[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-8320] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: April 7, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 944 Utah Permanent Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of proposed amendment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: OSM is announcing its decision to approve an amendment to the approved Utah permanent regulatory program (the Utah program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1201-1328. The amendment consists of changes to provisions of the Utah Coal Mining Rules pertaining to the definitions of ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road.'' The amendment revises the Utah program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert H. Hagen, Telephone (505) 766- 1486. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Utah Program II. Submission of Proposed Amendment III. Director's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. Director's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Utah Program On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Utah program for the regulation of coal exploration and coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands. General background information on the Utah program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and an explanation of the conditions of approval, appears in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5899). Actions taken subsequent to approval of the Utah program are codified at 30 CFR 944.15, 944.16, and 944.30. II. Submission of Proposed Amendment By letter dated September 17, 1992 (administrative record No. UT- 782), Utah submitted to OSM, under SMCRA and the Federal regulations implementing SMCRA at 30 CFR chapter VII (the Federal regulations), a proposed amendment to the Utah program. Utah submitted the proposed amendment in response to a September 4, 1992, agreement (administrative record No. UT-778) between Utah and OSM concerning the regulation of coal mine access and haul roads (mine roads) in Utah and as required by OSM at 30 CFR 944.16 (n) and (o). The proposed amendment consists of revised definitions of the terms ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road'' at Utah Administrative Rule (Utah Admin. R.) 645-100- 200. OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the November 16, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR 54032), and, in the same notice, opened the public comment period and offered to hold a hearing on the substantive adequacy of the proposed amendment (administrative record No. UT-800). The public comment period closed on December 16, 1992. Following the close of the comment period and during its review of the proposed amendment, OSM identified certain concerns regarding whether the proposed amendment was, as required by 30 CFR 732.15(a), in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations. OSM notified Utah of these concerns by letter dated January 21, 1993 (administrative record No. UT-817). By letter dated February 16, 1993, Utah submitted to OSM additional material, including a revision to the proposed amendment (administrative record No. UT-824). However, OSM identified certain concerns with this revision and notified Utah of these concerns by telephone on March 4, 1993 (administrative record No. UT-825). By letter dated March 24, 1993, Utah submitted to OSM additional revisions to the proposed amendment (administrative record No. UT-827). OSM announced receipt of the March 24, 1993, revisions to the proposed amendment in the April 8, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 18187), and, in the same notice, reopened the public comment period on the revised proposed amendment (administrative record No. UT-830). The comment period ended on April 23, 1993. By letter to Utah dated May 19, 1993 (administrative record No. UT- 842), OSM found that provision II.1 of the September 4, 1992, agreement was not valid. In addition, OSM qualified the applicability of provision II.2 of the same agreement. By letter dated June 22, 1993 (administrative record No. UT-847), Utah responded to OSM's May 19, 1993, letter and stated its interpretation of and intentions with respect to the September 4, 1992, agreement. By letter dated July 1, 1993 (administrative record No. UT-845), the Joint National Coal Association/American Mining Congress Committee on Surface Mining Regulations requested that OSM reopen the comment period for Utah's proposed amendment to allow additional public comment on the effect of OSM's May 19, 1993, letter on the September 4, 1992, agreement and the proposed amendment. OSM published a notice in the July 29, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 40608) reopening and extending the public comment period to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the effect that the invalid part of the September 4, 1992, agreement would have on Utah's proposed amendment (administrative record No. UT-850). The extended public comment period ended on August 13, 1993. The proposed amendment, as revised on March 24, 1993, is the subject of this notice. III. Director's Findings After a thorough review, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, the Director finds that Utah's proposed amendment to its definitions of ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road,'' as submitted by Utah on September 17, 1992, and as revised by it on March 24, 1993, is no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal regulations. A. Background on Proposed Amendment On February 25, 1991, Utah adopted certain revisions to its definitions of ``road'' and ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100- 200, along with a supplemental policy statement. On March 1, 1991, Utah, as required by 30 CFR 732.17, submitted those revisions and the supplemental policy statement to OSM for approval (administrative record No. UT-610). OSM did not approve in part the March 1, 1991, submittal in a final rule published in the Federal Register (56 FR 58846, November 22, 1991) (the final roads rule). In the final roads rule, OSM found that the definition of ``surface coal mining operations'' at section 701(28) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1291(28), and its counterpart in the Utah program require the regulation of certain public roads (56 FR 58846, 68847-49, November 22, 1991). OSM also found that, when determining whether a road is subject to regulation under SMCRA and the Utah program, the regulatory authority must consider the extent and effect of the mining- related use of the road (56 FR 58846, 58847-49, 58851-52, 58854-55, November 22, 1991). Based on these findings, OSM did not approve Utah's revision to its definition of ``road'' and its supplemental policy statement because, when considered together, they would have exempted all public roads from regulation, regardless of their mining-related use (56 FR 58846, 58847-49, November 22, 1991). OSM approved Utah's revision to its definition of ``public road,'' but only in the limited context of the rules in the Utah program for designating lands unsuitable for mining (56 FR 58846, 58849-50, November 22, 1991). OSM also required Utah to make certain amendments to its regulatory definitions of ``road'' and ``public road'' and to withdraw its supplemental policy statement (56 FR 58846, 58857-58, November 22, 1992.) These required program amendments are codified at 30 CFR 944.16 (n) and (o). On January 17, 1992, Utah brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, pursuant to section 526 of SMCRA, for judicial review of the final roads rule (Utah v. Lujan, No. 92-C-063-G (D. Utah)). On September 4, 1992, OSM and Utah resolved Utah v. Lujan by entering into an agreement (the September 4, 1992, agreement). Under the September 4, 1992, agreement, Utah agreed, among other things, to withdraw its claims in Utah v. Lujan, confirm the withdrawal, effective December 5, 1991, from the Utah program of its supplemental policy statement, and to submit to OSM a proposed amendment to the Utah program that would revise the definitions of ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 to read the same as the corresponding definitions in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5 and 761.5. For its part, OSM agreed to a blanket exemption of certain Utah mine roads from regulation under SMCRA and the Utah program. Pursuant to the September 4, 1992, agreement, Utah filed a motion with the district court to dismiss Utah v. Lujan. However, Utah did not submit the agreement to the court for review or approval. On September 24, 1992, the court granted Utah's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Also pursuant to the agreement, Utah submitted to OSM the proposed amendment that is the subject of this notice. Subsequently, OSM sent