46804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

1This final rule notice contains references to 

documents assigned Administrative Record 

numbers through our old record system and those 

assigned through the new regulations.gov system. 

OSM is transitioning to regulations.gov and all 

administrative record numbers will be assigned 

through this system in the future. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 5, 

2008. 

Robert A. Sturgell, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–18619 Filed 8–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 944 

[SATS No. UT–044–FOR; Docket ID: OSM–

2007–0014] 

Utah Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We are approving an 

amendment to the Utah regulatory 

program (the Utah program) under the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). Utah proposed revisions to its 

statute and rules regarding permit 

application requirements which may be 

waived with a written determination 

that they are unnecessary by the 

Division of Oil Gas and Mining (the 

Division), permit applications being 

filed in a local public office for public 

inspection, and extensions to permitted 

area being processed as significant 

revisions or applications for new 

permits. Utah is revising its program to 

be consistent with the corresponding 

Federal regulations and SMCRA, clarify 

ambiguities, and improve operational 

efficiency. This amendment package 

contains changes proposed previously 

under UT–042–FOR and UT–043–FOR. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field 

Division, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 

Broadway, suite 3320, Denver, CO 

80202–5733, Telephone: (303) 844–

1400, extension 1424, E-mail: 

jfulton@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Utah Program 

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment 

III. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement’s (OSM’s) Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Utah Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the Utah 

program on January 21, 1981. You can 

find background information on the 

Utah program, including the Secretary’s 

findings, the disposition of comments, 

and conditions of approval of the Utah 

program in the January 21, 1981, 

Federal Register (46 FR 5899). You can 

also find later actions concerning Utah’s 

program and program amendments at 30 

CFR 944.15, 944.20, 944.25 and 944.30. 

II. Submission of the Proposed 

Amendment 

By letter dated August 31, 2007, Utah 

sent us an amendment to its program 

(Administrative Record No. 1 OSM–

2007–0014–0004 & OSM–2007–0014–

0005) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et 

seq.). Utah sent the amendment in 

response to concern letters sent by OSM 

regarding changes proposed under UT–

042–FOR (Administrative Record No. 

UT–1181 dated February 21, 2003) and 

UT–043–FOR (Administrative Record 

No. UT–1193 informal concern letter 

dated February 14, 2006), and to include 

changes made at its own initiative. 

Concerns regarding section 40–10–

10(2)(d) of the Utah Code Annotated 

(UCA) and UCA 40–10–10(5) as 

submitted under UT–042–FOR are 

addressed here and the remainder of the 

UT–042–FOR package is being 

processed through a separate Federal 

Register notice. Utah formally withdrew 

the amendment to Administrative Rule 

R645–303–222 proposed under UT–

043–FOR in a letter dated February 16, 

2006 (Administrative Record No. UT–

1194), and we approved the remainder 

of that amendment package on June 8, 

2006 (71 FR 33249; Administrative 

Record No. UT–1195). 

We announced receipt of this 

proposed amendment in the October 22, 

2007, Federal Register (72 FR 59489). In 

the same document, we opened the 

public comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the amendment’s adequacy 

(Administrative Record No. OSM–2007–

0014–0001). We did not hold a public 

hearing or meeting because no one 

requested one. The public comment 

period ended on November 21, 2007. 

We received comments from two 

Federal agencies and one private 

citizen. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

The following are our findings 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment. 

A. Utah proposes to amend UCA 40–10–

10(2)(d) to read: 

40–10–10(2)(d)(i) A permit application 

will also include the following information: 

(A) the result of test borings or core 

samples from the permit area, including logs 

of the drill holes; 

(B) the thickness of the coal seam found; 

(C) an analysis of the chemical properties 

of the coal; 

(D) the sulfur content of any coal seam; 

(E) chemical analysis of potentially acid or 

toxic-forming sections of the overburden; and 

(F) chemical analysis of the stratum lying 

immediately underneath the coal to be 

mined. 

(ii) Application requirements of Subsection 

(2)(d)(i) may be waived by the division if 

there is a written determination that these 

requirements are unnecessary. 

Utah proposes to revise its statute at 

UCA 40–10–10(2)(d) to include 

recodification and language changes 

that are intended to increase 

accessibility and readability, limit the 

requirements to permit applications 

rather than permit applications and 

reclamation plans, and clarify which 

permit application requirements may be 

waived with a written determination by 

the Department that they are 

unnecessary. 

