Utah Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Plan

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

30 CFR Part 944

Utah Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with certain exceptions and additional

requirements, a proposed amendment to the Utah regulatory program and

abandoned mine plan (hereinafter, the ``Utah program'' and Utah plan'')

under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

Utah proposed revisions to the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act

pertaining to hearings and appeals, civil and criminal penalties,

recovery of costs for reclaimed abandoned mine land, liens against

reclaimed abandoned mine lands, and certification of completion of

abandoned coal mine reclamation. The amendment is intended to

incorporate the additional flexibility afforded by SMCRA, clarify

ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas E. Ehmett, telephone: (505) 766-1486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Utah Program

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally

approved the Utah program, and on June 3, 1983, the Secretary approved

the Utah plan. General background information on the Utah program and

Utah plan, including the Secretary's findings, disposition of comments,

conditions of approval of the Utah program, and approval of the Utah

plan can be found in the January 21, 1981, and June 3, 1983, Federal

Register's (46 FR 5899 and 48 FR 24876). Subsequent actions concerning

Utah's program, Utah's plan, and program and plan amendments can be

found at 30 CFR 944.15, 944.16, 944.20, 944.25, and 944.30.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated March 7, 1994, Utah submitted a proposed amendment

to its program and plan pursuant to SMCRA (administrative record No.

UT-900). Utah submitted the proposed amendment at its own initiative.

The program provisions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act that

Utah proposed to revise were Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 40-10-14,

appeals to district court of decisions by the Board of Oil, Gas and

Mining (Board) and further review, and UCA 40-10-20, civil and criminal

penalties. The plan provisions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation

Act that Utah proposed to revise were UCA 40-10-28, recovery of

reclamation costs and liens against reclaimed land, and UCA 40-10-28.1,

certification of completion of coal reclamation.

In the March 29, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 14591), OSM

announced receipt of the proposed amendment, provided an opportunity

for a public hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and

invited public comment on its adequacy (administrative record No. UT-

911). Because no one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was

held. The public comment period ended on April 28, 1994.

During its review of the amendment, OSM identified concerns

relating to the provsions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act

at UCA 40-10-14 (3) and (6), procedural guidance for formal hearings

and appeals of decisions by the Board and district court decisions; UCA

40-10-20(3), waiver of rights to contest the violation or amount of a

civil penalty if the operator fails to forward the amount of the

penalty within the time allowed; UCA 40-10-20(8), review proceedings of

a civil penalty assessed for failure to correct a violation; and UCA

40-10-28 (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a), sale price of reclaimed abandoned mine

land and waiver of liens when certain criteria are met. OSM notified

Utah of the concerns by letter dated June 10, 1994 (administrative

record No. UT-935).

For each of the issues identified by OSM, Utah responded in a

letter dated July 5, 1994, by submitting additional explanatory

information (administrative record No. UT-949).

Based upon the additional explanatory information for the proposed

program and plan amendment submitted by Utah, OSM reopened the public

comment period in the July 29, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 38579,

administrative record No. UT-955). The public comment period ended on

August 15, 1994.

III. Director's Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in accordance with SMCRA and 30

CFR 732.15, 732.17, 884.15(a), and 884.14 finds, with certain

exceptions and additional requirements, that the proposed program and

plan amendment submitted by Utah on March 7, 1994, and supplemented

with additional explanatory information on July 5, 1994, is no less

stringent than SMCRA. Accordingly, the Director approves the proposed

amendment.

1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to Utah's Statutes

Utah proposed revisions to the following previously-approved

provisions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act that are

nonsubstantive in nature and consist of minor editorial, punctuation,

grammatical, and recodification changes (the corresponding SMCRA

provisions are listed in parentheses):

UCA 40-10-20(1) (b) and (c) (section 518(a) of SMCRA), civil penalty

for violation of Chapter 10, Title 40,

UCA 40-10-20(3) (b), (c), and (d) (section 518(b) of SMCRA), public

hearings,

UCA 40-10-20 (5) and (6) (sections 518 (e) and (f) of SMCRA),

criminal penalties, and

UCA 40-10-28 (1), (1)(a)(i), (1)(b)(ii), and (iii) (sections 407 and

408 of SMCRA), recovery of reclamation costs and liens against

reclaimed land.