to Utah a letter dated May 19, 1993, invalidating the September 4, 1992, agreement to the extent that it exempted certain mine roads existing on September 4, 1992, from regulation under SMCRA (administrative record No. UT-842). B. Description of Proposed Amendment As noted above, Utah proposed to revise its definitions of ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645- 100-200. Specifically, Utah proposed to revise its definition of ``affected area'' as follows, with the italicized language to be added: ``Affected area'' means any land or water surface area which is used to facilitate, or is physically altered by, coal mining and reclamation operations. The affected area includes the disturbed area; any area upon which coal mining and reclamation operations are conducted; any adjacent lands the use of which is incidental to coal mining and reclamation operations; all areas covered by new or existing roads used to gain access to, or for hauling coal to or from, coal mining and reclamation operations, except as provided in this definition; any area covered by surface excavations, workings, impoundments, dams, ventilation shafts, entryways, refuse banks, dumps, stockpiles, overburden piles, spoil banks, culm banks, tailings, holes or depressions, repair areas, storage areas, shipping areas; any areas upon which are sited structures, facilities, or other property material on the surface resulting from, or incident to, coal mining and reclamation operations; and the area located above underground workings. The affected area shall include every road used for purposes of access to, or for hauling coal to or from, coal mining and reclamation operations, unless the road (a) was designated as a public road pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which it is located; (b) is maintained with public funds and constructed in a manner similar to other public roads of the same classification within the jurisdiction; and (c) there is substantial (more than incidental) public use. Editorial Note: The definition of Affected area, insofar as it excludes roads which are included in the definition of Surface coal mining operations, was suspended at 51 FR 41960, Nov. 20, 1986. Accordingly, Utah suspends the definition of Affected Area insofar as it excludes roads which are included in the definition of ``coal mining and reclamation operations.'' Utah proposed to revise its definition of ``road'' as follows, with the capitalized language in brackets to be removed and the italicized language to be added: ``Road'' means a surface right-of-way for purposes of travel by land vehicles used in [COAL EXPLORATION OR] coal mining and reclamation operations or coal exploration. A road consists of the entire area within the right-of-way, including the roadbed, shoulders, parking and side areas, approaches, structures, ditches, and surface. The term includes access and haulroads constructed, used, reconstructed, improved, or maintained for use in [COAL EXPLORATION, OR WITHIN THE AFFECTED AREA OF] coal mining and reclamation operations or coal exploration, including use by coal hauling vehicles [LEADING] to and from transfer, processing, or storage areas. The term does not include [ROADS] ramps and routes of travel within the immediate mining [PIT] area or within spoil or coal mine waste disposal areas. Finally, Utah proposed to revise its definition of ``public road'' as follows, with the capitalized language in brackets to be removed and the italicized language to be added: ``Public road'', for the purposes of part R645-103-200, R645- 301-521.123, and R645-301-521.133 means a road (a) which has been designated as a public road pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which it is located [,]; (b) which is maintained with public funds in a manner similar to other public roads of the same classification within the jurisdiction [, AND]; (c) for which there is substantial (more than incidental) public use; and (d) which meets road classification standards for other public roads of the same classification in the local jurisdiction. C. Specific Findings For the following reasons, OSM finds that Utah's proposed amendment to its definitions of ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations. OSM finds that, except for some differences in wording, Utah's proposed amendment to its definitions of ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 is substantively identical to the corresponding Federal definitions of ``affected area'' and ``road'' at 30 CFR 701.5 and ``public road'' at 30 CFR 761.5. As discussed below, these differences in wording are necessary to maintain consistency throughout Utah's regulations and make the proposed amendment conform to the Utah program. 1. Definition of ``Affected Area'' As noted above, Utah's proposed amendment to its definition of ``affected area'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 states, in part, as follows: Editorial Note: The definition of Affected area, insofar as it excludes roads which are included in the definition of Surface coal mining operations, was suspended at 51 FR 41960, Nov. 20, 1986. Accordingly, Utah suspends the definition of Affected Area insofar as it excludes roads which are included in the definition of ``coal mining and reclamation operations.'' In this note, Utah suspended its definition of ``affected area'' insofar as it excluded roads that were included in the definition of ``coal mining and reclamation operations'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100- 200. This is consistent with the November 20, 1986, partial suspension of the Federal definition of ``affected area'' (51 FR 41960). A difference between Utah's proposed definition of ``affected area'' and its Federal regulatory counterpart is that Utah's proposed definition of ``affected area'' uses the term ``coal mining and reclamation operations, '' while the Federal definition of ``affected area'' uses the term ``surface coal mining and reclamation operations.'' This difference, however, is not substantive. The Utah regulatory term ``coal mining and reclamation operations,'' as defined at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, is substantively identical to the Federal regulatory term ``surface coal mining operations,'' as defined at 30 CFR 700.5. In addition, the Utah regulatory term ``coal mining and reclamation operations'' specifically incorporates the term ``surface coal mining and reclamation operations,'' which is defined at Utah Code Annotated (U.C.A.) 40-10-3(17). The Utah statutory definition of ``surface coal mining and reclamation operations'' is substantively identical to the corresponding Federal statutory definition of ``surface coal mining and reclamation operations'' at section 701(27) of SMCRA and the Federal regulatory definition of that term at 30 CFR 700.5. Furthermore, the term ``coal mining and reclamation operations'' is used throughout Utah's regulations at Utah Admin. R. 645, which implement the provisions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (the State Act) at Title 40, Chapter 10, of the U.C.A. Thus, the use of the term ``coal mining and reclamation operations'' in Utah's proposed definition of ``affected area'' is both consistent with Utah's regulations at Utah Admin. R. 645 and is consistent with and no less effective than the term ``surface coal mining and reclamation operations,'' as used in the Federal definition of ``affected area.'' For the reasons stated above, the Director approves Utah's proposed amendment to the term ``affected area'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200. 2. Definition of ``Road'' The only difference between Utah's proposed definition of ``road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 and the Federal definition of ``road'' at 30 CFR 701.5 is that Utah uses the term ``coal mining and reclamation operations'' in its definition, while the Federal definition of ``road'' uses the term ``surface coal mining and reclamation operations.'' As discussed in finding No. III.C.1. above, this difference is not substantive. Thus, Utah's use of the term ``coal mining and reclamation operations'' in its proposed definition of ``road'' is consistent with and no less effective than the Federal definition of ``road.'' In addition, as was discussed in item No. III.A. above, Utah agreed, as part of the September 4, 1992, agreement (provision I.2.a.), to conform the withdrawal of its supplemental policy statement. By letter dated June 10, 1992, Utah notified OSM that the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining did, in fact, withdraw the supplemental policy statement, effective December 5, 1991 (administrative record No. UT-771). Accordingly, the Director approves Utah's proposed amendment to the term ``road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645- 100-200, accepts Utah's withdrawal of the supplemental policy statement, and removes the required amendments codified at 30 CFR 944.16(n)(1) and (2). 