Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23593

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 925

[SPATS No. MO–033–FOR]

Missouri Regulatory Program and

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

approving, with certain exceptions and

additional requirements, an amendment

to the Missouri regulatory program

(Missouri program) and the Missouri

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

Plan (Missouri plan) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Missouri proposed

revisions to its rules pertaining to

surface mining performance standards,

special mining activities, prohibitions

and limitations on mining in certain

areas and areas unsuitable for mining,

permitting requirements, bond and

insurance requirements, definitions and

general requirements, and abandoned

mine land reclamation requirements.

Missouri intends to revise its program to

be consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations, to provide

additional safeguards, to clarify

ambiguities, and to improve operational

efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

W. Coleman, Office of Surface Mining,

Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating

Center, Alton Federal Building, 501

Belle Street, Alton, Illinois 62002.

Telephone: (618) 463–6460. Internet:

jcoleman@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background on the Missouri Program and

Plan

II. Submission of the Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Missouri Program

and Plan

On November 21, 1980, the Secretary

of Interior conditionally approved the

Missouri program. You can find general

background information on the Missouri

program, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

and the conditions of approval in the

November 21, 1980, Federal Register

(45 FR 77017). You can find later

actions on the Missouri program at 30

CFR 925.12, 925.15, and 925.16.

On January 29, 1982, the Secretary of

the Interior approved the Missouri plan.

Background information on the

Missouri plan, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

and the approval of the plan can be

found in the January 29, 1982, Federal

Register (47 FR 4253). Subsequent

actions concerning the Missouri plan

and amendments to the plan can be

found at 30 CFR 925.25.

II. Submission of the Amendment

By letter dated October 5, 2000

(Administrative Record No. MO–662.1),

Missouri sent us an amendment to its

program and plan under SMCRA and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

732.17(b) and 884.15, respectively.

Missouri sent the amendment in

response to our letter dated June 17,

1997 (Administrative Record No. MO–

651), that we sent to Missouri under 30

CFR 732.17(c), and in response to

required program amendments codified

at 30 CFR 925.16. The amendment also

includes changes made at Missouri’s

own initiative. Missouri proposed to

amend the Missouri Code of State

Regulations (CSR) at Title 10, Division

40.

We announced receipt of the

amendment in the October 31, 2000,

Federal Register (65 FR 64906). In the

same document, we opened the public

comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing or

meeting on the adequacy of the

amendment. The public comment

period closed on November 30, 2000.

Because no one requested a public

hearing or meeting, we did not hold

one.

During our review of the amendment,

we identified concerns relating to

spillways, temporary impoundments,

air resource protection, and the

exemption for coal extraction incidental

to the extraction of other minerals. We

notified Missouri of these concerns by

letter dated December 15, 2000

(Administrative Record No. MO–662.5).

By letter dated January 12, 2001

(Administrative Record No. MO–662.6),

during a telephone conference on

February 13, 2001 (Administrative

Record No. MO–662.7), and by letter

dated April 17, 2001 (Administrative

Record No. MO–662.8), Missouri

provided us additional explanatory

information regarding its provisions for

spillways. Because the additional

information merely clarified Missouri’s

proposed spillway requirements, we did

not reopen the public comment period.

In its letters, Missouri indicated that it

would submit revisions to its rules

relating to temporary impoundments,

air resource protection, and the

exemption for coal extraction incidental

to the extraction of other minerals in a

future rulemaking. Therefore, we are

proceeding with the publication of this

final rule Federal Register document.

III. Director’s Findings

Following, under SMCRA and the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15,

732.17, 884.14, and 884.15, are the

Director’s findings concerning the

amendment to the Missouri program

and plan.

Any revisions that we do not discuss

below are about minor wording changes,

or revised cross-references and

paragraph notations to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.

A. Revisions to Missouri’s Rules That

Are Minor

Missouri proposed minor wording,

editorial, and rule reference changes to

several previously-approved rules.

1. Missouri corrected rule references

at 10 CSR 40–3.040(4)(A)1, 40–

3.040(13)(A)1.A, 40–3.040(13)(B)1, 40–

3080(3)(D), 40–3.200(12)(A)1.A, 40–

3.200(12)(B)1, 40–4.010(3)(J), 40–

4.020(2)(B), 40–4.050(11), 40–4.050(12),

40–6.020(7)(A), 40–6.050(9)(C)3, 40–

6.050(9)(C)4, 40–6.070(8)(C), 40–

6.070(8)(D)3, 40–6.090(6)(A), 40–

6.090(7), 40–8.010(1)(A)97.B, 40–

8.030(6)(A)3, 40–8.030(12)(C), and 40–

8.070(2)(C)1.A(II).

2. At 10 CSR 40–4.030(3)(A), (6)(A),

and (7)(B)2 and 7; 40–6.040(16)(C)1 and

3; and 40–6.060(4), Missouri corrected

references to the United States Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

by replacing the ‘‘United States Soil

Conservation Service’’ and ‘‘SCS’’ with

the current agency name and acronym,

the ‘‘United States Natural Resources

Conservation Service’’ and ‘‘NRCS,’’

respectively. At 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)

52.C, Missouri revised the secondary

definition of ‘‘prime farmland’’ in its

definition of ‘‘land use’’ by adding the

information ‘‘(now known as the

Natural Resources Conservation

Service)’’ after the term ‘‘Soil

Conservation Service.’’

3. Missouri corrected typographical

errors at 10 CSR 40–3.080(8)(A), 40–

6.070(5) (B)4, and 40–6.070(10)(D).

4. At 10 CSR 40–3.050, 40–4.010, 40–

4.030, 40–6.020, and 40–8.050, Missouri

revised the purpose statements to

identify the topic and statutory

authority of the rules.

23594 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Because the above revisions are minor

and do not change the meaning of these

previously approved rules, we find that

they will not make Missouri’s rules less

effective than the counterpart Federal

regulations.

B. Revisions to Missouri’s Rules That

Have the Same Meaning as the

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal

Regulations

The State rules listed in the table

contain language that is the same as or

similar to the corresponding sections of

the Federal regulations. Differences

between the State rules and the Federal

regulations are minor.

Topic State rule Federal regulation

Impoundments: Examination .............................. 10 CSR 40–3.040(6)(T)/40–3.200(6)(T) .......... 30 CFR 816.49(a)(12)/817.49(a)(12).

Impoundments: Stability ..................................... 10 CSR 40–040(10)(L)1/40–3.200(10)(L)1 ...... 30 CFR 816.49(a)(4)(i) 817.49(a)(4)(i).

