[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25846-25850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11887]



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

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, [[Page 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 pre-application 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. [[Page 25848]] 
    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 [[Page 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 show-cause 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-of-violation 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 [[Page 25850]] 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:


Sec. 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