14308 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

encourage States to bring their programs

into conformity with the Federal

standards without undue delay.

Consistency of State and Federal

standards is required by SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) 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 Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

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 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.

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

corresponding Federal regulations.

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 Part CFR 920

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 5, 1997.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 920—MARYLAND

1. The authority citation for Part 920

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 920.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 920.15 Approval of Maryland regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

August 5, 1996 .......................................... March 26, 1997 ......................................... M.C.A. §§ 15–514(a)(4), 15–514.1.

[FR Doc. 97–7535 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 935

[OH–236–FOR]

Ohio Abandoned Mine Land

Reclamation Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with

certain exceptions, a proposed

amendment to the Ohio abandoned

mine land reclamation plan (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Ohio plan’’) under

the Surface mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

Ohio proposed revisions and additions

to its plan pertaining to acid mine

drainage set aside program, water

quality improvement, project eligibility,

and remining incentives. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Ohio plan to be consistent with SMCRA,

as amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Rieger, Field Branch Chief,

Appalachian Regional Coordinating

Center, OSM, 3 Parkway Center,

Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone: (412)

937–2153.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Ohio Plan

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Ohio Plan

On August 10, 1982, the Secretary of

the Interior approved the Ohio plan.

Background information on the Ohio

plan, including the Secretary’s findings,

the disposition of comments, and the

approval of the plan can be found in the

April 15, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR

17930). Subsequent actions concerning

the conditions of approval and

amendments to the plan can be found at

30 CFR 935.25.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated March 19, 1996,

(Administrative Record No. OH–2163)

Ohio submitted a proposed amendment

to its plan pursuant to SMCRA at its
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14309

own initiative. Ohio proposed to amend

the following subsections of Section 4—

Abandoned Mined Land Evaluation

Program: 4.1—Introduction, 4.5—

Annual Work Plan, and 4.5.3—Project

Selection.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the April 17,

1996, Federal Register (61 FR 16731),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period closed on

May 17, 1996.

During its review of the proposed

amendment, OSM identified concerns

relating to the use of abandoned mine

land funds for the reclamation of

previously mined areas by an active coal

mine operator. OSM notified Ohio of

these concerns by letter dated November

13,1 996 (Administrative Record No.

OH–2163–11).

By letter dated December 6, 1996

(Administrative Record No. OH–2163–

12), Ohio responded to OSM’s concerns

by submitting additional explanatory

information and revisions to its

proposed program amendment. Ohio

revised the language on page 4–2 to read

‘‘encourage reclamation in conjunction

with active mining of abandoned areas

causing acid mine drainage (AMD)

within approved hydrologic units and

in other areas causing a MD through the

funding of AMD remediation projects

and studies necessary to develop

pollution abatement plans.’’ At page 4–

17, Ohio clarified that AMD funds are

being used to collect and analyze data

necessary to qualify watersheds as

hydrologic units. At page 4–19, Ohio

revised Stage 5 of the project selection

process to provide for the reclamation of

abandoned mine areas causing AMD in

conjunction with active mining. Federal

abandoned mine land funds may be

used to fund reclamation of abandoned

mine lands causing AMD under certain

conditions.

By letter dated December 20, 1996

(Administrative Record No. OH–2163–

13), Ohio submitted additional

revisions. At page 4–2, Ohio deleted as

one of its goals the reclamation in

conjunction with active mining of

abandoned areas causing AMD within

approved hydrologic areas and other

areas. At page 4–19, Ohio deleted the

language identified as Stage 5 of the

project selection process. The deletions

are based on Ohio’s understanding that

such language is not necessary to fulfill

its goals and objectives regarding the

use of acid mine drainage set-aside

funds for the restoration of watersheds

impacted by acid mine drainage from

abandoned coal mines. Sufficient

flexibility exists within its program to

manage the funds in a manner that will

achieve its objectives.

Based on the additional explanatory

information and revisions to the

proposed program amendment

submitted by Ohio, OSM reopened the

public comment period in the January

23, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 3491).

The public comment period closed on

February 7, 1997.

III. Director’s Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

884.14 and 884.15, are the Director’s

findings concerning the proposed

amendment.

Revisions not specifically discussed

below concern nonsubstantive wording

changes, or revised cross-references and

paragraph notations to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.

Abandoned Mined Land Evaluation

Program

1. Section 4.1.G—Introduction

Ohio proposed to add subsection G to

provide for the reclamation of areas

causing acid-mine drainage (AMD) such

that AMD problems are eliminated as a

component of a high priority

reclamation project; such that AMD

areas causing a ‘‘general welfare’’

impact to the public will be eligible for

abatement; and such that AMD areas

impacting watersheds will be abated in

accordance with AMD set-aside criteria

contained in the Ohio Code (ORC) at

section 1513.37(E).

The Director finds that the provisions

of subsection G are not inconsistent

with section 402(g)(6)(B) and 402(g)(7)

of SMCRA which provide for the

creation of an AMD abatement and

treatment fund and from which amounts

are expended by the State to implement

acid mine drainage abatement and

treatment plans.

2. Section 4.5—Annual Work Plan

Ohio proposed to delete the

requirement that research and

demonstration projects be submitted to

OSM independent of work plan

submissions using specific OSM

procedures. In its submission letter

dated March 19, 1996, Ohio stated

projects of this type would be

incorporated into the AMD program.

The Director finds that the proposed

deletion does not render the Ohio

program less effective than the Federal

regulations so long as application for

proposed implementation of research

and demonstration projects is made to

OSM prior to using funds for such

projects.

3. Section 4.5.3—Project Selection

Ohio proposed to revise the project

selection process to include AMD

projects under certain conditions such

as AMD set-aside, AMD associated with

other high priority projects, and AMD

associated with general welfare. Projects

will be evaluated and approved based

on an AMD abatement and treatment

plan. The plan will provide for the

comprehensive abatement of the causes

and treatment of the effects of AMD

within qualified hydrologic units

affected by coal mining practices. The

plan will identify the qualified

hydrologic unit and the sources and

effect of AMD within the unit. It will

also identify projects and treatment and

abatement measures, as well as cost and

sources of funding. An analysis of the

cost-effectiveness and environmental

benefits of the treatment and abatement

measures is also required. Ohio defined

‘‘qualified hydrologic unit’’ as a unit in

which the water quality has been

significantly affected by AMD from coal

mining practices in a manner which

adversely impacts biological resources

and which contains lands and waters

that meet certain, specified eligibility

requirements.

Ohio proposed to fund AMD projects

associated with ‘‘general welfare’’

according to specified guidelines. Ohio

defined ‘‘general welfare’’ (as used in

establishing the priority of AMD

projects) as meaning an adverse impact,

including an economic impact, on either

a residential area, or community

resulting from the mine drainage

problem.

The Director finds that the project

selection process as specified in section

4.5.3, State 4, is consistent with the plan

content requirements at 30 CFR 876.13

(a)–(g) and the eligibility requirements

found at 30 CFR 874.12. Further, the

definition of ‘‘qualified hydrologic unit’’

is substantively identical to the Federal

definition found at 30 CFR 870.5.

Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the proposed

amendment. Because no one requested

an opportunity to speak at a public

hearing, no hearing was held. Two

public comments were received. One

commenter stated that ongoing

coordination with the Ohio Historical

Society is necessary to address

preservation concerns. The Director

notes that all abandoned mine land

projects, including those negotiated

with adjacent mine operators, are

reviewed by the State Historic
14310 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Protection Officer (SHPO). Further, a

statement of concurrence that no

significant cultural or historic properties

will be adversely affected, signed by the

SHPO, is included with the National

Environmental Policy Act documents

submitted prior to construction.

Another commenter had two

concerns: (1) That the proposed

revisions were unclear as whether

Ohio’s intention was to elevate the

priority of AMD problems or to

eliminate AMD problems as a

component of high priority reclamation,

and (2) that the issue of who assumes

liability for remining operations is

unclear. With respect to the first issue,

the Director notes that the intent of the

‘‘general welfare’’ provision is to allow

the use of Federal AML funds for AMD

abatement projects that are not

necessarily part of an approved

hydrologic unit under the AMD setaside program. This is accomplished by

elevating the priority when the general

welfare requirements are met. With

respect to the second issue, The Director

notes that the remining provisions were

deleted in Ohio’s December 20, 1996,

revisions to the original amendment.

Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 884.14(a)(2) and

884.15(a), the Director solicited

comments on the proposed amendment

from various other Federal agencies

with an actual or potential interest in

the Ohio plan. The U.S. Department of

the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, and

the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine

Safety and Health Administration,

concurred without comment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii),

the Director solicited the written

concurrence of the Administrator of the

EPA with respect to those proposed

plan amendment which relate to air or

water quality standards promulgated

under the authority of the Clean Air Act

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

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1252 et seq.).

None of the revisions Ohio proposed

to make in its amendment pertains to air

or water quality standards.

Nevertheless, OSM requested EPA’s

concurrence with the proposed

amendment. EPA did not respond.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves the proposed plan

amendment as submitted by Ohio on

March 19, 1996, and revised on

December 6, 1996, and December 20,

1996.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 935, codifying decisions concerning

the Ohio plan, are being amended to

implement this decision. This final rule

is being made effective immediately to

expedite the State plan amendment

process and to encourage States to bring

their plans into conformity with the

Federal standards without undue delay.

Consistency of State and Federal

standards is required by SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is exempted from

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under Executive Order

12866 (Regulatory Planning and

Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) 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 and Tribal abandoned mine

land reclamation plans and revisions

thereof since each such plan is drafted

and promulgated by a specific State or

Tribal, not by OSM. Decisions on

proposed abandoned mine land

reclamation plans and revisions thereof

submitted by a State or Tribe are based

on a determination of whether the

submittal meets the requirements of

Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–

1243) and 30 CFR Parts 884 and 888.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since agency

decisions on proposed State and Tribal

abandoned mine land reclamation plans

and revisions thereof are categorically

excluded from compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the

Department of the Interior (516 DM 6,

appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

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 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.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions in the analyses for

the corresponding Federal regulations.

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 935

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 5, 1997.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 935—OHIO

1. The authority citation for part 935

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 935.25 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 935.25 Approval of Ohio abandoned

mine land reclamation plan amendments.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14311

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/Description

* * * * * * *

March 19, 1996 ......................................... March 26, 1997 ......................................... Revisions to the Ohio Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan to provide for the reclamation of areas causing acid mine drainage AMD and to revise the project

selection process.

[FR Doc. 97–7536 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 943

[SPATS No. TX–017–FOR]

Texas Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Texas regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Texas program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Texas proposed

revisions to and additions of rules

pertaining to authority, responsibility

and applicability; definitions;

restrictions of financial interests of State

employees; exemption for coal

extraction incident to governmentfinanced construction; exemption for

coal extraction incidental to the

extraction of other minerals; lands

unsuitable for mining; coal exploration;

geologic and hydrologic permit

information; blasting plans; maps and

plans; protection of the hydrologic

balance; ponds, impoundments, banks,

dams, and embankments; prime

farmland; alluvial valley floors; public

availability of permit information;

approval and conditions of permits;

transfer, assignment or sale of permit

rights; bonding requirements; liability

insurance; bond release; signs and

markers; water quality standards;

diversions; siltation structures;

permanent and temporary

impoundments; surface and ground

water monitoring; stream buffer zones;

use of explosives; coal mine waste;

protection of fish and wildlife and

related environmental values;

backfilling and grading; revegetation;

water discharge into underground

mines; enforcement; suspension and

revocation of permits; assessment of

civil penalties; individual civil

penalties; and blaster certification and

training. Texas also proposed minor

changes in wording, numbering, and

punctuation of its rules. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Texas program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations and

SMCRA and to incorporate the

additional flexibility afforded by the

revised Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ervin J. Barchenger, Acting Director,

Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

5100 East Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74135–6548, Telephone:

(918) 581–6430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Texas Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Texas Program

On February 16, 1980, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Texas program. Background information

on the Texas program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval can be found in the February

27, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR

12998). Subsequent actions concerning

the conditions of approval and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

943.10, 943.15, and 943.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated May 13, 1993

(Administrative Record No. TX–551),

Texas submitted a proposed amendment

to its program pursuant to SMCRA.

Texas submitted the proposed

amendment in response to May 20,

1985, June 9, 1987, October 20, 1988,

February 7, 1990, and February 21,

1990, letters (Administrative Record

Nos. TX–358, TX–388, TX–417, TX–

472, and TX–476) that OSM sent to

Texas in accordance with 30 CFR

732.17(c), in response to the required

program amendments at 30 CFR 943.16

(k) through (q), and at its own initiative.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the June 21,

1993, Federal Register (58 FR 33785),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period would have

closed on July 21, 1993. However, by

letter dated July 16, 1993, the Texas

Mining and Reclamation Association

requested a 30-day extension of time in

which to review and provide comments

on the proposed amendment. OSM

announced receipt of the extension

request and reopened the comment

period in the August 16, 1993, Federal

Register (58 FR 43308). The extended

comment period ended August 20, 1993. During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified several concerns

relating to the proposed amendment.

OSM notified Texas of these concerns

by letter dated July 25, 1994

(Administrative Record No. TX–578).

OSM provided Texas with further

clarification of its concerns by letters

dated November 4, 1994, November 21,

1994, and January 18, 1995

(Administrative Record Nos. TX–581,

TX–589, and TX–585).

By letter dated September 18, 1995

(Administrative Record No. TX–598),

Texas responded to OSM’s concerns by

submitting a revised program

amendment package. OSM reopened the

public comment period in the October

25, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR

54620) and provided an opportunity for

a public hearing on the adequacy of the

revised amendment. The public

comment period closed on November 9,

1995. By letter dated December 15, 1995

(Administrative Record No. TX–634),

Texas submitted documents to clarify

and supplement its September 18, 1995,

revised amendment. By letter dated

March 1, 1996 (Administrative Record

No. TX–612), Texas provided

information to supplement the

revegetation success portion of its

September 18, 1995, revised

amendment.

By letter dated January 29, 1996

(Administrative Record No. TX–610),

Texas withdrew portions of its

September 18, 1995, revised

amendment. Texas withdrew the roads

and transportation system portion of the

amendment because it had submitted a

formal amendment on December 20,

1995, titled ‘‘Transportation System,

Utilities, and Support System,’’ which

superceded the changes in this

amendment. During its review of the

September 18, 1995, revised amendment

and supplemental information, OSM