UCA 40–10–10(2)(d) is being 

recodified as UCA 40–10–10(2)(d)(i)(A) 

through (F), and (ii). This proposed 

change will increase accessibility and 

readability of the section by identifying 

each requirement set forth in a separate 

subsection rather than having all 

requirements stated in one sentence. 

The recodification and minor language 

changes necessary to create separate 

sentences do not change the meaning or 

effectiveness of this provision. 

The proposed language change at 

UCA 40–10–10(2)(d)(i) will replace the 

phrase ‘‘A statement of’’ with ‘‘A permit 

application will also include the 

following’’. This change has the effect of 

limiting the requirements set forth 

under 40–10–10(2)(d) to only permit 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 46805 

applications. The remainder of UCA 40–

10–10(2) applies to both permit 

applications and reclamation plans. 

Reclamation plans must always be 

submitted as part of permit applications 

under State and Federal law. Utah’s 

reclamation plan requirements are 

included in but not limited to UCA 40–

10–10 and Administrative Rules R645–

301–240, R645–301–340, R645–301–

540, and R645–301–550. 

The Federal counterpart language at 

SMCRA section 507(b)(15) contains the 

same requirements for permit 

applications only. Specific reclamation 

plan requirements are set forth under 

SMCRA section 508 and 30 CFR parts 

780 and 784. 

Utah Administrative Rule R645–300–

133.710 requires the applicant to 

demonstrate that reclamation as 

required by the Program can be 

accomplished according to information 

given in the permit application. 

Informational requirements set forth 

under UCA 40–10–10(2)(d) will be 

considered in the reclamation plan by 

inclusion in the permit application. 

Both Federal and State laws require 

the operator to demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the regulatory authority 

that reclamation can be accomplished in 

the area proposed for mining. With the 

proposed change, UCA 40–10–10(2)(d) 

is substantively identical to its Federal 

counterpart, SMCRA section 507(b)(15). 

We find this change to be no less 

stringent than SMCRA. 

The addition of the reference to 

‘‘(2)(d)(i)’’ in subsection (2)(d)(ii) has the 

effect of limiting the requirements 

which may be waived by Utah with a 

written determination that they are 

unnecessary. With the proposed 

addition, both State and corresponding 

Federal provisions at SMCRA section 

507(b)(15) call for but allow the 

regulatory authority to waive the 

requirements for reports on test borings 

or core samplings from the permit area 

including logs of the drill holes; 

thickness of the coal seam found; an 

analysis of the chemical properties of 

the coal; the sulfur content of any coal 

seam; chemical analysis of potential 

acid or toxic forming sections of the 

overburden; and chemical analysis of 

the stratum lying immediately 

underneath the coal to be mined. 

In amendment UT–042–FOR, Utah 

proposed a provision under which it 

could waive the information required in 

paragraph (2) rather than restricting this 

waiver to (2)(d)(i). This interpretation 

would allow Utah to waive the required 

information pertaining to ownership, 

maps and plans, hydrology and 

probable hydrologic consequences, as 

well as the test borings, core samples, 

and the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the coal, overburden, 

and the stratum underlying the coal. 

This interpretation is inconsistent with 

Federal requirements under SMCRA 

and was raised as a concern in a letter 

from OSM to Utah on February 21, 2003 

(Administrative Record No. UT–1180). 

This addition in UT–044–FOR clarifies 

the ambiguity and specifically defines 

which informational requirements may 

be waived with a written finding by 

Utah that they are unnecessary. It is also 

consistent with counterpart section 

507(b)(15) of SMCRA. 

The final change to this provision 

replaces the phrase ‘‘with respect to the 

specific application by’’ with ‘‘if there 

is’’ (a written determination * * *). 

This change is intended to increase the 

readability of the provision by writing 

in plain language without altering the 

provision’s meaning. Moreover, we 

interpret this provision to mean that 

written determinations to waive 

application requirements will be made 

on a case-by-case basis. This 

interpretation was confirmed with Utah 

on December 3, 2007 (Administrative 

record No. OSM–2007–0014–0010). We 

approve the change with this 

understanding. 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

find that Utah’s proposed revisions to 

UCA 40–10–10(2)(d) are in accordance 

with and no less stringent than SMCRA. 

B. Utah proposes to amend UCA 40–10–

10(5) to read: 

40–10–10(5) An applicant for a surface 

coal mining and reclamation permit shall file 

a copy of the application for public 

inspection with the county clerk of the 

county, or an appropriate public office 

approved by the division where the mining 

is proposed to occur, except for information 

pertaining to the coal seam itself. 

