Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26445

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, 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.

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)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior 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 corresponding 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

corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR 914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 8, 1996.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 914—INDIANA

1. The authority citation for Part 914

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 914.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (qqq) to read as

follows:

§ 914.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(qqq) The revised provisions at 310

IAC 12–3–87.1(c)(2) and 310 IAC 12–5–

130.1(c)(2) and the repeal of 310 IAC

12–5–132 contained in Indiana’s

program amendment concerning

subsidence, as originally submitted by

Indiana on March 18, 1994, and for

which the decisions were deferred on

April 20, 1995, are approved effective

May 28, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–13264 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 925

[SPATS No. MO–026–FOR]

Missouri Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with a

reporting stipulation, a proposed

amendment to the Missouri regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Missouri program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The proposed

amendment consists of revisions to the

Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo)

and the Code of State Regulations (CSR)

along with supporting documentation

and information pertaining to Missouri’s

alternative bonding system. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Missouri program to be consistent with

the corresponding Federal regulations

and SMCRA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brent Wahlquist, Regional Director,

Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating

Center, Alton Federal Building, 501

Belle Street, Alton, Illinois, 62002

Telephone: (618) 463–6460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Missouri Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Missouri Program

On November 21, 1980, the Secretary

of Interior conditionally approved the

Missouri program. General background

information on the Missouri program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval of the Missouri

program can be found in the November

21, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR

77017). Subsequent actions concerning

Missouri’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

925.12, 925.15, and 925.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated March 7, 1995,

Missouri submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA (Administrative record No.

MO–617). Missouri submitted the

proposed amendment in response to a

January 30, 1986, letter (Administrative

record No. MO–351) that OSM sent to

Missouri in accordance with 30 CFR

732.17(c) and in response to the

required program amendments at 30

CFR 925.16(g). The provisions of the

Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo)

and the Code of State Regulations (CSR)

that Missouri proposed to revise were:

RSMO 444.805, Definition of Phase I

reclamation bond; RSMO 444.830, Bond

requirements, when a bond must be

filed, the amount of a bond, and

allowance for bond substitution; RSMO

444.950, Phase I reclamation bond

requirements; RSMO 444.960,

Establishment, purpose, and duties of

the Coal Mine Land Reclamation Fund

(CMLR Fund); RSMO 444.965.1,

Assessment for fund; 10 CSR 40–7.011,

Bond requirements; 10 CSR 40–7.021,

Duration and release of reclamation

liability; 10 CSR 40–7.041, Form and

administration of the CMLR Fund. In

addition, Missouri submitted: (1) A
26446 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

narrative explaining the current and

projected balances of the bond pools

(Fund A and Fund B) of the CMLR

Fund; (2) a discussion of how each

outstanding required program

amendment codified in the final rule in

the May 8, 1991, Federal Register (56

FR 21281) will be resolved

(Administrative Record No. MO–536);

(3) an explanation of how the

deficiencies identified in OSM’s issue

letter dated March 9, 1994

(Administrative Record No. MO–592)

will be resolved; (4) a table of

reclamation cost estimates for all

permits except those that represent a

minimal liability to the bond pools; (5)

a statement from the Missouri Attorney

General that explains the legal basis for

using Abandoned Mine Land Funds for

the reclamation of Bill’s Coal Forfeiture

Project; and (6) copies of the revised

bond forms utilized by Missouri.

By letter dated March 28, 1995

(Administrative Record No. MO–623),

Missouri informed the OSM Kansas City

Field Office of an inadvertent omission

in its program amendment request, and

requested inclusion in the proposed

amendment of statutory revisions at

RSMO 444.805 that removes the

definition for ‘‘full cost bond’’ and

revises the definition for ‘‘Phase I

reclamation bond.’’ These changes

correspond to regulation changes at 10

CSR 40–7.011 and have been

incorporated into this amendment.

By letter dated February 21, 1996,

(Administrative Record No. MO–636),

Missouri informed OSM it was

removing the proposed revisions

concerning administrative rulemaking

procedures at RSMO 444.950(2)–(8).

The main provisions of the

amendment propose to:

• Eliminate the option to post a ‘‘full

cost bond’’ and require mandatory

participation in Missouri’s alternative

bonding program.

• Require that up to 20 percent of

Phase I reclamation bond be held until

Phase III liability is released.

• Establish minimum rate adjustable

Phase I reclamation bond amounts.

• Establish the CMLR Fund as part of

the alternative bonding system (ABS),

with 40 percent of the assessments

placed in Fund A for reclamation of

permits revoked prior to September 1,

1988, and 60 percent of the assessments

placed in Fund B for reclamation of

permits revoked after September 1,

1988.

• Allow expenditure of CMLR funds

for completion of Phase I reclamation.

• Allow expenditure of Phase I

reclamation bond for any phase of

reclamation.

OSM published a notice in the March

27, 1995, Federal Register (58 FR

15728) announcing receipt of the

amendment and inviting public

comment on the adequacy of the

proposed amendment. The public

comment period ended April 26, 1995.

The public hearing scheduled for April

21, 1995, was not held because no one

requested an opportunity to testify.

III. Director’s Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, are the Director’s

findings concerning the proposed

amendment.

Revisions not specifically discussed

below concern nonsubstantive wording

changes or revised cross-references and

paragraph notations to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.

A. Revisions to Missouri’s Regulations

That Are Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Federal Regulations

Missouri proposes revisions to the

following regulations that contain

language that is identical in meaning to

the counterpart Federal regulations

(Federal regulation counterparts are

indicated in brackets): 10 CSR 40–

7.11(1)(H), Definition of Surety bond [30

CFR 800.5(a)]; 10 CSR 40–7.011(2),

Requirement to file a bond [30 CFR

800.11]. The Director, therefore, finds

these proposed revisions to Missouri’s

regulations are no less effective than the

federal regulations.

B. Required Program Amendments

Missouri submitted proposed

revisions in response to required

program amendments that the Director

placed on the Missouri program at 30

CFR 925.16(g) on May 8, 1991 (56 FR

21281).

1. Required Program Amendments

Satisfied by Statute or Regulation

Changes in the Proposed Amendment

The Director finds that the proposed

revisions to the following State statutes

and regulations satisfy the indicated

required program amendments and are

not inconsistent with the requirements

of section 509(c) of SMCRA and 30 CFR

800.11(e) of the Federal regulations.

Missouri’s proposed revisions and

accompanying fiscal demonstration

indicate these revisions will resolve the

issues associated with currently

approved alternative bonding

provisions. Therefore, the Director is

approving them. For clarity, the

required program amendments are listed

below, verbatim, along with Missouri’s

proposed revisions.

a. 30 CFR 925.16(g)(1). At RSMo

444.830.1; 444.965.1; 10 CSR 40–

7.011(2)(B); and 10 CSR 40–7.041(1)(A);

demonstrate that the resulting financial

aspect of the proposed optional

participation by an applicant of either a

full-cost bond or Phase I bond will

ensure that the ABS can meet the

requirements of 30 CFR 800.11(e) or

remove this provision.

