FEDERAL REGISTER: 56 FR 59904 (November 26, 1991)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

30 CFR Part 816

Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations, Permanent Regulatory Program; Availability of Decision; 

Use of Explosives; Denial of Petition

ACTION: Notice of decision on petition for rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is making available to the public its 

final decision on a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Shirley Zell and Mr. John Albrecht of Clinton, Indiana. The petition 

requested that OSM amend certain provisions of 30 CFR 816.62, Use of Explosives: Preblasting Survey; and of 30 CFR 

816.67, Use of Explosives: Control of Adverse Effects. 

DATES: On November 20, 1991, the Director denied the petition. 

ADDRESS: Copies of the petition, and other relevant materials comprising the Administrative Record of this petition are 

available for public review and copying at Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Administrative Record, room 5315, 1100 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rosenthal, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1020 15th Street, Brooks Towers, 2nd Floor, Denver, Colorado 80202; 

Telephone: 303-844-2755 (Commercial) or 564-2755 (FTS). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Petition for Rulemaking Process 

II. The Zell/Albrecht Petition 

 

I. PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PROCESS 

 Pursuant to section 201(g) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (the Act or SMCRA), any 

person may petition the Director of OSM for a change in OSM's regulations. The regulations governing the handling of 

rulemaking petitions are found at 30 CFR 700.12. Under the rules, the Director may publish a notice in the Federal 

Register seeking comments on the petition and hold a public hearing, conduct an investigation, or take other action to 

determine whether the petition should be granted. If the petition is granted, the Director initiates a rulemaking 

proceeding. If the petition is denied, the Director notifies the petitioner in writing setting forth the reasons for denial. 

Under 30 CFR 700.12, the Director's decision constitutes the final decision for the Department of the Interior. 

 

II. THE ZELL/ALBRECHT PETITION 

 OSM received a letter dated November 1, 1989, from Ms. Shirley Zell and Mr. John Albrecht of Clinton, Indiana 

petitioning the Director to amend certain parts of OSM's regulations governing the use of explosives at underground 

mining operations (30 CFR 817.62 and 817.67). In response to that petition, on December 6, 1989, OSM published a 

notice in the Federal Register of the petition's availability and requested comments. (54 FR 50414) On December 28, 

1989, OSM, responding to requests from commenters, extended the close of the original 30-day comment period until 

January 22, 1990. (54 FR 53329) 

 On December 20, 1991, Ms. Zell and Mr. Albrecht requested the November 1, 1989 petition be withdrawn and 

replaced with the revised petition. The petitioners indicated they were withdrawing the original petition because it 

mistakenly recommended rulemaking for underground mining operations rather than for surface mining operations at 30 

CFR 816.62 and 816.67. OSM published a notice withdrawing the November 1 petition for rulemaking on January 22, 

1990. (55 FR 2111) On the same day, OSM published the new petition for rulemaking proposing amendments to the 

surface mining regulations and providing a comment period until February 21, 1990. (55 FR 2105) 
 For the reasons discussed in the appendix to this notice, the Director has denied the petition to amend 30 CFR 816.62 

and 816.67. Therefore, no rulemaking will occur on this petition. 

 The Director's letter of response to the petitioners on this rulemaking petition appears as an appendix to this notice. 

This letter reports the Director's decision to the petitioners. Included in the appendix is an evaluation report on the issues 

raised by the petitioners which discusses the current OSM regulatory program provisions covering the use of explosives, 

an analysis of the petitioners' proposed regulatory changes, and a discussion of the comments received on the petition. 

Dated: November 20, 1991. 

Harry M. Snyder, Director. 

APPENDIX 

 

November 20, 1991. 

 

Ms. Shirley Zell and Mr. John Albrecht

RR #1, Box 3 

Clinton, Indiana 47842. 

Dear Ms. Zell and Mr. Albrecht: 

 This letter is in response to your petition for rulemaking dated December 20, 1989, to the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) requesting an amendment to the regulations concerning preblasting surveys and 

the control of adverse effects of blasting at surface coal mining operations. 

 Following the receipt of your November 1, 1989, letter petitioning OSM to initiate rulemaking to amend certain 

regulations governing blasting found at 30 CFR 817.62 and 817.67, OSM published on December 6, 1989, in the Federal 

Register a notice of availability and requested comments on that petition. [54 FR 50414] Several commenters requested 

an extension to the comment period. On December 28, 1989, OSM extended the original 30-day comment period to 

January 22, 1990. [54 FR 53329] 

 On December 20, 1989, you requested the November 1, 1989, petition be withdrawn and replaced with the revised 

petition. You indicated you were withdrawing the original petition because it mistakenly recommended rulemaking to 30 

CFR 817.62 and 817.67 pertaining to blasting for underground mining operations rather than 30 CFR 816.62 and 816.67 

pertaining to blasting for surface mining operations. On January 22, 1990, OSM withdrew your November 1, 1989, 

petition [55 FR 2111] and published a notice of availability of the revised petition and request for comments. [55 FR 

2105] 

 The official administrative record log lists 77 comments and documents entered in response to the petition. The 

comment period closed on February 21, 1990. 

 Since 1977, OSM has spent $1.4 million in research to develop and implement a regulatory program to control the 

adverse effects of blasting at surface coal mines and to evaluate the possibility that those regulations may not be effective. 

Almost half of all these studies have been initiated since 1989 with the specific purpose of thoroughly studying the claim 

that the damage to homes in the Daylight and McCutchanville areas of Indiana resulted from blasting. OSM's technical 

staff as well as technical specialists from the State of Indiana, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM), and other Federal and 

state agencies have spent numerous hours studying this problem. After all the time, effort, and research, a direct 

correlation between blasting at permissible regulatory limits and the damage to homes alleged to have been caused by 

such blasting cannot be established. There is, therefore, no technical justification to amend existing limits to the levels 

proposed by the petitioners. 

 After careful consideration of the arguments presented in the petition and the extensive public comments, I am 

denying your rulemaking request to amend 30 CFR 816.62 and 816.67 concerning preblast surveys and controlling the 

adverse effects of blasting, respectively. These regulations applicable to blasting operations are already sufficient to 

prevent damage to structures and injury to persons. 
 In September, 1991, OSM funded three new projects to look at new questions associated with blasting. If the research 

identifies a causal relationship between blasting and damage, existing regulations require that applicable airblast and 

ground vibration limits be reduced to a level necessary to prevent damage. If the research points to a nationwide 

regulatory problem, regulatory changes, as appropriate, may be considered. 