Utah previously proposed changes to 

its statute at UCA 40–10–10(5) (October 

22, 2002 Administrative Record No. 

UT–1171; processed under SATS No. 

UT–042–FOR) including deletion of the 

term ‘‘for public inspection’’ from the 

provision. This raised a concern in that 

the proposed deletion would remove the 

provision’s purpose of making permit 

applications available for public 

inspection near the area where mining 

is proposed to occur. A concern letter 

was sent by OSM to Utah February 21, 

2003 (Administrative Record No. UT–

1180) and we never formally approved 

the proposed changes. 

The current amendment to UCA 40–

10–10(5) resubmits the other minor 

editorial changes to the statute while 

retaining the phrase ‘‘for public 

inspection’’. The provision’s Federal 

counterpart at SMCRA section 507(e) 

contains the same language. Additional 

proposed changes are minor editorial 

revisions that are intended to improve 

readability and do not alter the 

provision’s meaning or effectiveness. 

For these reasons, we find the provision 

to be no less stringent than SMCRA and 

we approve Utah’s proposed changes. 

C. Utah proposes to amend UCA 40–10–

12(1)(c) to read: 

UCA 40–10–12(1)(e) Any extensions to the 

area covered by the permit, except incidental 

boundary revisions, must be made by: 

(i) An application for a significant revision 

of the permit; or 

(ii) An application for another permit. 

Utah proposes to change the way 

extensions to area covered by a permit 

are made from exclusively requiring an 

application for another permit to either 

requiring an application for a significant 

permit revision or an application for 

another permit. By changing this statute, 

Utah has addressed our concerns raised 

in the February 14, 2006 concern letter 

(Administrative Record No. UT–1193). 

With this statute change, Utah is now 

able to amend the implementing 

Administrative Rule R645–303–222 

originally proposed on November 28, 

2005 (SATS No UT–043–FOR; 

Administrative Record No. UT–1181) 

and formally withdrawn February 16, 

2006 (Administrative Record No. UT–

1194). This rule change has been 

resubmitted and is discussed below in 

Finding III(D). 

Section 511 of SMCRA requires that 

extensions to an area covered under a 

permit be made through applications for 

new permits. Significant permit 

revisions and new permit applications 

have the same information and public 

notice requirements. The fundamental 

difference between significant permit 

revisions and applications for new 

permits is the amount of time Utah has 

to process the application. Significant 

permit revisions are processed in 120 

days as opposed to applications for new 

permits which are processed in 360 

days. Because the information and 

public notice requirements for 

significant permit revisions are the same 

as for new permits, we find this rule 

change to be no less stringent than 

SMCRA. We approve this change. 

D. Utah proposes to amend 

Administrative Rule R645–303–222 to 

read: 

R645–303–222. The operator will obtain 

approval of a permit change by making 

application in accordance with 645–303–220 

for changes in the method of conduct of 

mining or reclamation operations or in the 

conditions authorized or required under the 

approved permit; provided, however, that 

any extensions to the approved permit area, 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
46806 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

except for Incidental Boundary Changes, 

must be processed and approved using the 

procedural requirements of R645–303–226. 

Proposed Utah Administrative Rule 

R645–303–222 would allow Utah to 

process and approve permit area 

extensions (except incidental boundary 

changes, or IBCs) using procedures for 

significant permit revisions at R645–

303–226 instead of new permit 

procedures. The proposed rule 

implements changes to UCA § 40–10–

12(1)(c), which require ‘‘[a]ny 

extensions to the area covered by the 

permit, except incidental boundary 

revisions must be made by: (i) an 

application for a significant revision of 

the permit; or (ii) an application for 

another permit.’’

The proposed rule appears, on its 

face, to be less effective than the 

counterpart Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 774.13(d) which requires 

extensions to the area covered by the 

permit, except incidental boundary 

revisions, to be made by an application 

for a new permit. However, a review of 

Utah’s referenced rules shows 

otherwise. SMCRA and the Federal 

regulations require such permit 

extensions to be processed as new 

permit applications. Referenced Utah 

Administrative Rule R645–303–226 

requires Utah to review and process 

significant permit revisions, and as 

proposed, permit extensions, in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Utah Administrative Rules R645–300–

100 and R645–300–200 and the 

information requirements of R645–301 

and R645–302. The requirements of 

those rules also apply to new permits. 