Because the proposed revisions to these previously-approved

sections of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act are nonsubstantive

in nature, the Director finds that these proposed statutes are no less

stringent than SMCRA. The Director approves the proposed revisions.

2. Substantive Revisions to Utah's Statutes That Are Substantively

Identical to Provisions of SMCRA and the Federal Regulations

Utah proposed revisions to the following provisions of the Utah

Coal Mining and Reclamation Act that are substantive in nature and

contain language that is substantively identical to the provisions of

SMCRA and the Federal regulations (listed in parentheses).

UCA 40-10-20(2) (section 518(c) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 723.19 and

723.20), informal conferences,

UCA 40-10-20(3)(e) (section 518(b) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 723.20),

public hearings, and

UCA 40-10-28.1(6) (section 411(f) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 875.15(d)),

certification of completion of coal reclamation.

Because these proposed revisions to the Utah Coal Mining and

Reclamation Act are substantively identical to the corresponding

provisions of SMCRA and the Federal regulations, the Director finds

that they are no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than

the Federal regulations. The Director approves the proposed revisions.

3. UCA 40-10-14(6), Appeal to District Court

Previously-approved UCA 40-10-14(6), regarding Board decisions on

permit applications, provided, in part, that:

Any applicant, or any person with an interest which is or may be

adversely affected who has participated in the proceedings as an

objector, and who is aggrieved by the decision of the board, or if

the board fails to act within the time limits specified in [Title

40, Chapter 10], has the right to appeal in the district court for

the county in which the proposed operation is located.

In this amendment, Utah proposed to add language to UCA 40-10-14(6)

to provide that any party to the action in district court may appeal

from the final judgment, order, or decree of the district court. Utah

also proposed deletion of the provision that required that review of

the adjudication of the district court is by the Utah Supreme Court.

By way of clarification, Utah provided additional information,

stating, among other things, that, where an appeal of the Board's

decision is the issue at hand, ``the record established by the Board in

the hearing transcript becomes the trial record which is reviewed by

the Utah Supreme Court'' (administration record No. UT-949). Utah

further stated that where the Board fails to act, relief may be sought

by an applicant or interested person in the State district court for

the county where the proposed operation is located. ``Under these

conditions, the case or controversy is heard by state District Court

and it then becomes the court of record. Appeals are thereafter to the

Utah Supreme Court.'' The State cited provisions of the Utah Judicial

Code at UCA Title 78, Chapter 2, as support for its explanation of the

appellate process.

Section 526(e) of SMCRA provides, in part, that action taken by a

State regulatory authority under an approved State program is subject

to judicial review by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance

with State law. Although the Director finds the clarifying information

to be consistent with section 526(e) of SMCRA, the Director finds that

the currently-approved Utah program contains some apparent internal

inconsistencies regarding the appellate process for Board decisions on

permit applications. That is, although UCA 78-2-2(3)(e)(iv) appears to

specify, as Utah stated in its clarifying information, that appeals of

Board decisions are to the Utah Supreme Court, the first sentence of

UCA 40-10-14(6), previously approved by OSM, appears to require that

such appeals are to the State district court in the county where the

proposed operation is located.

The Director finds that the proposed revision at UCA 40-10-14(6) is

not consistent with section 526(e) of SMCRA and does not approve it.

The Director requires Utah to amend its program to eliminate the

discrepancy in the appellate procedures that govern Board decisions on

permit applications in a manner no less stringent than the requirements

of section 526(e) of SMCRA.

4. UCA 40-10-20 (1)(a) and (3)(a), Delegation of Authority for

Assessing Civil Penalties in Certain Circumstances

At UCA 40-10-20 (1)(a) and (3)(a), Utah proposed to change the

responsible party from the Board to the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining

(Division) for assessing civil penalties when a violation of permit

condition or other provision of Chapter 10, Title 40 occurs. Section

518(i) of SMCRA provides, in part, that States shall incorporate into

their programs, civil and criminal penalty provisions that are no less

stringent than section 518 of SMCRA and procedural requirements

relating to these provisions that are the same or similar to those set

forth in SMCRA. Utah's proposed transfer of authority for civil penalty

assessments from the Board to the Division is not inconsistent with

section 518(i) of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director approves the proposed

revision to UCA 40-10-20 (1)(a) and (3)(a).