To satisfy 30 CFR 925.16(g)(1),

Missouri proposes (1) at RSMo

444.830.1 to delete the option that

allows an applicant to file a full-cost

bond and pay a one time assessment to

the CMLR Fund (the one time

assessment only being required until

September 1, 1993), thereby making

participation in the ABS mandatory; (2)

at RSMo 444.950.1 to remove the

reference to a full-cost bond and to

require all applicants to file a Phase I

reclamation bond; (3) at RSMo

444.965.1 to delete language related to

the option to file a full-cost bond; (4) at

10 CSR 40–7.011(2) (B) and (C) to delete

provisions concerning filing of a fullcost bond; and (5) at 10 CSR 40–7.041(1)

to delete provisions concerning

assessment lump sum payments by

permittees who file full cost bonds.

These proposed revisions satisfy the

concerns raised by 30 CFR 925.16(g)(1),

and the Director is removing this

paragraph.

b. 30 CFR 925.16(g)(2). At RSMo

444.950.1 and 10 CSR 40–7.011(4) (A),

(B), (C), and (D) to ensure that the Phase

I reclamation bond amounts will cover

the cost of reclamation and maintain the

flexibility of conventional bonds in all

situations and that the open pit

minimum bond will be sufficient to

assure the completion of the required

reclamation in all cases.

At the time this required amendment

was imposed, Missouri’s program would

not allow expenditure of bond pool

moneys on Phase I reclamation.

Missouri proposes in this amendment to

(1) at RSMo 444.950.1 and 10 CSR 40–

7.011(5) establish adjustable Phase I

reclamation bond rates; (2) at RSMo

444.950.4 and 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(D)1

allow retention of up to 20 percent of

Phase I bond until completion of Phase

III reclamation; and (3) at RSMo

444.960.5 and 10 CSR 40–7.041(4)(A)1

allow expenditure of CMLR funds for

completion of Phase I reclamation.

The proposed revisions add flexibility

to Missouri’s alternative bonding system

to ensure coverage of the cost of

reclamation, and the Director is

removing the required amendment at 30

CFR 925.16(g)(2).

c. 30 CFR 925.16(g)(4). AT RSMo

444.950.3 and 444.830.3 to require the

Secretary of the Interior’s approval
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26447

before adopting an alternative bonding

system or delete the provision.

In response to the required program

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(g)(4),

Missouri proposes to modify its

requirements at RSMO 444.830.3 and

444.950.3 regarding the ability of the

commission to approve an alternative

bonding system by adding the language,

‘‘* * * and which is consistent with or

pursuant to the purposes of Public Law

95–87, the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act.’’

Section 509(c) of SMCRA specifically

requires that the Secretary of the Interior

must approve an alternative bonding

system prior to a State being able to

adopt the system. In a letter to Missouri

dated March 9, 1994 (Administrative

Record No. MO–592), OSM stated its

interpretation of Missouri’s intent in

making this change to its statute was to

indicate Missouri’s agreement that the

Secretary of the Interior’s approval is

required and Missouri would first

obtain the Secretary’s approval prior to

implementing any alternative bonding

system. Missouri’s response letter dated

April 4, 1994 (Administrative Record

No. MO–594), confirmed that OSM’s

interpretation was correct and Missouri

agrees that the Secretary of the Interior’s

approval is required prior to

implementing any alternative bonding

system. therefore, the Director is

removing the required program

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(g)(4).

d. 30 CFR 925.16(g)(5). At RSMo

444.960.1 to clarify how the CMLR

Fund may be expended.

At RSMo 444.960.1, Missouri’s

currently approved statute states that

moneys within the CMLR Fund will be

used by the Land Reclamation

Commission (LRC) to complete the

reclamation plan for any permitted

lands after the proceeds from any

applicable performance bond for such

reclamation have been exhausted. This

would conceivably allow use of moneys

in the CMLR Fund to complete Phases

I, II, and III reclamation requirements.

However, the existing statute at RSMO

444.960.5, while allowing moneys

within the 40 percent fund (Fund A) to

be used for any aspect of reclamation,

stipulates that moneys within the 60

percent fund (Fund B) may be used for

Phases II and III reclamation only.

To satisfy 30 CFR 925.16(g)(5),

Missouri proposes at RSMO 444.960.5

to allow moneys from both Fund A and

Fund B to be used for all phases of

reclamation. The proposed revision

clarifies how the CMLR Fund may be

expended, and the Director is removing

the required amendment at 30 CFR

925.16(g)(5).

e. 30 CFR 925.16(g)(6). At RSMo

444.960.5 and 10 CSR 40–7.041(4)(A)1,

to ensure that the 40 percent fund

portion (Fund A) will provide sufficient

funding to fully reclaim those sites

forfeited prior to September 1, 1988, and

demonstrate that the 60 percent fund

portion (Fund B) generation of monies

will be adequate to reclaim all defaulted

lands as required by 30 CFR 800.11(e).

To satisfy 30 CFR 925.16(g)(6),

Missouri proposes at RSMo 444.960.5,

10 CSR 40–7.041(1)(A), and 10 CSR 40–

7.041(4)(A)1 to require that moneys paid

into the CMLR Fund be allocated so that

40 percent of the assessments would be

used for reclaiming permits revoked by

the LRC prior to September 1, 1988

(Fund A), and 60 percent of the

assessments would apply to reclamation

of permits revoked by the LRC after

September 1, 1988 (Fund B). Moneys

that existed in the CMLR Fund as of

September 1, 1988, would be allocated

to Fund A, as would 40 percent of all

moneys assessed for the CMLR Fund

after September 1, 1988, until such time

that the accumulation of money in Fund

A would be sufficient to complete

reclamation of those permits revoked by

the commission prior to September 1,

1988, after which time all moneys

assessed for the CMLR Fund would be

allocated to Fund B. In addition,

moneys from both Fund A and Fund B

would be used on any aspect of

reclamation. Missouri also proposes

language changes at 10 CSR 40–7.041(1)

(B), (C), and (E) to maintain consistency

with the proposed changes at 10 CSR

40–7.041(1)(A) and 10 CSR 40–

7.041(4)(A)1.

These proposed changes will allow

Fund A to accrue additional moneys to

assure sufficient funding is available to

fully reclaim those sites forfeited prior

to September 1, 1988. The portion of 30

CFR 925.16(g)(6) that requires a

demonstration that Fund B generation of

moneys will be adequate to reclaim all

defaulted lands as required by 30 CFR

800.11(e) is incorporated into and

discussed in Finding B.2 since it is

redundant with 30 CFR 925.16(g)(3),

which also requires a demonstration

that Missouri’s ABS will meet the

requirements of SMCRA. Therefore,

since Missouri’s proposed changes

satisfy the Fund A portion of the

required amendment and the Fund B

portion is a redundant requirement, the

Director is removing 30 CFR

925.16(g)(6) in its entirety.

f. 30 CFR 925.16(g)(8). At RSMo

444.965.3 and 10 CSR 40–7.041(1)(B) 3,

4, 5, and 6; demonstrate that the buy out

option would still allow the ABS to

meet the requirements of 30 CFR

800.11(e)(1) or remove this option.

In response to 30 CFR 925.16(g)(8),

Missouri proposes to delete RSMO

444.965.3 and 10 CSR 40–7.041(1)(B)3,

4, 5, and 6, all of which either provide

for or relate to a buy out option. The

removal of the buy out option

provisions from the Missouri program

satisfies OSM’s concerns, and the

Director is removing the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(g)(8).

g. 30 CFR 925.16(g)(20). At 10 CSR

40–7.021(2)(D)(1. to clarify that its

Phase I bond release for an ABS is

consistently defined and used

throughout its program and to provide

a legal opinion of its Phase I reclamation

bond release and bond coverage

liability.

