[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59150-59152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25404]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 920

[MD-046-FOR]


Maryland Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is reopening the public comment period on a proposed 
amendment to the Maryland permanent regulatory program.(Maryland 
program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA). The proposed amendment consists of revisions to the Maryland 
regulations regarding a definition of previously mined area, 
termination of jurisdiction, permitting requirements, bond release 
requirements and performance standards for inspections. The amendment 
is intended to revise the Maryland program to be no less effective than 
the corresponding Federal regulations.

DATES: If you submit written comments, they must be received by 4 p.m., 
E.D.T., October 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-deliver your written comments to Mr. George 
Rieger, Manager, Oversight and Inspection Office, at the address listed 
below. You may review copies of the Maryland program, the proposed 
amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written 
comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed 
below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding 
holidays. You may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by 
contacting OSM's Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
George Rieger, Manager, Oversight and Inspection Office, Appalachian 
Regional Coordinating Center, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh PA 15220, Telephone: (412) 
937-2153, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8cfdac1cdcfcddae8c7dbc5dacd86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="284f5a414d4f4d5a68475b455a4d064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>.
Maryland Bureau of Mines, 160 South Water Street, Frostburg, Maryland 
21532, Telephone: (301) 689-4136.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Rieger, Manager, Oversight and 
Inspection Office, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center, Telephone: 
(412) 937-2153.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Maryland Program

    On February 18, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior approved the 
Maryland program. You can find background information on the Maryland 
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of 
comments, and the conditions of approval in the February 18, 1982, 
Federal Register (47 FR 7214). You can find subsequent actions 
concerning the conditions of approval and program amendments at 30 CFR 
920.15 and 920.16.

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated September 14, 1999 (Administrative Record No. 577-
04), Maryland provided an informal amendment to OSM regarding a 
definition of previously mined area, termination of jurisdiction, 
permitting requirements, bond release requirements and performance 
standards for inspections. Maryland submitted the informal amendment in 
response to requests made by OSM as required under 30 CFR 732.17(d) in 
letters dated July 8, 1997, and August 11, 1999 (Administrative Record 
Nos. 577-01 and 577-03, respectively). OSM completed its review of the 
informal amendment and submitted comments to Maryland in a letter dated 
March 20, 2000 (Administrative Record No. 577-05). By letter dated 
April 11, 2000 (Administrative Record No. MD-577-06), Maryland 
submitted its response to OSM's comments in the form of a proposed 
amendment to the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). The proposed 
amendments were announced in the April 28, 2000, Federal Register (65 
FR 24897). However, OSM's review determined that the proposed revisions 
to COMAR 26.20.31.02H regarding the inspection frequency on reclaimed 
bond forfeiture sites were inconsistent with 30 CFR 840.11 and 
700.11(d). As a result, a letter requesting clarification was sent to 
Maryland dated August 17, 2000 (Administrative Record No. MD-577-12). 
Maryland responded in its letter dated August 31, 2000 (Administrative 
Record No. MD 577-13) with a new revision to COMAR 26.20.31.02H 
regarding the inspection frequency on reclaimed bond forfeiture sites. 
Therefore, OSM is reopening the public comment period regarding the 
following proposed amendments to Maryland's regulatory program:
1. COMAR 26.20.31.02  Inspections.
    Maryland proposes to delete the existing paragraph H. in its 
entirety and substitute the following new paragraph H:
    H. An abandoned site means a surface coal mining and reclamation 
operation for which the Bureau has found in writing that:
    (1) All surface and underground coal mining and reclamation 
activities at the site have ceased;
    (2) At least one notice of violation has been issued and the notice 
could not be served in accordance with Regulation .08 of this chapter 
or the notice was served and has progressed to a failure-to-abate 
cessation order;
    (3) Action is being taken to ensure that the permittee and the 
operator, and owners and controllers of the permittee and the operator, 
will be precluded from receiving future permits while the violations 
continue at the site;
    (4) Action is being taken in accordance with the requirements of 
the Regulatory Program to ensure that abatement occurs or that there 
will not be a recurrence of the failure-to-abate, except where after 
evaluating the circumstances it is concluded that further enforcement 
offers little or no likelihood of successfully compelling abatement or 
recovering any reclamation costs; and
    (5) Where the site is or was permitted and bonded and the permit 
has either expired or been revoked, the forfeiture of any available 
performance bond is being diligently pursued or has been forfeited.
    Maryland also proposes to add new paragraph I .as follows:
    I. Instead of the inspection frequency required in Sec. A and B of 
this regulation, the Bureau shall inspect each abandoned site on a set 
frequency commensurate with the public health and safety and 
environmental considerations present at each specific site. However, in 
no case shall the inspection frequency be set at less than one complete 
inspection per calendar year.
    Maryland also proposes to add new paragraph J. as follows:
    J. The Bureau shall conduct a complete inspection of the abandoned

[[Page 59151]]

site and provide the public notice required under Sec. K of this 
regulation in order to select an alternative inspection frequency 
authorized under Sec. I of this regulation. Following the inspection 
and public notice the Bureau shall prepare and maintain for public 
review a written finding that justifies the selected alternative 
inspection frequency. The written finding shall justify the new 
inspection frequency by addressing in detail all of the following 
criteria:
    (1) How the site meets each of the criteria under the definition of 
abandoned site under Sec. H of this regulation and thereby qualifies 
for a reduction in inspection frequency;
    (2) Whether there exists on the site, and to what extent, 
impoundments, earthen structures, or other conditions that pose, or may 
reasonably be expected to ripen into, imminent dangers to the health 
and safety of the public or significant environmental harms to land, 
air, or water resources;
    (3) The extent to which existing impoundments or earthen structures 
were constructed in accordance with prudent engineering designs 
approved in the permit;
    (4) The degree to which erosion and sediment control is present and 
functioning;
    (5) The extent to which the site is located near or above urbanized 
areas, communities, occupied dwellings, schools, and other public or 
commercial buildings and facilities;
    (6) The extent of reclamation completed prior to abandonment and 
the degree of stability of unreclaimed areas taking into consideration 
the physical characteristics of the land mined and the extent of 
settlement or revegetation that has occurred naturally with them; and
    (7) Based on a review of the complete and the partial inspection 
report record for the site during at least the last two consecutive 
years, the rate at which adverse environmental or public health and 
safety conditions can be expected to progressively deteriorate.
    Maryland also proposes to add new paragraph K. as follows:

K. Public Notice

    (1) The Bureau shall place a notice in the newspaper with the 
broadest circulation in the locality of the abandoned site providing 
the public with a 30-day period in which to submit written comments 
concerning the alternative inspection frequency.
    (2) The public notice shall contain the:
    (a) Permittee's name and permit number;
    (b) Precise location of the land affected.
    (c) Inspection frequency proposed.
    (d) General reasons for reducing the inspection frequency;
    (e) Bond status of the permit;
    (f) Telephone number and address of the Bureau where written 
comments on the reduced inspection frequency may be submitted; and
    (g) Closing date of the comment period.

III. Public Comment Procedures

    In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is 
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the 
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. Specifically, 
OSM is seeking comments on the revisions to the State's regulations 
that were submitted on August 31, 2000 (Administrative Record No. MD-
577-13). Comments should address whether the proposed amendment with 
these revisions satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 
30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment is deemed adequate, it will become part 
of the Maryland program.
    Written Comments: If you submit written or electronic comments on 
the proposed rule during the 15-day comment period, they should be 
specific, should be confined to issues pertinent to the notice, and 
should explain the reason for your recommendation(s). We may not be 
able to consider or include in the Administrative Record comments 
delivered to an address other than the one listed above (see 
ADDRESSES).
    Electronic comments: Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII, 
WordPerfect, or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and 
any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: SPATS NO. MD-046-
FOR'' and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you 
do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet 
message, contact the Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center at (412) 
937-2153.
    Availability of Comments: Our practice is to make comments, 
including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public 
review during regular business hours at the OSM Administrative Record 
Room (see ADDRESSES). Individual respondents may request that we 
withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will 
honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances 
in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's 
identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name 
and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of 
your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will 
make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from 
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of 
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their 
entirety.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12630--Takings

    This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is 
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart federal regulation.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates 
the roles of the federal and state governments with regard to the 
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of 
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect 
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal 
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that state 
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in 
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) 
requires that state programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent 
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that, to the 
extent allowed by law, 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 1255) and 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

[[Page 59152]]

federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 
730, 731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a 
decision on a proposed state regulatory program provision does not 
constitute a major federal action within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)). A determination has been made that such decisions are 
categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).

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 which is the subject of this rule is based upon 
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was 
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a 
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small 
entities. 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.

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.
    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
    This determination is based upon the fact that the state submittal 
which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart federal 
regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made 
that the federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

Unfunded Mandates

    This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any 
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 920

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: September 22, 2000.
Michael K. Robinson,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 00-25404 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>