5. UCA 40-10-20(3), Contest of Violation or Amount of Penalty

Utah proposed to delete existing UCA 40-10-20(3) in its entirety.

Most of the requirements of existing UCA 40-10-20(3) are recodified in

this amendment as UCA 40-10-20(2) (see finding No. 2). One requirement

of existing UCA 40-10-20(3) that is not retained and recodified

elsewhere in the statute pertains to a waiver of rights to contest the

violation or the amount of the penalty when the operator fails to

forward to the Board within 30 days of receipt of the notice of

violation the proposed civil penalty for placement in an escrow

account.

Section 518(c) of SMCRA provides, in part, that failure to forward

the amount of a proposed civil penalty to the Secretary within the

specified time ``shall result in a waiver of all legal rights to

contest the violation or the amount of the penalty.'' In order to be no

less stringent than SMCRA, the Utah program must include a similar

provision.

Although this amendment does not include the waiver requirement,

OSM notes that Utah has in another amendment dated April 14, 1994,

proposed a provision that is intended to resolve this deficiency

(administrative record No. UT-917). In order to consider the additional

proposal prior to making a final determination, the Director has

decided to defer decision on the deletion of the part of existing UCA

40-10-20(3) that provided that an operator's failure to forward the

amount of a proposed civil penalty to Utah within 30 days results in a

waiver of all legal rights to contest the violation or the amount of

the penalty.

6. UCA 40-10-20(8), Civil Penalty for Failure to Correct Violation

Utah proposed editorial revisions to UCA 40-10-20(8). However,

aside from these revisions, OSM noted in its letter dated June 10,

1994, that, while section 518(h) of SMCRA specifically references

section 525, regarding administrative reviews, and section 526,

regarding judicial reviews, UCA 40-10-20(8) did not contain any

specific cross-references to counterpart provisions of the Utah

program. Utah responded (administrative record No. UT-949) that the

reviews provided in SMCRA by reference are found in the State program

at UCA 40-10-22. The Director finds that the reference provided by Utah

meets the requirements of section 518(h) of SMCRA. Accordingly, the

Director approves the proposed revisions to UCA 40-10-20(8).

7. UCA 40-10-28 (1)(a)(ii), Recovery of Reclamation Costs

UCA 40-10-28 (1)(a)(ii), provides a formula for determining the

sale price of reclaimed abandoned mine lands to be sold to a State or

local government for public purposes, but the formula does not include

the cost of purchase as required by section 407(e) of SMCRA. This

apparent deficiency in the Utah plan would render Utah's plan less

stringent than section 407(e) of SMCRA, but OSM notes that Utah has

proposed to address this deficiency in a separate amendment dated April

14, 1994 (administrative record No. UT-914). In order to consider the

additional proposal prior to making a final determination, the Director

has decided to defer decision on proposed UCA 40-10-28 (1)(a)(ii).

8. UCA 40-10-28 (1)(b)(i) and (2)(b), Delegation of Authority to Waive

Fees and Liens Against Reclaimed Land

Utah proposed to revise its provisions at UCA 40-10-28 (1)(b)(i)

and (2)(b) to provide that the Division rather than the Board may waive

special charges for use of reclaimed land or liens against reclaimed

land in certain circumstances. Title IV of SMCRA does not prohibit a

State regulatory authority from delegating responsibility for

administering and enforcing the Federal provisions. Section 413(a) of

SMCRA provides, in part, that a State with an approved State program

shall have the power and authority to engage in any work and to do all

things necessary or expedient in order to implement and administer the

provisions of Title IV. Utah's proposed transfer of authority to waive

special charges for use of or liens against reclaimed land in certain

circumstances from the Board to the Division is not inconsistent with

section 413(a) of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director approves the proposed

revision to UCA 40-10-28 (1)(b)(i) and (2)(b).