Missouri proposes to revise 10 CSR

40–7.021(2)(D)1 to reduce Phase I bond

by 80 percent when Phase I liability is

released and to clarify the remaining

bond is permit specific. For consistency

throughout its program, Missouri also

proposes (1) at 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(D) to

modify the definition of Phase I bond to

include release of 80 percent of the

bond upon successful completion of

Phase I reclamation of a permit area; (2)

at RSMo 444.805(15), recodified from

444.805(16), to modify the definition of

Phase I reclamation bond to include

release of no less than 80 percent of the

bond upon successful completion of

Phase I reclamation of a permit area;

and (3) at RSMo 444.950.4 to allow for

release of no less than 80 percent of

Phase I reclamation bond upon

completion of Phase I reclamation.

These proposed changes assure that

Missouri’s Phase I bond release for its

ABS is consistently defined and used

throughout its program. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1), in

reference to a conventional bonding

system, allow for release of 60 percent

of the bond when Phase I reclamation

requirements are satisfied. Since

Missouri proposes mandatory

participation in its alternative bonding

system, which will allow moneys to be

used in any phase of reclamation,

release of 80 percent of the Phase I

reclamation bond upon completion of

Phase I reclamation would be no less

effective than the Federal requirement

to release 60 percent of a full cost bond

upon completion of Phase I reclamation.

Replacement of the word ‘‘mine’’ with

the word ‘‘permit’’ and addition of the

word ‘‘remaining’’ at 10 CSR 40–

7.021(2)(D)1 clarifies that Phase I

reclamation bond release is permit

specific. Therefore, a legal opinion of

Missouri’s Phase I reclamation bond

release and bond coverage liability is no

longer necessary.

Based upon the above discussions, the

Director is removing the required
26448 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

program amendment at 30 CFR

925.16(g)(20).

2. Required Program Amendments

Satisfied by Missouri’s Fiscal

Demonstration

Missouri’s fiscal demonstration

satisfies the required program

amendments at 30 CFR 925.16(g)(3), the

Bond B portion of 30 CFR 925.16(g)(6),

and 30 CFR 925.16(g)(7), which are set

forth in the May 8, 1991, Federal

Register (56 FR 21281). For clarity, the

required program amendments are listed

below.

30 CFR 925.16(g)(3). * * *,

demonstrate that the combination of

bond liability between the operator’s

Phase I bond and the CMLR Fund bond

will meet the requirements of SMCRA.

30 CFR 925.16(g)(6). * * *,

demonstrate that the 60 percent fund

portion (Fund B) generation of moneys

will be adequate to reclaim all defaulted

lands as required by 30 CFR 800.11(e).

30 CFR 925.16(g)(7). * * *, to assure

that the fee assessment structure of the

CMLR Fund will ensure that the Fund

will operate in a financially solvent

manner as required by 30 CFR 800.11(e).

In response to these three required

program amendments, Missouri

submitted the report entitled

‘‘Evaluation of Missouri’s Alternative

Bonding System.’’ Information in this

demonstration shows that as of February

1, 1996, Missouri’s projected CMLR

Fund assets exceed liabilities in both

Fund A and Fund B. In addition,

projection tables in the report indicate

continued assessment fee payments to

the Fund will enable the State to

reclaim all forfeiture sites and meet

contractual commitments in a timely

manner without the Fund incurring a

deficit through September 1998.

Section 509(c) of SMCRA and 30 CFR

800.11(e) both require that under an

alternative bonding system, the

regulatory authority must have available

sufficient money to complete the

reclamation plan for any site that may

be in default at any time. An alternative

bonding system cannot be allowed to

incur a deficit if it is to have available

adequate revenues to complete the

reclamation of all outstanding bond

forfeiture sites. Since Missouri’s

demonstration shows that the CMLR

Fund has sufficient funds to fund the

reclamation of forfeiture sites that may

be in default at any time, the Director

finds that Missouri’s alternative bonding

system meets the requirements of 30

CFR 800.11(e), and it is achieving the

objectives and purposes of the

conventional bonding program set forth

in section 509 of SMCRA. However, due

to the possibility of future unanticipated

bond forfeitures or increased

reclamation costs on pending or existing

forfeiture sites that could have

significant impacts on solvency of

Missouri’s CMLR Fund, OSM must have

a means of monitoring continued

solvency of the Fund. Therefore, the

Director is removing the required

program amendments at 30 CFR 925.16

(g)(3), (g)(6), and (g)(7), with the

stipulation that Missouri submit semiannual reports to demonstrate

continued solvency of the CMLR Fund,

beginning with the first report due

October 1, 1996, until such time that

OSM informs Missouri of a less frequent

reporting period.

C. Revisions to Missouri’s Statutes That

Are Not Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal

Statutes

1. RSMo 444.805—Definitions

Missouri proposes to recodify this

section, delete the definition of ‘‘fullcost bond,’’ and revise the definition of

‘‘Phase I reclamation bond.’’

a. Full-Cost Bond. Missouri proposes

to delete the term ‘‘full-cost bond’’

previously defined at subsection (8), as

this term is no longer used in the

revised statutes. Operators will no

longer have the option of posting a

‘‘full-cost bond,’’ but will be required to

post a ‘‘Phase I reclamation bond’’ at a

minimum rate of $2,500 an acre and pay

assessments to the CMLR fund. The

requirement for mandatory participation

in Missouri’s alternative bonding

program will make the term ‘‘full-cost

bond’’ obsolete. The Director finds that

Missouri’s deletion of the definition of

‘‘full-cost bond’’ does not render RSMo

444.805 less stringent than the

requirements of SMCRA for

performance bonds at section 509(a).

The Director is, therefore, approving

Missouri’s proposal to delete the

definition of ‘‘full-cost bond’’ at RSMo

444.805(8).

b. Phase I Reclamation Bond. At

recodified subsection (15), previously

codified subsection (16), Missouri

redefines the term ‘‘Phase I reclamation

bond’’ to mean ‘‘a bond for performance

filed by a permittee pursuant to section

444.450 that may have no less than

eighty percent released upon the

successful completion of Phase I

reclamation of a permit area in

accordance with the approved

reclamation plan, with the rest of the

bond remaining in effect until Phase III

liability is released.’’ The previous

definition for ‘‘Phase I reclamation

bond’’ allowed Missouri to release all

Phase I reclamation bond upon the

successful completion of Phase I

reclamation. By requiring the retention

of 20 percent of the Phase I bond until

after Phase III liability is released, the

revised definition provides incentive for

operators to successfully complete

Phase II and Phase III reclamation as

required by 30 CFR 800.11(e)(2). There

is no Federal counterpart to Missouri’s

proposed definition. However, since the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.13(a)(2) authorize regulatory

authorities to accept phased bonding

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.40(c) allow regulatory authorities to

release bond if they are satisfied that all

the reclamation or a phase of the

reclamation covered by the bond has

been accomplished, the Director finds

this definition is not inconsistent with

Federal program requirements.

Therefore, the Director is approving

Missouri’s proposed revision to its

definition of ‘‘Phase I reclamation

bond’’ at RSMo 444.805(15).