 OSM's regulations governing petitions for rulemaking at 30 CFR 700.12(c) prescribe that technical justifications, 

facts, or law previously considered during rulemaking on the same issue shall not provide a reasonable basis to repeal or 

amend a current regulation. The majority of the issues raised and arguments presented in your petition were previously 

addressed in the preamble to the current blasting regulations of March 8, 1983. [48 FR 9788] With regard to the specific 

allegations that blasting caused damage is occurring beyond the permit area in the Daylight and McCutchanville areas of 

Indiana, extensive studies have been unable to scientifically establish a direct causal relationship between the blasting and

the damage to the structures. On this basis, I must conclude that existing regulations satisfy the Act in making adequate 

provisions for the adverse effects of blasting to be regulated in such a fashion as to prevent damage to structures beyond 

the permit area. 

 The basis for my decision is fully discussed in the enclosed evaluation of the petition. As provided in 30 CFR 

700.12(d), my decision constitutes the final decision for the Department of the Interior. 

 

Sincerely, 

Harry M. Snyder, 

Director. 

EVALUATION OF THE PETITION TO AMEND OSM'S RULES GOVERNING BLASTING AT SURFACE 

COAL MINING OPERATIONS 

 

I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

 Under section 201(g) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (the Act), any person may petition 

the Director for a change in OSM's regulations. The rules governing the handling of rulemaking petitions are found at 30 

CFR 700.12. To accept a petition for rulemaking, the petition must cite facts, technical justification, or law which was 

not previously considered in a petition or prior rulemaking and which justifies a need for a new rule or amending an 

existing rule. 

 On December 20, 1989, OSM received a petition from Ms. Shirley Zell and Mr. John Albrecht of Clinton, Indiana (the 

petitioners) to amend certain parts of OSM's regulations governing the use of explosives at surface mining operations (30 

CFR 816.62 and CFR 816.67). On January 22, 1990, OSM published a notice in the Federal Register containing the 

petition for rulemaking and providing a public comment period until February 21, 1990. (55 FR 2105). 

 The principal recommendations in the petition are to --

 

-- Amend the rules governing preblasting surveys by expanding to one (1) mile the distance from the permit area 

that an operator must notify residents or owners of dwellings or structures from the current 1⁄2 mile; 

 

-- Amend the rules governing the control of adverse effects of blasting by reducing to a peak particle velocity 

(ppv) of 0.5 inch per second (ips) the maximum allowed ground vibration from a distance dependent range of 0.75 ips to 

1.25 ips; 

 

-- Amend the alternative blasting level criteria by adding a new low frequency vibration limit of 0.5 ips that 

would apply to older structures; and, 

 

-- Delete from the rules governing the control of adverse effects of blasting that section which allows the use of 

the scaled-distance formula without accompanying seismic monitoring. 

 The petitioners claim that blasting damage has occurred to homes outside the permit areas of surface coal mine 

operations as a result of a failure of OSM's permanent program regulations to provide adequate protection. In support of 

the petition, they state that the data used by OSM in its regulations to set maximum ground vibration levels were limited 
to blasting events on undisturbed geologic settings; did not include data representative of newer blasting techniques, 

specifically cast blasting; and that the regulations themselves do not provide for the response of older structures to 

vibrations from blasting. The petitioners claim that recent studies show that low frequency, long duration vibrations are 

common at strip mine operations and are different from the high frequency data OSM used to develop its regulations. 

Finally, the petitioners state their belief that the use of the scaled-distance formula without seismic monitoring does not 

provide adequate regulatory control to prevent abuse by operators. 

 The foundational justification for the petitioners' proposal is the uncontested fact that homes beyond the permit area 

have suffered damage. The petition and supporting public comments allege that the damage is a direct result of blasting at 

surface coal mining operations. That people may suspect that blasting damage is occurring to their homes because they 

feel the vibrations from blasting does not, however, establish the fact of blasting damage nor lead to the inevitable 

conclusion that the regulations which control such blasting are faulty. Cracks in walls, for instance, may result from 

stresses caused by many factors such as weather, settling, problems with foundations, etc., as well as blasting vibrations. 

Even if the damage could have been traced to blasting at a surface coal mine, the regulations themselves have not been 

shown to be inadequate. 

 Since 1977, OSM has spent $1.4 million in research to develop and implement a regulatory program to control the 

adverse effects of blasting at surface coal mines and to evaluate the possibility that those regulations may not be effective. 

Almost half of all these studies have been initiated since 1989 with the specific purpose of thoroughly studying the claim 

that the damage to homes in the Daylight and McCutchanville areas of Indiana resulted from blasting. OSM's technical 

staff as well as technical specialists from the State of Indiana, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM), and other Federal and 

state agencies have spent numerous hours studying this problem. After all the time, effort, and research, a direct 

correlation between blasting at permissible regulatory limits and the damage to homes alleged to have been caused by 

such blasting cannot be established. There is, therefore, no technical justification to amend existing limits to the levels 

proposed by the petitioners. 

 Research continues. In September, 1991, OSM funded three new projects to look at new questions associated with 

blasting. If the research identifies a casual relationship between blasting and damage, existing regulations require that 

applicable airblast and ground vibration limits be reduced to a level necessary to prevent damage. If the research points to 

a nationwide regulatory problem, regulatory changes, as appropriate, may be considered. 

 OSM's blasting regulations place a heavy responsibility on a regulatory authority to set more stringent blasting limits 

or impose specialized monitoring systems when needed to prevent damage. See, among other requirements, 30 CFR 

816.67(a), (b)(1)(ii), (d)(5), and (d)(6). Regulatory authority discretion is needed because, to a large degree, the effects 

of blasting are governed by site specific conditions. Weather, geology, type and amount of overburden, and the nature of 

structures outside the permit area all will determine the nature of the blast and the level of control needed to provide 

protection. Displacing much of the regulatory authority's discretion through stricter national standards is not an effective 

solution to respond to allegations of site specific problems. Whatever regulatory limits exist in the national regulations, 

there will always be a requirement for the regulatory authority to ensure that the national limits will be reduced, when 

necessary, to provide damage protection for the site under permit. The imposition of stricter national standards would be 

justified if it were demonstrated that a problem existed that was not limited in geographic scope and was caused by 

inadequate limits in the existing rules. No such demonstration has been made in this proceeding. 

 OSM believes the most effective way of handling site specific concerns is not to remove discretion from the regulatory 

authority but to ensure that the regulatory authority has all the tools necessary to do an effective job. OSM is committed 

to ensuring that regulatory authorities have ready access to the computer software to plan and evaluate permit 

applications, training for their inspectors and permit evaluators, and, if needed for specialized problems, technical 

specialists from OSM. 

 After thoroughly analyzing the facts, technical justification and law submitted by the petitioners and over 70 public 

commenters, the Director is denying the petition for rulemaking. Existing regulations satisfy the requirements of the Act 

in making adequate provision for the adverse effects of blasting to be regulated in such a fashion as to prevent damage to 

structures beyond the permit area. Detailed explanations of OSM's findings regarding each of the petition's proposals are 

provided in the following two sections. Section II. presents the findings for those proposed amendments dealing with 

preblasting surveys. Section III. presents the findings for those proposed amendments dealing with controlling the 

adverse effects of blasting. 
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 30 CFR 816.62 - USE OF EXPLOSIVES: PREBLASTING SURVEY 

 

A. DISTANCE OF SURVEY NOTIFICATIONS 

 The petition proposes to amend 30 CFR 816.62(a) by increasing the distance in which the operator must notify 

residents of the availability of a preblasting survey from 1⁄2 mile to one mile from the permit area. The preblasting survey 

documents any preblasting damage and other physical factors that could reasonably be affected by blasting. The petition 

and several commenters justified the change on complaints from citizens beyond the 1⁄2 mile distance about damage which 

they believed was caused by blasting. The petitioners and some commenters attributed damage to structures beyond the 

1⁄2 mile survey limit, in part, to the fact that low frequency waves which dominate at longer distances are the frequencies 

most likely to cause damage to homes. Petitioners and some commenters added it would be in the operator's interest to 

expand the distance to protect himself from unsubstantiated damage claims. 

 While the petitioners and commenters have provided allegations and assertions about the inadequacy of the 1⁄2 mile 

limit, they failed to provide any technical facts or justification to prove these allegations. The existence of citizen 

complaints and even damage beyond the 1⁄2 mile limit does not mean the regulations are inadequate. The citizen 

complaints and the damage must be the result of events which are otherwise within regulatory limits for the regulations 

themselves to be the cause of the problem. The dominance of low frequency waves at longer distances and the fact that 

low frequency waves are most likely to cause damage to homes does not mean that the 1⁄2 mile limit does not provide 

adequate control. Finally, there is nothing in the present rules which prevents coal companies from offering preblasting 

surveys to a wider area, should they desire. 

 Industry commenters cited two cases for the proposition that the Secretary has no discretion to expand the survey 

distance beyond the prescription of section 515(b)(15)(E) of the Act. While these cases are distinguishable, OSM agrees 

with the general proposition that the Secretary cannot promulgate rules when no statutory authority exists to do so. 

OSM is, however, unwilling to say that no circumstances could ever exist which would provide an adequate basis and 

purpose for extending the survey requirement beyond the present 1⁄2 mile limit. 

 OSM previously considered the possibility of requiring notification of residents and owners beyond 1⁄2 mile during the 

1979 rule making and concluded that the 1⁄2 mile distance was adequate. (44 FR 15182, March 13, 1979) The 1⁄2 mile 

distance in 30 CFR 816.62(a) is taken from the statutory language implemented by this regulation. 

 OSM has expended substantial monies in research related to investigating complaints of blasting damage occurring 

outside the permit area and beyond the 1⁄2 mile survey limit. As noted earlier, these studies were unable to correlate 

structural damage to specific blasting events or distances. If OSM were to increase the preblasting survey distance to one 

mile, in most cases there could be a significant increase in cost associated with performing such surveys. To justify an 

increase to a mile, OSM requires a substantial showing that the current 1⁄2 mile distance is not accomplishing the statutory 

purpose. 

 OSM finds that this issue was considered in a prior rulemaking and that neither the petitioners nor commenters who 

favored the change have provided new facts which either demonstrated that the 1⁄2 mile limit is inadequate nor why a one 

mile distance [as opposed to some other distance] is needed. 

 

B. NEW OWNERS OF PROPERTY 

 The petition proposes to amend 30 CFR 816.62(d) to require operators to provide a copy of the preblasting survey to 

a new [i.e., subsequent] owner of the property on request. The petition failed to provide a justification for the new

requirement. 

 Existing OSM regulations already provide a reasonable opportunity for adequate notice. 30 CFR 816.62 (a) requires 

that a copy of the preblasting survey must be given both to the person requesting the survey and to the regulatory 

authority. In addition, the preblasting survey is a part of the permit and, therefore, a public document which would be 

available to the subsequent owner (or resident) of a dwelling or structure. 
 The exchange of title between the buyer and seller of a previously surveyed residence is a transaction which does not 

involve the operator. The subsequent owner can also obtain the preblasting survey directly from the previous owner in 

the course of the purchase just as he would with other documents pertaining to the structure or transaction. 

 OSM finds there is no justification provided by the petitioners as to why these regulations should be amended nor any 

justification as to why the operator should bear the cost of disseminating publicly available information for a transaction 

in which he had no part. 

 

C. SURVEY SHALL DETERMINE BLASTING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 

 In three places the petition proposes to amend the current rules by expanding the traditional role of the preblasting 

survey from a description of a structure's preblasting condition to also that of a determinant of the blasting design. In 30 

CFR 816.62(c) the petition proposes the "survey [vice operator] shall determine the condition * * * that could reasonably 

be affected by blasting". In Section 816.62(e) the petition states that the preblasting report may contain 

"recommendations of any special conditions or proposed adjustments to the blasting plan that should be incorporated into 

the blasting plan to prevent damage". In Section 816.67(d)(4) the petition proposes that the "maximum allowable ground 

vibration shall be reduced * * * if so recommended in any preblasting or condition survey". Read together these three 

changes would add a new dimension to the traditional role of the preblasting survey. By requiring recommendations 

made in the survey to be followed by the person designing the blasting plan, the "survey" becomes a determining factor in 

the blast plan. The petitioners' justification for these proposals is, at best, unclear. The petitioners claim that actual 

damage to structure is dependent not only on the peak particle velocity but also on the type of structure, the height of the 

structure and the state of repair or disrepair. The petitioners do not, however, link these conditions with their proposal to 

change the traditional role of the preblasting survey to also include serving as a determinant of blasting design. 

 During the 1979 rulemaking, OSM rejected a comment recommending the mandatory implementation of blasting plan 

recommendations which might appear in the preblasting survey. (44 FR 15183) OSM concluded then, and continues to 

believe now, that the professional qualifications needed to properly perform a preblasting survey of a structure or 

residence were not necessarily the same qualifications needed to make recommendations for blasting plans. OSM's rules 

at 30 CFR 780.13 clearly place responsibility for designing a blasting plan on the permit applicant and responsibility for 

approval on the regulatory authority. 

 One commenter who opposed the rulemaking petition echoed OSM's 1979 reasoning for rejecting mandatory survey 

recommendations by noting that preblasting surveys are often conducted by claims adjusters and other persons who may 

not have any blasting expertise since none is needed to document a structure's condition. Such persons would not 

necessarily be qualified to recommend adjustments to a blasting plan. 

 Persons performing the preblasting survey cannot be relied on to make competent recommendations regarding blasting 

at a mine site. The preblasting survey describes the condition of the residence or structure and is only performed on 

structures and dwellings when requested. Also, the preblasting survey would not include information on seismic or 

geologic conditions or on weather conditions, all of which are important factors in designing blasts. 

 OSM finds that the petition has failed to provide a reasonable basis for its proposal the subject matter of which was 

previously considered and rejected in a prior rulemaking. 

 

D. CONDITION SURVEY 

 The petition proposes to amend 30 CFR 816.62(d) to add a "condition survey" which may be requested by the 

resident or owner of a dwelling or structure after the start of blasting. The petition does not discuss why such a survey is 

needed. 

 The current regulations at 30 CFR 816.62(e) require an operator to give ample notice of the availability of a 

preblasting survey and to perform a preblasting survey prior to the initiation of blasting if requested 10 days prior to 

blasting. The regulations also provide for requesting an updated preblasting survey after any additions, modifications, or 

renovations to a dwelling or structure. These provisions allow the operator to efficiently schedule the requested surveys. 
 Several commenters opposed the proposal on the grounds that it would place an undue burden on an operator who 

could be subjected to repeated requests for surveys by residents or owners. OSM is sympathetic to this concern, 

particularly when residents or owners are provided the opportunity to request a survey on a timely basis prior to the 

initiation of blasting. 

 Also, OSM finds that nothing in the current regulations prevents a resident or owner of a dwelling or structure from 

requesting a preblasting survey at any time. More importantly however, the petitioners have not provided OSM with any 

justification of the need for this new category of surveys. 

 

E. FORM OF NOTIFICATION WHEN RESIDENT DISAGREES WITH SURVEY 

 The petitioners propose to delete the provisions of 30 CFR 816.62(d) that a resident who disagrees with a preblasting 

survey submit "a detailed description of the specific areas of disagreement" to the operator and regulatory authority. In 

its place, petitioners propose to include a provision at 816.62(e) that the resident simply "notify, in writing" the operator

and regulatory authority of the specific areas of disagreement. Here again, the petitioners have not provided justification 

for their proposal. 

 The current rules at 30 CFR 816.62(d) allow any written disagreement with the preblasting survey to be on the public 

record so it may be considered by the regulatory authority when deciding whether the permittee fulfilled his obligation. 

OSM understands the possible reluctance of certain residents to take the time to detail their disagreements with the 

survey, particularly since blasting damage may never occur. The survey, however, including a description of disputed 

results, serves as a record of the condition of the dwelling or structure. Thus OSM concludes that it is in both parties' 

interests that the record be complete and accurate. 

 Commenters opposing this proposal suggested the greater detail and specificity required in the existing regulations is 

of benefit in resolving any area of disagreement concerning the preblast condition of the property. These commenters 

were also concerned that under the proposed revisions the reporting requirements on the operator would be unfairly 

expanded, yet the regulations would undermine citizen cooperation in this process by removing the requirements to 

provide a detailed description as provided in existing rules. 

 OSM agrees with these comments and finds that the petitioners have not offered a sufficient basis for their proposal to 

amend the current rules. 

 

F. PREBLASTING SURVEY ISSUES RAISED BY COMMENTERS BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THE 

PETITION 

 Commenters to the petition raised several issues related to preblasting surveys which, while not specifically included in 

the petition's proposal, will be responded to. 

 Commenters said that the notice of availability of preblasting surveys should be mailed by certified mail to each 

resident and that the operator should be responsible for seeing that everyone has received their notice. They also wanted 

the notice to fully explain citizens' rights and that OSM provide a prepared statement signed by the Director pointing out 

those rights to a survey. They also wanted the blasting schedule to be hand delivered and orally explained to all residents 

within one mile of the permit area and that the preblasting survey be mandatory. Commenters were concerned that an 

illiterate resident may not know how to request a preblasting survey. 

 Current regulations at 30 CFR 816.62(a) require the operator to notify, in writing, all residents within 1⁄2 mile of the 

proposed permit area of how to request a preblasting survey. Mailing the notice provides reasonable assurances that it 

will be received by the addressee. The commenters have not provided any facts which indicate that certified mail, hand 

delivery of the blasting schedule, or mandatory preblasting surveys are necessary for the regulatory authority to ensure 

that a permit applicant fulfilled his obligation under section 515(b)(15)(E) of the Act. 

 Current regulations also require the notice to explain how the resident may request a preblasting survey. The 

commenters have not provided a reasonable basis to conclude that these provisions are inadequate. 
 In 1979, OSM allowed oral requests for preblasting surveys and justified this as needed to accommodate illiterate 

residents. (44 FR 15183) This policy was changed in 1983 to require all requests to be written. The preamble to those 

final rules explained the basis of the change. OSM believes that written requests for surveys is the best method to provide 

control over the request and survey production process without placing undue burden on the regulatory authority's 

manpower or the persons requesting the survey. (48 FR 9793, March 8, 1983) 

 A commenter said that there should be a mandatory check of the quality and quantity of a domestic water source as 

part of the preblasting survey. OSM rules at 30 CFR 816.62(c) acknowledge that structures such as water systems 

warrant special attention but the survey may be limited to its surface condition and other readily available data. 

Application of the preblasting survey rules to the assessment of structures such as wells and water systems was fully 

discussed in the preamble to the 1983 blasting regulations. [48 FR 9793] 

III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 30 CFR 816.67 - USE OF EXPLOSIVES, CONTROL OF ADVERSE 

EFFECTS 

 

A. REDUCTION OF PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY 

 Petitioners propose to amend 30 CFR 816.67(d)(2) by replacing the existing maximum peak particle velocities (ppv) 

for ground vibration which range from 0.75 inch per second (ips) to 1.25 ips with a single value limit of 0.5 ips. While 

petitioners provided no specific justification for their proposed 0.5 ips ground vibration limit, they and several 

commenters supporting the proposal pointed to the alleged inadequacy of existing ground vibration limits to prevent 

blasting damage outside the permit area. This position was supported by testimonial evidence including one commenter 

who provided, without citation, excerpts from testimony presented before the House Interior and Insular Affairs 

Subcommittee on Mining and Mineral Resources in April 1989 of citizens who had suffered damage to their homes. 

 The petitioners and several commenters were also concerned about the human response to blasting vibrations at 

existing ppv limits. One of these commenters cited to the prescriptions of section 515(b)(15)(C) of the Act that blasting 

be limited so as to "(i) prevent injury to persons." This commenter concluded that blasting vibrations should therefore be 

controlled so as to prevent possible psychological, physiological and emotional injury to persons. Another commenter 

cited to the preliminary injunction decision of the Federal district court in Massa v. Peabody Coal Co., TH 88-63-C, slip 

op. at 20, 34 (S.D. Ind. August 4, 1989) which held that the blasting limits established by a regulatory authority, which 

were essentially the same as OSM's standards, were "not adequate protection for the plaintiff's peaceful and quiet use of 

their homes" and that many of the blasts caused "undue and unnecessary discomfort and inconvenience to the plaintiffs." 

 The petitioners and some commenters stated that OSM's current blasting regulations were faulty because they were 

developed for comparatively undisturbed geologic conditions and they failed to consider the structural responses to low 

frequency, long duration blasting vibrations. 

 The petitioners also claimed that the damage criteria used by OSM for its blasting regulations was developed to 

quantify the response of and damage to residential structures from small to intermediate sized blasts. The petitioners 

suggested that the "coal industry is using new methods, such as cast blasting which was not the technique being used 

when research was done that the current regulations were based on". They also claimed that cast blasting in association 

with long distance have greater damage potential to structures because of the large amounts of explosives used per delay 

in that form of blasting. Another commenter said that OSM did not take the effects of repeated blasting on structures into 

account when the blasting regulations were issued. 

 With regard to the concerns over possible adverse human response to blasting vibrations, the current regulations 

provide sufficient protection for those values protected by the Act. Section 515(b)(15)(A) accounts for the individual 

response to blasting effects in its requirement that "advance written notice be provided to * * * residents who might be 

affected by the use of such explosives * * * of the proposed blasting schedule * * *." Congress did not prohibit 

emotionally stress-producing blasts but made provision for affected residents to prepare for such blasts by providing 

notice of the blasting schedule. In this light, the prescription of section 515(b)(15)(C) to prevent "injury to persons" must 

be read as preventing physical injury from flying rock or other direct blast effects. OSM's regulations implementing the 

notice provision of section 515(b)(15)(A) are found at 30 CFR 816.64 and 816.66. 
 In 1979, OSM also considered the impact of repeated blasts on structures. OSM concluded that vibration data are 

typically of a single event and thus do not consider the accumulated effects from multiple blasts. One of these effects 

could be induced settlement. This as a contributing factor, although not a major one, in lowering the ground vibration 

limit from 2.0 ips ppv to 1.0 ips ppv, i.e., "several small vibrations may do as much damage as one large one". [44 FR 

15197] 

 OSM wishes to correct information presented by the petition and some commenters regarding cast blasting. First, 

while cast blasting per se was not a specific type of blasting receiving separate analysis in Structure Response and 

Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting. (Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 8507, 

Siskind and others, 1980) (hereinafter referred to as RI 8507), data in that report (see, for example, Table 1) included 

blasting events at surface coal mines with as much as 2,600 lb/delay and blasting events at surface iron mines, with 7 up 

to 21,000 lb/delay. The preamble to the 1983 rules also discussed the use of "delay blasting techniques available to 

conduct large blasts using this amount (5,900 pounds) per delay." (48 FR 9801) These amounts of explosives are 

comparable to those used in surface coal mine blasting. Therefore, the data used in RI 8507 and elsewhere considered in 

the 1983 rulemaking was not limited to small to intermediate sized blasts and included representative data to cover cast 

blasting sized events. Second, cast blasting is a blasting technique that has been used for over 50 years. While the term 

"cast blasting" only came into use in the early 1970's, prior to that time, cast blasting was called "hard blasting". 

Therefore, OSM was aware of cast blasting techniques when the 1983 regulations were issued. Third, cast blasting does 

not use more explosives per delay than in-place blasting but cast blasting may involve a larger total quantity of explosives 

per unit volume of overburden. Cast blasting is most effective when the delay period increases momentarily between 

successive rows. This slight increase in the delay period allows the overburden time to move outward, thus providing 

room for successive overburden movement during subsequent blasts. (U.S. Bureau of Mines, Stachura, RI 8916). 

 

OSM rules have adopted the protections from blasting set forth in the Act. The regulations prevent injury to persons and 

damage to public and private property outside the permit area. The existing ground vibration limits were issued after 

considerable review and discussion of available research on blasting effects. Even so, OSM recognized during the 

development of its regulations that the prescribed peak particle velocity limits would not universally protect all structures, 

everywhere. Therefore, the regulations in Section 816.67(d)(5) do require "[t]he maximum allowable ground vibration 

shall be reduced by the regulatory authority beyond the limits otherwise provided by this section, if determined necessary 

to provide damage protection." 

 The foundational justification for the petitioners' proposal is the uncontested fact that homes beyond the permit area 

have suffered damage. The petition and supporting public comments allege that the damage is a direct result of blasting at 

surface coal mining operations. As discussed earlier in the Summary of Findings section, since 1977, OSM has spent $1.4 

million dollars in research to develop and implement a regulatory program to control the adverse effects of blasting at 

surface coal mines and to evaluate the possibility that those regulations may not be effective. Almost half of all these 

studies have been initiated since 1989 with the specific purpose of thoroughly studying the claim that the damage to 

homes in the Daylight and McCutchanville areas of Indiana resulted from blasting. OSM's technical staff as well as 

technical specialists from the State of Indiana, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM), and other Federal and state agencies 

have spent numerous hours studying this problem. After all the time, effort, and research, a direct correlation between 

blasting at permissible regulatory limits and the damage to homes alleged to have been caused by such blasting cannot be 

established. There is, therefore, no technical justification to amend existing limits to the levels proposed by the 

petitioners. 

 A commenter, opposed to the petition's proposal, asserted that a 0.5 ips standard would increase operators' 

production costs and raise safety hazards for personnel because reduction of the ground vibration standard would require 

operators to reduce the size of the charge, thereby increasing the frequency of blasting. This commenter reasoned that 

reduced charge weights would make it more difficult to move or fragment the overburden and the greater frequency of 

blasting would increase the potential safety risk to personnel. 

 The justification for OSM's current ppv ground vibration limits is thoroughly discussed in the preamble to the 1983 

rules and remains valid. (48 FR 9788) However, OSM also does not completely agree with the last comment opposing 

the change to 0.5 ips. If the overall peak particle velocity were reduced to 0.5 ips there would be a decrease in the total 

weight of explosives used per delay. This would not, however, necessarily increase the number of blasts. In order to 

reduce the maximum weight of explosives used per delay the blaster must either reduce the number of holes per delay or 

increase the number of delays per hole. This process would not necessarily increase the number of blasts nor put 
personnel at greater risk. Neither the petitioners nor the commenters have presented any technical justification supporting 

the 0.5 ips vibration level. Allegations regarding the inadequacy of the current rules to address blasting techniques have 

not been sustained. OSM does not believe a reasonable basis has been established for amending the current ppv ground 

vibration limits to the 0.5 ips level proposed by the petitioners. 

 

B. ALTERNATIVE BLASTING LEVEL CRITERIA 

 The petitioners propose to amend the alternative blasting level criteria incorporated as Figure 1 in 30 CFR 

816.67(d)(4) by replacing it with the figure from appendix B of RI 8507. The proposed amendment to the blasting level 

criteria would add appendix B's separate ground vibration ppv limits at mid-range frequencies for the drywall and plaster 

type of construction of a protected structure. Noting that structural response varies from structure to structure and 

within each structure, the petitioners fault the OSM alternative blasting level criteria of 30 CFR 816.67 for not having the 

separate ground vibration limits for the two types of construction. For this reason the petitioners assert that OSM's 

alternative vibration standards do not adequately address structural response. 

 As discussed in the preamble to the 1983 rules, much of the data used in development of OSM's blasting regulations 

came from RI 8507. Data in RI 8507 were collected from a variety of blasting events during coal mining, iron mining, 

quarrying and construction. The blasting events also varied by use and included highwall, parting, and excavation shot 

types. OSM adopted the alternative blasting level criteria in Figure 1 of 30 CFR 816.67(d)(4) from appendix B of RI 

8507. The only difference between Figure 1. in 30 CFR 816.67(d)(4) and the figure in appendix B is that OSM's 

regulation did not include the 0.5 ips ppv plaster limit which appears in the appendix but not in the regulations. The 

petitioners propose to reintroduce that limit. OSM's reasoning for not providing that limit in the blasting regulations was 

thoroughly discussed in the 1983 preamble and remains valid. (48 FR 9802) 

 

C. SCALED-DISTANCE FORMULA 

1. DELETION OF THE SCALED-DISTANCE FORMULA 

 The petitioners propose to delete existing section 30 CFR 816.67(d)(3) which authorizes the use of the 

scaled-distance formula without seismic monitoring for each blast. In support for the proposal the petitioners claim that 

the 8 millisecond (ms) delay period prescribed by the scaled-distance equation is invalid. Petitioners refer to "recent 

research" on this topic by the Bureau of Mines which suggests that, in some cases, the 8 ms delay may be insufficiently 

long for low frequency sites and should not be used in cases of vibration with dominant frequencies below 10 Hz. The 

petitioners do not recommend an alternative delay period, but instead propose to delete the use of the scaled-distance 

formula altogether. 

 As stated by the petitioners, OSM regulations requiring a minimum 8 ms delay are based on 1963 research by W.I. 

Duvall, et al. published in Vibrations From Instantaneous and Milliseconds Delayed Quarry Blasts (U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, RI 5161, 1963). Also, as the petitioners state, since 1963 very little research has been done on determining the 

optimum delay periods between blasts. One study, by Siskind, Stachura, and Nutting, Low Frequency Vibrations 

Produced By Surface Mine Blasting Over Abandoned Underground Mines (U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 9078, 1987) 

(possibly the study the petitioners allude to) concluded that 8 ms may not be the optimum delay. The study, however, did 

not recommend an alternative delay period. Further study by Siskind, et al., Comparative Study of Blast Vibrations from 

Indiana Surface Coal Mines (U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 9226, 1989) reached a similar conclusion. 

 The 8 ms delay appears in OSM rules allowing the use of regulated scaled-distance factors. This rule appears at 30 

CFR 816.67(d)(3)(i). The Bureau of Mines did not study the 8 ms delay as it applies to these particular scaled-distance 

factors. Instead, the Bureau of Mines studied the modified scaled-distance formula values which are regulated under a 

different rule, 30 CFR 816.67(d)(3)(ii). The Bureau's conclusions were based on a comparison between a modified 

scaled-distance formula's predicted peak particle velocity values and the actual peak particle velocities. Neither study 

compared OSM's scaled-distance factors in 30 CFR 816.67(d)(3)(i) against actual results. One further point, the Bureau 

of Mines results found that even though some of the peak particle velocities were higher than predicted none exceeded 

the regulatory maximum ground vibration levels. Therefore, none of these studies invalidate the use of scaled-distance 

equation of 30 CFR 816.67(d)(3)(i). 
 The 8 ms delay has also been a concern of the explosives industry but from the opposite perspective. In a paper cited 

to by a commenter and presented at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the Society of Explosives Engineers, The 8 millisecond 

Criterion: Have We Delayed Too Long in Questioning It? Douglas A. Anderson concluded that, "[t]he [8 ms] guidelines 

should not be promoted as a method of vibration control applicable to all operations, and should not be enshrined in 

regulations as a restriction on blast design where more sophisticated means to control vibration are available". Anderson 

recommends, "that scaled-distance based upon 8 ms separation be used only as a very conservative criterion to indicate 

worst case vibration levels". These findings are recommending to the explosives industry to avoid using the 8 ms delay 

because it unnecessarily restricts the blast design, i.e., that separations can be found which would allow higher weights of 

explosives within the regulated ground vibration levels. For the present, OSM would rather maintain the existing "very 

conservative" standards which account for severe vibration levels than to provide for the use of higher weight of 

explosives. The existing rules strike a balance between the competing views and have not been shown to be inadequate. 

 OSM finds that the petitioners' proposals have been considered previously in rulemaking and have failed to provide 

facts, technical justification or law to support deleting the use of scaled-distance formula. 

2. CONFIDENCE INTERVAL 

 The petitioners and several commenters stated that RI 8507 and OSM regulation 816.67(d)(3)(ii) allow an acceptable 

probable range of damage to structures of 5%. They reason that a 95% confidence level allows for 5% of the structures 

in the vicinity of blasting to be damaged. They claim that this is in conflict with the Act because the Act requires that 

blasting be conducted to prevent damage to all structures, not just to 95% of the structures. 

 OSM rules at 30 CFR 816.67(d)(3)(ii) allow for a modification to the scaled-distance factor when an operator can 

demonstrate that the scaled-distance factor at a specific mine differs from that established as the national standard. Upon 

the collection of sufficient data and an analysis using statistical techniques the operator can generate a scaled-distance 

formula that meets the vibration limits of current regulation at a 95% confidence level. 

 The petitioners have misunderstood the purpose of a confidence interval. The confidence interval is a means of 

providing a margin of safety for the possibility that the data used in a sample may not accurately represent the population 

from which it was drawn. When developing a modified scaled-distance formula under 30 CFR 816.67(d)(3)(ii), an 

operator performs a regression analysis on a sample of data which includes the actual distance between the blast and the 

monitoring instrument, the actual charge weight of explosives, and the resulting peak particle velocity. The regression 

analysis computes a line representing the expected value of the scaled-distance. This line fully represents all the 

information contained in the data sample. But, because the sample of data may not truly represent the population, OSM 

requires an additional margin of safety to be added to the regression results. The confidence interval is a statistical 

specification of how to account for this possible error in the data. OSM, following the Bureau of Mines recommended 

methodology in RI 8507, prescribes a 95% confidence interval. The resulting regulated value of the modified 

scaled-distance formula will be the sum of the regression line plus a value equal to two standard deviations of the sample 

data. 

 Confidence intervals are a standard statistical technique discussed in most college level texts on statistical methods. 

The selection of the 95% confidence level, as opposed to other levels, was based on a recommendation of the Bureau of 

Mines, whose broad experience in the collection of blasting data provides them with an unparalleled understanding of the 

potential sources of errors in a sample. The 95% confidence level was employed, without challenge, in the 1983 

rulemaking. [48 FR 9801] 

 OSM believes that the petitioners' challenge to the 95% confidence interval was based on an incorrect premise that a 

"95% confidence interval" allowed a certain level of damage to occur. In fact, a confidence interval adds to the 

protection afforded by the rules by compensating for the possibility that the sample used to compute a modified 

scaled-distance formula may contain errors. 

 

D. MANDATORY MONITORING AND STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY DISCRETION 

 In concert with their proposal to delete the scaled-distance equation option provided by existing 30 CFR 

816.67(d)(3), the petitioners also propose to amend the language in 30 CFR 816.67(d)(6) to require operators to monitor 
each blast. This requirement would replace the current provisions which require the regulatory authority to impose 

special, site-specific seismic monitoring, when necessary, under existing 30 CFR 816.67(d)(6). 

 The petitioners reason that there is no way for a regulatory authority to assess whether blasting is actually damaging 

property if the operator is not required to monitor each blast. They also say that, since blasting is not an exact science, 

continuous monitoring should be required so that problems can be discovered more readily. A commenter added that the 

regulatory authority should conduct random blasting level checks with a seismograph. The petitioners assert that they do 

not trust operators to honestly fill out the blasting record and that by not monitoring all blasts the door is open to the 

operator to falsify records. 

 OSM provided the justification for using scaled-distance formula without monitoring in the preamble to the 1983 

rules. (48 FR 9801) In the 1979 rules, OSM acknowledged that scaled-distance formula is not considered to provide 

absolute protection against exceeding a specific ground vibration level. This was stated as one reason for retaining the 

provision which authorized the regulatory authority to monitor any blast at any time. [44 FR 15201] The monitoring 

provision was retained in the 1983 rulemaking and now appears at 30 CFR 816.67(d)(6). 

 With regards to the concerns for falsification of blasting records, OSM has established a training program for state and 

Federal inspectors in the field of explosives and blasting including training in monitoring ground vibration and airblasts 

and analyzing records and monitoring data. Inspectors are trained on how to examine a blasting log and in the techniques 

to detect a blasting log containing false information. Falsification of a blasting log is a serious matter and, when 

discovered, enforcement action is taken in accordance with 30 CFR 850.15(b) and other applicable regulations. 

 One commenter, supportive of the proposal, said that the option of setting more stringent site specific standards by the 

regulatory authority has proven ineffective. While there may be isolated differences of opinion between a regulatory 

authority and homeowners as to whether blasting within the regulatory limits is causing damage to residences and 

structures, this does not establish any claim as to the ineffectiveness of the current rules. To the extent that OSM 

becomes aware of instances that the regulatory authority is not sufficiently implementing its rules, there is an issue of 

oversight of the administration of that program and not an indication of the insufficiency of those rules. As stated earlier, 

OSM believes that part of the answer to the problem of assessing blasting damage is to ensure that the regulatory 

authority has all the tools necessary to do an effective job. OSM is committed to ensuring that regulatory authorities have 

ready access to the computer software to plan and evaluate permit applications, training for their inspectors and permit 

evaluators, and, if needed for specialized problems, technical specialists from OSM. 

 A commenter suggested that the regulations be amended to allow the regulatory authority to reduce the maximum 

peak particle velocity based upon factors such as density of population, age, hydrology of the area, frequency of blasting 

or other factors. As discussed earlier, OSM rules currently require a regulatory authority to reduce ground vibration 

limits when necessary to provide protection from damage. 

 The same commenter suggested that the regulatory authority solicit public comments should fifteen citizens who are 

being affected by blasting operations make a request and that a public meeting be held if twenty-five citizens so request. 

 Current regulations allow a person who may be affected by blasting to make a citizen's complaint to the state 

regulatory authority under the provisions of 30 CFR 840.15. In addition to the specific performance standards for airblast 

and peak particle velocity, under 30 CFR 816.67(a), blasting is to be conducted to prevent injury to persons and damage 

to public or private property outside the permit area. If blasting is not conducted in such a manner, the operators would 

be in violation of Section 816.67(a). The regulatory authority could, in such instances, prescribe a whole range of 

remedial measures. As a result of an investigation of a citizen's complaint, the regulatory authority would have the 

authority to issue a notice of violation, issue a cessation order, reduce both the airblast and peak particle velocity 

according to 30 CFR 816.67 (b)(1)(ii) and (d)(5), require monitoring of any or all blasts, and to take other appropriate 

actions. Thus no additional requirements appear warranted. 

 The petitioners ask whether the Bureau of Mines found low frequency airblasts that match the natural frequency of 

residential structures. In response, most airblast has a concussion component that is below 20 Hz. In many cases, the 

concussion component matches the natural frequency of residential structures. The Bureau of Mines found that airblast is 

less likely to crack walls than ground vibrations. Cracking occurs predominantly from shear and tensile wall strains that 
are produced by shearing rather than bending. However, airblasts are often responsible for the secondary rattling and 

annoyance effects (RI 8507). 

 Many commenters thought that the petition for rulemaking was fundamentally a response to a local problem based on 

localized conditions and that ample coverage for the petitioner' concerns could already be found at: 30 CFR 816.67(d)(5) 

-- "The maximum allowable ground vibration shall be reduced by the regulatory authority beyond the limits otherwise 

provided by this section, if determined necessary to provide damage protection". 30 CFR 816.67(d)(6) -- "The regulatory 

authority may require an operator to conduct seismic monitoring of any or all blasts or may specify the location at which 

the measurements are taken and the degree of detail necessary in the measurement". 30 CFR 816.67(b)(2)(i) -- "The 

regulatory authority may require airblast measurements of any or all blasts". OSM agrees that its rules governing blasting 

provide adequate authority for the regulatory authority to prevent the adverse impacts of blasting. 

 

E. OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY COMMENTERS BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THE PETITION 

 Commenters to the petition raised several issues related to the prevention of adverse effects of blasting which, while 

not specifically included in the petition's proposal, deserve a response. 

1. HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

 Several commenters were concerned that OSM blasting regulations were not adequate to protect historic structures 

from blasting damage. OSM notes that the rules governing the protection of historic structures were not a part of the 

petition. OSM provides regulations for protecting sites which encompass not only the effects of blasting but all other 

adverse impacts. 

 OSM regulations 30 CFR 779.12(b)(1) require that a permit application describe and identify the nature of cultural, 

historic, and archaeological resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and known 

archaeological sites within the proposed permit and adjacent areas (adjacent areas are areas outside the permit area where

a resource, such as an historic structure, could be expected to be adversely impacted by mining). The existence of an 

historic structure in the vicinity of the proposed mining operation would, therefore, be identified during the permitting 

process. 

 OSM regulations 30 CFR 780.31(a)(1) and (b) require that the permit application contain a plan to prevent adverse 

impacts to these historic places. Historic places must be specifically protected from all adverse effects of mining, 

including blasting. If a lower ground vibration limit is necessary to protect any structure, the regulatory authority is 

required to set a lower peak particle velocity than those otherwise provided for in 30 CFR 816.67 in order to protect that 

structure. This requirement is clearly expressed in 30 CFR 816.67(d)(5). 

 OSM finds that the protection of historic structures is outside the scope of the petitioners' requested rulemaking and 

that adequate protection under SMCRA currently exists within the rules to prevent adverse impacts. n1 

 n 1 This decision is not intended to address OSM's compliance with the recent district court decision in Indiana Coal 

Council v. Lujan, Nos. 87-1067 and 87-1020 (D.D.C. 1991). Such compliance is proceeding independently. 

2. WATER SUPPLIES. 

 Several commenters were concerned that blasting may cause damage to home water wells. OSM notes that the rules 

governing the replacement of water supplies adversely affected by surface mining activities were not a part of the 

petition. 

 OSM regulations at 30 CFR 816.41(h) require the replacement of a water supply if it is damaged or destroyed by 

surface coal mining activities, including blasting. A Bureau of Mines study, Survey of Blasting Effects on Ground Water 

Supplies in Appalachia, (Bureau of Mines OFR 8(1)-82, Philip R. Berger and Associates, Inc.) concluded that blasting 

has very little, if any, effect on water wells. But, if a well is damaged or destroyed through mining operations, protection 

is afforded through current regulations. 
 OSM finds that the replacement of water supplies is outside the scope of the petitioners' requested rulemaking and 

that adequate protection currently exists within the rules. 

3. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

 Several commenters asked OSM to consider the potential impacts blasting may have on fish and wildlife. They reason 

that noise cannot only be annoying to wildlife but also disruptive to their breeding and migration patterns. OSM notes 

that the rules governing the protection of fish and wildlife were not a part of the petition. 

 The Act of section 515(b)(24) requires that operators must "to the extent possible using the best technology currently 

available, minimize disturbance and adverse impacts of the operation on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values". 

OSM regulations at 30 CFR 780.16 and 816.97 were specifically designed to protect fish, wildlife, and endangered and 

threatened species. Protection is also provided by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), the Bald Eagle Protection Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) and other laws. 

 OSM finds that the present rules provide a level of protection consistent with the requirements of the Act and the 

comment is outside the scope of the petitioners' requested rulemaking. 

4. RESPONSE SPECTRA METHODS OF ANALYSIS 

 Several comments from firms in the explosives industry stated that the use of response spectra methods of analysis 

considers both the entire vibration time history as well as the dynamics of the structure and, therefore, is the best method 

of monitoring blasting events. They suggest that response spectra analysis is a tool that can be used as an accurate 

representation of possible damage potential. As discussed in the preamble to the 1983 blasting regulations, OSM 

acknowledged that response spectra techniques might prove to be the best substantiation of the actual damage range and 

does not wish to discourage its use as a means of providing a seismographic record of regulatory compliance. (48 FR 

9800) 

5. SUBSIDENCE 

 The petitioners assert that low-level vibrations and how they relate to subsidence need to be investigated. The 

petitioners did not include specific facts to justify their assertion. 

 OSM has not seen evidence to indicate that there is a connection between low-level vibrations and subsidence. Blast 

vibration researchers have observed a tendency of low frequency vibrations to increase near underground mines but they 

have also observed peak particle velocities to decrease with increased blast to structure distance (Explosives and Rock 

Blasting, Atlas Powder Company, 1987). 

6. UNDERGROUND MINING 

 One commenter, an underground mining operator, felt that they should be excluded from the blasting requirements of 

30 CFR Part 816. OSM notes that regulations governing underground mining appear at 30 CFR part 817 which were not 

part of this petition. 

[FR Doc. 91-28400 Filed 11-25-91; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M