Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 52921 

§ 256.93 How is the bonus or royalty credit 

allocated among multiple lease owners? 

The MMS will allocate the bonus or 

royalty credit for an exchanged lease to 

the current record title interest owners 

in the same percentage share as each 

owner has in the lease as of the date of 

the request to exchange the lease. 

§ 256.94 How may I use the bonus or 

royalty credit? 

(a) You may use a credit issued under 

this part in lieu of a monetary payment 

due under any lease in the Gulf of 

Mexico not subject to the revenue 

distribution provisions of section 8(g)(2) 

of the OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)) for 

either: 

(1) A bonus for acquisition of an 

interest in a new lease; or 

(2) Royalty due on oil and gas 

production after October 14, 2008. 

(b) You may not use a bonus or 

royalty credit in lieu of delivering oil or 

gas taken as royalty-in-kind. 

(c) If you have any credit that remains 

unused after 5 years from the date MMS 

issued the credit, MMS reserves the 

right to apply the remaining credit to 

any of your obligations. 

§ 256.95 How do I transfer a bonus or 

royalty credit to another person? 

(a) You may transfer your bonus or 

royalty credit to any other person by 

submitting to the MMS Adjudication 

Unit for the Gulf of Mexico two 

originally executed transfer letters of 

agreement. 

(b) Authorized officers indicated on 

the qualification card filed with MMS of 

all companies involved in transferring 

and receiving the credit must sign the 

transfer letters of agreement. 

(c) A transfer letter of agreement must 

include: 

(1) The effective date of the transfer, 

(2) The OCS–G number for the lease 

that originally qualified for the credit, 

(3) The amount of the credit being 

transferred, 

(4) Company names punctuated 

exactly as filed on the qualification card 

at MMS, and 

(5) A corporate seal, if you used a 

corporate seal in your initial 

qualification to hold OCS leases. 

(d) The transferee of a credit 

transferred under this section may use 

it in accordance with § 256.94 as soon 

as MMS sends a confirmation of the 

transfer to the transferee. 

[FR Doc. E8–21135 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 934 

[SATS No: ND–050–FOR; Docket ID No. 

OSM–2008–0004] 

North Dakota 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 North Dakota 

regulatory program (the ‘‘North Dakota 

program’’) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(‘‘SMCRA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). North Dakota 

proposed minor revisions to its rules 

concerning self-bonding requirements, 

and updating terminology used for 

describing native grasslands, and 

correcting a cross reference error. North 

Dakota intended to revise its program to 

clarify ambiguities and improve 

operational efficiency. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 12, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Fleischman, Casper Field Office 

Director Telephone: 307/261–6550, 

Internet address: 

JFleischman@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the North Dakota Program 

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment 

III. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement’s (OSM) Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the North Dakota 

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 North 

Dakota program on December 15, 1980. 

You can find background information 

on the North Dakota program, including 

the Secretary’s findings, the disposition 

of comments, and conditions of 

approval in the December 15, 1980, 

Federal Register (45 FR 82214). You can 

also find later actions concerning North 

Dakota’s program and program 

amendments at 30 CFR 934.15, and 

934.30. 

II. Submission of the Proposed 

Amendment 

By letter dated March 12, 2008, North 

Dakota sent us an amendment to its 

program (North Dakota Amendment 

number XXXVII, SATS No. ND–050– 

FOR, Administrative Record No. ND– 

LL–01) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et 

seq.). North Dakota sent the amendment 

to include changes made at its own 

initiative. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the April 18, 

2008, Federal Register (73 FR 21087). 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. 

We did not hold a public hearing or 

meeting because no one requested one. 

The public comment period ended on 

May 5, 2008. We received a ‘‘no 

inconsistency with this agency’s 

regulations’’ comment from the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA), ‘‘no 

comments’’ from the State Historical 

Society of North Dakota (SHPO), and a 

‘‘we agree’’ comment from the North 

Dakota State University Extension 

Service (NDSU Extension Service). 

III. OSM’s Findings 

Following are the findings we made 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment. 

A. Minor Revisions to North Dakota’s 

Rules 

1. North Dakota proposed a crossreference change under its previously 

approved permit approval criteria Rule 

NDAC 69–05.2–10–03. The crossreference is being changed from Section 

69–05.2–04–01 to Section 69–05.2–04– 

01.1 and is due to a Rule numbering 

revision that was made several years ago 

when some new rules were adopted by 

North Dakota. 

2. In NDAC 69–05.2–08–08, (pre-mine 

land use and vegetation data 

requirements), North Dakota proposed 

to update the terminology used to 

describe native grasslands to reflect the 

terminology now used by USDA’s 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS). 

Because these changes are minor, we 

find that they will not make North 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
52922 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Dakota’s rules less effective than the 

corresponding Federal regulations. 