2. RSMo 444.830—Filing Phase I

Reclamation Bond

Missouri proposes to remove a

provision from RSMo 444.830.1 and

insert the provision at RSMo 444.850.1.

This provision concerns the factors to be

considered when determining the

required Phase I bond amount. Since the

provision is to be inserted in RSMo

444.950.1, the Director finds this change

does not render the previously approved

provisions at RSMo 444.830.1 and

444.950.1 less stringent than the

requirements for performance bonds at

section 509(a) of SMCRA and is

approving the provision move.

3. RSMo 444.950—Phase I Reclamation

Bond Requirements

a. Adjustable Phase I Bond. (1)

Minimum Adjustable Rate Phase I

Reclamation Bond. At RSMO 444.950.1,

Missouri proposes to establish a

minimum Phase I reclamation bond rate

of $2,500 per acre for all permitted

acreage, except for coal preparation

areas for which the minimum bond rate

would be $10,000 per permitted acre.

OSM previously approved the $2,500

per acre Phase I bond amount in the

February 26, 1988, Federal Register (53

FR 5766) and the $10,000 per acre bond

requirement for coal preparation areas

in the October 31, 1988, Federal

Register (53 FR 43866) for unbonded

acreage under new permits, after April

30, 1986, or permits undisturbed as of

that date. Both approvals were

considered to be adequate partial

responses to OSM’s January 30, 1986, 30

CFR part 732 notification to Missouri.

Missouri’s proposal includes

provisions that would allow annual

adjustments of up to $250 for the $2,500
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26449

minimum rate and $500 for the $10,000

minimum rate, with maximum bond

rates of $5,000 and $15,000,

respectively, Bond amount adjustments

would have to be approved through

rulemaking.

Establishment of adjustable Phase I

bond rates is an improvement over the

previously approved fixed rats.

Adjustable rates will provide the

necessary flexibility to accommodate

changes in the cost of future

reclamation, a component essential to

ensure the CMLR Fund’s solvency and

hence its ability to meet the criteria of

300 CFR 800.11(e). Therefore, the

Director finds these revised provisions

at RSMo 444.950.1 are not inconsistent

with the requirements of section 509(a)

of SMCRA, and he is approving them.

(2) Factors Used to Determine Phase

I Reclamation Bond Amounts. Missouri

proposes to insert a provision at RSMo

444.950.1, that was removed from

RSMO 444.830.1, with no substantive

changes in language. This provision

concerns the factors to be considered

when determining the required Phase I

reclamation bond amount. These factors

will be used to assess all mine sites

annually to determine if an adjustment

in the Phase I reclamation bond amount

is necessary. The Director finds that the

addition of this previously approved

provision does not render the provisions

at RSMo 444.950.1 less stringent that

the Federal requirements for

performance bonds at section 509(a) of

SMCRA. Therefore, the Director is

approving Missouri’s proposed change.

(3) Minimum Amount of Phase I

Reclamation Bond. Missouri proposes to

remove the language ‘‘permitted surface

coal mining operation’’ and add the

word ‘‘permit’’ in that portion of the

provision which currently requires a

minimum of $10,000 of Phase I

reclamation bond be posted by an

operator. The $10,000 minimum will

now apply to each permit instead of a

surface coal mining operation, which

might include multiple permits.

Missouri also proposes to delete the

language ‘‘at two thousand five hundred

dollars per acre’’ in that portion of the

provision which requires a minimum

bond equivalent to 20 acres of Phase I

reclamation bond be posted for each

acre of open pit. This change is

necessary to be consistent with

Missouri’s proposal to establish

adjustable Phase I reclamation bond

amounts. These changes are not

inconsistent with section 509 of

SMCRA, and represent an improvement

to Missouri’s alternative bonding

system. Therefore, the Director is

approving these revisions to RSMo

444.950.1.

b. Acceptance of Phase I Reclamation

Bond. At RSMO 444.950.3, Missouri

proposes to add the language ‘‘Phase I

reclamation.’’ This change is necessary

to maintain consistency with Missouri’s

proposal to delete the term ‘‘full-cost

bond’’ and revise the term ‘‘Phase I

reclamation bond’’ at section 444.805.

This proposed change is nonsubstantive

and does not render section 444.950.3

less stringent than section 509(c) of

SMCRA. Therefore, the Director is

approving the proposed change.

c. Release of Phase I Reclamation

Bond. At RSMO 444.950.4, Missouri

proposes to add language which would

allow retention of up to 20 percent of

Phase I reclamation bond after

completion of Phase I reclamation with

the retained bond remaining in effect

until completion of Phase III

reclamation. This is an improvement

over the existing provision which

requires all Phase I bond to be released

on completion of Phase III reclamation.

This is an improvement over the

existing provision which requires all

Phase I bond to be released on

completion of Phase I reclamation, and

it would provide the economic

incentive required by 30 CFR

800.11(e)(2) for permittees to comply

with all reclamation provisions.

Missouri further proposes to allow

Phase I reclamation bond be available

for all phases of reclamation in the

event of forfeiture. This is an

improvement in the event of forfeiture.

This is an improvement over the

existing provision which allows the

expenditure of Phase I reclamation bond

only for Phase I reclamation in the event

of forfeiture. Section 509(a) of SMCRA

requires that the amount of the bond be

sufficient to assure the completion of

the reclamation plan in the event of

forfeiture.

Based on the above discussions, the

Director finds the proposed changes at

RSMO 444.950.4 are not inconsistent

with sections 509 and 519 of SMCRA,

and represent an improvement in the

Missouri alternative bonding program.

Therefore, the Director is approving

Missouri’s proposed changes.

4. RSMo 444.960–Coal Mine Land

Reclamation Fund

Section 509(c) of SMCRA provides

that ‘‘in lieu of establishment of a

bonding program, as set forth in this

section, the Secretary may approve

* * * an alternative system that will

achieve the objectives and purposes of

the bonding program pursuant to this

section.’’ As stated in section 509(a) of

SMCRA, one of the key objectives and

purposes of the bonding program is ‘‘to

assure the completion of the

reclamation plan if the work had to be

performed by the regulatory authority in

the event of forfeiture * * *.’’ In

furtherance of this objective, 30 CFR

800.11(e)(1) provides, in pertinent part,

that OSM may approve an alternative

bonding system if the alternative assures

that ‘‘the regulatory authority will have

available sufficient money to complete

the reclamation plan for any areas

which may be in default at any time.

Reclamation liability under a bond pool

must be continuous. The liability and

obligation of an ABS does not disappear

if the bond pool finds itself unable to

meet its obligations as they mature, its

existing capital structure is impaired, or

its ability to perform any of its

obligations is impaired.

To meet the requirements of 30 CFR

800.11(e), an alternative bonding system

must assure that the regulatory authority

will have available sufficient money to

complete the reclamation plan for any

areas which may be in default at any

time, and must provide a substantial

economic incentive for the permittee to

comply with all reclamation provisions.