Inpoundments: Freeboard .................................. 10 CSR 40–3.04(10)(M)/40–3.200(10)(N) ....... 30 CFR 816.49(a)(5)/817.49(a)(5).

Impoundments: Foundation ................................ 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(N)/40–3.200(10(N) ....... 30 CFR 816.49(a)(6)/817.49(a)(6).

Impoundments: Spillways ................................... 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(O), (O)1, (O)2.A/40–

3.200.

30 CFR 816.49(a)(9), (9)(i), (9)(ii)(A)/

817.49(A)(9), (9)(i), (9)(ii)(A).

Temporary Impoundments ................................. 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(O)3, 3.A/40–

3.200(10)(O)3, 3.A.

30 CFR 816.49(c)(2), (2)(i)/817.49(c)(2), (2)(i).

Blasting Schedule Contents ............................... 10 CSR 40–3.050(3)(C)1 ................................. 30 CFR 816.64(c)(1).

Disposal of Coal Processing Waste ................... 10 CSR 40–3.080(1)(A) ................................... 30 CFR 816.81(a).

Backfilling and Grading: Thin Overburden ......... 10 CSR 40–3.110(4)(A), (A)(1) and (2) ........... 30 CFR 816.104(a), (a)(1) and (2).

Backfilling and Grading: Thick Overburden ....... 10 CSR 40–3.110(5)(A), (A)(1) and 2 ............. 30 CFR 816.105(a), (a)(1) and (2).

Operations on Prime Farmland: Applicability ..... 10 CSR 40–4.030(4)(B) ................................... 30 CFR 823.11(a) and (b).

Prohibitions and Limitations on Mining in Certain Areas: Definition of Significant Recreational, Timber, Economic or Other Values

Incompatible With Surface Coal Mining Operations.

10 CSR 40–5.010(1)(B) ................................... 30 CFR 761.5.

Prohibitions and Limitations on Mining in Certain Areas: Areas Where Mining is Prohibited

or Limited.

10 CSR 40–5.010(2)(E) ................................... 30 CFR 761.11(e)(1).

Coal Exploration Permits: Commercial Use or

Sale.

10 CSR 40–6.020(5) ........................................ 30 CFR 772.14(a) and (b).

Geology Description ........................................... 10 CSR 40–6.040(5)(B) 1.E ............................ 30 CFR 780.22(b)(2)(iii).

Probable Hydrologic Consequences Determination.10 CSR 40–6.050(9)(D)3 ................................. 30 CFR 780.21(f)(4).

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment ....... 10 CSR 40–6.050(9)(E)/40–6.120(5)(E) .......... 30 CFR 780.21(g)/784.14(f).

Reclamation Plan: Ponds, Impoundments,

Banks, Dams, and Embankments.

10 CSR 40–6.050(11)(A), (A)2, (A)3, (B), (C),

(F)/40–6.120(7)(A), (A)2, (A)3, (B)1, (C), (F)..

30 CFR 780.25(a), (a)(2), (a)(3), (b), (c), (f)/

784.16(a), (a)(2), (a)(3), (b), (c), (f).

Prime Farmlamds: Issuance of Permit ............... 10 CSR 40–6.060(4)(E)5 ................................. 30 CFR 785.17(e)(5).

Self-Bonding ....................................................... 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(D)2 C(II), (D)5.A and C 30 CFR 800.23(b)(3)(ii), (e)(1) and (4).

Bond Release Application: Notarized Statement

of Accomplished Reclamation.

10 CSR 40–7.021(3)(D) ................................... 30 CFR 800.40(a)(3).

Definition of Approximate Original Contour ........ 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)9 ................................. 30 CFR 701.5.

Definition of Other Treatment Facilities .............. 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)59 ............................... 30 CFR 701.5.

Definition of Prime Farmland .............................. 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)73 ............................... 30 CFR 701.5.

Definition of Regulatory Authority ....................... 10 CSR 40–8.10(1)(A)82 ................................. 30 CFR 700.5.

Small Operator’s Assistance: Definition of

Qualified Laboratory.

10 CSR 40–8.050(1) ........................................ 30 CFR 795.3.

Small Operator Assistance: Eligibility for Assistance.10 CSR 40–8.050(2)(B), (B)1 and 2 ................ 30 CFR 795.6(a)(2), (a)(2)(i) and (ii).

Small Operator Assistance: Program Services

and Data Requirements.

10 CSR 40–8.050(5)(A), (B)1 through 6 ......... 30 CFR 795.9(a), (b)(1) through (6).

Small Operator Assistance: Applicant Liability ... 10 CSR 40–8.050(9)(A) (A)2 and 3 ................. 30 CFR 795.12(a), (a)(2) and (3).

Termination of Jurisdiction ................................. 10 CSR 40–8.070(2)(F) and (G) ...................... 30 CFR 700.11(d)(1) and (2).

Because the above State rules have the

same meaning as the corresponding

Federal regulations, we find that they

are no less effective than the Federal

regulations.

C. 10 CSR 40–3 Performance

Requirements for Surface and

Underground Mining Operations

1. 10 CSR 40–3.010(6) Buffer Zone

Markers. Missouri added a reference to

10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)13 in its rule for

buffer zone markers. Missouri’s rule at

10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)13 defines the

term ‘‘buffer zone.’’ Although the

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.11(e)

for buffer zone markers does not contain

a counterpart reference, we find that

Missouri’s reference to its approved

definition of ‘‘buffer zone’’ will not

make its rule at 10 CSR 40–3.010(6) less

effective than the Federal regulation.

2. 10 CSR 40–3.020 Requirements for

Casing and Sealing of Drilled Holes. In

its rules at 10 CSR 40–3.020(1) and (3),

Missouri corrected a citation reference

by changing 10 CSR 40.3.040(13) to 10

CSR 40–3.040(14). Missouri also added

a reference to the rules of the Wellhead

Protection Section, Division of Geology

and Land Survey, at 10 CSR 23, Chapter

6. Coal mine operators in Missouri must

meet both the requirements of 10 CSR

40–3.040(14) and the Division of

Geology and Land Survey’s rules at 10

CSR 23, Chapter 6, in order to convert

a drilled hole, borehole, or monitoring

well into a water well. Missouri’s rule

at 10 CSR 40–3.040(14) contains

provisions for transferring exploratory

or monitoring wells for use as water

wells. We find that changing the

existing citation reference to 10 CSR 40–

3.040(14) is appropriate because it is

consistent with the reference to 30 CFR

816.41 in the counterpart Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.13 and

816.15. The Federal regulation at 30

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23595

CFR 816.41 allows wells to be

transferred to another party for further

use if approved by the regulatory

authority and if the transfer complies

with State and local law. Therefore, we

find that requiring coal mine operators

to meet other State regulations relating

to water wells, as well as the State

counterpart to 30 CFR 816.41, will not

make Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.010(1) and (3) less effective than the

counterpart Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.13 and 816.15.

