[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41680-41685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17238]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 914
[SATS No. IN-160-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2011-0008]
Indiana 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 amendments to the Indiana regulatory program
(Indiana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Indiana proposed to revise its rules
concerning ownership and control provisions, periods of liability,
performance bond release, revegetation standards, underground mining
explosives, and cessation orders, to be no less effective than the
corresponding Federal regulations, to clarify ambiguities, and to
improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective Date: July 16, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division. Telephone: (317) 226-6700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Indiana 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 Indiana 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 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 (Secretary)
conditionally approved the Indiana program effective July 29, 1982. You
can find background information on the Indiana program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions
of approval of the Indiana program in the July 26, 1982, Federal
Register (47 FR
[[Page 41681]]
32071). You can also find later actions concerning the Indiana program
and program amendments at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated May 25, 2011 (Administrative Record No. IND-1756),
Indiana sent us an amendment to its Program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq.). Indiana sent the amendment in response to a September 30,
2009, letter (Administrative Record No. IN-1755) we sent to Indiana in
accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c) concerning multiple changes to
ownership and control requirements. Indiana also made changes to other
sections of its regulations at its own initiative. Indiana proposed
revisions to its Indiana Surface Mining Regulations found in Article
25, Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations. The specific sections of
Article 25 in Indiana's amendment are discussed in Part III OSM's
Findings. Indiana intends to revise its program to be no less effective
than the Federal regulations and to improve operational efficiency.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the July 11,
2011, Federal Register (76 FR 40649). 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 August 10, 2011. We did not receive any public
comments.
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns in
section 312 IAC 25-5-7(f) Period of liability. On August 29, 2011, we
notified Indiana by phone (Administrative Record No. IND-1759) of an
incorrect reference in subsection 25-5-7(f). On September 6, 2011, we
held a conference call to address the discrepancy in this section
(Administrative Record No. IND-1760). Indiana officials confirmed that
this was an incorrect reference and that they would correct the
discrepancy through an errata process. By letter dated September 8,
2011 (Administrative Record No. IND-1761), we received notice from
Indiana stating that the errata process was completed and the citation
had been corrected. We did not reopen the comment period following the
errata process because the change Indiana made was a minor reference
correction and was not substantive in nature.
Also during our review of the amendment, we identified concerns in
section 312 IAC 25-5-16 Performance bond release; requirements. More
specifically, we had concerns with a portion of subsection (j)(2)
relating to the phrase ``an electronic or stenographic record shall be
made unless waived by all parties.'' We notified Indiana of our concern
by letter dated December 21, 2011 (Administrative Record No. IND-1762).
Indiana responded by letter on January 5, 2012 (Administrative Record
No. IND-1763), stating that they would not submit revisions to this
subsection at this time and that we should proceed with processing the
amendment. Therefore, we are proceeding with the final rule Federal
Register document.
III. OSM's Findings
The 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 with one exception as described below. Any
revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning
nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes can be found in the full
text of the program amendment available at www.regulations.gov.
A. Definitions: 312 IAC 25-1-10.5 Applicant/Violator System; 312 IAC
25-1-32.5 Control or Controller; 312 IAC 25-1-51.5 Federal Office of
Surface Mining Applicant/Violator System Office; 312 IAC 25-1-75.1
Knowing or Knowingly; and 312 IAC 25-1-48 Excess Spoil
Indiana proposed new definitions at sections 312 IAC 25-1-10.5, 312
IAC 25-1-32.5, 312 IAC 25-1-51.5, and 312 IAC 25-1-75.1; and revised
its definition at section 312 IAC 25-1-48. We find that the new
definitions at 25-1-10.5, 25-1-32.5, and 25-1-75.1, along with the
revised definition at 25-1-48, are substantively the same as
counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5. Additionally, we find
that there is no Federal counterpart to the new definition proposed in
section 25-1-51.5 for the Federal Office of Surface Mining Applicant/
Violator System Office. This new definition accurately represents the
organizational structure of OSM's Applicant/Violator System Office and
makes Indiana's regulations no less effective than the Federal
regulations. Therefore, we approve these changes.
B. 312 IAC 25-4-18 Surface Mining Permit Applications, Compliance
Information; and 312 IAC 25-4-59 Underground Mining Permit
Applications, Compliance Information
Indiana proposed to amend these sections to require a review of
compliance history reports from the applicant/violator system for both
surface and underground mining no more than (5) five days prior to
permit issuance. The changes to both sections also specify that the
Director will rely upon the violation information supplied by the
applicant, a report from the applicant/violator system, and any other
available information to review compliance history. Indiana's revisions
are counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.11, 773.12(c),
and 778.14. We find that these revisions allow Indiana to meet the
Federal requirement that a permit review includes a review of
compliance history, thereby making Indiana's regulations no less
effective than the counterpart Federal regulations. Therefore, we
approve these changes.