3. Definition of ``Public Road'' Utah's proposed definition of ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, among other things, adds language that limits the use of this term to the purposes of parts Utah Admin. R. 645-103-200, 645-301- 521.123, and 645-301-521.133. These parts of the Utah program contain rules for designating lands unsuitable for coal mining and reclamation operations. Thus, Utah's proposed definition of ``public road'' is applicable only to the Utah rules for designating lands unsuitable for such mining. This limitation is consistent with the Federal definition of ``public road'' at 30 CFR 761.5, which applies only in the limited context of areas designated by Act of Congress as being unsuitable for surface coal mining operations (56 FR 58846, 58849, November 22, 1991). Thus, Utah's proposed addition of the above-referenced language to its definition of ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 is consistent with and no less effective than the Federal definition of ``public road'' at 30 CFR 761.5. The Director approves Utah's proposed amendment to the term ``public road'' and removes the required amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(o). IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments A. Public Comments 1. Support for Utah's Proposed Amendment: Processing of Amendments Two commenters said they supported the proposed amendments and encouraged their approval as quickly as possible. The commenters further noted that approval of these definitions, which are identical to the Federal definitions, will remove any ambiguity recognized with respect to Utah's responsibilities to permit roads used primarily for coal mining purposes. In addition, the commenters stated that, according to OSM regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(7), approval of the proposed amendments was required by January 15, 1993, 30 days after the close of the comment period (December 16, 1992), and that in doing so, OSM must, as required by 30 CFR 732.17(h)(10), apply the criteria set forth in 30 CFR 732.15 when determining whether to approve such amendment. Finally, the commenters said that because the proposed amendments are identical to the existing Federal regulations, there should be no question that the amendments should be approved within the mandatory 30-day time period. OSM concurs with the commenter's interpretation regarding the above-cited Federal regulations. However, OSM also believes it necessary to provide clarification regarding the applicability of amendment processing procedures and the comment that approval of the proposed amendments was required by January 15, 1993, 30 days after the close of the comment period following publication of the proposed rule notice in the Federal Register. Each State program amendment raises different legal and technical issues that require differing levels of analysis. Therefore, unless a proposed amendment is a verbatim copy of the comparable Federal regulation, it may require extensive review and analysis by Federal authorities in consultation with their State counterparts. The process involves review of widely varying amendments that must comport with Federal and State laws and court cases. Rather than simply disapprove a deficient proposal, OSM attempts to work with the State to bring the proposal up to a level where it is comparable to and no less effective than the Federal regulations. This process can be time consuming. Thus, the potential for delays in the process is a constant. With respect to Utah's September 17, 1992, proposed amendment, OSM identified deficiencies regarding Utah's definitions of ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road.'' Accordingly, OSM notified Utah of the deficiencies by an issue letter dated January 21, 1993. The issue letter provided Utah with an opportunity to correct the specified deficiencies. Utah responded to the issue letter in a revised amendment dated March 24, 1993. OSM then announced receipt of the revised proposed amendment in the April 8, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 18187), and, in the same notice, reopened and extended the public comment period for 15 days. The extended comment period closed on April 23, 1993. Therefore, according to OSM regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(7), approval or disapproval of Utah's proposed amendment was required by May 24, 1993, the first work day 30 days after the close of the extended comment period. However, with respect to timely processing of amendments, the general rule is that a statutory or regulatory time period for agency action is not mandatory unless it specifies a consequence for the agency's failure to meet the prescribed deadline. Where no such consequence is specified, the time period is regarded as directory only, intended to guide agency procedures but not to set inflexible requirements. (See, Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 259, 106 S. Ct. 1834, 1838, 90 L. Ed. 248, 255 (1986); In re Barr Laboratories, Inc., 930 F.2d 72, 74 (D.C. Cir. 1991); and, 1A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction Sec. 25.03 (5th ed. 1991)). In the case of the State program amendment process, the regulation at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(7), which requires OSM to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment within 30 days of the close of the comment period, and the regulation at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(13), which establishes the 6- month period for the completion of action on State program amendments, do not impose any consequence in the event OSM fails to meet the deadlines. Thus, these deadlines are directory, rather than mandatory. 2. Additional Support for Utah's Proposed Amendment One commenter, who resides in a rural county in Utah that contains extensive coal reserves, responded with support of Utah's proposed amendment. The commenter further noted that (1) because of the small population base and large geographic parameters of the county, which contains mostly Federal lands, it is important to have Utah's proposed definitions in place in order to develop the local economy and (2) the coal mining industry is a large part of the local economy providing employment for the citizens of the area. OSM acknowledges these comments. 3. Terms of the September 4, 1992, Agreement Several commenters expressed concerns about the September 4, 1992, agreement. That agreement provides in pertinent part as follows: I. The [Utah] Division [of Oil, Gas and Mining] agrees to: * * * * * 2. In recognition of the direction of the Director of OSM as set forth in OSM's final rule published on November 22, 1991, 56 FR 58846 (the final rule): * * * * * b. Submit a program amendment of the Division's definition of the term ``Road'', to read the same as the corresponding federal definition at 30 CFR 701.5; c. Submit a program amendment of the Division's definition of the term ``Public Road'', to read the same as the corresponding federal definition at 30 CFR 761.5 and, in addition, provide that the definition applies only in the context of Utah Admin. R645-103- 100, et seq., Areas unsuitable for Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations; and d. Submit a program amendment of the Division's definition of the term ``Affected Area'' to read the same as the corresponding federal definition at 30 CFR 701.5. II. OSM and the Division agree that: 1. If a road in Utah has not previously been determined to be part of an existing surface coal mining operation, the road will not be required to be included within a permit, based on current federal statute and regulations and the current Utah statute and rules; and 2. With respect to any application for a permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations under the Utah Coal Regulatory Program, including any application pending at the time of this agreement, the state will apply the Utah statute and rules existing on the date of permit approval. One commenter asserted that the Federal regulatory definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area,'' and Utah's proposed amendment to its regulatory definitions of those terms, do not clearly define OSM's and Utah's jurisdiction over public roads. The commenter stated that until OSM and Utah clarify their jurisdiction over public roads, they must only impose on operators regulations that conform to the specific terms of the September 4, 1992, agreement. The commenter noted that this agreement requires Utah to submit to OSM a program amendment to Utah's regulatory definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area'' that ``reads the same