Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 64807 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 935 

[SATS No. OH–261–FOR; Docket ID: OSM– 

2019–0007; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 

234S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 

SX064A000 23XS501520] 

Ohio Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule, approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE), are approving an amendment 

to the Ohio regulatory program (the 

Ohio program) under the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Ohio’s 

proposed amendment is prompted by 

requirements within the Ohio statute 

that all agencies must review their 

administrative rules every five years. 

Consistent with this requirement, the 

Ohio Reclamation Commission (the 

Commission), proposes an amendment 

to its procedural rules in order to ensure 

an orderly, efficient, and effective 

appeals process. 

DATES: The effective date is October 20, 

2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ben Owens, Acting Field Office 

Director, Pittsburgh Field Office, 3 

Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220. 

Telephone: (412) 937–2827, Email: 

bowens@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Ohio Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSMRE’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSMRE’s Decision 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background on the Ohio Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act, State 

Programs, permits a state to assume 

primacy for the regulation of surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on non-Federal and non-Indian lands 

within its borders by demonstrating that 

its program includes, among other 

things, state laws and regulations that 

govern surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations in accordance 

with the Act and consistent with the 

Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). 

On the basis of these criteria, the 

Secretary of the Interior conditionally 

approved the Ohio program on August 

16, 1982. You can find background 

information on the Ohio program, 

including the Secretary’s findings, the 

disposition of comments, and 

conditions of approval of the Ohio 

program in the August 10, 1982, Federal 

Register (47 FR 34717). You can also 

find later actions concerning the Ohio 

program and program amendments at 30 

CFR 935.10, State Regulatory Program 

Approval; and 935.11, Conditions of 

State Regulatory Program Approval; and 

935.15, Approval of Ohio Regulatory 

Program Amendments. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated June 13, 2018 

(Administrative Record OH–2197–01), 

Ohio sent us an amendment regarding 

its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 

1201 et seq.) to clarify existing 

definitions and to provide additional 

definitions related to work of the 

Commission. This submittal was 

prompted by requirements of Sections 

106.03 and 119.04 of the Ohio Revised 

Code (ORC) that all state agencies must 

review their administrate rules every 

five years. 

For background purposes, the 

Commission is an adjudicatory board 

established pursuant to ORC 1513.05. 

The Commission is the office to which 

administrative appeals may be filed by 

any person claiming to be aggrieved or 

adversely affected by a decision of the 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Chief of the Division of Mineral 

Resources Management (DMRM), 

relating to mining and reclamation 

issues. Following an adjudicatory 

hearing, the Commission affirms, 

vacates, or modifies the DMRM Chief’s 

decision. The Commission is comprised 

of eight members appointed by the 

Governor of Ohio. Members represent a 

variety of interests relevant to mining 

and reclamation issues. The 

Commission adopts rules to govern its 

procedures. The Commission’s rules are 

found in the Ohio Administrative Code 

(OAC) at OAC 1513–3–01 through 

1513–3–22, and are the subject of the 

current amendment. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the February 

25, 2020 Federal Register (85 FR 10636) 

(Administrative Record No. OH–2197). 

In the same document, we opened the 

public comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the adequacy of the 

amendment. No meeting or hearing was 

requested, and no public comments 

were received. The public comment 

period ended on March 11, 2020. 

III. OSMRE’s Findings 

We made the following findings 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. In making 

these findings, we compared Ohio’s 

provisions to 43 CFR part 4, which 

governs administrative proceedings and 

appeals relevant to OSMRE’s actions 

under the Federal regulatory program. 

We are approving the amendments as 

described below. The full text of this 

program amendment is available at 

www.regulations.gov. 

A. Ohio’s revisions to OAC 1513–3– 

01 consist of additions and 

modifications to the definitions outlined 

herein. As a result, renumbering was 

also made to facilitate the addition of 

new terms. 

1. ‘‘Amicus curiae’’. Ohio seeks to add 

this term as paragraph (B), describing it 

to mean a ‘‘friend of the court.’’ The 

amendment also explains the 

participation of a non-party amicus 

curiae is addressed under OAC 1513–3– 

07 (F). 

2. ‘‘Ex parte communication’’. Ohio 

seeks to add this term as paragraph (J), 

describing it to mean ‘‘a communication 

between the commission and one party 

to an appeal, without the inclusion of 

other parties to the appeal.’’ The 

amendment also explains that ex parte 

contacts and communications are 

addressed and prohibited under OAC 

1513–3–03 (G). 

3. ‘‘In camera’’. Ohio seeks to add this 

term as paragraph (N), describing it to 

mean ‘‘in private rather than in open 

hearing.’’ The amendment also 

references OAC 1513–3–16 (C) for in 

camera procedures. 