In this proposed program amendment

submittal, Missouri proposes several

changes to its statutes to strengthen its

ABS and meet requirements of section

509 of SMCRA and 30 CFR 800.11(e).

a. Fund A. At RSMO 444.960,

Missouri established Fund A in

response to the Director’s January 30,

1986, letter that required the State to

outline plans to reclaim its backlog of

forfeited sites. The proposed fee

structure of Fund A allocates moneys

that existed in the CMLR Fund as of

September 1, 1988, to Fund A and

allocates 40 percent of all moneys

assessed for the CMLR Fund after

September 1, 1988, to Fund A until such

time that the accumulation of money in

Fund A would be sufficient to complete

reclamation of those permits revoked by

the commission prior to September 1,

1988.

In addition, at the time this proposed

amendment was submitted, Missouri

submitted a letter from its Attorney

General that explains the legal basis for

using Abandoned Mine Land Funds for

the reclamation of Bill’s Coal Forfeiture

Project. When the proposed amendment

was submitted, Missouri’s statutes were

silent on expenditure of Abandoned

Mine Land Funds (AML Funds) on

forfeiture sites where the surety became

insolvent. Since then, OSM approved a

proposed amendment in which

Missouri made changes to its statutes to

specifically allow use of AML Funds on

sites where insolvency of the surety

occurred (60 FR 43972, August 24,

1995). Approval of this amendment

assures Missouri’s statute includes
26450 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

language which allows use of AML

Funds on the Bill’s Coal Forfeiture

Project. Use of AML Funds at this site

would lessen the financial burden on

Fund A, thereby reducing the time

period for which assessments to Fund A

must continue.

Separation of Fund A from Fund B in

the CMLR Fund system as proposed by

Missouri will allow the funds necessary

to reclaim the backlog of sites forfeited

prior to September 1, 1988, and is not

inconsistent with section 509(c) of

SMCRA. Therefore, the Director finds

that Missouri’s proposed establishment

of Fund A under section RSMo

444.960.1 is no less stringent than

section 509(c) of SMCRA and is no less

effective than 30 CFR 800.11(e).

Accordingly, the Director is approving

Missouri’s proposed establishment of

Fund A in the ABS.

b. Fund B. Missouri’s proposed Fund

B will be used to fund reclamation of

sites where forfeiture occurred after

September 1, 1988. The proposed fee

structure requires that 60 percent of the

moneys assessed for the CMLR Fund be

allocated to Fund B until enough

moneys accrue in Fund A to complete

reclamation of sites where forfeiture

occurred prior to September 1, 1988,

after which Fund B will receive 100

percent of the CMLR Fund assessments.

Missouri proposes other changes

which will specifically strengthen Fund

B. At RSMo 444.830.1, Missouri

proposes to remove the option of

operators to file a full cost bond. This

would require all permittees to

participate in the ABS program, thereby

providing potential for increased

assessments to the CMLR Fund. At

RSMo 444.950.4, Missouri proposes to

allow retention of up to 20 percent of

Phase I reclamation bond after

completion of Phase I reclamation with

the retained bond remaining in effect

until completion of Phase III

reclamation. Also at RMSo 444.950.4,

Missouri proposes to allow the

expenditure of Phase I reclamation bond

for all phases of reclamation in the

event of forfeiture. The existing

provisions at RMSo 444.950.4 allow

release of all Phase I bond on

completion of Phase I reclamation and

the expenditure of Phase I reclamation

bond only for Phase I reclamation in the

event of forfeiture. These changes would

potentially lessen the burden on Fund B

when forfeitures occur. As previously

discussed in this final rule, all of these

proposed changes are being approved by

the Director.

The Director finds that Missouri’s

proposed concept of Fund B is not

inconsistent with section 509(c) of

SMCRA or 30 CFR 800.11(e). Therefore,

the Director is approving Missouri’s

proposed establishment of Fund B

under section RMSo 444.960.

5. RMSo 444.965—Payments to the

CMLR Fund

a. Redesignations. In Missouri’s

proposed amendment, RMSo 444.965.4

is redesignated 444.965.3, section

444.965.5 is redesignated section

444.965.4, and section 444.965.6 is

redesignated section 444.965.5. These

changes do not render the previously

approved provisions of RMSo 444.965

less stringent than the requirements of

section 509 of SMCRA. Therefore, the

Director is approving the redesignations.

b. CMLR Fund Adjustment. Proposed

language at newly codified RMSO

444.965.4, recodified from section

444.965.5, would require that after the

date when enough moneys have

accumulated in the 40 percent pool

(Fund A) to complete reclamation on

sites revoked prior to September 1,

1988, whenever the fund balance falls

below $7 million, tonnage assessments

would resume at the rate of 25 cents per

ton for the first 50,000 tons and 15 cents

per ton for the second 50,000 tons of

coal sold, shipped, or otherwise

disposed of in a calendar year by a

permittee, and the assessments would

remain in effect until the fund balance

once again achieved at least $7 million

dollars at the close of the State’s fiscal

year.

Missouri’s proposed tonnage rate

assessments at section 444.965.4 would

allow reductions in the assessment rates

provided at section 444.965.2. Such fee

assessments reductions would probably

not jeopardize solvency of the CMLR

Fund because at the time of such

reductions, enough moneys would

already have accumulated to reclaim the

backlog of forfeited sites where

revocation occurred prior to September

1, 1988. The Director finds the changes

proposed by Missouri are not

inconsistent with the requirements of

section 509(c) of SMCRA. Therefore, the

Director is approving Missouri’s

proposed changes at section 444.965.4.

c. CMLR Fund Balance Below $2

Million. At newly codified RMSo

444.965.5, recodified from section

444.965.6, Missouri proposes that:

‘‘After September 1, 1998, whenever the

fund balance falls below $2 million, the

assessment rate established in

subsection 2 of the section [RMSo

444.965.2] shall increase to a per ton

rate of 30 cents per ton for the first

50,000 tons and 20 cents per ton for the

second 50,000 tons of coal sold,

shipped, or otherwise disposed of in a

calendar year by a permittee. The

increased tonnage assessment shall

remain in effect until the fund balance

is at least $3 million at the close of the

State’s fiscal year, at which time the

assessment rate will revert to the rate

established pursuant to subsection 4 of

this section [RSM 444.965.4].’’ The

proposed increase in assessment rates

after September 1, 1998, whenever the

fund balance falls below $2 million will

increase Missouri’s ability to adjust the

fee schedule for the CMLR Fund when

necessary. The Director finds the

changes proposed by Missouri are not

inconsistent with the requirements of

section 509(c) of SMCRA. Therefore, the

Director is approving the changes

proposed by Missouri at section

444.965.5.

D. Revisions to Missouri’s Regulations

That Are Not Substantively Identical to

the Corresponding Provisions of the

Federal Regulations

1. 10 CSR 40–7.011—Bond

Requirements

a. 10 CSR 40–7.011(1), Definitions. (1)

Redesignations. In Missouri’s proposed

amendment, 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(B) is

redesignated 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(A), 10

CSR 40–7.011(1)(C) is redesignated 10

CSR 40–7.011(1)(B), 10 CSR 40–

7.011(1)(D) is redesignated 10 CSR 40–

7.011(1)(C), 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(E) is

redesignated 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(D), 10

CSR 40–7.011(1)(F) is redesignated 10

CSR 40–7.011(1)(G), and 10 CSR 40–

7.011(1)(G) is redesignated 10 CSR 40–

7.011(1)(H). These changes do not

render the previously approved

provisions at 10 CSR 40–7.011(1) less

effective than the Federal regulations.

Therefore, the Director is approving the

redesignations.