as'' the corresponding Federal regulatory definitions of those terms. In line with this position, the commenter stated that Utah's proposed amendment must be changed because the proposed definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area'' use terms, such as ``coal mining and reclamation operations,'' that are not contained in the corresponding Federal regulatory definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area.'' Alternatively, the commenter stated that OSM may approve Utah's proposed amendment, but only after OSM formally changes its own regulatory definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area'' to use such terms as ``coal mining and reclamation operations.'' Also, the facilitate this position, the commenter stated that OSM's and Utah's regulations must be modified to include the specific terms of the September 4, 1992, agreement. Two additional commenters stated that, in accordance with the September 4, 1992, agreement, all Utah mine roads existing as of that date were ``grandfathered,'' i.e., exempted from regulation. The commenters further said that under that agreement, if a road had not been included within a permitted surface coal mining operation prior to September 4, 1992, it will not be incorporated into a permit. The commenters then requested that the Utah program be amended to specifically incorporate this grandfather provision. OSM agrees with the comment that the Federal regulatory definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area,'' and Utah's proposed amendment to its regulatory definitions of those terms, do not, respectively, clearly define OSM's and Utah's jurisdiction over public roads. Those definitions, however, do not purport, in and of themselves, to define jurisdiction over public roads. In the preamble to the final roads rule, OSM said that it currently relies on the applicable language of the Federal definitions of ``surface coal mining operations'' at section 710(28) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 700.5, and that Utah must, among other things, also rely on its statutory definition of that term at U.C.A. 40-10-3(18) in determining jurisdiction over public roads (56 FR 58846, 58848-49, November 22, 1991). Also, in the final roads rule, as discussed under part III.A. of this notice, OSM found that, when determining whether a public road is subject to regulation under SMCRA and the Utah program, the regulatory authority must consider the extent and effect of the mining-related use of the road (56 FR 58846, 58847-49, 58851-52, 58854-55, November 22, 1991). Thus, OSM's and Utah's jurisdiction over public roads is determined, respectively, under the Federal and Utah definitions of ``surface coal mining operations'' and other guidance such as the preamble to the final roads rule. OSM disagrees with the comment that the Federal and Utah regulatory definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area'' must literally ``read the same.'' Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.15(a), OSM may approve a proposed amendment to a State program if, among other things, the proposed amendment is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations implementing SMCRA. OSM interprets paragraphs I.2.b., c., and d. of the September 4, 1992, agreement to only require Utah to submit to OSM a proposed amendment meeting those requirements. For the reasons discussed above under part III of this notice, OSM finds that Utah's proposed amendment meets, upon the stated conditions, the requirements of 30 CFR 732.15(a) and provisions I.2.b., c., and d. of the September 4, 1992, agreement. OSM disagrees with the comment that the Federal and Utah regulations must be modified to include the specific terms of the September 4, 1992, agreement. Nothing in SMCRA, the Federal regulations, the Utah program, or the September 4, 1992, agreement requires Utah or OSM to modify their respective regulations to include specific terms of that agreement. In addition, OSM notified Utah, by letter dated May 19, 1993, of its determination that paragraph II.1. of the September 4, 1992, agreement, which would have exempted certain Utah mine roads from regulation under SMCRA and the Utah program, is contrary to law and thus is not binding on OSM. The September 4, 1992, agreement was not reviewed, approved, or adopted by the court in Utah v. Lujan. Thus, it is nothing more than a contract between OSM and Utah. Under general contract law, a Federal agency cannot contract with a body it regulates in a manner contrary to its statutory authority or in a manner that does not give full effect to the intent of the Congress (Board of Directors and Officers, Forbes Federal Credit Union v. National Credit Union Admin., 477 F.2d 777, 784 (10th Cir. 1973)). Contracts entered in violation of statutory or regulatory law are unenforceable if enforcement would ``offend the essential purpose of the enactment'' (United States v. Mississippi Valley Co., 364 U.S. 520, 563 (1961). See also Quinn v. Gulf Western Corp., 644 F.2d 89, 93-94 (2d Cir. 1981); D.M. Yates, 74 IBLA 159, 161 (1983). See generally E. Farnsworth, Contracts sections 5.5-5.6 (2d ed. 1982); 15 S. Williston, Contracts section 1763 (3d ed. 1972)). In other words, OSM is free to enter into contracts or agreements with other parties, but when a provision of a contract or agreement conflicts with OSM's statutory responsibilities under SMCRA such that its enforcement would offend an essential purpose of SMCRA, that provision is unenforceable. Under paragraph II.1. of the September 4, 1992, agreement, Utah and OSM agreed to a blanket exemption from regulation under SMCRA and the Utah program of all unpermitted mine roads existing prior to September 4, 1992. SMCRA jurisdiction over mine roads derives from the statutory definition of the term ``surface coal mining operations'' at section 701(28). SMCRA defines this term, in pertinent part, to mean: (A) Activities conducted on the surface of lands in connection with a surface coal mine * * *; and (B) the areas upon which such activities occur or where such activities disturb the natural land surface. Such areas shall also include * * * all lands affected by the construction of new roads to gain access to the site of those activities and for haulage * * * (emphasis added). This definition of ``surface coal mining operations'' is substantively identical to the Federal regulatory definition of that term at 30 CFR 700.5 and Utah's statutory definition of that term at U.C.A. 40-10-3(18). Under those definitions, OSM and Utah are required to regulate certain mine roads, based, in part, on the extent and effect of mining- related use of the road (see 56 FR at 58847-49 (1991); 55 FR 13773, 13775 (1990); 53 FR 54190, 54192 (1988)). Nothing in SMCRA or the Utah program provides for a blanket exemption of mine roads from regulation. To the contrary, jurisdiction over mine roads must be made on a case- by-case basis (see 56 FR at 58848 (1991); 55 FR 13773, 13775 (1990); 53 FR 54190, 54193 (1988)). By granting a blanket exemption to existing, unpermitted mine roads without any consideration given to the amount of their mining-related use, paragraph II.1. of the September 4, 1992, agreement would have exempted roads which, under SMCRA and the Utah program, OSM and Utah are required to regulate. Thus, paragraph II.1. is contrary to SMCRA and the Utah program. Moreover, the enforcement of paragraph II.1. of the September 4, 1992, agreement offends an essential purpose of SMCRA and the Utah program (See Mississippi Valley, 364 U.S. at 563). One of SMCRA's essential purposes is ``to protect the environment and ensure the reclamation of mined areas'' (Daniel Brothers Coal Co., 2 IBSMA 45, 49 (1980); see also section 102(a) of SMCRA). Also, as U.C.A. 40-10-2(3) indicates, one of the purposes of the Utah program is to ``[a]ssure that surface coal mining operations are conducted so as to protect the environment.'' Given the significant environmental harm that can result from unregulated mine access and haul roads, these statutory purposes cannot be fully met by an agreement, such as paragraph II.1., to grant an unauthorized regulatory exemption. For the reasons given above, paragraph II.1. of the September 4, 1992, agreement is contrary to SMCRA and the Utah program, and because its enforcement would offend an essential purpose of these laws it is unenforceable. Accordingly, paragraph II.1. must not be applied by OSM or Utah to any permitting or enforcement decisions in Utah. Under paragraph II.2. of the September 4, 1992, agreement, Utah agreed to ``apply the Utah statute and rules existing on the date of permit approval'' to any permit applications pending on September 4, 1992, and to any future permit applications. In the aforementioned letter to Utah dated May 19, 1993, OSM stated that this provision is valid as long as (1) the phrase ``Utah statutes and rules'' is interpreted to mean the approved Utah State program; (2) any application of the Utah statute and rules to a permitting decision is consistent with the Department of the Interior's actions in approving or not approving such statutes and rules (see, e.g., 56 FR 58846, November 22, 1991); and (3) the provision is not interpreted to prevent Utah or OSM from taking action subsequent to permit approval, where appropriate under the approved program (e.g., requiring a permit revision to reflect changes in applicable law). For these reasons, the Federal regulations and the Utah program must not be modified to include the specific terms of paragraphs II.1. and II.2. of the September 4, 1992, agreement. 