4. ‘‘Pro hac vice’’. Ohio seeks to add 

this term as paragraph (S), describing it 

to mean ‘‘for one particular case’’. In 

accordance with OAC 1513–3–03 (A) 

and (C), it explains the ability of an outof-state attorney to appear in an appeal 

before the commission. 

5. ‘‘Subpoena ad testificandum’’. Ohio 

seeks to add this term as paragraph (V), 

describing it to mean ‘‘a subpoena for 

the appearance and testimony of a 

witness.’’ The definition also references 

the use of this term at OAC 1513–3–02 

(I). 

6. ‘‘Subpoena duces tecum’’. Ohio 

seeks to add this term as paragraph (W), 

describing it to mean ‘‘a subpoena 

requiring a witness to produce 

documents or other items at hearing’’. 

The definition also references use of this 

term at OAC 1513–3–02 (I). 

B. Ohio made typographical, editorial, 

and other minor revisions to the 

following sections: OAC 1513–3–01(I) 

(the definition of ‘‘discovery’’) and (T) 

(the definition of ‘‘Regular business 

hours’’); OAC 1513–3–02 Internal 

Regulations; OAC 1513–3–04 Appeals 

to the Reclamation Commission; OAC 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
64808 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1513–3–05 Filing Service of Papers; 

OAC 1513–3–06 Computation and 

Extension of Time; OAC 1513–3–11 

Motions; OAC 1513–3–14 Site Views an 

Location of Hearings; OAC 1513–3–16 

Conduct of Evidentiary Hearings; and 

OAC 1513–3–22 Appeals from 

Commission Decisions. 

OSMRE Finding: While the 

definitions of ‘‘amicus curiae,’’ ‘‘ex 

parte communication,’’ ‘‘in camera,’’ 

‘‘pro hac vice,’’ ‘‘subpoena ad 

testificandum,’’ and ‘‘subpoena duces 

tecum’’ are not defined terms in the 

equivalent Federal regulations at 43 CFR 

part 4, they are used at 43 CFR 4.3 and 

4.27. Ohio’s definition of ‘‘amicus 

curiae’’ and ‘‘ex parte communication’’ 

are not inconsistent with the use of 

those terms within 43 CFR part 4. The 

remaining terms do not appear in 43 

CFR part 4 or other relevant regulations 

of the Department. However, Ohio’s 

definition of ‘‘in camera’’ is not 

inconsistent with the process for 

protecting certain materials from 

disclosure described at 43 CFR 4.31. 

Likewise, Ohio’s definition of ‘‘pro hac 

vice’’ is not inconsistent with the 

standards for who may practice before 

the Department at 43 CFR 1.3 and 4.3. 

Finally, Ohio’s definitions for 

‘‘subpoena ad testificandum’’ and 

‘‘subpoena duces tecum’’ are not 

inconsistent with the Department’s 

subpoena provisions at 43 CFR 4.26. 

Therefore, we approve the addition of 

these definitions. 

Any revisions that we have not 

specifically discussed concerning nonsubstantive wording or editorial 

changes, including the addition of 

paragraph (A)(4) to OAC 1513–3–06 

(providing a citation to a provision 

defining state holidays), can be found in 

the full text of the program amendment 

available at www.regulations.gov. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment; however, none were 

received. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On October 1, 2018, under 30 CFR 

732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of 

SMCRA, we requested comments on the 

amendment from various Federal 

agencies with an actual or potential 

interest in the Ohio program 

(Administrative Record No. OH–2197). 

We did not receive any comments. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Concurrence and Comments 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we 

are required to obtain a written 

concurrence from EPA for those 

provisions of the program amendment 

that relate to air or water quality 

standards issued under the authority of 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

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

7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that 

Ohio proposed to make in this 

amendment pertain to air or water 

quality standards. Therefore, we did not 

ask EPA to concur on the amendment. 

However, on October 1, 2018, under 30 

CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested 

comments from the EPA on the 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

OH–2197). The EPA responded on 

November 2, 2018, that the proposed 

program amendment does not fall under 

the purview of the EPA’s Clean Water 

Act (Administrative Record OH–2197– 

05). 

State Historical Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are 

required to request comments from the 

SHPO and ACHP that may have an 

effect on historic properties. On October 

1, 2018, we requested comments on 

Ohio’s amendment (Administrative 

Record No. OH–2197). We did not 

receive comments from the SHPO or 

ACHP. 

V. OSMRE’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we are 

approving Ohio’s program amendment 

submission sent to us on June 13, 2018 

(Administrative Record No. OH–2197– 

01). To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 935, that codify decisions 

concerning the Ohio program. In 

accordance with the Administrative 

Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 

30 days after the date of publication. 

Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that 

the State’s program demonstrate that the 

State has the capability of carrying out 

the provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. SMCRA requires consistency 

of State and Federal standards. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12630—Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

This rule would not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications that would result in 

public property being taken for 

government use without just 

compensation under the law. Therefore, 

a takings implication assessment is not 

required. This determination is based on 

an analysis of the corresponding Federal 

regulations. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563—Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated 

October 12, 1993, the approval of State 

program amendments is exempted from 

OMB review under Executive Order 

12866. Executive Order 13563, which 

reaffirms and supplements Executive 

Order 12866, retains this exemption. 

Executive Order 13771—Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

State program amendments are not 

regulatory actions under Executive 

Order 13771 because they are exempt 

from review under Executive Order 

12866. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

reviewed this rule as required by 

Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The 

Department determined that this 

Federal Register document meets the 

criteria of Section 3 of Executive Order 

12988, which is intended to ensure that 

the agency review its legislation and 

proposed regulations to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; that the 

agency write its legislation and 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

that the agency’s legislation and 

regulations provide a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, and promote 

simplification and burden reduction. 

Because Section 3 focuses on the quality 

of Federal legislation and regulations, 

the Department limited its review under 

this Executive order to the quality of 

this Federal Register document and to 

changes to the Federal regulations. The 

review under this Executive order did 

not extend to the language of the 

program amendment that the State of 

Ohio drafted. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule has potential Federalism 

implications as defined under Section 

1(a) of Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 13132 directs agencies 

to ‘‘grant the States the maximum 

administrative discretion possible’’ with 

respect to Federal statutes and 

regulations administered by the States. 

Ohio, through its approved regulatory 

program, implements and administers 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 64809 

SMCRA and its implementing 

regulations at the state level. This rule 

approves an amendment to the Ohio 

program submitted and drafted by the 

State and, thus, is consistent with the 

direction to provide maximum 

administrative discretion to States. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Department of the Interior strives 

to strengthen its government-togovernment relationship with Tribes 

through a commitment to consultation 

with Tribes and recognition of their 

right to self-governance and tribal 

sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule 

under the Department’s consultation 

policy and under the criteria in 

Executive Order 13175 and have 

determined that it has no substantial 

direct effects on federally recognized 

Tribes or on the distribution of power 

and responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Tribes. Therefore, 

consultation under the Department’s 

tribal consultation policy is not 

required. The basis for this 

determination is that our decision is on 

the Ohio program does not regulate 

Indian lands or surface coal mining 

activities on Indian lands. Indian lands, 

as that term is defined under 30 U.S.C. 

1291(9) are regulated independently 

under the Federal Indian lands program. 

Executive Order 13211—Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is 

(1) considered significant under 

Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Because this rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

significant energy action under the 

definition in Executive Order 13211, a 

Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because this is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866; and this action does not address 

environmental health or safety risks 

disproportionately affecting children. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Consistent with sections 501(a) and 

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) and 

1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. 

Department of the Interior Departmental 

Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), State 

program amendments are not major 

Federal actions within the meaning of 

section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)). 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) directs 

OSMRE to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. (OMB Circular A–119 at p. 

14). This action is not subject to the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

NTTAA because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with SMCRA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not include requests 

and requirements of an individual, 

partnership, or corporation to obtain 

information and report it to a Federal 

agency. As this rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, a 

submission to the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

is not required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). The State submittal, which is 

the subject of this rule, is based upon 

corresponding Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared, and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

making the determination as to whether 

this rule would have a significant 

economic impact, the Department relied 

upon the data and assumptions for the 

corresponding Federal regulations. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and (c) does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based on an analysis of 

the corresponding Federal regulations, 

which were determined not to 

constitute a major rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

rule does not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local, or Tribal 

Governments or the private sector. This 

determination is based on an analysis of 

the corresponding Federal regulations, 

which were determined not to impose 

an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Thomas D. Shope, 

Regional Director, North Atlantic— 

Appalachian Region. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 935 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 935—OHIO 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 935 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 935.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 935.15 Approval of Ohio regulatory 

program amendment. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
64810 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Original amendment submission 

date Date of final publication Citation/description 

*******

June 13, 2018 ................................ September 20, 2023 ...................... OAC 1513–3–01 Definitions. Addition of definitions of ‘‘Amicus curiae’’, ‘‘Ex parte communication’’, ‘‘In camera’’, ‘‘Pro hac vice’’, 

‘‘Subpoena ad testificandum’’, ‘‘Subpoena duces tecum’’. OAC 

1513–3–06(A)(4) Computation and Extension of Time. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20348 Filed 9–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 943 

[SATS No. TX–071–FOR; Docket No. OSM– 

2019–0011; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 

234S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 

SX064A000 23XS501520] 

Texas Abandoned Mine Land 

Reclamation Plan and Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE), are approving an amendment 

to the Texas abandoned mine land 

reclamation plan (Texas Plan) and 

regulations under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). Texas proposed to 

revise its existing Plan and regulations 

in response to OSMRE’s request to 

amend the Texas Plan and to improve 

the readability and efficiency of the 

document. 