C. 312 IAC 25-4-23 Surface Mining Permit Applications, Identification
of Other Safety and Environmental Licenses and Permits; and 312 IAC 25-
4-64 Underground Mining Permit Application; Legal and Financial
Information, Identification of Other Licenses and Permits
Indiana is repealing sections 25-4-23 and 25-4-64 to match the
repeals made to 30 CFR 778.19 and 782.19 on September 28, 1983, Federal
Register (48 FR 44390). We find that since OSM repealed these Federal
regulations, Indiana's deletion of these sections are not inconsistent
with the requirements of SMCRA or the Federal regulations and Indiana's
regulations will remain no less effective than the Federal regulations.
Therefore, we are approving their removal.
D. 312 IAC 25-4-115.1 Post Permit Issuance Information Requirements
Indiana proposed a new subsection 25-4-115.1 requiring the
permittee to notify and provide information to Indiana within 60 days
of any changes regarding owners or controllers. We find that Indiana's
new subsection 25-4-115.1 is substantively the same as the counterpart
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.12(c). Therefore, we approve these
changes.
E. 312 IAC 25-4-122.1 Review of Director's Ownership or Control Listing
or Finding; 312 IAC 25-4-122.2 Burden of Proof for Ownership or Control
Challenges; and 312 IAC 25-4-122.3 Written Agency Decision on
Challenges to Ownership or Control
Indiana proposed new subsections 25-4-122.1, 25-4-122.2, and 25-4-
122.3 to add provisions for challenging an ownership or control
determination; outline evidence necessary for the
[[Page 41682]]
permittee to submit during ownership or control challenges; and outline
duties of the department regarding written decisions as a result of an
ownership or control challenge. Indiana's new subsection 25-4-122.1
provides measures regarding the challenge of ownership and control
listing or findings that are comparable to the Federal regulations by
providing the same opportunities and procedures for challenges. We find
that these changes make Indiana's regulations no less effective than
the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.25 and 773.26. We
also find that Indiana's new subsections 25-4-122.2 and 25-4-122.3 are
substantively the same as their counterpart Federal regulations at 30
CFR 773.27 and 773.28. Therefore, we approve Indiana's changes to these
three subsections.
F. 312 IAC 25-4-127 Permit Reviews, Revisions, Renewals, and Transfer,
Sale, or Assignment of Rights Granted Under Permits, Permit Revisions
Indiana proposed to revise section 25-4-127 to clarify various
requirements for permit revisions including adding definitions and
requirements for significant revisions, nonsignificant revisions, and
minor field revisions. These changes allow Indiana's regulations to
fully meet the requirements of the counterpart Federal regulations at
30 CFR 774.13 and 774.15 for permit renewals and revisions while adding
clarity. We find that these changes make Indiana's regulations no less
effective than the Federal regulations; therefore, we approve them.
G. 312 IAC 25-5-7 Period of Liability
Indiana proposed new paragraph 312 IAC 25-5-7(f) to clarify the
bond liability period for alternative postmine land uses beyond the
control of the permittee. We find that Indiana's paragraph 25-5-7(f),
after correction through the errata process described in Part II
Submission of the Amendment, is substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.13(d)(2). Therefore, we
approve this new paragraph.
H. 312 IAC 25-5-16 Performance Bond Release; Requirements
1. Indiana previously submitted an amendment regarding section 312
IAC 25-5-16 on December 11, 2006. In a letter dated May 9, 2007
(Administrative Record No. IND-1748), we notified Indiana that
paragraphs (d) through (j) contained deficiencies, inappropriate
reference citations, and the removal and/or absence of required program
provisions that made Indiana's rules less effective than the Federal
regulations. In the Federal Register (72 FR 59005) we announced that we
did not approve Indiana's proposed revisions at section 312 IAC 25-5-16
new paragraphs (d) through (j). This non-approval was inadvertently not
codified in that Federal Register notice. As such, we are including
this historical information and are codifying it in 30 CFR 914.17.
Indiana has now submitted new changes to this section.
2. In this current amendment, Indiana proposed new language in
paragraph (d) adding additional provisions clarifying that Indiana will
notify interested parties of its decisions regarding performance bond
releases within 60 days when no public hearing or informal conference
is held, or within 30 days after a public hearing or informal
conference is held. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR
800.40(b)(2) does not include a reference to informal conferences. The
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(h) allow the regulatory authority
to hold an informal conference to resolve written objections raised in
Sec. 800.40. Indiana's addition in 312 IAC 25-5-16(d) provides
recognition that the time limitations apply regardless of whether a
formal hearing or informal conference is held. We find that these
additions make Indiana's regulations no less effective than the Federal
regulations. Therefore, we approve the changes in this paragraph.