4. Basis for Submission of Utah's Proposed Amendment and the Effect of OSM's Invalidation of Provision II.1. of the September 4, 1992, Agreement on Utah's Proposed Amendment One commenter stated that OSM's May 19, 1993, letter, which notified Utah that a portion of the September 4, 1993, agreement between Utah and OSM was contrary to law and therefore not binding on OSM, constitutes an abrupt reversal of position and abdication of the agreement that forms the basis for the amendment addressed in this notice. Notwithstanding OSM's action on the agreement, the commenter requested that OSM approve the amendment. OSM disagrees with the commenter's inference that the agreement was the sole reason that Utah submitted the amendment to OSM. When OSM and Utah drafted the agreement, they ensured that the required amendments of the Director's decision in the November 22, 1991, Federal Register would be satisfied by Utah complying with provisions I.2. b., c., and d. of the agreement. Therefore, when Utah submitted proposed definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area,'' it did so not only in accordance with provisions I.2. b., c., and d. of the agreement, but also in response to required program amendments at 30 CFR 944.16 (n) and (o) that OSM placed on the Utah program in the November 22, 1991, notice. Had OSM and Utah not entered into the agreement, Utah still would have had to submit proposed definitions to satisfy the required amendments at 30 CFR 944.16 (n) and (o). OSM also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that OSM's approval of the amendment would be inconsistent with OSM's notification to Utah that a part of the agreement was contrary to law and not binding on OSM. The agreement consisted of two parts. The first part (provision I) addressed actions by Utah (1) to withdraw with prejudice its lawsuit on certain roads violations that OSM issued in Utah (provision I.1.) and (2) to withdraw a policy statement and revise its definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area'' in a manner consistent with the corresponding Federal definitions at 30 CFR 701.5 and 761.5 (provisions I.2. a., b., c., and d.). The second part (provision II.) addressed the implementation of the Federal and State statutes and regulations with respect to (1) existing roads that were not, as of September 4, 1992, previously determined to be part of an existing surface coal mining operation and required to be permitted (provision II.1.) and (2) permit applications pending Utah's approval or disapproval as of September 4, 1992 (provision II.2.). While OSM by its May 19, 1993, letter notified Utah that provision II.1. of the September 4, 1993, agreement between Utah and OSM was not binding on OSM, provisions I.1., I.2. a., b., c., and d., and II.2. remained in effect. Therefore, contrary to the commenter's statement, OSM could approve the amendment as long as Utah's proposed definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area,'' which are the subject of provisions I.2. a., b., c., and d., of the agreement, were not inconsistent with the corresponding Federal definitions at 30 CFR 701.5 and 761.5. In addition, the commenter raised several arguments concerning the legal validity of the reasons OSM set forth in its May 19, 1993, notification to Utah that provision II.1. of the September 4, 1993, agreement between Utah and OSM was contrary to law and therefore not binding on OSM. The Director notes these arguments but does not respond to them because they are outside the scope of this rulemaking to the extent that Utah did not submit in this amendment proposed rules incorporating provision II.1. of the agreement. 5. Jurisdiction Two commenters expressed concerns that Utah's proposed definitions of ``road,'' ``public road,'' and ``affected area,'' would inappropriately broaden the State's jurisdiction under the State Act to regulate ``public roads'' that service coal mining operations, coal exploration activities, and most haulage. The commenters noted that the term ``public road'' would no longer be applied in determining areas that should be permitted under the State Act since that term, as proposed, would be limited to defining areas unsuitable for mining. The commenters stated that, accordingly, the definition of ``public road,'' which includes criterion (d) indicating that a public road must meet construction standards for other public roads of the same classification in the local jurisdiction, will no longer be applied in determining whether or not a road should be permitted under the State Act. OSM disagrees with the comment that Utah's proposed definitions will inappropriately broaden the State's jurisdiction under the State Act to regulate ``public roads.'' As discussed above under part III.A. of this notice, on February 25, 1991, Utah adopted certain revisions to its definitions of ``road'' and ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645- 100-200, along with a supplemental policy statement that, considered together, would exempt all public roads from regulation under the Utah program. That adoption by Utah, however, did not take effect because it was never approved by OSM, as required by 30 CFR 732.17(g). Thus, the term ``public road,'' as adopted by Utah on February 25, 1991, was never effective as a matter of law. Consequently, Utah's proposed amendment does not serve to broaden its jurisdiction to regulate a ``public road.'' In addition, and more importantly, even if Utah's proposed definition of ``public road'' is mistakenly interpreted as broadening jurisdiction, it is not inappropriate since it is no less effective than the corresponding Federal definition of ``public road.'' 6. Public Roads and the Phrase ``Substantial (More Than Incidental)'' Public Use Two commenters stated that Utah's proposed definition of the term ``affected area'' appears to exclude public roads and requested that Utah further defined the phrase ``substantial (more than incidental)'' public use, as used in the definition of ``affected area.'' In addition, one of the commenters said the definition of ``affected area'' should be clarified to state a percentage of vehicle traffic other than mining that would constitute public use. OSM acknowledges the comment that Utah's proposed definition of ``affected area'' appears to exclude public roads. However, as discussed above under part III.C.1. of this notice, the editorial note in Utah's proposed definition of ``affected area'' has the effect of including in the ``affected area'' all roads that are included in the definition of ``coal mining and reclamation operations.'' OSM disagrees with the comments that Utah further define the phrase ``substantial (more than incidental)'' public use and that Utah provide a percentage of vehicle traffic other than mining that would constitute public use. In the preamble to a final rule establishing performance standards for roads associated with surface coal mining operations, OSM said that: State laws vary widely in their road classification systems. OSMRE [OSM] is concerned that roads constructed to serve mining operations not avoid compliance with the performance standards by being deeded to public entities. However, it is not OSMRE's intention automatically to extend jurisdiction over roads into the existing public road network. Jurisdiction under the Act [SMCRA] and applicability of the performance standards are best determined on a case-by-case basis by the regulatory authority. (53 FR 45190, 45193, November 8, 1988). Thus, a case-by-case approach is necessary in determining the applicability of the Utah program to public roads. Utah's proposed amendment, as discussed under part IV.A.3. of this notice, provides guidance that is no less effective than that specified in the Federal definition of ``surface coal mining operations'' at 30 CFR 700.5 regarding which public roads are subject to Utah's jurisdiction. Another commenter suggested that the Utah term ``public road'' additionally include roads to which the public has access. As indicated in finding No. III.C.3., Utah adds language that limits the use of this term to parts R645-103-200, R645-301-521.123, and R645-301-521.133 of Utah's rules, which pertain only to designating lands unsuitable for coal mining and reclamation operations. While OSM appreciates the commenter's suggestion, it cannot require Utah to amend its definition further because the proposed definition has been determined to be no less effective than the corresponding Federal definition. 7. Definition of ``Road'' Two commenters stated that Utah's proposed definition of the term ``road'' is so broad that it includes almost any road that carries coal in intrastate and interstate commerce, and should be amended to clarify that the term ``road'' does not include ``public roads'' or roads excluded under the term ``affected area.'' OSM disagrees with these comments. Utah's proposed definition of the term ``road'' is substantively identical to the Federal regulatory definition of that term at 30 CFR 701.5. Both of those definitions of ``road'' are clear on their respective terms as to which roads are to be regulated as surface coal mining operations. The determination as to whether a particular road will be regulated as part of a surface coal mining operation must be made on a case-by-case basis by the regulatory authority, and must be based upon the mining-related use of the road (53 FR 45190, 45192, November 8, 1988; 56 FR 58846, 58848-9, November 22, 1991). 8. Application of Mining-Related Use of Roads as Criteria To Determine Whether a Road Is Subject to SMCRA Permitting Requirements A commenter stated that OSM's application of the extent and effect of the mining-related use of roads as criteria in determining whether a road is subject to SMCRA permitting requirements is contrary to OSM's announced deference to State decision making, whereby States with primacy should be allowed to determine, on a case-by-case basis, which roads must be included within the permit area. Specifically the commenter asserted that nothing in SMCRA or the Federal regulations grants OSM the authority to make case-by-case determinations in primacy States of which roads must be included within a permit area. The commenter next stated that OSM has no standards in place that define the point at which mining-related use requires the inclusion of a road within a permit area. The commenter further stated that there are no Federal standards defining what constitutes a de minimus use of a road. Instead, OSM has allowed States to determine the point at which jurisdiction begins and ends through individual State permitting decisions. Thus, the commenter concluded that the Federal regulatory definition of ``affected area'' no longer provides relevant guidance in light of OSM's deference to State decision making. With respect to the first comment that OSM relies on the extent and effect of the mining-related use of roads as criteria in determining whether a road is subject to SMCRA permitting requirements, OSM wishes to emphasize that the regulation of public roads as part of a surface coal mining operation is not solely dependent upon the use of a road. Factors such as the purpose and time of its construction, the extent to which the road is directly part of a surface coal minng operation, the degree to which the road is altered to accommodate mining operations, and the impact of mining operations on the road and its surrounding environment may be major considerations in determining whether a road is subject to regulation under SMCRA. In addition, under the Federal definition of ``surface coal mining operations'' at 30 CFR 700.5, a road may be subject to regulation under SMCRA notwithstanding the lack of demonstrable impacts associated with its mining-related construction, maintenance, and use. Therefore, even in the absence of such evidence, it may be appropriate to regulate a road in order to ensure, through the SMCRA permitting, inspection, and enforcement processes, that the purposes of SMCRA are achieved (56 FR 58846, 58852, November 22, 1991). With respect to the comments regarding the lack of Federal standards for determining when mining-related use requires the inclusion of a road within the permit area, the definitions of ``affected area'' and ``surface coal mining and reclamation operations'' provide guidance in these instances. OSM has modified its regulations in accordance with court decisions to provide guidance to States and other interested parties for determining when roads will be regulated as part of a surface coal mining operation. OSM, pursuant to court order in In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation (In re Permanent), 620 F. Supp. 1519, 1581-82 (D.D.C. 1985), modified sub. nom., National Wildlife Federation v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694 (DC Cir. 1988), modified its interpretation of the extent to which SMCRA applied to public roads. Specifically, OSM suspended the Federal regulatory definition of ``affected area'' to the extent that it excluded public roads that are included in the Federal regulatory definition of ``surface coal mining operations'' (51 FR 41952, November 20, 1986). OSM stated that ``[t]he suspension will have the effect of including in the `affected area' all lands affected by the construction of new roads or the improvement or use of existing roads to gain access to the site of the regulated activities or for haulage'' (51 FR 41952, 41953, emphasis added). In determining which mining-related roads are subject to regulation, OSM currently relies on the applicable language of the Federal definitions of ``surface coal mining operations'' at section 701(28) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 700.5. This may require, in appropriate circumstances, that OSM and State regulatory authorities issue, and surface coal mine operators obtain, permits for certain public roads (56 FR 58846, 58848, November 22,1991). With respect to the comment on the scope of OSM's oversight authority in primacy States to review the States' case-by-case determinations on roads, OSM will not respond here. This issue is pertinent to Utah's implementation of its statute and rules and OSM's oversight of Utah's actions in accordance with section 201 of SMCRA, but is not pertinent to this State program amendment. 9. Proper Interpretation of ``Affected Area'' A commenter asserted that OSM has failed to consider the extent to which a broad interpretation of the term ``affected area'' may conflict with other regulations that define which public roads are entitled to environmental protection. As an example, the commenter cited section 522(e)(4) of SMCRA, which states that no surface coal mining operations shall be permitted within 100 feet of the outside right-of-way line of any public road, and the definition of ``public road'' at 30 CFR 761.5, which implements section 522(e)(4) of SMCRA and lists the following criteria a road must meet in order to qualify as a public road: the road has been designated as a public road by the State or local law, it is maintained with public funds, there is substantial, or more than incidental, public use, and the road meets applicable road construction standards. The commenter continued that OSM should not apply one definition of ``public road'' for the purpose of implementing the SMCRA section 522(e) prohibitions and another definition for determining whether a road falls within the scope of ``surface coal mining operations'' subject to permitting requirements. The commenter concluded that OSM should avoid construing the definition of ``affected area'' in a manner that would conflict with other statutory and regulatory requirements. OSM does not agree with these comments. As discussed below, OSM is constrained by the court's decision in In re Permanent in how it regulates roads. The Federal definition of ``affected area'' once included a ``substantial (more than incidental) public use'' criterion, as the current definition of ``public roads'' also does. However, paragraph (c) of the Federal definition of ``affected area'' at 30 CFR 701.5, in which OSM previously interpreted the term ``affected area'' as not applying to roads for which `'there is substantial (more than incidental) public use,'' was successfully challenged in In re Permanent. As a result, and as stated above in response to comment IV.A.8., OSM modified its interpretation of the extent to which SMCRA applied to public roads and suspended the definition of ``affected area'' ``to the extent that it excludes public roads that are included in the definition of ``surface coal mining operations'' (51 FR 41952, 41953, November 20, 1986). The Federal definition of ``public road'' at 30 CFR 761.5 was not challenged and the ``substantial (more than incidental) public use'' criterion in that definition remains in force in the context of lands unsuitable for