DATES: October 20, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Maki, Director, Tulsa Field Office, 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East 

Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 

74128–4629. Telephone (918) 581–6430, 

Email: jmaki@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Texas Program and Plan 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSMRE’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSMRE’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Texas Program 

and Plan 

The Abandoned Mine Land 

Reclamation (AML) Program was 

established by Title IV of the Act (30 

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to 

concerns over extensive environmental 

damage caused by past coal mining 

activities. The program is funded 

primarily by a reclamation fee collected 

on each ton of coal that is produced. 

The money collected is used to finance 

the reclamation of abandoned coal 

mines and for other authorized 

activities. Section 405 of the Act allows 

States and Indian Tribes to assume 

exclusive responsibility for reclamation 

activity within the State or on Indian 

lands if they develop and submit for 

approval to the Secretary of the Interior 

a program (often referred to as a plan) 

for the reclamation of coal mines 

abandoned or otherwise left in an 

inadequate reclamation status at the 

time SMCRA was enacted. 

On June 23, 1980, the Secretary of the 

Interior approved the Texas Plan. You 

can find general background 

information on the Texas Plan, 

including the Secretary’s findings and 

the disposition of comments, in the June 

23, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 

41937). You can also find later actions 

concerning Texas’s AML Program and 

Plan amendments at 30 CFR 943.25. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

Under the authority of 30 CFR 884.15, 

OSMRE by letter dated March 8, 2019 

(Administrative Record No. TX–0707), 

directed Texas to update the Texas Plan. 

In that letter, known as a Part 884 letter, 

OSMRE indicated that the Texas Plan 

required revisions to meet the 

requirements of SMCRA as revised on 

December 20, 2006, by the Tax Relief 

and Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 

109–432), and in response to changes 

made to the implementing Federal 

regulations as revised on November 14, 

2008 (73 FR 67576), and February 5, 

2015 (80 FR 6435). The letter required 

Texas to provide either ‘‘(1) a proposed 

written Reclamation Plan amendment 

or, (2) a description of the Reclamation 

Plan amendments you will propose in 

response to the revised regulations or, 

(3) a detailed statement explaining why 

[Texas] believe[d] no amendment to 

[Texas’s] Reclamation Plan is 

necessary.’’ The letter further provided 

Texas with a summary of the changes to 

the Federal Program that might require 

amendments to the Texas Plan to ensure 

Texas’s program was consistent with 

and no less effective than the Federal 

Program. 

By letter dated December 3, 2019 

(Administrative Record No. TX–708), 

Texas sent us amendments to the Texas 

Plan and conforming State regulations. 

The Texas amendments are intended to 

address all required amendments 

identified in OSMRE’s letter dated 

March 8, 2019. Texas’s amendments 

will revise the State’s existing AML Plan 

and AML program regulations. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendments in the July 20, 

2020, Federal Register (85 FR 43759). In 

the same document, we opened a public 

comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the amendment. We 

received three comments. We did not 

hold a public hearing or meeting 

because none were requested. The 

public comment period ended on 

August 19, 2020. 

In compliance with 30 CFR 884.14, 

Texas also allowed public input on the 

Texas Plan and held a public comment 

period during the development of the 

State regulations. The comment period 

on the regulatory amendments was from 

August 23, 2019, to September 23, 2019 

(Administrative Record No. TX–708.04). 

Texas received no comments. In 

addition, in November, 2019, the 

Railroad Commission of Texas provided 

public notice that it was considering 

adoption of the amended and restated 

Texas Plan and provided an opportunity 

for public input on the proposal. 

III. OSMRE’s Findings 

A. Texas’s Explanation for Not 

Amending Certain Provisions 

In response to our Part 884 letter, 

Texas stated that several items 

mentioned in the Part 884 letter do not 

appear to be applicable or require 

regulatory or plan changes. We agree. 

First, in our Part 884 letter, we 

advised that certified States such as 

Texas are no longer authorized to set 

aside AML funds for future reclamation. 

In response, Texas stated that it has not 

undertaken future reclamation set aside 

and is no longer eligible to do so. 

Second, in our Part 884 letter, we 

advised of certain changes related to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1