(2) Definition of ‘‘Full Cost Bond.’’ At

10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(A), Missouri

proposes to delete the definition of

‘‘full-cost bond.’’ Deletion of this

definition is discussed in Finding C.1.a.

of this document. In that finding, the

Director is approving Missouri’s

proposal to delete the definition of

‘‘full-cost’’ bond from its statutes.

Therefore, the Director is also approving

Missouri’s proposal to delete the

definition of ‘‘full-cost bond’’ from its

regulations at 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(A).

(3) Definition of ‘‘Phase I Bond.’’ At

10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(D), previously

designated 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(E),

Missouri proposes to redefine the term

‘‘Phase I reclamation bond.’’

Redefinition of this term is discussed in

Finding C.1.b. of this document. In that

finding, the Director is approving

Missouri’s proposal to redefine the term

in its statutes. Since the definition in

Missouri’s regulation is substantively

the same as the definition in its statute,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26451

the Director is also approving Missouri’s

proposal to redefine the term ‘‘Phase I

bond’’ in its regulation at 10 CSR 40–

7.011(1)(D).

(4) Definition of ‘‘Phase II Bond.’’ At

10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(E), Missouri

proposes to add a definition for ‘‘Phase

II bond.’’ It is defined as ‘‘performance

bond conditioned on the release of

Phase II liability.’’ There is no direct

Federal counterpart to Missouri’s

proposed definition. However, since the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.13(a)(2) authorize regulatory

authorities to accept phased bonding

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.40(c) allow regulatory authorities to

release bond if they are satisfied that all

the reclamation or a phase of the

reclamation covered by the bond has

been accomplished, the Director finds

Missouri’s proposed definition of

‘‘Phase II bond’’ is not inconsistent with

the Federal regulation requirements.

therefore, the Director is approving

Missouri’s proposal to add a definition

for ‘‘Phase II bond’’ at 10 CSR 40–

7.011(1)(E).

(5) Definition of ‘‘Phase III Bond.’’ At

10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(F), Missouri

proposes to add a definition for ‘‘Phase

III bond.’’ It is defined as ‘‘performance

bond conditioned on the release of

Phase III liability.’’ There is no direct

Federal counterpart to Missouri’s

proposed definition. However, since the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.13(a)(2) authorize regulatory

authorities to accept phased bonding

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.40(c) allow regulatory authorities to

release bond if they are satisfied that all

the reclamation or a phase of the

reclamation covered by the bond has

been accomplished, the Director finds

Missouri’s proposed definition of

‘‘Phase III bond’’ is not inconsistent

with the Federal regulation

requirements. Therefore, the Director is

approving Missouri’s proposal to add a

definition for ‘‘Phase III bond’’ at 10

CSR 40–7.011(1)(F).

b. 10 CSR 40–7.011(3), Incremental

Bonding. (1) Filing Incremental Bond.

At 10 CSR 40–7.011(3)(A), Missouri

proposes to add the provision,

‘‘Disturbance is prohibited on

succeeding increments, underground

shafts, tunnels, or operations prior to

acceptance of bond.’’ This provision is

substantially the same as that found at

10 CSR 40–7.011(c). Therefore, the

Director finds that addition of this

provision does not render 10 CSR 40–

7.011(3)(A) less effective than the

Federal regulations, and he is approving

the addition as proposed by Missouri.

(2) Identification of Increments for

Bonding. At 10 CSR 40–7.011(3)(D),

Missouri proposes to add the language,

‘‘* * * submit an incremental bonding

schedule and * * *.’’ Although the

counterpart Federal regulation at 30

CFR 800.11(b)(3) does not require

submission of an incremental bonding

schedule, the Federal regulation at 30

CFR 800.11(d)(3) does require the

applicant to submit an incremental

bond schedule if he elects to bond in

increments. Therefore, the Director

finds that addition of this requirement

to 10 CSR 40–7.011(3)(D) does not

render it less effective than 30 CFR

800.11(b)(3), and is approving the

addition of language as proposed by

Missouri.

(c) 10 CSR 40–7.011(4), Bond

Amounts. (1) Minimum per Acre Phase

I Bond Amounts. At 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4)(A), Missouri proposes to make

language changes and deletions to retain

consistency with proposed changes at

RSMo 444.950.1 concerning minimum

Phase I reclamation bond amounts.

Missouri, also, proposes to add the

provision now found at 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4)(C) which establishes the

minimum amount of Phase I

reclamation bond required for each acre

of coal preparation area. The proposed

revisions to Missouri’s statute

requirements for minimum Phase I

reclamation bond amounts are

discussed in Finding C.3.a.(1) in this

document. In that finding, the Director

approved Missouri’s proposed changes

to its statute at RSMo 444.950.1.

Therefore, the Director is also approving

Missouri’s proposed language changes,

additions, and deletions as proposed at

40 CSR 40–7.011(4)(A), since they are

consistent with the approved statute

revisions at RSMo 444.950.1.

(2) Minimum Phase I Bond for a

Permit. At existing 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4)(D), redesignated as 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4)(B), Missouri proposes to

change language so that the minimum

amount of Phase I bond required for

mines with fewer than 1,000 acres shall

be $10,000, or the equivalent of 20 acres

of bond for each acre of open pit area,

for a single permit instead of mine, and

remove the definition of a ‘‘single

mine.’’ The Federal regulations at 30

CFR 800.14(b) set a minimum bond

requirement of $10,000 for the entire

area under one permit. Missouri’s

proposed changes at 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4)(B) would also establish a

minimum bond rate of $10,000 for the

area under one permit. Therefore, the

Director finds Missouri’s proposed

changes are no less effective than the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.14(b),

and he is approving Missouri’s

proposed changes at redesignated 10

CSR 40–7.011(4)(B).

(3) Deleted Regulations. Missouri

proposes to delete existing 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4) (B), (C), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I).

(a) At existing 10 CSR 40–7.011(4)(B),

the provision allows for a lesser amount

of bond per acre than the $2,500

minimum bond per acre set by 10 CSR

40–7.011(4)(A). Deletion of existing 10

CSR 40–7.011(4)(B) will allow bond on

any permitted acreage to be no less than

the $2,500 bond per acre required by 10

CSR 40–7.011(4)(A). The Director finds

deletion of existing 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4)(B) will not render 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4) less effective than the Federal

requirements at 30 CFR 800.14(b).

(b) The provision at 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4)(C) is being added to 10 CSR

40–7.011(4)(A). The Director finds

deletion of 10 CSR 40–7.011(4)(C) and

insertion of the provision at 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4)(A) will not render 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4) less effective than the Federal

requirements at 30 CFR 800.14(b).

(c) The provisions at 10 CSR 40–

7.011(4) (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I) all

pertain to full-cost bonding. Deletion of

the option to file a full-cost bond in the

Missouri statutes is discussed in

Finding B.1.a. In that finding, the

Director approved Missouri’s proposal

at RSMo 444.830.1 to delete the option

to file a full-cost bond. Therefore, the

Director is approving Missouri’s

proposal to delete existing regulations

pertaining to full-cost bond at 10 CSR

40–7.011(4) (B), (C), (E), (F), (G), (H),

and (I).

d. 10 CSR 40–7.011(5), Adjustment of

Bond Amounts. Missouri proposes to

add new section 10 CSR 40–7.011(5),

which includes provisions at

subsections (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E),

that would allow the State to adjust

Phase I bond rates to ensure adequate

bonding amounts. The provisions at

proposed new section 10 CSR 40–

7.011(5) are substantially the same as

the proposed provisions of Missouri’s

statute at RSMo–444.950.1, which are

discussed in Finding C.3.a.(1). In that

finding, the Director is approving

Missouri’s proposed statute provisions

concerning adjustment of Phase I bond

amounts. Therefore, the Director is

approving Missouri’s proposed

regulation provisions at 10 CSR 40–

7.011(5).