mining. The commenter addressed the editorial note that Utah proposes for the definition of ``affected area.'' This note indicates that a portion of the definition is suspended insofar as it excludes roads that are included in the definition of ``coal mining and reclamation operations'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200. The commenter stated that this clarification is not necessary because the State's proposed definition of ``affected area'' clearly delineates the regulatory authority's jurisdiction. OSM disagrees with this comment. As finding No. III.C.1. indicates, Utah's proposed definition of ``affected area'' and accompanying editorial note are, with only a few nonsubstantive differences, verbatim copies of the Federal definition of ``affected area'' and accompanying editorial note. As discussed above, the editorial note accompanying the Federal definition is necessary to bring the definition into compliance with the court decision In re Permanent. The same is also the case with the State definition. Without the editorial note or other equivalent revision to Utah's rules, the Utah program would not be consistent with the Federal regulations that were revised in response to the court decision. B. Agency Comments Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on Utah's proposed amendment from the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the heads of other Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Utah program. By letter dated January 21, 1993, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) commented that forest development roads (FDR'S) are not public roads (23 U.S.C. 101(a)) in the same sense as roads that are under the jurisdiction of public agencies, such as States or counties (administrative record No. UT-821) and are not intended to meet the transportation needs of the public at large. Instead, they are authorized only for the administration and utilization of National Forest System lands. Although FDR's are generally open and available for public use, that use is at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Through authorities delegated by the Secretary, USFS may restrict or control use to meet specific management direction. Commercial users, permittees, or contractors also may be required to share in the cost of developing, improving, and maintaining FDR's. USFS also stated that it may regulate use and restrict public travel on FDR's regardless of whether there is substantial or incidental use. The USFS added that sometimes there are FDR's with seasonal adjusted daily traffic of less than 10 vehicles per day ``open to public travel'' when these roads serve large blocks of Forest lands, serve important resources, or are the only access routes within the block of land. USFS recommended that because it has the legal right to control or regulate FDR's, Utah Admin. R. 645-301-200 (defining ``public road'') should be modified to (1) include FDR's with those roads that have been designated public roads pursuant to the jurisdiction in which it is located and (2) exclude FDR's from the use restriction that there be substantial (more than incidental) public use of a road in order for it to qualify as a public road. USFS stated that with these recommended changes, it could concur with the formal amendment. By a second letter dated September 9, 1993 (administrative record No. UT-870), USFS restated its concern regarding rules that attempt to dictate standards of development or maintenance relating to roads under the jurisdiction of public road agencies or Federal agencies providing public access to lands of the United States. USFS further stated that SMCRA regulations must be limited to restrictions on coal hauling activities rather than orders to reclaim or otherwise modify the transportation facility. The proposed amendment does not clarify this issue sufficiently to present [sic] unilateral decisions by OSM and DOGM [(the Division)] on roads managed for public access. OSM appreciates USFS's concerns as stated in its January 21, 19923, and September 9, 1993, letters. OSM cannot, however, require the State to adopt the recommended changes to the proposed definition of ``public road'' at Utah Admin, R. 645-301-200 because the proposed definition is substantively identical to the Federal definition at 30 CFR 761.5 and is, therefore, no less effective than the corresponding Federal definition. Further, as explained below, the existing Federal definition and proposed State definition of ``public road,'' will not interfere with USFS jurisdiction over FDR's and will protect FDR's from the adverse effects of surface mining to the extent allowed under SMCRA and the State Act. The term ``public road'' is defined at 30 CFR 761.5 and at proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-200 so that it may be used in determining when a surface coal mining operation may be conducted within 100 feet of a road: [No surface coal mining operations shall be conducted] within 100 feet, measured horizontally, of the outside right-of-way line of any public road * * * (30 CFR 761.11(d) and Utah Admin. R. 645-103-234, emphasis added). In order to be considered a ``public road,'' a road must be one (a) Which has been designated as a public road pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which it is located; (b) Which is maintained with public funds in a manner similar to other public roads of the same classification within the jurisdiction; (c) For which there is substantial (more than incidental) public use; and (d) Which meets road construction standards for other public roads of the same classification in the local jurisdiction. (30 CFR 761.5 and proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-301-200). In its comments, USFS implies that, although FDR's may not meet, in certain instances, the requirements of ``public designation'' and ``substantial public use'' in subsections (a) and (c) above, FDR's should be treated as ``public roads'' for purposes of determining when a surface coal mining operation may be conducted within 100 feet of a road. As explained below, when appropriate, FDR's will constitute ``public roads'' under the existing Federal and proposed State language. Changes to specifically add FDR's to these regulations are thus unnecessary. The phrase, ``which has been designated as a public road pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which it is located,'' under subsection (a) of the definition of ``public road,'' is interpreted by OSM to include USFS jurisdiction over FDR's. Therefore, FDR's that USFS designates as ``public'' meet the ``designation'' requirement of the definition. There is no need to add specific language concerning FDR's to this requirement of the definition. As for the ``public use'' requirement of the definition, if an FDR, like any other road, receives substantial public use, the FDR will satisfy this requirement of the definition. USFS, from its comments of September 9, 1993, also appears concerned that OSM's and Utah's definitions of ``public road'' will improperly allow OSM's and Utah's regulatory authority to extend to the ``development'' and ``maintenance'' of FDR's. USFS further asserts that ``SMCRA regulations must be limited to restrictions on coal hauling activities rather than orders to reclaim or otherwise modify the transportation facility.'' Again, these concerns are addressed by the existing Federal and proposed State regulations. With respect the USFS's first concern, except for a road that is part of a surface coal mining operation, neither OSM nor Utah has the authority to regulate the ``development'' or ``maintenance'' of a road located on USFS lands. Moreover, the Federal and State ``public road'' definition, rather than providing such authority, actually provides FDR's with protection from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations by prohibiting surface coal mining operations from being conducted within 100 feet of any FDR that constitutes of ``public road.'' Finally, it should be noted that surface coal mining operations may be conducted on USFS lands only if the operation in question meets the stringent land conservation requirements of 30 CFR 761.11(b), which include the power of the Secretary of Agriculture, in certain circumstances, to prohibit such mining. With respect to USFS's second concern, even if OSM desired to limit its regulatory power to only coal hauling activities, rather than to the transportation facility itself, it could not do so. OSM is required by section 515(b)(17) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(17)) to regulate the construction, maintenance, and reclamation of roads used in connection with a surface coal mining operation. Such regulation, should it extend to FDR's, is not a usurping of USFS's authority to control roads under its jurisdiction, but it rather OSM fulfilling its mandate, under SMCRA, to ensure that lands disturbed by surface coal mining operations are not permanently damaged. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, OSM does not required Utah to amend its program in response to USFS's comments. By letters dated October 29, 1992, and August 16, 1993, the Army Corps of Engineers responded that the proposed changes to the Utah program were satisfactory to that agency (administrative record Nos. UT-796 and UT-859). By letter dated November 2, 1992, the Bureau of Land Management said that it had no concerns regarding the proposed amendment (administrative record No. UT-797). By letter dated October 22, 1992, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM) said that it had no comments in response to the proposed amendment (administrative record No. UT-793). By additional letters dated April 12 and August 10, 1993, BOM responded that because the revised definitions of the terms ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road'' do not affect the production of mineral resources other than coal, it had no comment (administrative record Nos. UT-831 and UT-854). By letters dated October 23, 1992, and May 3 and August 12, 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) said that it found nothing of significant concern and had no comments on the proposed amendment (administrative record Nos. UT-795, 838, and 856). By letters dated January 14, May 12, and August 18, 1993, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) stated that the proposed amendment did not conflict with current MSHA regulations (administrative record Nos. UT-818, UT-841, and UT-860). By letters dated June 10 and August 11, 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded that it had no comments on the proposed amendment (administrative record Nos. UT-844 and UT-855). By letter dated April 14, 1993, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) commented that, with respect to Utah's proposed definition of the term ``road,'' ``hydrologic and erosion control measures'' need to be included as part of the road as described in the second sentence of the definition. SCS further stated that this addition is needed because such measures may be needed to mitigate the effects of drainage areas and watersheds of road construction and use (administrative record No. UT-832). In response, OSM has found in finding No. III.C.2. that Utah's proposed definition of the term ``road'' is substantively identical to the Federal regulatory definition of ``road'' at 30 CFR 701.5. In addition, Utah's rules at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-752.200, .210, .220, and .250 set performance standards for primary and ancillary roads that include hydrologic measures that are no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.150(b)(1), (3), and (5) and 817.150(b)(1), (3), and (5). These State rules read as follows: 752.200. Road Drainage. Roads will be located, designed, constructed, reconstructed, used, maintained, and reclaimed in according to R645-301-732.400, R645-301-742-400 and R645-301-762 and to achieve the following: R645-301-752.210. Control or prevent erosion, siltation, and the air pollution attendant to erosion by vegetating or otherwise stabilizing all exposed surfaces in accordance with current, prudent engineering practices; R645-301-752.220. Control or prevent additional contributions of suspended solids to stream flow or runoff outside the permit area; * * * * * R645-301-752.250. Refrain from significantly altering the normal flow of water in streambeds or drainage channels. Therefore, although Utah's proposed definition of ``road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200 does not include SCS's recommended term ``hydrologic and erosion control measures,'' the aforementioned State rules do include performance standards that mitigate the effects on drainage areas and watersheds of road construction and use them in a manner no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations. On this basis, OSM cannot require Utah to revise its program in response to SCS's comment. C. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM is required to solicit comments from the SHPO and ACHP for all amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. By letters dated October 16, 1992, and March 31, 1993, OSM solicited comments from these offices (administrative record Nos. UT-791 and UT-828). Neither the SHPO nor the ACHP commented on the proposed amendment. D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the written concurrence of the Administrator of EPA with respect to those aspects of a State program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Clean Air Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). EPA gave its written concurrence with the proposed amendment by letter dated February 17, 1993 (administrative record No. UT-826). V. Director's Decision Based on the above findings, the Director approves Utah's proposed amendment as submitted on September 17, 1992, and revised on March 24, 1993. As discussed in finding No. III.C.1., the Director approves Utah's proposed amendment to the term ``affected area.'' As discussed in finding No. III.C.2., the Director approves Utah's proposed amendment to the term ``road,'' accepts Utah's withdrawal of the supplemental policy statement, and removes the required program amendments codified at 30 CFR 944.16(n) (1) and (2). As discussed in finding No. III.C.3., the Director approves Utah's proposed amendment to the term ``public road'' and removes the required program amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(o). The Director is approving these proposed rules with the provision that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the rules submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the public. In accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(f)(1), the Director is also taking this opportunity to clarify in the required amendment section at 30 CFR 944.16 that, within 60 days of the publishing of this notice, Utah would have to either submit a proposed written amendment, or a description of an amendment to be proposed that meets the requirements of SMCRA and 30 CFR chapter VII and a timetable for enactment that is consistent with Utah's established administrative or legislative procedures. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 944, which codify decisions concerning the Utah program, are being amended to implement this decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by SMCRA. VI. Procedural Determinations A. Executive Order 12866 This final rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). B. Executive Order 12778 The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) 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 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 12550) 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. C. National Environmental Policy Act No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since 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 of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). D. 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.). E. 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 would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. List of Subjects in 30 CFR 944 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: March 31, 1994. Raymond L. Lowrie, Assistant Director, Western Support Center. For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII, Subchapter T, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below. PART 944--UTAH 1. The authority citation for part 944 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 2. Section 944.15 is amended by adding paragraph (x) to read as follows: Sec. 944.15 Approval of amendments to State regulatory program. * * * * * (x) Revisions to Utah's definitions of ``affected area,'' ``road,'' and ``public road'' at Utah Admin. R. 645-100-200, as submitted to OSM on September 17, 1992, and as subsequently revised on March 24, 1993, as well as Utah's December 5, 1991, withdrawal of its supplemental policy statement, are approved effective April 7, 1994. 3. Section 944.16 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 944.16 Required program amendments. Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(f)(1), Utah is required to submit to OSM by the specified date the following written, proposed program amendment, or a description of an amendment to be proposed that meets the requirements of SMCRA and 30 CFR chapter VII and a timetable for enactment that is consistent with Utah's established administrative or legislative procedures. (a) [Reserved] (b) [Reserved] [FR Doc. 94-8320 Filed 4-6-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-M