3. 10 CSR 40–3.040 and 10 CSR 40–

3.200 Requirements for Protection of the

Hydrologic Balance. Missouri proposed

several changes to its rules at 10 CSR

40–3.040 for surface mining operations

and 10 CSR 40–3.200 for underground

mining operations.

a. Missouri replaced all instances of

the term ‘‘sedimentation ponds’’ with

the term ‘‘siltation structures’’ in its

rules at 10 CSR 40–3.040(2)(A), 40–

3.040(6), 40–3.040(8), 40–3.040(17), 40–

3.200(2)(A), 40–3.200(6), 40–3.200(8),

and 40–3.200(16). On October 20, 1994,

OSM replaced the term ‘‘sedimentation

ponds’’ with the term ‘‘siltation

structures’’ in many of its counterpart

regulations (59 FR 53022). OSM did this

because the term ‘‘siltation structures’’

provides a broader classification of

structures for the control of sediment

than the term ‘‘sedimentation ponds.’’

For this reason and because

sedimentation ponds are included in the

Missouri and the Federal definitions of

‘‘siltation structure’’ at 10 CSR 40–

8.010(1)(A)89 and 30 CFR 701.5,

respectively, we find that Missouri’s

changes will not make its rules less

effective than the counterpart Federal

regulations.

b. 10 CSR 40–3.040(4) and 10 CSR

3.200(4) Stream Channel Diversions. On

September 29, 1992, we required

Missouri to amend its rules at 10 CSR

3.040(4) and 40–3.200(4) to require the

certification of any design criteria set by

the regulatory authority as required at

30 CFR 816.43(b)(4) and 817.43(b)(4).

We codified this requirement at 30 CFR

925.16(f)(1). In response to this

requirement, Missouri added the

language ‘‘and any design criteria set by

the director’’ at the end of 10 CSR 40–

3.040(4)(B)3 and 40–3.200 (4)(B)3. The

revised rules require the design and

construction of all stream channel

diversions of perennial and intermittent

streams to be certified by a qualified

registered professional engineer as

meeting the performance standards of

the rules and any design criteria set by

the director. We find that Missouri’s

revised rules at 10 CSR 40–3.040(4)(B)3

and 40–3.200(4)(B)3 are substantively

identical to the counterpart Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.43(b)(4) and

817.43(b)(4), respectively. The revisions

also satisfy the required amendment

that was codified at 30 CFR 925.16(f)(1),

which we are removing.

c. At 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(A) and 40–

3.200(10)(A), Missouri added the

following new provision:

Furthermore, impoundments meeting the

Class B or C criteria for dams in TR–60 shall

comply with the ‘‘Minimum Emergency

Spillway Hydrologic Criteria’’ table in TR–60

and the requirements of this section.

We find that Missouri’s new provision

contains requirements that are

substantively the same as the

counterpart Federal regulation

requirements at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(1) and

817.49(a)(1). Therefore, we are

approving Missouri’s revised rules at 10

CSR 40–3.040 (10)(A) and 40–

3.200(10)(A).

d. At 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(B)5 and

40–3.200(10)(B)5, Missouri updated its

reference to the requirements for

impoundments that do not meet the size

or other criteria contained in 30 CFR

77.216(a) by changing the ‘‘United

States Soil Conservation Service

Practice Standards 378, Ponds, January

1991’’ to the ‘‘United States Natural

Resources Conservation Service,

Conservation Practice Standard, POND,

CODE, No. 378, December 1998.’’ We

are approving this reference change

because the December 1998 version of

Practice Standard No. 378 is the current

version issued by the Natural Resources

Conservation Service for the State of

Missouri.

e. Missouri added a new subsection at

10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(L) and 40–

3.200(10)(L) entitled ‘‘Stability.’’ As

shown above in finding B, paragraphs

(10)(L)1 are substantively the same as

the counterpart Federal regulations.

Paragraphs (10)(L)2 require an

impoundment not meeting the Class B

or C criteria for dams in TR–60 or the

size or other criteria of 30 CFR

77.216(a), except for a coal mine waste

impounding structure, to have a

minimum static safety factor of 1.3 for

a normal pool with steady state seepage

saturation conditions or meet the

requirements of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Conservation

Practice Standard 378, ‘‘Ponds,’’

December 1998, and be less than 20 feet

in height.

Missouri’s rules provide for two

alternatives to determine the stability of

an embankment for impoundments that

do not meet the Class B or C criteria for

dams in TR–60 or the size or other

criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a). The first

alternative requires that the slope

stability of the earth embankment meet

the same 1.3 minimum static safety

factor requirements for steady state

seepage as found in 30 CFR

816.49(a)(4)(ii) and 817.49(a)(4)(ii). The

second alternative refers to the NRCS

Practice Standard No. 378 design

standards developed for Missouri in

December 1998. On November 17, 2000,

we conducted a technical review of

these standards (Administrative Record

No. MO–662.4). The NRCS Practice

Standard No. 378 requires that slopes be

2.5H:1V or flatter with combined slopes

being 6H:1V or flatter for an

embankment. This is a conservative

standard when compared to other

approved design standards, usually

5H:1V. It further requires that the slopes

be stable, even if flatter slopes are

required. The slope stability evaluation

must be based on soil mechanics

analysis or past experience in the

surrounding area. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(4)(ii)

and 817.49(a)(4)(ii) allow a regulatory

authority to establish engineering design

standards comparable to the 1.3 static

safety factor for impoundments not

meeting the Class B or C criteria for

dams in TR–60 or the size or other

criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a). Our

technical review of Conservation

Practice Standard No. 378 found that its

design standards are comparable to the

1.3 static safety factor required for these

types of impoundments. Therefore, we

find the proposed rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(L)2 and 40–3.200(10)(L)2 are

no less effective than the counterpart

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.49(a)(4)(ii) and 817.49(a)(4)(ii),

respectively.

f. Missouri added a new subsection at

10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(O) and 10 CSR 40–

3.200(10)(O) entitled ‘‘Spillways.’’

(1) Missouri rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)2 and 40–3.200(10)(O)2

provide the spillway requirements for

permanent and temporary

impoundments. They specify the design

precipitation events that the various

types of impoundments must be

designed and constructed to safely pass

or contain. With the following

differences, Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR

40–3.040(10)(O)2 and 40–3.200(10)(O)2

are substantively the same as the

counterpart Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.49(a)(9) and 817.49(a)(9) for

permanent and temporary

impoundments with spillways.