9. UCA 40-10-28(2)(a), Liens Against Reclaimed Land

Utah proposed editorial revisions to UCA 40-10-28(2)(a), which

requires that the Division shall place a lien against reclaimed

abandoned mine land, the market value of which has increased as a

result of the reclamation work, except where the surface owner neither

consented to, participated in, nor exercised control over the mining

operations which necessitated the reclamation work.

Section 408(a) of SMCRA has the same provisions, but it

additionally specifies, with respect to the surface owner, that the

provisions apply to a person owning the surface prior to May 2, 1977.

UCA 40-10-28(2)(a) does not include the specific date provided in

section 408(a) of the SMCRA. The apparent deficiency in the Utah plan

would render Utah's plan less stringent than section 408(a) of SMCRA,

but OSM notes that Utah has proposed to address this deficiency in a

separate amendment dated April 14, 1994 (administration record No. UT-

914). In order to address this additional proposal prior to making a

final determination, the Director has decided to defer decision on

proposed UCA 40-10-28(2)(a).

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Following are summaries of all substantive written comments on the

proposed amendment that were received by OSM, and OSM's response to

them.

1. Public Comments

OSM invited public comments on the proposed Utah program and plan

amendment, but none were received.

2. Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and 884.14(a)(2), OSM solicited

comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with

an actual or potential interest in the Utah program and Utah plan

(administrative records Nos. UT-903 and UT-952).

The Bureau of Mines responded in telephone conversations on March

27 and July 29, 1994, that it had no comments (administrative record

No. UT-906 and UT-964).

The Bureau of Mines responded in telephone conversations on March

27 and July 29, 1994, that it had no comments (administrative record

Nos. UT-906 and UT-964).

By memorandum dated June 8, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service stated that it had reviewed the proposed changes and has no

comment on them (administrative record No. UT-938).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers responded on August 10, 1994, that

it found the changes to be satisfactory to the agency (administrative

record No. UT-963).

By letter dated August 15, 1994, the Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA) stated that it had reviewed the (administrative

record No. UT-966). No revisions to the proposed amendment were

suggested.

3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to solicit

the written concurrence of EPA with respect to those provisions of the

proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality

standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33

U.S.C. 12512 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

None of the revisions that Utah proposed to make in its amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not

request EPA's concurrence. Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited

comments on the proposed amendment from EPA (administrative record Nos.

UT-903 and UT-952). It responded on March 31 and July 28, 1994, that it

had no comments and did not believe that there would be any impacts to

water quality standards promulgated under authority of the Clean Water

Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (administrative record Nos.

UT-909 and UT-957).

4. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from the SHPO and ACHP (administrative record No.

UT-903). Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded to OSM's request.

V. Director's Decision

Based on the above findings, the Director approves, with certain

exceptions and additional requirements, Utah's proposed amendment as

submitted on March 7, 1994, and as supplemented with additional

explanatory information on July 5, 1994.

The Director defers decision on, as discussed in: finding No. 5,

UCA 40-10-20(3), concerning contest of violation or amount of civil

penalty; finding No. 7, UCA 40-10-28(1)(a)(ii), concerning recovery of

abandoned mine land reclamation costs; and finding No. 9, UCA 40-10-

28(2)(a), concerning liens against reclaimed abandoned mine land.

The Director approves, as discussed in: finding No. 1, UCA 40-10-

20(1) (b) and (c), concerning civil penalty for violation of chapter,

UCA 40-10-20(3) (b), (c), and (d), concerning public hearings, UCA 40-

10-20 (5) and (6), concerning criminal penalties, and UCA 40-10-28(1),

(1)(a)(i), (1)(b) (ii), and (iii), concerning recovery of reclamation

costs and liens against reclaimed abandoned mine land; finding No. 2,

UCA 40-10-20(2), concerning informal conferences, UCA 40-10-20(3)(e),

concerning public hearings, and UCA 40-10-28.1(6), concerning

certification of completion of coal reclamation; finding No. 4, UCA 40-

10-20(1)(a) and (3)(a), concerning delegation of authority for

assessing civil penalties; finding No. 6, UCA 40-10-20(8), concerning

civil penalty for failure to correct violation; and finding No. 8, UCA

40-10-28(1)(b)(i) and (2)(b), concerning delegation of authority to

waive fees and liens against reclaimed abandoned mine land.

