[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26445-26454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13261]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
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

[[Page 26446]]

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:
    <bullet> Eliminate the option to post a ``full cost bond'' and 
require mandatory participation in Missouri's alternative bonding 
program.
    <bullet> Require that up to 20 percent of Phase I reclamation bond 
be held until Phase III liability is released.
    <bullet> Establish minimum rate adjustable Phase I reclamation bond 
amounts.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Allow expenditure of CMLR funds for completion of Phase I 
reclamation.
    <bullet> 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 full-
cost 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 26448]]

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 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.

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 ``full-cost 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 26450]]

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,

[[Page 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

[[Page 26452]]

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

[[Page 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:


Sec. 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.

[[Page 26454]]

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.


Sec. 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