[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1616-1618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-558]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 944

[SPATS No. UT-038-FOR]


Utah Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and extension of public comment period 
on proposed amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 
is reopening the public comment period for revisions to a proposed 
amendment to the Utah regulatory program (hereinafter, the ``Utah 
program'') under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA). Utah proposes to revise its amendment to change design 
requirements for temporary impoundments that function as sedimentation 
ponds. The State also proposes one minor editorial change. Utah intends 
to revise its program to make it consistent with the corresponding 
Federal regulations. We are reopening the comment period to allow for 
public review of Utah's revisions to its amendment.

DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 
p.m., mountain standard time January 24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You should mail, hand deliver or e-mail your written 
comments to James F. Fulton, Denver Field Division Chief, at the 
address listed below.
    You may review copies of the Utah program, this amendment, and all 
written comments received in response to this document at the addresses 
listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 
excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by 
contacting OSM's Denver Field Division.
    James F. Fulton, Denver Field Division Chief, Office of Surface 
Mining, Western Regional Coordinating Center, 1999 Broadway, Suite 
3320, Denver, Colorado, 80202-5733, telephone (303)844-1400, extension 
1424.
    Lowell P. Braxton, Director, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 1594 
West North Temple, Suite 1210, P.O. Box 14581, Salt Lake City, Utah 
84114-5801, telephone (801)538-5370.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Fulton, Denver Field Division 
Chief, telephone (303)844-1400, extension 1424; e-mail address 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcb6baa9b0a8b3b29cb3afb1aeb9f2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="244e425148504b4a644b574956410a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Utah Program.
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment.
III. Public Comment Procedures.
IV. Procedural Determinations.

I. Background on the Utah Program

    On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally 
approved the Utah program. You can find background information on the 
Utah program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of 
comments, and the 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 and 944.30.

II. Description of Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated December 23, 1999 (administrative record No. 1133), 
Utah sent to us a proposed amendment (UT-038-FOR) to its program under 
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). It sent the proposed Utah 
Administrative (Utah Admin. R.) amendment in response to a June 18, 
1997, letter (administrative record No. UT-1093) that we sent to the 
State under 30 CFR 732.17(c). Utah originally proposed to change its 
rules pertaining to: Definitions of ``abandoned site,'' ``other 
treatment facilities,'' ``previously mined area,'' ``qualified 
laboratory,'' and ``significant recreational, timber, economic, or 
other values incompatible with coal mining and reclamation 
operations,'' engineering requirements for impoundments and for 
backfilling and grading; hydrologic requirements for impoundments; 
requirements for bond release applications; prime farmland acreage; 
inspection frequency for abandoned sites; and the period in which to 
pay a penalty when requesting a formal hearing.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the January 14, 
2000, Federal Register (65 FR 2364; administrative record No. UT-1136), 
provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting, and invited 
public comment on its adequacy. We did not hold a public hearing or 
meeting because nobody requested either one. The public comment period 
ended on February 14, 2000.

[[Page 1617]]

    During our review of the amendment, we identified a concern 
relating to the provision of Utah Admin. R. 645-301-742.225.2, which is 
part of the State's hydrology requirements for sedimentation ponds. 
Utah intended this proposed rule to provide an exception to the 
location guidance for certain temporary impoundments functioning as 
sedimentation ponds that do not meet the design criteria of the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service's Technical Release Number 60 or the 
size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a). However, the proposed rule 
repeated the same wording the State proposed at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
742.224.1, which applies to temporary impoundments that do meet the 
criteria of TR-60 or the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a). We 
notified Utah of our concern by letter dated April 17, 2000 
(administrative record No. UT-1142). The State formally responded to 
our concern in a letter dated November 27, 2000, by submitting a 
proposed revision (administrative record No. UT-1147).
    The State now proposes two specific changes. First, it proposes an 
editorial change by adding the word ``where'' at the end of the clause 
in Utah Admin. R. 645-301-752.225 to read ``An exception to the 
sediment pond location guidance in R645-301-742.224 may be allowed 
where: * * *'' (emphasis added). Second, Utah proposes to delete 
wording of Utah Admin. R. 645-301-742.225.2 that repeated the preceding 
rule at R.646-301-742.225.1 and replace it with the following sentence: 
``Impoundments not included in R645-301-742.225.1 shall be designed to 
control the precipitation of the 100-year 6-hour event, or greater 
event if specified by the Division.''

III. Public Comment Procedures

    We are reopening the comment period on the proposed amendment at 
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-742.225 to give you an opportunity to consider 
the revision we received.

Written Comments

    Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your 
written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues 
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of 
your recommendations. In the final rulemaking, we will not necessarily 
consider or include in the administrative record any comments received 
after the time indicated under DATES or at locations other than the 
Denver Field Division.

Electronic Comments

    Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file and do not use 
special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include 
``Attn: SPATS No. UT-038-FOR'' and your name and return address in your 
Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have 
received your Internet message, contact the Denver Field Division at 
telephone number (303) 884-1400, extension 1424.

Availability of Comments

    We will make comments, including names and addresses of 
respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. 
We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents 
request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent 
allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their 
name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must 
state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make 
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.

IV. 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 
regulations.

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.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior conducted the reviews required by 
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and determined that, to the extent 
allowable 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 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.

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. Section 503(a)(7) requires 
that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent with'' 
regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. This rule does 
not have Federalism implications.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a 
decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not 
constitute a major Federal action within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)). A determination has been made that such decisions are 
categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A).

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 that is the subject of this rule is based upon 
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was 
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a 
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements 
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In 
making the determination as to whether this rule

[[Page 1618]]

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), 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, geographic regions, or Federal State or local governmental 
agencies; and (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 on the fact that the State 
submittal which is the subject of this rule is based on 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 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 944

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: December 14, 2000.
James F. Fulton,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 01-558 Filed 1-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>