2. 10 CSR 40–7.021 Duration and

Release of Reclamation Liability

a. 10 CSR 40–7.021(2) Criteria and

Schedule for Release of Reclamation

Liability. (1) General. At 10 CSR 40–

7.021(2), Missouri proposes to remove

the provision concerning retention of

bond on unreclaimed temporary

structures, such as roads, sediment

ponds, diversions, and stockpiles where
26452 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Phase I, II, and III liabilities under the

alternative bonding system apply and

on a reclamation cost estimate basis

where full-cost bonding applies.

Missouri is proposing to move that

portion of the provision pertaining to

Phase I bond to 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(A),

and is proposing to delete that portion

of the provision pertaining to full-cost

bonding. As discussed in Finding B.1.a.,

the Director is approving Missouri’s

proposal to delete the option to file a

full-cost bond. Therefore, none of the

existing Missouri program provisions

are rendered less effective by this

proposed move and deletion, and the

Director is approving Missouri’s

proposed revision at 10 CSR 40–

7.021(2).

(2) 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(A)

Qualification for Release of Phase I

Liability. As discussed above, Missouri

proposes to move the requirement that

Phase I bond be retained on

unreclaimed temporary structures, such

as roads, sediment ponds, diversions,

and stockpiles from 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)

to 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(A). Retention of

bond for unreclaimed temporary

structures is not addressed as separate

requirements in the Federal regulations

for bond release; however, Phase I bond

release may not be approved until

backfilling, grading, and drainage

control in accordance with the

reclamation plan is complete. Since 10

CSR 40–7.021(2)(A) retains its

requirement for completion of

backfilling, grading, and drainage

control prior to Phase I bond release, the

existing regulation provisions are not

rendered less effective by the inclusion

of the requirement for retention of bond

for unreclaimed temporary structures.

Therefore, the Director finds the

proposed revision is no less effective

than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.40(c)(1), and is approving

Missouri’s proposed change at 10 CSR

40–7.021(2)(A).

(3) 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(D)1 Release of

Phase I Bond When Phase I Reclamation

is Completed. In addition to the

proposed changes at 10 CSR 40–

7.021(2)(D)1 previously discussed in

Finding B.1.b., Missouri proposes to add

language to require that after 80 percent

of Phase I bond is released, the total

remaining bond for a single permit shall

not be below the amount required by 10

CSR 40–7.011(4)(B). As discussed in

Finding D.1.c.(2), the Director is

approving new 10 CSR 40–7.011(4)(B)

which requires that the minimum

amount of Phase I bond applied to a

single permit shall be $10,000, or the

equivalent of 20 acres of bond for each

acre of open pit area, whichever is

greater. The Director finds Missouri’s

proposed change does not render 10

CSR 40–7.021(2)(D)1 less effective than

the requirements of 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1),

and he is approving it.

(4) 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(D)2 Release of

Remaining Phase I Reclamation Bond.

At 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(D)2, Missouri

proposes to delete language pertaining

to release of full-cost bonds and to add

the following language pertaining to

release of Phase I reclamation bond:

‘‘The remaining amount of the bonds

shall be released when Phase III liability

is released.’’ Deletion of the option to

file a full-cost bond is discussed in

Finding B.1.a. In that finding, the

Director approved Missouri’s proposal

to delete the option to file a full-cost

bond from its statutes. Retention of a

portion of Phase I bond until

completion of Phase III reclamation is

discussed in Finding C.3.c. In that

finding, the Director approved

Missouri’s provision in its statutes to

retain up to 20 percent of Phase I bond

until completion of Phase III

reclamation. These changes proposed by

Missouri are necessary to maintain

consistency in its program and are not

inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal

regulations. Therefore, the Director is

approving Missouri’s proposed changes

at 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(D)2.

(5) 10 CSR 40–7.021(2)(E) Release of

Bond from Undisturbed Areas. At 10

CSR 40–7.021(2)(E), Missouri proposes

to clarify its provision for release of

bond liability from undisturbed areas

which are adjacent to disturbed lands by

specifying that the bond ‘‘may’’ be

released instead of ‘‘shall’’ be released

and by adding language pertaining to

surface mining disturbances: ‘‘All

bonding liability may be released in full

from undisturbed areas when further

disturbances from surface mining have

ceased.’’ In addition, Missouri proposes

to clarify that ‘‘The permit shall

terminate on all areas where all bonds

have been released.’’ Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 800.15(c) allow reduction of

bond liability for undisturbed land.

Although the Federal regulations for

undisturbed areas do not contain

specific language pertaining to permit

termination, the Director finds the

proposed changes would not render 10

CSR 40–7.021(2)(E) inconsistent with

SMCRA or the Federal regulations and

is approving them.

b. 10 CSR 40–7.021(5) Requirement to

File an Affidavit. On the State’s

initiative, additional requirements for

bond release are proposed to be added

to the Missouri program. Specifically,

Missouri proposes to add a new section

10 CSR 40–7.021(5) which would

require an operator who is seeking a

Phase III bond release to file an affidavit

with the recorder of deeds in the county

where mining occurred describing the

parcel(s) of land where operations such

as underground mining, auger mining,

covering of slurry ponds, or other

underground activities occurred which

could impact or limit future use of the

land. This requirement would be

applicable to mined land where Phase I

reclamation was completed on or after

September 1, 1992. There is no Federal

counterpart to the proposed provision

for Phase III bond release at section 519

of SMCRA or 30 CFR 800.40(c). The

Director finds the additional

requirements would not adversely

impact the Missouri program as none of

the existing program provisions are

rendered less effective than the Federal

regulations by the inclusion of the

additional requirements. Therefore, he

is approving 10 CSR 40–7.021(5) as

proposed.

3. 10 CSR 40–7.041 Form and

Administration of the Coal Mine Land

Reclamation Fund

Missouri proposes to delete 10 CSR

40–7.041(4)(A)2. This provision

stipulates that Reclamation Fund

moneys cannot be expended for

reclamation or areas bonded by full-cost

bonds. Since Missouri also proposes in

this amendment to remove the option to

file a full-cost bond, this proposed

deletion is necessary to maintain

consistency in the Missouri program. As

discussed in Finding B.1.a., the Director

is approving the deletion of the option

to file a full-cost bond from the Missouri

program. Therefore, the Director finds

Missouri’s proposed deletion of 10 CSR

40–7.041(4)(A)2 will not render 10 CSR

40–7.041(4)(A) less effective than the

Federal regulations.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the proposed

amendment. No public comments were

received, and because on one requested

an opportunity to speak at a public

hearing, no hearing was held.

Federal Agency Comments

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

the Director solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from various

Federal agencies with an actual or

potential interest in the Missouri

program. No comments from Federal

agencies were received.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

OSM is required to obtain the written
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26453

concurrence of the 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.).