3. Indiana proposed new language in paragraph (i) that allows
written objections or requests for public hearings to be resolved
through an informal conference at the discretion of the Director and
that informal conferences must be conducted within 30 days after the
close of the comment period; allows for a waiver from the requirement
for verbatim records of an informal conference if it is agreed upon by
all parties involved in the conference; and requires that all parties
involved in an informal conference be provided written findings of the
conference stating the reasons for the findings. We find that Indiana's
paragraph (i) contains all of the required portions of the counterpart
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(h) and further clarifies the
informal conference process. We also find that Indiana's changes make
its regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations.
Therefore, we approve the changes.
4. Indiana proposed to add a new paragraph (j) that contains five
subparagraphs (j)(1)-(5). These require Indiana to hold a public
hearing if written objections and requests for public hearings are not
resolved through an informal conference or if an informal conference is
not held. These also include provisions regarding public notification,
who will conduct the hearing, what information may be accepted, record
collection, hearing location, findings, timeframe to hold a hearing,
and conditions in which hearings may be cancelled. We find that
paragraphs (j)(1), (3), (4), and (5) include all the required
provisions of the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(f);
further clarify the public hearing process; and make Indiana's
regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore,
we approve these portions of (j).
Indiana's proposed subparagraph 312 IAC 25-5-16(j)(2) contains an
unapprovable provision that makes this portion of Indiana's rules less
effective than the Federal regulations. By letter dated December 21,
2011 (Administrative Record No. IND-1762), we contacted Indiana
regarding the phrase, ``an electronic or stenographic record shall be
made unless waived by all parties.'' The addition of the phrase
``unless waived by all parties'' would make Indiana's regulations less
effective than the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(g),
which does not allow the waiver of any records in a public hearing. We
suggested that Indiana remove this phrase to make this portion of its
regulations no less effective than the Federal requirements. By letter
dated January 5, 2012 (Administrative Record No. IND-1763), Indiana
advised us that it would submit revisions to address these concerns at
a later date and that we should proceed with processing the amendment.
Therefore, we are approving subparagraph (j)(2) with the exception of
the phrase ``unless waived by all parties'' related to public hearing
records, which we are not approving.
5. Indiana proposed new paragraph (k) clarifying the department's
authority in public hearings regarding bond releases and the
requirement for a verbatim record of the hearing. We find that
Indiana's new paragraph (k) is substantively the same as counterpart
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(g). Therefore, we approve this
paragraph.
6. Indiana proposed new paragraph (l) stating that the Director's
decisions regarding bond releases are subject to administrative review
under IC 4-21.5 and 312 IAC 3-1. We find that the new paragraph
highlights and clarifies Indiana's existing review procedures and makes
its regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations.
Therefore, we are approving it.
[[Page 41683]]
I. 312 IAC 25-6-59 Surface Mining, Revegetation, Standards for Success
for Nonprime Farmland
Indiana revised language in section 25-6-59 at paragraph (c)(4)(A)
regarding alternative stocking rates and species for specific forest
reclamation approaches. We find that Indiana's revised language allows
more flexibility in its regulations regarding reforestation by allowing
more site specific variations in species and stocking rates. We also
find that these changes allow Indiana's regulations to meet the
standards of, and be no less effective than, the counterpart Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3) which require stocking and planting
rates to be based on local and regional conditions. Therefore, we
approve the changes.
J. 312 IAC 25-6-93 Underground Mining, Explosives, General
Requirements; 312 IAC 25-6-94 Underground Mining, Explosives,
Preblasting Survey; and 312 IAC 25-6-95 Underground Mining, Explosives,
Publication of Blasting Schedule
Indiana added new language to 312 IAC 25-6-93 to clarify that this
section's blasting regulations for slopes and shafts are not applicable
for detonations at depths below 50 feet from the surface. This is
counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.61(a) that deal
with surface blasting activities incident to underground coal mining.
Indiana has clarified that 50 feet is the maximum depth below the
surface in which surface blasting regulations would apply. Indiana also
removed the requirement to submit a blast design for operations within
1,000 feet of a pipeline. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR
817.61(d)(1) does not contain this requirement. Indiana made some minor
changes to 312 IAC 25-6-94 clarifying preblasting survey requirements
and revised 312 IAC 25-6-95 regarding publication and distribution of
blasting schedules. We find that Indiana's changes to these sections
meet all the requirements of the counterpart Federal regulations at 30
CFR 817.61, 817.62, and 817.64 and make Indiana's regulations no less
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve these
changes.