(a) Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)2.B and 40–3.200(10)(O)2.B

contain the spillway design

precipitation event requirements for

permanent and temporary

impoundments meeting or exceeding

the size or other criteria of 30 CFR

77.216(a). Missouri’s rules provide that

23596 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the required design precipitation event

for this type of impoundment is a 100-

year, 24-hour event or greater as

specified by the director or commission.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.49(a)(9)(ii) and 817.49(a)(9)(ii)

specify a 100-year, 6-hour or greater

design precipitation event for this type

of impoundment. We conducted a

technical review and found that overall

the two are generally accepted as

comparable events (Administrative

Record No. MO–662.4). The 100-year,

24-hour precipitation event will have a

higher peak discharge than the 100-year,

6-hour precipitation event. This means

that in Missouri, the spillways for this

type of impoundment will be designed

and constructed to safely pass the

design precipitation event required by

the Federal regulations. Therefore, we

find Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)2.B and 40–3.200(10)(O)2.B

are no less effective than the counterpart

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.49(a)(9)(ii) and 817.49(a)(9)(ii),

respectively.

(b) Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)2.C and 40–3.200(10)(O)2.C

contain the spillway design

precipitation event requirements for

impoundments not meeting the Class B

or C criteria for dams in TR–60 or the

size or other criteria of 30 CFR

77.216(a). Missouri’s rules provide that

the required design precipitation event

for this type of impoundment is as

specified in Table 3 of the United States

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Conservation Practice Standard 378,

‘‘Ponds,’’ December 1998.

We conducted a technical review and

found that Table 3 in Conservation

Practice Standard 378 contains design

criteria for principal and auxiliary

spillways for small impoundments

(Administrative Record No. MO–662.4).

Table 3 includes requirements for sizing

principal and auxiliary spillways for 10-

year, 24-hour; 25-year, 24-hour; and 50-

year, 24-hour design storm events. The

requirements for impoundments with

watersheds of 20 acres or less includes

spillways designed for either a 10-year,

24-hour or 25-year, 24-hour design

precipitation event. The Federal

regulation standard at 30 CFR

816.49(a)(9)(ii)(C) and 817.49

(a)(9)(ii)(C) for small impoundments is a

25-year, 6-hour or greater precipitation

event. The peak flow resulting from a

10-year, 24-hour event will be slightly

lower than the peak flow resulting from

the 25-year, 6-hour event. A spillway for

this type of impoundment must be

designed to at least discharge the peak

flow produced by the minimum design

precipitation event specified in the

Federal regulations. This issue was

discussed with Missouri during the

February 13, 2001, telephone conference

(Administrative Record No. MO–662.7).

Missouri explained that its policy is to

require operators to construct spillways

for small impoundments that will meet

a 25-year, 24-hour or greater

precipitation event design standard.

Missouri stated in its letter of April 17,

2001, that its rule at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(6)(I) requires a minimum 25-year,

24-hour design event. Missouri

indicated that it will add a provision to

its rules at 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(0) and

40–3.200(10)(0) that will require a

minimum 25-year, 24-hour design storm

event for any emergency or auxiliary

spillway. Missouri further stated that

until the future rule change becomes

effective, it will not approve any

temporary or permanent impoundments

with an emergency spillway design

event less that the 25-year, 24-hour

event. Missouri’s rule at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(6)(I) for sedimentation ponds

requires that an appropriate

combination of principal and emergency

spillways be provided to safely

discharge the runoff from a 25-year, 24-

hour precipitation event or larger event

required in the permit and plan. Our

technical review found that a 25-year,

24-hour precipitation event will have a

higher peak discharge than a 25-year, 6-

hour precipitation event. This means

that in Missouri, the spillways for small

impoundments that control sediment

will be designed and constructed to

safely pass the minimum design

precipitation event required by the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.49(a)(9)(ii)(2)(C) and 817.49(a)(9)

(ii)(2)(C). We are approving Missouri’s

rules at 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(O)2.C and

40–3.200(10)(O)2.C in combination with

its policy letter dated April 17, 2001,

and its rule at 10 CSR 40–40–3.040(6)(I)

that requires operators to design and

construct spillways for impoundments

that will safely pass a 25-year, 24-hour

or greater precipitation event.

(2) Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)3 and 40–3.200(10)(O)3

provide the requirements for temporary

impoundments that rely solely on

storage capacity to control runoff from

a design precipitation event. They

specify the design precipitation events

that the impoundments must be

designed and constructed to contain.

With the following differences,

Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)3 and 40–3.200(10)(O)3 are

substantively the same as the

counterpart Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.49(c) and 817.49(c) for

temporary impoundments that rely

primarily on storage to control the

runoff from a design precipitation event.

(a) Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)3.B and 40–3.200(10)(O)3.B

contain the design precipitation event

requirements for temporary

impoundments, with no spillways, that

do not meet the Class B or C criteria for

dams in TR–60 or the size or other

criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a). These

impoundments rely primarily on storage

to control the runoff from a design

precipitation event. Missouri’s rules

specify that this type of temporary

impoundment shall be designed to

control the precipitation of a 100-year,

24-hour event.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.49(c)(2)(ii) and 817.49(c)(2)(ii)

specify a 100-year, 6-hour or greater

event for this type of temporary

impoundment. As discussed above

under finding 3(f)(1)(a), we determined

that 100-year, 6-hour and 100-year, 24-

hour events are generally accepted as

comparable design precipitation events.

However, the total runoff from the 100-

year, 24-hour precipitation event will be

larger than from a 100-year, 6-hour

event with a similar return period. This

means that in Missouri, temporary

impoundments without spillways that

do not meet the Class B or C criteria for

dams in TR–60 or the size or other

criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) will be

designed and constructed to safely

control the runoff from the minimum

design precipitation event required by

the Federal regulations. Therefore, we

find that Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)3.B and 40–3.200(10)(O)3.B

are no less effective than the counterpart

Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.49(c)(2)(ii) and 817.49(c)(2)(ii).

(b) Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)3.C and 40–3.200(10)(O)3.C

provide spillway design, precipitation

event requirements for permanent and

temporary impoundments. These

paragraphs do not contain any

requirements for temporary

impoundments that rely solely on

storage capacity to control the runoff

from a design precipitation event, which

is the intended purpose of the

provisions in 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(O)3

and 40–3.200(10)(O)3. Instead, they

contain the same requirements as

Missouri’s proposed rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)2.C and 40–3.200(10)(O)2.C

for impoundments that rely on

spillways to safely pass the applicable

design precipitation event.