None of the revisions that Missouri

proposed to make in its amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards.

Nevertheless, OSM requested EPA’s

concurrence with the proposed

amendment (Administrative Record

Nos. MO–621 and MO–624). EPA did

not respond to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director is approving, with a reporting

stipulation, the proposed amendment as

submitted by Missouri on March 7,

1995, and March 28, 1995. This

stipulation requires Missouri to submit

semi-annual reports to demonstrate

continued solvency of the CMLR Fund,

beginning with the first report due

October 1, 1996, until such time that

OSM informs Missouri of a less frequent

reporting period.

The changes approved in this

rulemaking strengthens the Missouri

program and, as such, are consistent

with SMCRA and the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g).

The Director approves the regulations

and statutes as proposed by Missouri

with the provision that they be fully

promulgated in identical form to the

regulations and statutes submitted to

and reviewed by OSM and the public.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 925, codifying decisions concerning

the Missouri program, are being

amended to implement this decision.

With respect to those changes in State

laws and regulations approved in this

document, the Director is making the

final rule effective immediately.

Effect of Director’s Decision

Section 503 of SMCRA provides that

a State may not exercise jurisdiction

under SMCRA unless the State program

is approved by the Secretary. Similarly,

30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any

alteration of an approved State program

be submitted to OSM for review as a

program amendment. In the oversight of

the Missouri program, the Director will

recognize only the statutes, regulations,

and other materials approved by OSM,

together with any consistent

implementing policies, directives, and

other materials, and will require the

enforcement by Missouri of only such

provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

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).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, 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.

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)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior 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 corresponding 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

corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 925

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 8, 1996.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 925—MISSOURI

1. The authority citation for Part 925

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 925.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (t) to read as follows:

§ 925.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(t) Revisions to the following statutes

and regulations, as submitted to OSM

on March 7 and March 28, 1995, are

approved effective May 28, 1996, with

a reporting stipulation that requires

Missouri to submit semi-annual reports

to demonstrate continued solvency of

the CMLR Fund, beginning with the first

report due October 1, 1996, until such

time that OSM informs Missouri of a

less frequent reporting period.

(1) Revisions to the Revised Statutes

of Missouri (RSMo).

RSMo 444.805—Deletion of the

definition of full-cost bond and

revision of the definition of Phase I

reclamation bond.

RSMo 444.830.1—Deletion of option to

file a full-cost bond and revision to

Phase I reclamation bond filing

requirements.

RSMo 444.830.3—Commission’s

adoption of an alternative bonding

system.

RSMo 444.950.1—Phase I reclamation

bond amount requirements, including

annual adjustments proposed through

the Missouri rulemaking process.
26454 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

RSMo 444.950.3—Self-bonding

requirements and adoption of an

alternative bonding system.

RSMo 444.950.4—Phase I reclamation

bond liability.

RSMo 444.960.1—Establishment of the

CMLR Fund.

RSMo 444.960.5—Allocation and use of

the A (40%) and B (60%) portions of

the CMLR Fund.

RSMo 444.965.1—CMLR initial

assessments.

RSMo 444.965.3—Deletion of buy-out

option.

RSMo 444.965.4—CMLR Fund

Adjustment.

RSMo 444.965.5—CMLR assessment

increase.

(2) Revisions to the Missouri Code of

Regulations (CSR) at 10 CSR 40–7.

10 CSR 40–7.011(1)—Deletion of the

definition of full-cost bond, revision

of the definition of Phase I bond, and

addition of definitions for Phase II

and Phase III bond.

10 CSR 40–7.011(2)—Revision of

requirements to file a bond.

10 CSR 40–7.011(3)—Filing of

incremental bond and identification

of increments for bonding.

10 CSR 40–7.011(4)—Minimum per acre

Phase I bond amounts, minimum

Phase I bond for a permit, and

deletion of full-cost bonding

provisions.

10 CSR 40–7.011(5)—Annual

adjustment of Phase I bond amounts.

10 CSR 40–7.021(2)—Concerning

criteria and schedule for release of

reclamation liability, qualification for

release of Phase I liability, release of

Phase I bond when Phase I

reclamation is completed, and release

of bond from undisturbed areas.

10 CSR 40–7.021(5)—Requirement to

file an affidavit at Phase III release of

underground mining acreage.

10 CSR 40–7.041(1)—Payment to the 40

percent pool, assessment rates,

continuation of monthly assessments,

and reinstatement rates.

10 CSR 40–7.041(4)—Expenditure of

reclamation fund moneys.

§ 925.16 [Amended]

3. Section 925.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs

(g)(1) through (g)(8) and (g)(20).

[FR Doc. 96–13261 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 925

[SPATS No. MO–025–FOR]

Missouri Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with

certain exceptions, a proposed

amendment to the Missouri regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Missouri program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The proposed

amendment consists of a proposed set of

revegetation success guidelines and a

rulemaking that eliminates the reference

to an earlier set of guidelines that was

never approved by OSM. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Missouri program to be consistent with

the corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brent Wahlquist, Regional Director,

Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating

Center, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Alton

Federal Building, 501 Belle Street,

Alton, Illinois 62002, Telephone: (618)

463–6460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Missouri Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Missouri Program

On November 21, 1980, the Secretary

of Interior conditionally approved the

Missouri program. General background

information on the Missouri program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval of the Missouri

program can be found in the November

21, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR

77017). Subsequent actions concerning

Missouri’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

925.12, 925.15, and 925.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated December 14, 1995

(Administrative Record no. MO–633),

Missouri submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA. Missouri submitted the

proposed amendment in response to the

required program amendments at 30

CFR 925.16 (a) and (p)(6). The

provisions of the Code of State

Regulations (CSR) that Missouri

proposes to amend are: 10 CSR 40–

3.120/3.270(c)(B)2.A–H., Specific

revegetation success standards for

postmining land uses. Specifically,

Missouri proposes revisions to its

approved program for evaluating

revegetation success. Missouri revised

its regulations for the specific standards

for each of its approved land uses to

delete the reference to an earlier set of

guidelines that had not been approved

by OSM and reference the guidelines as

currently proposed in this amendment.

The proposed revegetation success

guidelines consist of eight separate

guidance documents that establish the

revegetation success standards by land

use. These documents are titled the: (1)

Phase II and Phase III revegetation

standards for prime farmland; (2) Phase

III revegetation standards for cropland;

(3) Phase III revegetation standards for

pasture and previously mined areas; (4)

Phase III revegetation standards for

wildlife habitat; (5) Phase III

revegetation standards for woodland; (6)

Phase III revegetation standards for

industrial/commercial revegetation; (7)

Phase III revegetation success standards

for residential land use; and (8) Phase III

revegetation success standards for

recreation land use. Each set of

guidelines elaborates by land use type

the revegetation success standards,

measurement frequency, sampling

procedures, data submission and

analysis, maps, and mitigation plan

requirements. The guidance documents

follow the approved Missouri program

regulations at 10 CSR 40–3.120/3.270(6).

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the January 26,

1996, Federal Register (61 FR 2459),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period closed on

February 26, 1996.

III. Director’s Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, are the Director’s

findings concerning the proposed

amendment.

Revisions not specifically discussed

below concern nonsubstantive wording

changes, or revised cross-references and

paragraph notations to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.