citation for Part 915

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 915.15 is amended by

revising the heading and by adding

paragraph (k) to read as follows:

§ 915.15 Approval of amendments to the

Iowa regulatory program.

* * * * *

(k) Revisions to and/or addition of the

following rules, as submitted to OSM on

April 13, 1994, and as revised on

November 8, 1994, are approved

effective April 6, 1995:

IAC 27–40.3(207), general provisions

of regulatory program; 27–40.4(9),

definition of ‘‘previously mined area;’’

27–40.31(14), requirements for permits

and permit processing; 27–40.32(207),

revisions, amendment, renewal,

transfer, sale, assignment of permit; 27–

40.51(7), bond release applications; 27–

40.63(20), backfilling and grading, time

and distance requirements; 27–40.74(3),

alternate enforcement; and 27–40.75(2),

definition of ‘‘violation, failure, or

refusal.’’

3. Section 915.16 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 915.16 Requried program amendments.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(f)(1), Iowa

is required to submit to OSM by the

specified date the following written,

proposed program amendment, or a

description of an amendment to be

proposed that meets the requirements of

SMCRA and 30 CFR Chapter VII and a

timetable for enactment that is

consistent with Iowa’s established

administrative or legislative procedures.

[FR Doc. 95–8465 Filed 4–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 655

[Docket No. 950118018–5083–02; I.D.

111494E]

RIN 0648–XX02

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and

Butterfish Fisheries; Final 1995

Specifications

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final specifications for the 1995

Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish

fisheries.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues the final

specifications for the 1995 fishing year

for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and

butterfish. This action complies with

the regulations governing this fishery,

which require NMFS to publish annual

specifications.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the

Environmental Assessment are available

from the Northeast Regional Office,

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

Copies of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council’s quota paper and

recommendations are available from

David R. Keifer, Executive Director,

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council, Room 2115, Federal Building,

300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hannah Goodale, 508–281–9101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations implementing the Fishery

Management Plan for the Atlantic

Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish

Fisheries (FMP) prepared by the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council

appear at 50 CFR part 655. These

regulations require NMFS to publish a

document specifying the initial annual

amounts of the initial optimum yield

(IOY), as well as the amounts for

allowable biological catch (ABC),

domestic annual harvest (DAH),

domestic annual processing (DAP), joint

venture processing (JVP), and total

allowable levels of foreign fishing

(TALFF) for the species managed under

the FMP. No reserves are permitted

under the FMP for any of these species.

Procedures for determining the initial

annual amounts are found in § 655.22.

These specifications are unchanged

from the proposed specifications that

were published in the Federal Register

on January 26, 1995 (60 FR 5162). No

public comments were received

concerning the proposed specifications.

After consideration of all relevant data,

NMFS has made a final determination of

the initial amounts for each species. The

following table contains the final 1995

initial specifications for Atlantic

mackerel, Loligo and Illex squids, and

butterfish.