We find that Missouri’s rules at 10

CSR 40–3.040(10)(O)3.C and 40–

3.200(10)(O)3.C are not consistent with

the other requirements of Missouri’s

rules at 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(O)3 and

40–3.200(10)(O)3 or with the Federal

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23597

regulation requirements at 30 CFR

816.49(c) and 817.49(c) for temporary

impoundments that rely primarily on

storage to control the runoff from a

design precipitation event. Further, we

are requiring Missouri to remove these

provisions from its program. In its

January 12, 2001, letter, Missouri

indicated that the two paragraphs (10

CSR 40–3.040(10)(O)3.C and 10 CSR 40–

3.200(10)(O)3.C) were inappropriate in

this part of its program and will be

deleted in a future rulemaking.

g. 10 CSR 40–3.040(14) and 10 CSR

40–3.200(13)(B) Transfer of Wells.

Missouri revised 10 CSR 40–

3.040(14)(B)3 and 40–3.200(13)(B)3 to

require that upon transfer of a well, the

transferee must assume primary

responsibility for compliance with 10

CSR 40–3.020 and 40–3.180,

respectively, and those rules of the

Wellhead Protection Section, Division

of Geology and Land Survey, at 10 CSR

23, Chapter 3, applicable to the well.

The current rules just require

compliance with 10 CSR 40–3.020 and

40–3.180, which are counterparts to the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.13

through 15 and 817.13 through 15,

respectively. The Wellhead Protection

Section, Division of Geology and Land

Survey rules provide requirements that

owners must meet for protection of

groundwater quality and resources and

maintenance of wells. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.41(g) and

817.41(g) allow wells to be transferred

to another party for further use if

approved by the regulatory authority

and if the transfer complies with State

and local law. Therefore, we find that

requiring coal mine operators to meet

other State regulations relating to water

wells will not make Missouri’s rules at

10 CSR 40–3.040(14)(B)3 and 40–3.200

(13)(B)3 less effective than the

counterpart Federal regulations.

4. 10 CSR 40–3.050 Requirements for

the Use of Explosives. At 10 CSR 40–

3.050(1)(D)1.A, Missouri proposes to

clarify that an operator must submit a

blast design if blasting operations will

be conducted within 1000 feet of a dam

that is outside the permit area. At 10

CSR 40–3.050(2)(A), Missouri proposes

to clarify that the operator must notify

owners of dams that are located within

one-half mile of the permit area at least

forty days before initiation of blasting

and tell them how to request a preblast

survey.

Missouri’s currently approved rules

require a blast design for dams and an

opportunity for a preblasting survey for

owners of dams because of each rule’s

reference to structures listed in 10 CSR

40–3.050(5)(D)1. The structures listed in

10 CSR 40–3.050(5)(D)1 include dams.

We find that Missouri’s clarification of

its rules at 10 CSR 40–3.050(1)(D)1.A

and 10 CSR 40–3.050(2)(A) will not

make them less effective than the

counterpart Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.61(d)(i) and 816.62(a),

respectively.

5. 10 CSR 40–3.090, Surface Mining

Operations, and 10 CSR 40–3.240,

Underground Mining Operations: Air

Resource Protection. On September 29,

1992, we required Missouri to amend its

rules at 10 CSR 40–3.090 and 40–3.240

by providing performance standards

that address air quality in a manner no

less effective than the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.95(a) and

817.95(a). We codified this requirement

at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(4). The Federal

regulations require that all exposed

surface areas be protected and stabilized

to effectively control erosion and air

pollution attendant to erosion.

a. Missouri revised 10 CSR 40–3.090

by adding the following new provision

at the end of the previously approved

rule language:

All exposed surface areas shall be

protected and stabilized to effectively control

erosion and air pollution attendant to erosion

according to 10 CSR 40–3.040(5)(A).

We find that Missouri’s new provision

at 10 CSR 40–3.090 is substantively

identical to the Federal regulation

requirement for protection of air

resources at 30 CFR 816.95(a), and we

are approving it. Missouri’s new

provision also satisfies a portion of the

required amendment that we codified at

30 CFR 925.16(p)(4), and it will be

modified accordingly.

b. Missouri removed the existing

requirements at 10 CSR 40–3.240 and

added the following new requirement:

All exposed surface areas shall be

protected attendant to erosion according to

10 CSR 40–3.200(5)(A).

The counterpart Federal regulation at

30 CFR 817.95(a) requires all exposed

surface areas to be protected ‘‘and

stabilized to effectively control erosion

and air pollution’’ attendant to erosion.

We find that Missouri’s revised rule at

10 CSR 40–3.240 is less effective than

the Federal regulation because it is

missing pertinent requirements relating

to control of erosion and air pollution.

Therefore, we are not approving

Missouri’s revised rule to the extent that

it is missing these requirements, and we

are modifying 30 CFR 925.16(p)(4) to

require further revision to 10 CSR 40–

3.240.

6. 10 CSR 40–3.110(6) Regrading or

Stabilizing Rills and Gullies. On July 13,

1995 (60 FR 36046), we required

Missouri to revise 10 CSR 40–

3.110(6)(B) to clearly require, for areas

that have been previously mined, either

topsoil or a topsoil substitute, in

accordance with its rules at 10 CSR 40–

3.030. We codified this requirement at

30 CFR 925.16(q)(2). In response to this

requirement, Missouri revised 10 CSR

40–3.110(6)(B) to read as follows:

On areas that have been previously mined,

the requirements for regrading or stabilizing

rills and gullies pursuant to subsection (6)(A)

apply after final grading and placement of

topsoil or the best available topsoil

substitute.

We find that Missouri’s revised rule at

10 CSR 40–3.110(6)(B) meets the

requirements of the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 816.106(a) and 816.102(d)(2)

concerning redistribution of topsoil on

previously mined areas, and we are

approving it. We also find that

Missouri’s revision satisfies the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(q)(2),

which we are removing.

7. 10 CSR 40–3.120 and 10 CSR 40–

3.270 Revegetation Requirements.

Missouri proposed several changes to its

rules at 10 CSR 40–3.120 for surface

mining operations and 10 CSR 40–3.270

for underground mining operations.

a. 10 CSR 40–3.120(5) and 10 CSR 40–

3.270(5) Grazing. On September 29,

1992 (60 FR 44666), we required

Missouri to revise 10 CSR 40–3.120(5)

and 40–3.270(5) by removing or

defining the term ‘‘range land.’’ We

codified this requirement at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(5). In response to this

requirement, Missouri removed the term

‘‘range land’’ from its provisions for

grazing at 10 CSR 40–3.120(5) and 40–

3.270(5).

Based on the discussion in finding 19

of the September 29, 1992, Federal

Register (57 FR 44665), we find that,

with the removal of the term ‘‘range

land,’’ Missouri’s requirements at 10

CSR 40–3.120(5) and 40–3.270(5) for

grazing and pasture land are no less

effective than the Federal regulation

requirements at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(1)

and 817.116(b)(1), respectively. We also

find that Missouri has satisfied the

required amendment at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(5), which we are removing.

b. 10 CSR 40–3.120(8) and 10 CSR 40–

3.270(8) Reclamation Schedule.

Missouri replaced all instances of the

term ‘‘sedimentation ponds’’ with the

term ‘‘siltation structures’’ in its rules at

10 CSR 40–3.120(8)(A)4, (B), and (D)

and 10 CSR 40–3.270(8) (A)4 and (B).

Because sedimentation ponds are

included in the Missouri and the

Federal definitions of ‘‘siltation

structure’’ at 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)89

and 30 CFR 701.5, respectively, we find

that Missouri’s changes will not make

its rules less effective than the

23598 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

counterpart Federal regulations. Also,

because the term ‘‘siltation structures,’’

as defined, includes a broader range of

sediment control structures than the

term ‘‘sedimentation ponds,’’ we find

that Missouri’s revisions clarify that all

sediment control structures, not just

sedimentation ponds, are included in

the reclamation schedule requirements.

8. 10 CSR 40–3.140 Road and Other

Transportation Requirements. On

September 29, 1992 (60 FR 44669), we

required Missouri to revise 10 CSR 40–

3.140(1)(A) by requiring that all exposed

surfaces be stabilized in accordance

with current prudent engineering

practices. We codified this requirement

at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(9). In response to

this requirement, Missouri removed the

word ‘‘road’’ from the phrase ‘‘as well

as dust occurring on other exposed road

surfaces.’’ Missouri’s revised rule at 10

CSR 40–3.140(1) (A) now requires that

Class 1 roads be maintained to control

or prevent erosion; siltation; and the air

pollution attendant to erosion,

including road dust as well as dust

occurring on other exposed surfaces.

Because the Federal regulation at 30

CFR 816.150(b)(1) provides the same

requirements for roads, we find that

Missouri’s revised rule is no less

effective than the Federal regulation. We

also find that Missouri has satisfied the

required amendment at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(9), which we are removing.

D. 10 CSR 40–6 Permitting

Requirements for Permits, Permit

Applications, and Coal Exploration

1. 10 CSR 40–6.010(4)(B)2 Renewal of

Valid Permits. Missouri corrected a

citation reference in its existing

provision at 10 CSR 40–6.010(4)(B)2 by

changing ‘‘10 CSR 40–6.080(5) and (6)’’

to ‘‘10 CSR 40–6.090(5) and (6).’’

Missouri also added the following new

provision to the end of 10 CSR 40–

6.010(4)(B)2:

A permittee need not renew the permit if

no surface coal mining operations will be

conducted under the permit and solely

reclamation activities remain to be done.

Obligations established under a permit

continue until completion of surface coal

mining and reclamation operations,

regardless of whether the authorization to

conduct surface coal mining operations has

expired or has been terminated, revoked, or

suspended.

As revised, the existing provision in

10 CSR 40–6.010(4)(B)2 requires a

permittee to file an application for

renewal of a permit under 10 CSR 40–

6.090(5) and (6) at least 120 days before

the expiration of the permit. The

corrected citation reference is

appropriate because 10 CSR 40–6.090(5)

and (6) contain Missouri’s requirements

for permit renewals. This provision is

substantively the same as the Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 774.15(b)(1).

Missouri’s new provision in 10 CSR 40–

6.010(4)(B)2 is substantively the same as

the counterpart Federal provision in 30

CFR 773.11(a). Based on the above

discussion, we find that Missouri’s

provisions at 10 CSR 40–6.010(4)(B)2

are no less effective than the counterpart

Federal regulation provisions at 30 CFR

774.15(b)(1) and 773.11(a), respectively.

2. 10 CSR 40–6.010(6)(A) Permit Fees.

Missouri removed the existing third

sentence that specified that ‘‘[a]ll

permits shall be on a yearly basis and

shall require the entire initial fee and

the acreage fee for that year.’’ Missouri

also revised the existing fifth sentence

to read as follows:

Afterwards and until the operator obtains

the final liability release on all lands covered

by the permit, the annual fee and acreage fee

shall be paid as a condition to and prior to

operating for that permit year.

Missouri’s removal of the existing

third sentence eliminates an apparent

conflict with other provisions in the

rule that allow multiple year permits.

Missouri revised the existing fifth

sentence to clarify that the annual fee

and acreage fee must be paid until the

operator obtains the final liability

release on all permitted acres. The

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 777.17

requires the regulatory authority to

determine the amount of the permit

application fee and allows the

regulatory authority to develop

procedures for the fee to be paid over

the term of the permit. Based on the

above discussion, we find that

Missouri’s revisions will not make its

previously approved rule less effective

than the counterpart Federal regulation.

3. 10 CSR 40–6.030 and 10 CSR 40–

6.100 Minimum Requirements for Legal,

Financial, Compliance and Related

Information. We are approving

Missouri’s proposed revisions to its

rules at 10 CSR 40–6.030 for surface

mining operations and 10 CSR 40–6.100

for underground mining operations.

Missouri proposed the revisions to

clarify previously approved provisions

or to meet the required amendments

codified at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(10) and

(11) on September 29, 1992.

On December 19, 2000 (65 FR 79582),

we revised the Federal counterparts to

the rules that Missouri is proposing to

amend. Because Missouri submitted its

amendment before the date that we

published our new regulations, we are

using previous versions of the Federal

regulations as our standards of

comparison. In accordance with the

requirements and procedures in 30 CFR

732.17(d) through (f), we will notify

Missouri at a later time if we determine

that our revised regulations will require

additional revisions to the Missouri

program.

a. Missouri clarified the introductory

paragraph of 10 CSR 40–6.030(1)(C) by

adding the phrase ‘‘each application

shall contain’’ after the words ‘‘as

applicable.’’ The revised paragraph

reads as follows:

For each person who owns or controls the

applicant under the definition of owned or

controlled and owns or controls in 10 CSR

40–6.010(2)(E), as applicable each

application shall contain—

We find that Missouri’s clarification

did not change the meaning of this

previously approved rule. We also find

that the introductory paragraph of 10

CSR 40–6.030(1)(C) is substantively the

same as the introductory paragraph of

the former Federal regulation at 30 CFR

778.13(c) that was promulgated on April

21, 1997.

b. Missouri revised the introductory

paragraph of 10 CSR 40–6.030(1)(D) to

read as follows:

For any surface coal mining operation

owned or controlled by the applicant under

the definition of owned or controlled and

owns or controls in 10 CSR 40–6.010(2)(E),

each application shall contain—

We find that Missouri’s revised

introductory paragraph is substantively

the same as the introductory paragraph

of the former Federal regulation at 30

CFR 778.13(f) that was promulgated on

April 21, 1997.

c. 10 CSR 40–6.030(1)(I) and 10 CSR

40–6.100(1)(I) Identification of Interests

and Violation Information Format. On

September 29, 1992 (57 FR 44671), we

required Missouri to revise its rules to

require that a permit applicant submit

ownership and control and violation

information in a format prescribed by

OSM. We codified this requirement at

30 CFR 925.16(p)(10). In response to

this requirement, Missouri revised its

rules at 10 CSR 40–6.030(1)(I) and 40–

6.100(1)(I) to require the applicant to

submit the information required by 10

CSR 40–6.010(1) and (2) and 40–

6.100(1) and (2) in any prescribed

format issued by the ‘‘Office of Surface

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

(OSMRE).’’

We find that Missouri’s revised rules

at 10 CSR 40–6.030(1)(I) and 40–

6.100(1)(I) are substantively the same as

the former Federal regulation at 30 CFR

778.13(l) that was promulgated on April

21, 1997, and they satisfy the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(10),

which we are removing.

d. 10 CSR 40–6.030(2)(C) Surface

Mining Permit Applications—

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23599

Compliance Information. On September

29, 1992 (57 FR 44671), we required

Missouri to revise 10 CSR 40–

6.030(2)(C) to require any violation of

SMCRA to be listed by the operator to

make this regulation no less effective

than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR

778.14(c). We codified this requirement

at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(11). In response to

this requirement, Missouri revised 10

CSR 40–6.030(2)(C) to read as follows:

A list of all violation notices received by

the applicant during the three year period

preceding the application date, and a list of

all unabated cessation orders and unabated

violation notices received prior to the date of

the application by any surface coal mining

and reclamation operation that is deemed or

presumed to be owned or controlled by the

applicant under the definition of ‘‘owned or

controlled’’ and ‘‘owns or controls’’ in 10

CSR 40–6.010(2)(E) of this chapter. For each

notice of violation issued pursuant to 10 CSR

40–8.030(7) or under the Federal or State

program for which the abatement period has

not expired, the applicant must certify that

such notice of violation is in the process of

being corrected to the satisfaction of the

agency with jurisdiction over the violation.

For each violation notice or cessation order

reported, the lists shall include the following

information, as applicable:

A. Any identifying numbers for the

operation, including the Federal or State

permit number and MSHA number, the dates

of the violation notice and MSHA number,

the name of the person to whom the violation

notice was issued, and the name of the

issuing regulatory authority, department or

agency;

B. A brief description of the violation

alleged in the notice;

C. The date, location and type of any

administrative or judicial proceedings

initiated concerning the violation, including,

but not limited to, proceedings initiated by

any person identified in subsection (C) of this

section to obtain administrative or judicial

review of the violation;

D. The current status of the proceedings

and of the violation notice; and

E. The actions, if any, taken by any person

identified in subsection (C) of this section to

abate the violation.

We find that Missouri’s revised rule at

10 CSR 40–6.030(2)(C) is substantively

the same as the former counterpart

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 778.14(c)

that was promulgated on April 21, 1997.

Missouri’s revised rule also satisfies a

portion of the required amendment at 30

CFR 925.16(p)(11), which we are

removing.

e. 10 CSR 40–6.100(2)(C)

Underground Mining Permit

Applications—Compliance Information.

On September 29, 1992 (57 FR 44671),

we required Missouri to revise 10 CSR

40–6.100(2)(C) to require any violation

of SMCRA to be listed by the operator

to make this regulation no less effective

than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR

778.14(c). We codified this requirement

at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(11). In response to

this requirement, Missouri revised 10

CSR 40–6.100(2)(C) to read as follows:

For any violation of a provision of the Act,

or of any law, rule or regulation of the United

States, or of any State law, rule or regulation

enacted pursuant to Federal law, rule or

regulation pertaining to air or water

environmental protection incurred in

connection with any surface coal mining

operation, a list of all violations notices

received by the applicant during the three (3)

year period preceding the application date,

and a list of all unabated cessation orders and

unabated air and water quality violation

notices received prior to the date of the

application by any surface coal mining and

reclamation operation owned or controlled

by either the applicant or by any person who

owns or controls the applicant. For each

violation notice or cessation order reported,

the lists shall include the following

information, as applicable:

1. Any identifying numbers for the

operation, including the Federal or State

permit number and MSHA number, the dates

of issuance of the violation notice and MSHA

number, the name of the person to whom the

violation notice was issued, and the name of

the issuing regulatory authority, department

or agency;

2. A brief description of the violation

alleged in the notice;

3. The date, location and type of any

administrative or judicial proceedings

initiated concerning the violation, including,

but not limited to, proceedings initiated by

any person identified in subsection (C) of this

section to obtain administrative or judicial

review of the violation;

4. The current status of the proceedings

and of the violation notice; and

5. The actions, if any, taken by any person

identified in subsection (C) of this section to

abate the violation.

We find that Missouri’s revised rule at

10 CSR 40–6.100(2)(C) is substantively

the same as the former counterpart

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 778.14(c)

that existed on September 29, 1992, the

date that we required Missouri to revise

its rule. Missouri’s revision also satisfies

the remaining portion of the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(11) by

requiring that ‘‘any violation of a

provision of the Act’’ be listed by the

operator. Missouri’s rule at 10 CSR 40–

8.010(1)(A)3 defines ‘‘Act’’ to mean

SMCRA.

4. 10 CSR 40–6.050 and 10 CSR 40–

6.120 Minimum Requirements for

Reclamation and Operations Plan.