With the requirement that Utah further revise its statute, the

Director does not approve, as discussed in: finding No. 3, UCA 40-10-

14(6), concerning appeals to district court.

The Director is taking this opportunity to revise 30 CFR 944.20 to

include the date Utah's plan was approved by OSM.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 944 codifying decisions

concerning the Utah program and Utah plan, are being amended to

implement this decision. This final rule is being made effective

immediately to expedite the State program and plan amendment process

and to encourage States to bring their programs and plans into

conformity with the Federal standards without undue delay. Consistency

of State and Federal standards is required by SMCRA.

VI. Effect of Director's Decision

Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise

jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the

Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any alteration of

an approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program

amendment. Thus, any changes to the State program are not enforceable

until approved by OSM. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g)

prohibit any unilateral changes to approved State programs. In the

oversight of the Utah program, the Director will recognize only the

statutes, regulations and other materials approved by OSM, together

with any consistent implementing policies, directives and other

materials, and will require the enforcement by Utah of only such

provisions.

VII. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and

Review).

2. 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,

abandoned mine land reclamation (AMLR) plans, program amendments, and

plan revisions since each such program or plan 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. Decisions on proposed State AMLR plans and revisions thereof

submitted by a State are based on a determination of whether the

submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-

1243) and the applicable Federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts 884 and

888.

3. 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 (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)) while State AMLR plans and revisions thereof are

categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the Department of the

Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

4. 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.).

5. 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

established by SMCRA or 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 in the analyses for the

corresponding Federal regulations.

VIII. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: September 16, 1994.

Russell F. Price,

Acting 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 (bb) to read as

follows:

Sec. 944.15 Approval of amendments to State regulatory program.

* * * * *

(bb) With the exceptions of UCA 40-10-14(6), concerning appeals to

district court and deletion of UCA 40-10-20(3), concerning contest of

the violation or amount of the penalty, the revisions to the following

sections of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, Title 40, as submitted to OSM

on March 7, 1994, and as supplemented with explanatory information on

July 5, 1994, are approved effective September 27, 1994:

40-10-14(3), Hearings.

40-10-20(1), Civil Penalty for Violation of Chapter.

40-10-20(2), Informal Conferences.

40-10-20(3), Public Hearings.

40-10-20 (5) and (6), Criminal Penalties.

40-10-20(8), Civil Penalty for Failure to Correct Violation.

3. Section 944.16 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 944.16 Required program amendments.

* * * * *

(b) By March 26, 1995, Utah shall submit a proposed amendment for

UCA 40-10-14(6) to eliminate the discrepancy in appellate procedures

that govern Board of Oil, Gas and Mining decisions on permit

applications in a manner no less stringent than section 526(e) of

SMCRA.

4. Section 944.20(a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 944.20 Approval of Utah abandoned mine plan.

(a) The Utah Abandoned Mine Plan, as submitted on February 9, 1983,

and as subsequently revised, is approved effective June 3, 1983.

* * * * *

5. Section 944.25 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 944.25 Approval of amendments to State abandoned mine plan.

* * * * *

(b) With the exceptions of UCA 40-10-28(1)(a)(ii), concerning

recovery of reclamation costs and UCA 40-10-28(2)(a), concerning liens

against reclaimed land, the revisions to the following sections of the

Utah Code Annotated 1953, Title 40, as submitted to OSM on March 7,

1994, are approved effective September 27, 1994:

40-10-28 (1), (1)(a)(i), and (1)(b), Recovery of Reclamation Costs.

40-10-28(2)(b), Liens Against Reclaimed Land.

40-10-28.1(6), Certification of Completion of Coal Reclamation.

[FR Doc. 94-23827 Filed 9-26-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M