By imposing the requirements of 

R645–300–100, R645–300–200, R645–

301, and R645–302 on significant permit 

revisions, the proposed rule would 

subject extensions to the permit area, 

when processed and reviewed as 

significant permit revisions, to the same 

requirements as new permits except for 

a shorter review period. This is true 

notwithstanding the obvious difference 

between the plain wording of the 

proposed rule and the provisions of 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations. 

This proposed change is not 

inconsistent with the counterpart 

Federal regulation and is in accordance 

with SMCRA. 

The proposed rule would require 

Utah to process applications for permit 

area extensions (except IBC’s) within 

120 days of receipt of a complete 

application (same as for significant 

permit revisions). That would reduce 

Utah’s review and processing time for 

such permit area extensions by 67 

percent compared to the existing 1-year 

period it has under the current rules to 

process them as new permit 

applications. Utah’s existing rule at 

R645–300–131.111.1 requires it to 

process significant permit revisions 

within 120 days, and such revisions 

must meet the same requirements as 

new permit applications as noted above. 

The State may choose to impose on 

itself the same 120-day deadline for 

permit area extensions. This aspect of 

the change does not make the proposed 

rule less effective than or inconsistent 

with the Federal regulation or less 

stringent than or not in accordance with 

SMCRA. For the reasons discussed 

above, we approve these changes. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on this 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

OSM–2007–0014–0001). Three 

nonsubstantive comments were 

received; two from Federal agencies and 

one from a private citizen. 

Federal Agency Comments 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and 

section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested 

comments on the amendment from 

various Federal agencies with an actual 

or potential interest in the Utah program 

(Administrative Record No. OSM–2007–

0014–0008). 

On September 21, 2007 we received a 

letter from the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service dated September 

17, 2007 (Administrative Record No. 

OSM–2007–0014–0002) declining to 

comment on this amendment. 

On October 26, 2007 a representative 

from EPA Region 8 contacted OSM via 

telephone and stated that the EPA has 

no substantive comments on this 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

OSM–2007–0014–0009). 

Private Citizen Comment 

On October 23, 2007 we received a 

citizen comment stating that the 

amendment is ‘‘interesting’’

(Administrative Record No. OSM–2007–

0014–0003). While we agree, we 

consider this to be a nonsubstantive 

comment that does not require further 

response. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve Utah’s August 31, 2007 

amendment. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 944, which codify decisions 

concerning the Utah program. We find 

that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) to make this final rule 

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of 

SMCRA requires that the State’s 

program demonstrates that the State has 

the capability of carrying out the 

provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. Making this regulation 

effective immediately will expedite that 

process. SMCRA requires consistency of 

State and Federal standards. 

Effect of OSM’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 

change of an approved State program be 

submitted to OSM for review as a 

program amendment. Federal 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit 

any changes to approved State programs 

that are not approved by OSM. In the 

oversight of the Utah program, we will 

recognize only the statutes, regulations 

and other materials we have approved, 

together with any consistent 

implementing policies, directives and 

other materials. We will require Utah to 

enforce only those approved provisions. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulation. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

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—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that this rule meets the 

applicable standards of subsections (a) 

and (b) of that section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

because each program is drafted and 

promulgated by a specific State, not by 

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

submitted by the States must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and 

its implementing Federal regulations 

and whether the other requirements of 

30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have 

been met. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 46807 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires 

that State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes. 

The rule does not involve or affect 

Indian Tribes in any way. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect The Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 

CFR 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) et seq). 

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. 

3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

which is the subject of this rule, is based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

making the determination as to whether 

this rule would have a significant 

economic impact, the Department relied 

upon the data and assumptions for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

a. Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

c. Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

This determination is based upon the 

fact that the State submittal which is the 

subject of this rule is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation was not considered a major 

rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of $100 million or more in any given 

year. This determination is based upon 

the fact that the State submittal, which 

is the subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the federal 

regulation did not impose an unfunded 

mandate. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: July 21, 2008. 

Allen D. Klein, 

Regional Director, Western Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 944 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 944—UTAH 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 944 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 944.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final 

Publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 944.15 Approval of Utah regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission 

date Date of final publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * 

August 31, 2007 ............................. August 12, 2008 ............................ Utah Code Annotated 40–10–10(2)(d), (5), 40–10–12(1)(e). 

Utah Admin R 645–303–222. 

[FR Doc. E8–18496 Filed 8–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES