25846 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE I

[Lump Sum Valuations]

Rate set

For plans with a

valuation date

Immediate

annuity

rate (percent)

Deferred annuities (percent)

On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

* * * * * * *

20 ........................................................ 6–1–95 7–1–95 5.50 4.75 4.00 4.00 7 8

Annuity Valuations

In determining the value of interest factors of the form v0

:

n (as defined in § 2676.13(b)(1)) for purposes of applying the formulas

set forth in § 2676.13 (b) through (i) and in determining the value of any interest factor used in valuing annuity benefits under

this subpart, the plan administrator shall use the values of it prescribed in the table below.

The following table tabulates, for each calendar month of valuation ending after the effective date of this part, the interest rates

(denoted by i1, i2, . . ., and referred to generally as it) assumed to be in effect between specified anniversaries of a valuation date

that occurs within that calendar month; those anniversaries are specified in the columns adjacent to the rates. The last listed rate

is assumed to be in effect after the last listed anniversary date.

TABLE II

[Annuity Valuations]

For valuation dates occurring in the month—

The values of it are:

it for t= it for t= it for t=

* * * * * * *

June 1995 ...................................................................................... .0680 1–20 .0575 >20 N/A N/A

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 10th day

of May 1995.

Martin Slate,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–11896 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 906

Colorado Regulatory Program

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Colorado regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Colorado program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Colorado proposed

revisions to a memorandum of

understanding (MOU) between the

Division of Minerals and Geology

(DMG) of the Colorado Department of

Natural Resources and the Water

Quality Control Division (WQCD) of the

Colorado Department of Health for

water quality management at coal

mines. The amendment revises the

Colorado program to be consistent with

SMCRA and the implementing Federal

regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas E. Ehmett, Telephone: (505)

766–1486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Colorado Program

On December 15, 1980, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the Colorado program. General

background information on the

Colorado program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval of the Colorado program can

be found in the December 15, 1980,

Federal Register (45 FR 82173).

Subsequent actions concerning

Colorado’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

906.11, 906.15, 906.16, and 906.30.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated March 18, 1994,

Colorado submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA (administrative record No. CO–

604). Colorado submitted the proposed

amendment in response to a letter dated

April 7, 1993 (administrative record No.

CO–539), that OSM sent to Colorado in

accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c). The

amendment consisted of a MOU dated

February 9, 1994, between DMG and

WQCD for water quality management at

coal mines. Colorado proposed that this

MOU would replace a January 21, 1985,

MOU.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed MOU in the April 7, 1994,

Federal Register (59 FR 16578),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (administrative record

No. CO–606). Because no one requested

a public hearing or meeting, none was

held. The public comment period ended

on May 9, 1994.

During its review of the proposed

MOU, OSM identified concerns relating

to certain provisions of item No. 2 of the

‘‘Enforcement’’ section of the proposed

MOU. These concerns pertain to

Colorado’s reliance on referenced 2

Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR)

407.2, Rule 4.05, which provides

general authority for the enforcement of

Federal and State water quality laws,

but does not provide specific

enforcement authority for effluent

limitation violations under 40 CFR Part

434. OSM notified Colorado of the

concerns by letter dated June 16, 1994

(administrative record No. CO–627).

Colorado responded to OSM’s

concerns in a letter dated June 23, 1994,

by submitting additional explanatory

information (administrative record No.

CO–629). Based upon the additional

explanatory information for the

proposed MOU submitted by Colorado,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 25847

OSM reopened the public comment

period in the July 29, 1994, Federal

Register (59 FR 38575, administrative

record No. CO–637). The public

comment period ended on August 15,

1994.

During its review of the additional

information submitted by Colorado,

OSM identified concerns pertaining to

the enforcement of effluent standards

and the actual standards for effluent

limits. OSM notified Colorado of the

concerns by letter dated September 16,

1994 (administrative record No. CO–

646).

Colorado responded to OSM’s

concerns in a letter dated December 7,

1994, by submitting additional

explanatory information (administrative

record No. CO–651). Based upon the

additional explanatory information for

the proposed MOU submitted by

Colorado, OSM reopened the public

comment period in the December 30,

1994, Federal Register (59 FR 67690,

administrative record No. CO–654). The

public comment period ended on

January 17, 1994.

III. Director’s Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in

accordance with SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, finds that the

proposed MOU submitted by Colorado

on March 18, 1994, and as

supplemented with additional

explanatory information on June 23 and

December 7, 1994, is no less effective

than the requirements of the

corresponding Federal regulations and

no less stringent than SMCRA.

Accordingly, the director approves the

proposed MOU.

1. Purpose, Understanding, and

Understanding Between the Parties

Colorado entitled the introductory

sections of the proposed MOU as

‘‘Purpose,’’ ‘‘Understanding,’’ and

‘‘Understanding Between the Parties.’’

In the ‘‘Purpose’’ section of the

proposed MOU, Colorado states that the

MOU defines the respective

responsibilities of DMG and WQCD

regarding coal mining activities as they

impact the hydrologic balance. This

section of the MOU indicates that the

purpose of the MOU is to (1) ensure that

appropriate corrective actions are

applied to minimize the period of

noncomplaint discharge; (2) ensure that

noncomplaint discharges are

appropriately cited in a timely manner

and do not receive an economic benefit

over other facilities as a result of

noncompliance; (3) provide for

coordination of enforcement actions in

order to minimize dual enforcement to

the extent possible, while maintaining

the integrity of the programs

implemented by DMG and WQCD; and

(4) foster enhanced communications

and working relationships between

DMG and WQCD.

The ‘‘Understanding’’ section of the

proposed MOU provides recognition of

the specific and separate statutory

responsibilities of DMG and WQCD to

review permit applications, monitor and

inspect field sites, and take enforcement

action. It also provides recognition of

the potential for duplication and

inconsistent actions by DMG and WQCD

in the management of the hydrologic

balance and water quality issues with

respect to the responsibilities of each

party and provides that the MOU will

address each area of responsibility

separately.

These ‘‘Purpose’’ and

‘‘Understanding’’ sections provide

clarity and detail that are not

inconsistent with the hydrologic

protection provisions of section

515(b)(10) of SMCRA and the

implementing Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.41 through 816.57, and the

inspection and monitoring provisions of

section 517 of SMCRA and the

implementing Federal regulations at 30

CFR Part 840.

The ‘‘Understanding Between the

Parties’’ section of the proposed MOU

indicates that DMG and WQCD may

modify the MOU by written

concurrence of both parties, that the

MOU replaces a previous MOU entered

into by DMG and WQCD on January 21,

1985, that nothing in the MOU shall be

construed to preempt or alter the

statutory or regulatory responsibilities

and authorities of DMG and WQCD, and

that the MOU shall remain in effect

until either party decides to terminate it.

For the purposes of this document,

the Director wishes to clarify that this

proposed MOU replaces not only the

1985 MOU, which OSM had not

reviewed and approved as part of the

Colorado program, but it also replaces a

December 15, 1980, MOU that OSM had

approved (December 15, 1980, 45 FR

82173, 82211). With respect to the

statement that the MOU will remain in

effect until either DMG or WQCD

terminates it, the Director wishes to

clarify that any revision or termination

of this MOU, which is a part of the

Colorado program, must be approved by

OSM in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17.

As required by 30 CFR 732.17(b)(5),

Colorado must notify OSM of any

changes in this agreement. Based upon

this understanding, the ‘‘Understanding

Between the Parties’’ section of the

proposed MOU is not inconsistent with

30 CFR 732.17(b)(5).

For the above-stated reasons, the

Director finds that the ‘‘Purpose,’’

‘‘Understanding,’’ and ‘‘Understanding

Between the Parties’’ sections of the

proposed MOU are not inconsistent

with sections 515(b)(10) and 517 of

SMCRA and 30 CFR 816.41 through

816.57, Part 840, and 732.17(b)(5).

Therefore, the Director approves these

sections of the proposed MOU.

2. Review of Permit Applications

In the ‘‘Review of Permit

Applications’’ section of the proposed

MOU, Colorado provides that DMG and

WQCD will coordinate the review of

hydrologic information submitted with

a coal mining permit application with

respect to information relevant to the

Colorado Discharge Permit System

(CDPS) permits for process/mine water

and stormwater point source discharges.

Such coordination includes (1) DMG

and WQCD advising potential coal mine

permit applicants during preapplication meetings of the need to

contact the other party to the MOU; (2)

DMG reviewing coal permit applications

to determine whether sediment control

structures are designed to meet

technology-based effluent limitations

and to ensure that any stormwater

control technologies are in conformance

with the Rules and Regulations for Coal

Mining and Colorado Revised Statutes

34–33–101 et seq., the Colorado Surface

Coal Mining Reclamation Act; (3) DMG

and WQCD conferring, as appropriate,

during the course of permit review and

drafting, to coordinate where there may

be duplication of effort or potential

conflict between DMG and WQCD, and

to keep each other apprised of the

technical developments of the other

Division; and (4) WQCD providing

copies to DMG of all final CDPS permit

actions for coal mines at the time of

issuance and DMG providing copies to

WQCD of all notices of final action on

coal mining permits.

The ‘‘Review of Permit Applications’’

section of the proposed MOU is not

inconsistent with the permit approval or

denial requirements of section 510 of

SMCRA and the Federal regulation

requirements for permit processing at 30

CFR Part 773. Therefore, the Director

approves this section of the proposed

MOU.

3. Training

In the ‘‘Training’’ section of the

proposed MOU, Colorado provides that

WQCD will provide water quality

sample collection training to DMG staff

upon the request of DMG and that each

party will provide general inspection

training upon the request of the other

party to the MOU.
25848 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

There is no section of SMCRA or the

Federal regulations that corresponds to

this section of the proposed MOU.

However, this section is not inconsistent

with SMCRA and the implementing

Federal regulations. Therefore, the

Director approves the ‘‘Training’’

section of the proposed MOU.

4. Inspections, Monitoring, and Sample

Analysis

In the ‘‘Inspections, Monitoring and

Sample Analysis’’ section of the

proposed MOU, Colorado provides that

DMG and WQCD will coordinate

inspections, monitoring, and sample

analysis. Such coordination includes (1)

DMG, at item 1 of this section,

collecting, in those instances where

effluent violations are suspected, water

quality samples at CDPS discharge

points during the course of conducting

normal site inspection obligations, and,

in those instances where an

unpermitted discharge is suspected,

DMG collecting a water quality sample

for analysis; (2) DMG including, in its

inspection reports which accompany a

sample result specified in item 1, a

detailed description of site conditions

and a discussion as to whether a

precipitation event has occurred at the

site within the preceding 24 hours; (3)

WQCD paying, to the extent funds

allow, for the cost of analysis for

samples collected pursuant to item 1,

and then delivering such samples to the

Laboratory Division of the Colorado

Department of Health for analysis, with

DMG absorbing the cost of obtaining the

samples and transmitting them to the

lab; and (4) DMG following, for its

sample collections, all chain-of-custody

and other normal enforcement

procedures to ensure sample integrity.

The ‘‘Inspections, Monitoring and

Sample Analysis’’ section of the

proposed MOU is not inconsistent with

the inspection and monitoring

requirements of section 517 of SMCRA

and the Federal. regulation

requirements for inspection and

enforcement at 30 CFR Part 840.

Therefore, the Director approves this

section of the proposed MOU.

5. Enforcement

As discussed below, Colorado

proposed several MOU provisions

concerning enforcement.

a. Enforcement of effluent limitations.

In its April 7, 1993, 30 CFR Part 732

letter requiring Colorado to revise its

program, OSM cited the January 21,

1985, MOU which stated that ‘‘as a

matter of general practice, the

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

[of which DMG is a part], will be

responsible for enforcing water quality

protection pertaining to the

requirements for design and

maintenance of structures and the

requirements to minimize disturbance

to the hydrologic balance from sources

other than the point of discharge,’’ and

the Department of Health (DOH) [of

which WQCD is a part], ‘‘will be

responsible for enforcing water quality

control standards at the point of

discharge.’’ OSM concluded that DNR

had ceded its authority to enforce

effluent limitations to DOH, which was

a significant change from the December

15, 1980, MOU approved by OSM as a

part of the Colorado program.

In response to the 30 CFR part 732

letter, Colorado proposed, in the

introductory paragraph of the

‘‘Enforcement’’ section of the proposed

MOU, that ‘‘[a]s a matter of general

practice, DMG will be responsible for

enforcing the requirements for design

and maintenance of water quality

protection structures and the

requirements to minimize the

disturbance to the hydrologic balance in

accordance with the Rules for Coal

Mining at section 4.05,’’ and ‘‘WQCD

will be responsible for enforcing CDPS

permit conditions, including effluent

limitations, and provisions of site

specific stormwater management plans

that are unique to the CDPS permit.’’

Colorado also proposed in the

‘‘Enforcement’’ section of the proposed

MOU at item No. 1, that WQCD is solely

responsible for enforcement of the CDPS

permit program against point source

discharges of pollutants into the State’s

surface waters that are conducted

without an effective CDPS permit and

for the enforcement of CDPS permit

conditions; at item No. 2, that DMG

shall, upon receipt of the completed

analysis, determine whether a violation

of the Rules for Coal Mining at section

4.05 has occurred, as determined by

comparison with the Federal effluent

limitation guidelines found at 40 CFR

part 434, and if DMG determines a

violation has occurred, it shall issue a

notice of violation within 3 days of

receipt of the completed analysis, and it

will provide a copy of the NOV and all

other pertinent information to WQCD;

and at item No. 7, that, if an incident

other than those described in items 1

and 2 above occurs and such incident is

a violation of requirements under the

jurisdiction of both DMG and WQCD,

then the two Divisions shall meet to

coordinate enforcement proceedings

and minimize, to the maximum extent

possible, duel enforcement.

The introductory paragraph and item

Nos. 1 and 2 of this section of the

proposed MOU state, and Colorado has

affirmed (administrative record No. CO–

629), that WQCD is solely responsible

for enforcement of the CDPS program

relating to mine water and stormwater

point source discharges and DMG is

responsible for enforcement of Federal

water quality standards at 40 CFR Part

434. Through these provisions, Colorado

has clarified that DMG retains its

responsibility to enforce effluent

limitations that are part of its coal

mining program pursuant to SMCRA.

Through these clarifications, Colorado

has satisfied the concerns raised by

OSM in its April 7, 1993, 30 CFR Part

732 letter. DMG’s enforcement of the

effluent limitations at 40 CFR Part 434

is consistent with section 515 of

SMCRA and with the Federal regulation

at 30 CFR 816.42, which specifically

requires that discharges of water from

areas disturbed by surface mining

activities shall be in compliance with

the effluent limitations for coal mining

promulgated by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency at 40 CFR Part 434.

However, OSM expressed a concern

about the introductory paragraph and

item No. 2 of this section of the

proposed MOU that both cite Rule 4.05

as a basis for DMG enforcing the Federal

effluent limitations at 40 CFR Part 434

(administrative record No. CO–627).

OSM was concerned that, since this rule

does not explicitly incorporate the

Federal effluent limitations at 40 CFR

Part 434, it might not serve as an

adequate legal authority for Colorado to

indicate in the MOU that DMG will

enforce the effluent limitations at 40

CFR Part 434 by issuing a notice of

violation if an exceedance of these

limitations has occurred.

In response to this concern, Colorado

provided in its December 7, 1994, letter

to OSM an Attorney General’s opinion

that the general language of the water

quality protection provisions of CRS 34–

33–120(2)(b) and (j)(ii)(a) and Rules

4.05(1)(b) and 4.05.2(8), which require

compliance with applicable Federal

laws and regulations, serve as adequate

legal authority for Colorado’s

enforcement of the effluent limitations

at 40 CFR Part 434 (administrative

record No. CO–651). Nevertheless,

Colorado has agreed to revise Rule 4.05

to explicitly incorporate the 40 CFR Part

434 effluent limitations by reference

(administrative record No. CO–629).

Item No. 7 of the ‘‘Enforcement’’

section of the proposed MOU provides

that if an incident occurs that is a

violation of requirements under the

jurisdiction of both DMG and WQCD,

then the two Divisions will coordinate

enforcement proceedings and minimize,

to the maximum extent possible, dual

enforcement. This provision is not

inconsistent with section 515 of SMCRA
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 25849

and with the Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.42. However, the Director

wishes to emphasize that DMG is the

designated regulatory authority for

Colorado’s SMCRA-approved program

under the documentation it provided to

OSM in accordance with the

requirements of 30 CFR 731.14(d), and

as the designated regulatory authority, it

must ensure that the State program is

properly implemented, administered,

and enforced. When situations arise in

which the enforcement responsibilities

of DMG and WQCD are not clearly

defined by the MOU, DMG must ensure

that the enforcement requirements of

the approved program are fully and

completely met.

In conclusion, the introductory

paragraph and item Nos. 1, 2, and 7 of

the ‘‘Enforcement’’ section of the

proposed MOU satisfy the concerns

raised by OSM in its 30 CFR Part 732

letter and are no less stringent than the

corresponding Federal provisions of

section 515 of SMCRA and no less

effective than the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 816.42. Therefore, the Director

approves these parts of the proposed

MOU.

b. Pattern-of-violations and showcause processes. Colorado proposed at

item No. 5 of the ‘‘Enforcement’’ section

of the proposed MOU, that DMG shall,

within 90 days of execution of the

proposed MOU, initiate rulemaking so

that the notices of violation issued by

WQCD that cite a 1-day exceedance

shall be incorporated into DMG’s

processes for patterns of violations and

show-cause orders. These processes are

those addressed in Rules 5.03.3 (1) and

(2) that require Colorado to issue an

order to a permittee to show cause why

his or her permit and right to mine

should not be suspended or revoked

because of a pattern of violations caused

by the permittee’s willful or

unwarranted noncompliance with

Colorado’s coal mining program or

permit requirements.

Colorado has informally submitted to

OSM for review an amendment to these

rules. In accordance with 30 CFR

732.17(f)(2), OSM has requested a

timetable for Colorado’s enactment of

these rules in its formal State

rulemaking process and a timetable for

submission of a formal amendment to

OSM.

Based on the foregoing discussion,

and Colorado’s steps to amend its

program to make it consistent with this

portion of the MOU, the Director finds

that item No. 5 of the ‘‘Enforcement’’

section of the proposed MOU is not

inconsistent with the pattern-ofviolation and show-cause order

processes at section 521 of SMCRA and

30 CFR Parts 840 and 843. Therefore,

the Director approves this part of the

proposed MOU.

c. Other enforcement provisions.

Colorado stated in the ‘‘Enforcement’’

section of the proposed MOU (1) At

item No. 3, that, when WQCD pursues

a violation based upon evidence

collected by a DMG inspector, the DMG

inspector will be available to present

testimony and expertise to WQCD, and

WQCD staff will be available to assist

DMG in any enforcement action in

which WQCD has knowledge and may

be of assistance; (2) at item No. 4, that

DMG shall not issue notices of violation

for self-reported exceedances as

submitted on WQCD Discharge

Monitoring Report forms; (3) at item No.

6, that, for other violations at coal

mining sites identified by WQCD,

compliance and enforcement activities

will be consistent with the procedures

and time frames provided in Colorado’s

Enforcement Management System

guidance document; and (4) at item No.

8, that, if during a coal mine inspection

DMG determines that there is imminent

danger to the health or safety of the

public or significant environmental

harm to land, air, or water resources,

DMG shall issue a cessation order

pursuant to the Rules for Coal Mining at

5.03.2.

Item Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the

‘‘Enforcement’’ section of the proposed

MOU are not inconsistent with the

inspection and monitoring requirements

of section 517 of SMCRA, the

enforcement requirements of section

521 of SMCRA, and the inspection and

enforcement requirements of 30 CFR

Parts 840, 842, and 843. Therefore, the

Director approves these parts of the

proposed MOU.

6. Coordination

In the ‘‘Coordination’’ section of the

proposed MOU, Colorado provides that

in the event that a conflict develops

regarding the issuance of a notice of

violation or other permit matters, DMG

and WQCD will, as soon as practical,

meet to resolve any differences. This

section also provides for quarterly or

more frequent meetings between DMG

and WQCD for the purposes of

enhancing each Division’s knowledge of

the respective priorities, issues, and

administrative procedures of the other

Division.

There is no section of SMCRA or the

Federal regulations that corresponds to

this section of the proposed MOU.

However, this section is not inconsistent

with SMCRA and the implementing

Federal regulations. Therefore, the

Director approves the ‘‘Coordination’’

section of the proposed MOU.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Following are summaries of all

substantive oral and written comments

on the proposed amendment that were

received by OSM, and OSM’s responses

to them.

1. Public Comments

OSM invited public comments on the

proposed amendment, but none were

received.

2. Federal Agency Comments

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

OSM solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from various

Federal agencies with an actual or

potential interest in the Colorado

program.

In a letter dated April 12, 1994, the

Soil Conservation Service stated that it

did not have any comment at that time

(administrative record No. CO–608).

However, in a subsequent letter dated

August 2, 1994, the Soil Conservation

Service stated that it would recommend

no changes in the current provisions of

item No. 1 of the proposed MOU, but it

felt that with regard to item No. 2, it was

extremely important that the permitting

procedures associated with mine

discharges and effluent limitations, as

described in 40 CFR Part 434, be made

as specific and understandable as

possible (administrative record No. CO–

638). It also stated that Colorado should

incorporate at the soonest possible date

a reference to 40 CFR Part 434 in its

rules. OSM acknowledges the Soil

Conservation Service’s concerns. As

discussed in finding No. 5a, Colorado

has agreed to submit a proposed

amendment to its rules at 2 CCR 407.2

Rule 4.05 to require compliance with

the effluent limits at 40 CFR Part 434.

OSM is engaged in conversations with

Colorado to encourage it to submit the

proposed amendment in a timely

manner.

In separate telephone conversations

on April 19 and July 29, 1994, and

January 18, 1995, the Bureau of Mines

stated it had no comments on the

proposed MOU (administrative record

Nos. CO–610, CO–636, and CO–656).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

responded on April 28 and August 10,

1994, and January 31, 1995, that it

found the changes to be satisfactory

(administrative record Nos. CO–613,

CO–639, and CO–660).

By letters dated July 21 and

September 8, 1994, the Mine Safety and

Health Administration (MSHA) stated

that the amendment had been reviewed

by MSHA personnel and that it

appeared there were no conflicts with
25850 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

the requirements of 30 CFR as they

pertain to mine safety (administrative

record Nos. CO–633 and CO–645).

3. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Concurrence and Comments

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

OSM is required to solicit the written

concurrence of EPA with respect to

those provisions of the proposed

program amendment that relate to air or

water quality standards promulgated

under the authority of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

On April 6, 1994, OSM solicited

EPA’s concurrence with the proposed

MOU (administrative record No. CO–

605). By letters dated May 9 and July 28,

1994, and February 1, 1995

(administrative record Nos. CO–616,

CO–634, and CO–659), EPA stated that

it believed that the proposed MOU

would have no impact on water quality

standards promulgated under the

authority of the Clean Water Act, as

amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

4. State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

MOU from the SHPO and ACHP

(administrative record No. CO–605).

Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded

to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves Colorado’s proposed

MOU as submitted on March 18, 1994,

and as supplemented with additional

explanatory information on June 23 and

December 7, 1994.

Specifically, the Director approves the

following portions of the MOU, as

discussed in: Finding No. 1, concerning

purpose, understanding, and

understanding between the parties;

finding No. 2, concerning review of

permit applications; finding No. 3,

concerning training; finding No. 4,

concerning inspections, monitoring, and

sample analysis; finding No. 5a,

concerning enforcement of effluent

limitations; finding No. 5b, concerning

pattern-of-violation and show-cause

processes; finding No. 5c, concerning

other enforcement provisions, and

finding No. 6, concerning coordination.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

906, codifying decisions concerning the

Colorado program, are being amended to

implement this decision. This final rule

is being made effective immediately to

expedite the State program amendment

process and to 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

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempt from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs 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

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

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

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements 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.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 906

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 9, 1995.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Regional Director, Western 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 906—COLORADO

1. The authority citation for Part 906

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 906.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (r) to read as follows:

§ 906.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(r) The proposed February 9, 1994,

memorandum of understanding (MOU)

between the Division of Minerals and

Geology of the Colorado Department of

Natural Resources and the Water

Quality Control Division of the Colorado

Department of Health for water quality

management at coal mines, as submitted

to OSM on March 18, 1994, and as

supplemented with explanatory

information on June 23 and December 7,

1994, is approved effective May 15,

1995.

[FR Doc. 95–11887 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 20

RIN 2900–AH47

Rules of Practice: Waiver of

Consideration of Evidence by Agency

of Original Jurisdiction

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Rules of Practice of the Board of