B. Revisions to North Dakota’s Rules 

That Are Not the Same as the 

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal 

Regulations 

Additional language is proposed to 

North Dakota’s coal regulations at 

NDAC 69–05.2–12–05.1 to allow the 

North Dakota Public Service 

Commission to accept bond ratings from 

other nationally recognized 

organizations, in addition to Moody’s 

Investors Service and Standard and 

Poor’s Corporation, for companies that 

guarantee self-bonds. A mining 

company requested this change to 

include credit rating agencies that have 

been defined by the United States 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC) as a Nationally Recognized 

Statistical Rating Organization 

(NRSRO). Such a designation by the 

SEC is permitted for use for certain 

regulatory purposes. Currently there are 

several NRSROs, and the top three by 

market share are Moody’s Investors 

Service, Standard and Poor’s 

Corporation and Fitch Ratings. The 

proposed rule recognizes the fact that, 

since the self-bonding rules were 

originally enacted, various other (in 

addition to the aforementioned) rating 

organizations with strong credentials are 

now available and are being widely 

used by both business and government. 

The utilization of NRSROs provides for 

reliance upon SEC’s expertise to ensure 

that any ratings agency is not only 

credible and reliable, but utilizes what 

has become a market-based standard for 

ratings organizations. 

The Federal self-bonding regulations 

at 30 CFR 800.23(b)(3)(i) require that an 

applicant for a self-bond have a ‘‘current 

rating for its most recent bond issuance 

of ‘A’ or higher as issued by either 

Moody’s Investors Service or Standard 

and Poor’s Corporation.’’ 

On September 29, 2006, the President 

signed the Credit Rating Agency Reform 

Act of 2006 into law (Pub. L. 109–291, 

16 Stat. 1327). The new law authorized 

the SEC to implement registration, 

recordkeeping, financial reporting and 

oversight rules with respect to NRSROs. 

On May 23, 2007, the SEC adopted final 

regulations implementing the new law. 

Prior to adoption of the new rules, the 

SEC recognized seven (7) NRSROs: 

Moody’s Investors Service; Standard 

and Poor’s Rating Services; Fitch, Inc.; 

A.M. Best Co., Inc.; DBRS (Dominion 

Bond Rating Service Limited); Japan 

Credit Rating Agency, Ltd.; and Rating 

and Investment Information, Inc. On 

June 28, 2007, the SEC announced that 

those firms would continue to be 

recognized as NRSROs while the SEC 

processed their registration 

applications. 

One of the purposes of the Credit 

Agency Reform Act of 2006 was to open 

up the credit rating industry to 

competition. Therefore, the rationale 

behind OSM’s 1983 rules requiring use 

of either Moody’s or Standard and 

Poor’s is no longer valid or appropriate. 

Accordingly, we find that North 

Dakota’s proposed rule change is 

consistent with the Credit Rating 

Agency Reform Act of 2006 and its 

implementing regulations and that its 

adoption will not make North Dakota’s 

rules less effective than the 

corresponding Federal regulations at 30 

CFR 800.23(b)(3)(i). 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment (Administrative Record 

Document ID No. ND–LL–06), and on 

April 11, 2008 we received a comment 

from the North Dakota State University 

Extension Service that it ‘‘is in full 

agreement with North Dakota State 

Program Amendment XXXVII from the 

North Dakota Public Service 

Commission’’ (Administrative Record 

Document ID No. ND–LL–05). 

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 North Dakota’s 

program (Administrative Record 

Document ID No. ND–LL–03). 

The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) of the U.S. 

Department of Labor responded on May 

2, 2008, that ‘‘none of the changes to the 

state regulations involve miners’/ 

employees’ health and safety issues’’ 

and that ‘‘MSHA review has determined 

that there is no inconsistency with this 

Agency’s regulations’’ (Administrative 

Record Document ID No. ND–LL–07). 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Concurrence and Comments 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM 

requested comments on the amendment 

from the EPA (Administrative Record 

Document ID No. ND–LL–03). The EPA 

did not respond to our request. 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are 

required to request comments from the 

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that 

may have an effect on historic 

properties. On March 26, 2008, we 

requested comments on North Dakota’s 

amendment (Administrative Record 

Document ID No. ND–LL–03). The 

SHPO responded on April 3, 2008, that 

‘‘we have no comments’’ 

(Administrative Record Document ID 

No. ND–LL–04). 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve North Dakota’s March 12, 2008 

amendment. 

We approve the rules as proposed by 

North Dakota with the provision that 

they be fully promulgated in identical 

form to the rules submitted to and 

reviewed by OSM and the public. 

To implement this decision we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 934, which codify decisions 

concerning the North Dakota 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 demonstrate that the State has 

the capacity 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. 

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 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 52923 

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. 

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 934 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: August 20, 2008. 

Allen D. Klein, 

Regional Director, Western Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 934 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 934—NORTH DAKOTA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 934 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 934.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final 

Publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 934.15 Approval of North Dakota 

regulatory program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission 

date 

Date of final 

publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

March 12, 2008 .............................. September 12, 2008 ...................... NDAC 69–05.2–08–08; NDAC 69–05.2–10–03; NDAC 69–05.2–12– 

05.1. 

[FR Doc. E8–21295 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES