[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15028-15033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2899]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 936
[Docket No. OK-030-FOR]
Oklahoma Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Oklahoma regulatory program
(Oklahoma program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Oklahoma proposed revisions to its rules
concerning cross sections, maps, and plans; subsidence control;
impoundments; revegetation success standards; and roads. Oklahoma
withdrew its previously proposed revisions to its rules concerning
review of decision not to inspect or enforce. Oklahoma intends to
revise its program to provide additional safeguards, clarify
ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa
Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. E-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Oklahoma Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Oklahoma 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
[[Page 15029]]
and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its
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 Oklahoma program on January 19, 1981. You can find background
information on the Oklahoma program, including the Secretary's
findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval,
in the January 19, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 4902). You can also
find later actions concerning Oklahoma's program and program amendments
at 30 CFR 936.10, 936.15 and 936.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated July 15, 2005 (Administrative Record No. OK-
946.02), Oklahoma sent us an amendment to its approved regulatory
program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Oklahoma proposed
revisions to rules concerning cross sections, maps, and plans;
subsidence control; impoundments; revegetation success standards;
roads; and review of decision not to inspect or enforce. Oklahoma
intends to revise its program to provide additional safeguards, clarify
ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.
We announced receipt of the amendment in the October 18, 2005,
Federal Register (70 FR 60481). In the same document, we opened the
public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing
or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public
hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment
period ended on November 17, 2005. We did not receive any comments.
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns about
subsidence control and subsidence control plan, impoundments,
revegetation: standards for success, and review of decision not to
inspect or enforce. We notified Oklahoma of these concerns by letters
dated September 15, 2005, and October 28, 2005 (Administrative Record
Nos. OK-946.04 and OK-946.07, respectively).
Oklahoma responded in letters dated October 14, 2005, and November
17, 2005 (Administrative Record Nos. OK-946.05 and OK-946.08,
respectively), by sending us revisions to its amendment and additional
explanatory information. Also, in its letter dated November 17, 2005,
Oklahoma stated that its staff is continuing to review Oklahoma
Administrative Code (OAC) 460:20-57-6, pertaining to review of decision
not to inspect or enforce, and will submit a second amendment
separately on this issue. Therefore, Oklahoma has withdrawn its
previously proposed revisions to OAC 460:20-57-6.
Based upon Oklahoma's additional explanatory information for and
revisions to its amendment, we reopened the public comment period in
the December 30, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 77348). The comment
period closed on January 17, 2006. We did not receive any comments.
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 as described below.
A. Minor Revisions to Oklahoma's Rules
Oklahoma proposed minor wording, editorial, punctuation, and
grammatical changes to the following previously-approved rules:
Impoundments, OAC 460:20-43-14(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(9)(A),
(a)(9)(B)(iii), and (a)(11)(A); Roads: general, OAC 460:20-43-52
(e)(1); Revegetation: standards for success, OAC 460:20-45-46(c)(2);
and Subsidence control, OAC 460:20-45-47(c)(2).
Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make
Oklahoma's regulations less effective than the Federal regulations.
B. OAC 460:20-25-11. Cross Sections, Maps, and Plans (Federal
Counterpart 30 CFR 779.25) and OAC 460:20-29-11. Cross Sections, Maps,
and Plans (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR 783.25)
The following findings pertain to surface and underground coal
mining.
Oklahoma proposed to delete paragraphs (a)(11) that require permit
applications to include cross sections, maps, and plans that show
sufficient slope measurements to adequately represent the existing land
surface configuration of the proposed permit area. There are no direct
counterpart Federal regulations for the above paragraphs that Oklahoma
proposed to delete. We are approving the deletions because they will
not render the Oklahoma regulations less effective than the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 779.25 and 783.25.
C. OAC 460:20-31-13. Subsidence Control Plan (Federal Counterpart 30
CFR 784.20)
Oklahoma proposed to revise paragraph (a)(3) regarding conducting
surveys of the condition of all Energy Policy Act (EPAct) protected
structures and water supplies. The EPAct protected structures are non-
commercial buildings or occupied residential dwellings and structures
related thereto. The EPAct protected water supplies are all drinking,
domestic, and residential water supplies within the permit area and
adjacent area that could be contaminated, diminished, or interrupted by
subsidence. Oklahoma proposed to add language that would exempt permit
applicants from conducting surveys of EPAct protected structures if the
applicants do not propose to use mining technology that results in
planned subsidence. The surveys are still required if applicants
propose to use mining technology that would result in planned
subsidence. The counterpart Federal regulation to OAC 460:20-31-
13(a)(3) is found at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3). When you first read this
regulation, it appears to require applicants to conduct pre-mining
surveys of EPAct protected structures and EPAct protected water
supplies. However, when you continue to read this regulation, it only
requires applicants to conduct pre-mining surveys of EPAct protected
water supplies. The reason for this is that, on April 27, 1999, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the Federal
regulatory provision requiring applicants to conduct surveys of EPAct
protected structures. On December 22, 1999 (64 FR 71653), in response
to the Court's action, we suspended that portion of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3)
which required a survey of the EPAct protected structures. The
remainder of paragraph (a)(3) continues in force, thereby, requiring
applicants to conduct pre-mining surveys of all EPAct protected water
supplies.
We are approving Oklahoma's revision because it requires pre-mining
surveys of all EPAct protected water supplies as does the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3). We are also approving it because it
is not inconsistent with and will not render the Oklahoma regulations
less effective than the above Federal regulations by requiring pre-
mining surveys of EPAct protected structures if applicants propose to
use mining technology that results in planned subsidence.
[[Page 15030]]
D. OAC 460:20-43-14. Impoundments (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR 816.49)
Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraph (a)(14) that prohibits
embankment slopes of impoundments from being closer than 100 feet,
measured horizontally, from any public road right-of-way unless
otherwise approved under procedures established in 460:20-7-4(4) and
460:20-7-5(d). It also requires the area between the road right-of-way
and the embankment slopes of an impoundment, which is the clear zone
slopes, to not be steeper than a 1V:6H grade.
There is no direct counterpart Federal regulation regarding the
distance between an embankment slope of an impoundment and a public
road right-of-way. However, the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 761.11(d)
ordinarily prohibits or limits surface coal mining operations within
100 feet, measured horizontally, of the outside right-of-way line of
any public road. Because impoundments can be part of a surface coal
mining operation and Oklahoma proposed to prohibit a part of the
surface coal mining operation (impoundments) from being closer than 100
feet, measured horizontally, of the outside right-of-way line of any
public road, we are approving this revision as it is consistent with
the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 761.11(d).
Also, there is no counterpart Federal regulation regarding clear
zone slopes. We find that Oklahoma's proposed revision to require that
the clear zone slopes not be steeper than a 1V:6H grade is not
inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.150, Roads:
general, and we are approving it.
E. OAC 460:20-43-46. Revegetation: Standards for Success (Federal
Counterpart 30 CFR 816.116) and OAC 460:20-45-46. Revegetation:
Standards for Success (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR 817.116)
The following findings pertain to surface and underground mining.
Oklahoma proposed to revise paragraphs (b)(3) regarding areas to be
developed for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or
forest products. Currently, these paragraphs require the Oklahoma
Department of Mines (ODM), on a permit-specific basis, to specify the
minimum stocking and planting arrangements after consulting with and
obtaining the approval of the State agencies responsible for the
administration of forestry and wildlife programs. Oklahoma proposed to
revise these paragraphs in order to incorporate in its regulations, on
a program-wide basis, minimum stocking and planting arrangements for
areas to be developed for fish and wildlife habitat. Oklahoma proposed
to retain the currently approved provisions that require the ODM to
specify, on a permit-specific basis, the minimum stocking and planting
arrangements for areas to be developed for recreation, shelter belts,
or forest products after consulting with and obtaining the approval of
the State agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and
wildlife programs. When Oklahoma submitted the above proposed
revisions, it provided us letters from the Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation and the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food,
and Forestry (the State agencies responsible for the administration of
forestry and wildlife programs). These letters indicated that the State
agencies had no negative comments about the proposed revisions
regarding Oklahoma's fish and wildlife habitat plans. The Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry recommended that, to be
consistent, the ODM should develop additional guidance, to be
incorporated into its regulations, for areas to be developed for
recreation, shelter belts, or forest products. Specifically, Oklahoma
proposed the following:
1. Oklahoma originally proposed to revise paragraphs (b)(3)(A)
regarding minimum stocking and planting arrangements for areas to be
developed for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or
forest products. These paragraphs require the ODM, on a permit-specific
basis, to specify the minimum stocking and planting arrangements after
consulting with and obtaining the approval of the State agencies
responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife programs.
In revising these paragraphs, Oklahoma proposed to make the provisions
pertain only to fish and wildlife habitat on a program-wide basis
instead of on a permit-specific basis, thereby, eliminating the need
for the ODM to obtain approval from the above State agencies for
minimum stocking and planting arrangements for every permit. The
provision for the ODM to consult with the State agencies is still
required. Also, Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraphs (i) to specify
a minimum tree and shrub stocking rate and to provide guidance on the
types and species to plant if trees or shrubs are to be planted. In
addition, Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraphs (ii) to specify a
minimum seeding rate and to provide guidance on the species to plant if
native grasses and forbs are to be planted. Finally, Oklahoma proposed
to add new paragraphs (iii) to allow an applicant to submit an
alternative wildlife habitat plan to the ODM if he or she chooses not
to follow the provisions set forth in proposed new paragraphs (i) and
(ii). This alternative plan must include written approval from the
State agencies responsible for the management of fish and wildlife.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and
817.116(b)(3)(i) provide that the regulatory authority specify the
minimum stocking and planting arrangement for areas to be developed for
fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest
products after consulting with and obtaining the approval of State
agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife
programs. The consultation and approval may occur on either a program-
wide or a permit-specific basis.
Oklahoma's above proposed revisions regarding proposed new
paragraphs (i) and (ii) meet the requirements of the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i) because the
State has chosen to specify the minimum stocking and planting
arrangements for fish and wildlife habitat on a program-wide basis if
trees and shrubs and/or native grasses and forbs are to be planted and
has consulted with and obtained approval from the appropriate State
agencies. The provisions for proposed new paragraphs (iii) are not
inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i)
and 817.116(b)(3)(i) because the alternative plan must be accompanied
by a written approval of the alternative planting rates and species
from the State agencies responsible for the management of fish and
wildlife and must be reviewed by the ODM. We are, therefore, approving
Oklahoma's revisions.
2. Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraphs (b)(3)(B) for areas to
be developed for recreation, shelter belts, or forest products and to
redesignate existing paragraphs (B) through (D) as new paragraphs (C)
through (E). New paragraphs (b)(3)(B) require the ODM, on a permit-
specific basis, to specify the minimum stocking and planting
arrangements on the basis of local and regional conditions after
consulting with and obtaining the approval of the State agencies
responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife programs.
The minimum stocking and planting arrangements would then be
incorporated into an approved reclamation plan.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and
817.116(b)(3)(i)
[[Page 15031]]
provide that the regulatory authority specify the minimum stocking and
planting arrangement for areas to be developed for fish and wildlife
habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest products after consulting
with and obtaining the approval of State agencies responsible for the
administration of forestry and wildlife programs. The consultation and
approval may occur on either a program-wide or a permit-specific basis.
We are approving Oklahoma's proposed revisions because they are
consistent with the provisions of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i). We are also approving the re-
designation of the above applicable paragraphs because the re-
designations are only editorial changes and do not render the State
regulations less effective than the Federal regulations.
3. Oklahoma proposed to revise newly re-designated paragraphs
(b)(3)(D) (formerly paragraphs (b)(3)(C)), regarding the technical
standard for vegetative ground cover, by adding new language requiring
the cover to be sufficient to control erosion.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and
817.116(b)(3)(iii) require the vegetative ground cover to be no less
than that required to achieve the approved post-mining land use. The
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.111(a)(4) requires a vegetative cover
that is capable of stabilizing the soil surface from erosion.
The addition of the new language proposed by Oklahoma is no less
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving the
addition of the new language.
4. For areas to be developed for fish and wildlife habitat,
recreation, shelter belts, or forest products, Oklahoma proposed to add
new paragraphs (b)(3)(E) (formerly paragraphs (b)(3)(D)). These new
paragraphs require comments on tree and shrub stocking and vegetative
ground cover from State agencies responsible for the management of fish
and wildlife.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and
817.116(b)(3)(i) require the regulatory authority to consult with the
State agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and
wildlife programs regarding minimum stocking and planting arrangements.
Therefore, we are approving Oklahoma's proposed new paragraphs because
they are no less effective than the Federal regulations.
F. OAC 460:20-43-52. Roads: General (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR
816.150)
Oklahoma proposed to add new paragraph (d)(3) to require that the
relocation of a public road must comply with newly proposed OAC 460:20-
43-14(a)(14). This newly proposed regulation prohibits embankment
slopes of impoundments from being closer than 100 feet, measured
horizontally, from any public road right-of-way unless otherwise
approved under procedures established in 460:20-7-4(4) and 460:20-7-
5(d). It also requires the area between the road right-of-way and the
impoundment slopes, which is the clear zone slopes, to not be steeper
than a 1V:6H grade.
The counterpart Federal regulations to Oklahoma's regulations is
found at 30 CFR 816.150 (Roads: general). There is no direct
counterpart Federal regulation regarding the distance between the
right-of-way of a relocated public road and an embankment slope of an
impoundment. Also, there is no counterpart Federal regulation regarding
clear zone slopes. However, there is a Federal regulation at 30 CFR
761.11(d) which ordinarily prohibits or limits surface coal mining
operations within 100 feet, measured horizontally, of the outside
right-of-way line of any public road.
Oklahoma proposed that relocated public roads comply with the
requirements of newly proposed OAC 460:20-43-14(a)(14) and this newly
proposed regulation ordinarily prohibits embankment slopes of
impoundments from being closer than 100 feet, measured horizontally, of
the outside right-of-way line of a relocated public road. Therefore, we
are approving this revision because it is not inconsistent with the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 761.11(d) and 30 CFR 816.150. We are also
approving Oklahoma's proposed revision to require that the clear zone
slopes not be steeper than a 1V:6H grade because it is not inconsistent
with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.150.
G. OAC 460:20-45-47. Subsidence Control (Federal Counterpart 30 CFR
817.121)
Oklahoma proposed to delete paragraphs (c)(4)(A) through (E)
regarding rebuttable presumption of causation by subsidence and to
incorporate the language in existing paragraph (c)(4)(E) into paragraph
(c)(4) so that paragraph (c)(4) reads as follows:
(4) Be governed by a rebuttable presumption of causation by
subsidence. The information to be considered in determination of
causation is whether damage to protected structures was caused by
subsidence from underground mining. All relevant and reasonably
available information will be considered by the Department.
The counterpart Federal regulation is found at 30 CFR
817.121(c)(4)(v). This Federal regulation provides for the regulatory
authority to consider all relevant and reasonably available information
when determining the cause of damage to EPAct protected structures by
underground mining. Because Oklahoma's proposed revision at paragraph
(c)(4) has the same provision as the counterpart Federal regulation at
30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(v), we are approving it.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
On August 31, 2005, and December 15, 2005, 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 Oklahoma program (Administrative Record Nos. OK-946.03
and OK-946.09). We did not receive any comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to obtain written
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that
relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that Oklahoma proposed to
make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
On August 31, 2005, and December 15, 2005, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from EPA
(Administrative Record Nos. OK-946.03 and OK-946.09). 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 August 31, 2005, and December 15, 2005, we requested
comments on Oklahoma's amendment
[[Page 15032]]
(Administrative Record Nos. OK-946.03 and OK-946.09), but neither
responded to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Oklahoma sent
us on July 15, 2005, and as revised on October 14, 2005, and November
17, 2005.
We approve the regulations proposed by Oklahoma with the provision
that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the regulations
submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the public.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 936, which codify decisions concerning the Oklahoma
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
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that
process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the
analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The
revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal
counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the
fact that the provisions have no substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
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 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.
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.
This determination is based on the fact that the Oklahoma program does
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Oklahoma program has no
effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
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 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 certifies that a portion of the
provisions in 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.) because they are 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 part of the rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. The Department of
the Interior also certifies that the provisions in this rule that are
not based upon counterpart Federal regulations 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.). This
determination is based upon the fact that the provisions are not
expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
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, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
[[Page 15033]]
productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based
upon the fact that a portion of the State provisions are 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. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based
upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon
the fact that the State provisions are not expected to have a
substantive effect on the regulated industry.
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 a portion of
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 regulations did not impose an
unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that is not
based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based
upon the fact that the State provisions are not expected to have a
substantive effect on the regulated industry.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 936
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 3, 2006.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 936 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 936--OKLAHOMA
0
1. The authority citation for part 936 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 936.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 936.15 Approval of Oklahoma regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission
date Date of final publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
July 15, 2005................. March 27, 2006............... Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 460:20-25-
11(a)(11); 460:20-29-11(a)(11); 460:20-31-
13(a)(3); 460:20-43-14(a)(1), (a)(3),(a)(9)(A),
(a)(9)(B)(iii), (a)(11)(A), and (a)(14); 460:20-
43-46(b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(A)(i)-(iii), (b)(3)(B)-
(E); 460:20-43-52(d)(3) and (e)(1); OAC 460:20-
45-46(b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(A)(i)-(iii), (b)(3)(B)-
(E) and(c)(2); and OAC 460:20-45-47(c)(2),
(c)(4) and (c)(4)(A)-(E).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 06-2899 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P