K. 312 IAC 25-7-5 State Enforcement; Cessation Orders
1. Indiana added new language in paragraph (k) clarifying that the
timeframe for updating ownership and control listings following the
issuance of a cessation order does not apply if a stay has been granted
by an administrative law judge or a court of competent jurisdiction and
it remains in effect. We find that this language meets the requirements
of the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.12(b) and makes
Indiana's program no less effective than the Federal regulations.
Therefore, we are approving the new language.
2. Indiana added new paragraph (m) requiring that any
determinations made regarding a cessation order be in writing and
contain a right of appeal. We find that the new language meets the
requirements of 30 CFR 774.11(f) and (h) regarding notification and
appeal rights for the entry of ownership and control information into
the AVS system. Therefore, we find the addition of this new paragraph
makes Indiana's regulation no less effective than the Federal
regulations and 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
By letter dated June 14, 2011, 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
Indiana's program (Administrative Record No. IN-1757). By letter dated
July 13, 2011, we received a comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Administrative Record No. IN-1758), recommending that Indiana
provide a definition or discussion regarding how the threshold of
``adverse impact'' is determined.
The Federal regulations require no such definition for ``adverse
impact.'' The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.13(b)(2) require
Indiana to establish guidelines related to the scale or extent of
revisions for which certain permit application materials must be
submitted. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.15(j) require that the
applicant demonstrate and the regulatory authority find in writing that
the operation would not affect the continued existence of endangered or
threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
their critical habitats, as determined under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
By letter dated August 4, 2011, Indiana responded (Administrative
Record No. IN-1761) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's comments,
stating that Indiana has an embedded Wildlife Biologist employed by the
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division,
whose sole duties include the review of all surface and underground
coal mine submissions relating to fish and wildlife and related
environmental value resources. Indiana also stated that the intent of
this part of the rule is to disallow a request for a nonsignificant
permit revision if a change is proposed to a mine permit that could
adversely affect these values in a way not contemplated beneath the
currently approved permit. Indiana concluded by stating that the
methodology it will employ regarding this topic will be the same that
has been used since the inception of its corresponding statue, Indiana
Code 14-34-5-8-1, which was passed in 1998 and approved by OSM in 1999.
We find that although Indiana has not defined the term ``adverse
impact'' as the Fish and Wildlife Service suggested for the purposes of
determining if a permit revision is ``nonsignificant,'' Indiana
considers ``adverse impact'' as something not previously contemplated
in the currently approved permit that could have an adverse effect.
Indiana's implementation of the rules and regulations relating to fish
and wildlife will not be conducted any differently than it has been
since 1998. Indiana's intent of this section is consistent with that of
the Federal regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a 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 Indiana proposed to
make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. However, by
letter dated June 14, 2011, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested
comments on the amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record No. IN-
1757). The EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historical 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. By letter dated June 14, 2011, we requested comments on the
[[Page 41684]]
amendment (Administrative Record No. IN-1757); but neither responded to
our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on our discussions in the above OSM's Findings, we are
approving significant parts of Indiana's amendment sent to us on May
25, 2011. We do not approve the phrase ``unless waived by all parties''
contained in Indiana's proposed amendment to 312 IAC 25-5-16(j)(2). For
those rules we approve, Indiana must fully promulgate them 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 914, which codify decisions concerning the Indiana
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
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.
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 Indiana program does
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana 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 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), 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, 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
[[Page 41685]]
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 914
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 2, 2012.
William L. Joseph,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 914 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 914--INDIANA
0
1. The authority citation for Part 914 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 914.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment Date of final
submission date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
May 25, 2011............ July 16, 2012........... Sections: 312 IAC 25-
1-10.5, 25-1-32.5,
25-1-48, 25-1-51.5,
25-1-75.1, 25-4-18,
25-4-23, 25-4-59,
25-4-64, 25-4-
115.1, 25-4-122.1,
25-4-122.2, 25-4-
122.3, 25-4-127, 25-
5-7; 25-5-16, 25-6-
59, 25-6-93, 25-6-
94, 25-6-95, and 25-
7-5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 914.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (ee),
to read as follows:
Sec. 914.16 Required program amendments.
* * * * *
(a)-(ee) [Reserved]
0
4. Section 914.17 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 914.17 State regulatory program and proposed program amendment
provisions not approved.
* * * * *
(d) The amendment at 312 IAC 25-5-16 new subsections (d) through
(j) submitted on December 6, 2006, concerning requirements for
performance bond releases is not approved effective October 18, 2007.
(e) The phrase ``unless waived by all parties'' contained in
paragraph 312 IAC 25-5-16(j)(2) submitted on May 25, 2011, concerning
performance bond releases, is not approved effective July 16, 2012.
[FR Doc. 2012-17238 Filed 7-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P