Missouri proposed changes to its rules

at 10 CSR 40–6.050 for surface mining

operations and 10 CSR 40–6.120 for

underground mining operations.

a. Missouri changed the term

‘‘sedimentation pond’’ to the term

‘‘siltation structure’’ in its rules at 10

CSR 40–6.050(5)(B)11, 40–6.050(5)(C)1,

40–6.120(14)(B)10, and 40–

6.120(14)(C)1. Because sedimentation

ponds are included in the Missouri and

the Federal definitions of ‘‘siltation

structure’’ at 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)89

and 30 CFR 701.5, respectively, we find

that Missouri’s changes will not make

its rules less effective than the

counterpart Federal regulations. Also,

because the term ‘‘siltation structures,’’

as defined, includes a broader range of

sediment control structures than the

term ‘‘sedimentation ponds,’’ we find

that Missouri’s revisions clarify that all

sediment control structures must be

shown on the maps and plans of the

proposed mine operation.

b. 10 CSR 40–6.050(5) Operations

Plan—Maps and Plans. At 10 CSR 40–

6.050(5) (C), Missouri removed the

provision that would allow, with certain

exceptions, a professional geologist

experienced in the design and

construction of impoundments to

prepare and certify maps, plans, and

cross-sections required under 10 CSR

40–6.050(5) (B)4, 5, 6, 10, and 11. As

revised, Missouri’s rule requires all

maps, plans, and cross-sections to be

prepared and certified by a qualified

registered professional engineer, with

assistance from experts in related fields

such as land surveying and landscape

architecture.

With identified exceptions, the

counterpart Federal regulation at 30

CFR 780.14(c) requires a qualified

registered professional engineer, a

professional geologist, or a qualified

registered professional land surveyor to

prepare and certify the specified cross

sections, maps, and plans. A qualified

registered professional engineer must

certify maps, plans, and cross-sections

for the identified exceptions, which

include impoundments, siltation

structures, excess spoil disposal sites,

and coal mine waste disposal sites.

Because only a qualified registered

professional engineer can prepare and

certify the specified cross sections,

maps, and plans under the Missouri

rule, we find that Missouri’s revised

rule at 10 CSR 40–6.050(5)(C) is no less

effective than the counterpart Federal

regulation.

c. 10 CSR 40–6.050(7) and 40–

6.120(12) Fish and Wildlife Plan. On

July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36047), we

required Missouri to revise 10 CSR 40–

6.050(7)(D)1 and 40–6.120 (12)(D)1 to

require that the description in the fish

and wildlife plan be consistent with,

respectively, its performance standards

for protection of fish, wildlife, and

related environmental values at 10 CSR

40–3.100 and 40–3.250. We codified

this requirement at 30 CFR 925.16(u). At

10 CSR 40–6.050(7)(D)1, Missouri

proposed to require that each fish and

23600 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

wildlife plan description be consistent

with the requirements of 10 CSR 40–

6.050 and 40–3.100. At 10 CSR 40–

6.120(12)(D)1, Missouri proposed to

require that each fish and wildlife plan

description be consistent with the

requirements of 10 CSR 40–6.120 and

40–3.250. Missouri’s rules at 10 CSR

40–3.100 for surface coal mining and

40–3.250 for underground coal mining

contain performance requirements for

the protection of fish, wildlife, and

related environmental values.

We find that Missouri’s revised rules

at 10 CSR 40–6.050(7)(D)1 and 40–

6.120(12)(D)1 are substantively the same

as the counterpart Federal regulations at

30 CFR 780.16(b)(1) and 784.21(b)(1),

respectively, and we are approving

them. We also find that Missouri’s

revisions satisfy the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(u), which

we are removing.

d. 10 CSR 40–6.050(11) Reclamation

Plan—Ponds, Impoundments, Banks,

Dams and Embankments. At 10 CSR

40–6.050(11)(A)1.A, Missouri removed

the provision that would allow a

professional geologist to prepare and

certify a general plan for each siltation

structure, water impoundment, and coal

processing waste bank, dam, or

embankment within the mine plan area.

As revised, Missouri’s rule requires

general plans for these structures to be

prepared and certified by a qualified

registered professional engineer, with

assistance from experts in related fields

such as land surveying and landscape

architecture.

The counterpart Federal regulation at

30 CFR 780.25(a)(1)(i) requires a

qualified registered professional

engineer, a professional geologist, or a

qualified registered professional land

surveyor, with assistance from experts

in related fields such as landscape

architecture, to prepare and certify

general plans for these structures.

Because use of the word ‘‘or’’ in the

Federal regulation would allow any one

of the listed professionals to prepare

and certify general plans, we find that

Missouri’s revised rule at 10 CSR 40–

6.050(11)(A)1.A is no less effective than

the counterpart Federal regulation at 30

CFR 780.25(a)(1)(i).

e. 10 CSR 40–6.050(17) and 40–

6.120(15) Transportation Facilities. On

September 29, 1992 (57 FR 44671), we

required Missouri to provide proof that

land surveyors are authorized in the

State to prepare and certify plans and

drawings for road design or delete the

provision from 10 CSR 40–6.050(17)(B)

and 40–6.120(15)(B). We codified this

requirement at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(12). In

response to this requirement, Missouri

removed the language ‘‘or a qualified

registered professional land surveyor’’

from its provisions at 10 CSR 40–

6.050(17)(B) and 40–6.120(15)(B).

Missouri’s revised rules require the

plans and drawings for each class I and

II road to be prepared by, or under the

direction of, and certified by a qualified

registered professional engineer.

In those States that do not authorize

land surveyors to certify the design of

roads, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

780.37(b) and 784.24(b) require the

plans and drawings for roads to be

prepared by, or under the direction of,

and certified by a qualified registered

professional engineer. Therefore, we

find that Missouri’s revised rules at 10

CSR 40–6.050(17)(B) and 40–

6.120(15)(B) are no less effective than

the counterpart Federal regulations at 30

CFR 780.37(b) and 784.24(b),

respectively. We also find that

Missouri’s revisions satisfy the

requirements of 30 CFR 925.16(p)(12),

which we are removing.

5. 10 CSR 40–6.070 Review, Public

Participation and Approval of Permit

Applications and Permit Terms and

Conditions.

a. 10 CSR 40–6.070(3) Opportunity for

Submission of Written Comments on

Permit Applications. At 10 CSR 40–

6.070(3)(B), Missouri proposed to

require that written comments on

permit applications by public entities

notified under subsections (2)(B) and (C)

be submitted to the commission and

director within 30 days after the last

publication of the newspaper

advertisement required by subsection

(2)(A). Missouri previously required that

written comments be submitted within

60 days after the application is filed.

The counterpart Federal regulation at

30 CFR 773.13(b)(1) requires that

written comments on permit

applications by these public entities be

submitted within a reasonable time

established by the regulatory authority.

We find that Missouri’s proposed time

frame is reasonable, and we are

approving the revisions to 10 CSR 40–

6.070(3)(B).

b. 10 CSR 40–6.070(4) Right to File

Written Objections. At 10 CSR 40–

6.070(4) (A), Missouri is proposing to

require that written objections to an

initial, renewed, or revised application

for a permit be filed within 30 days after

the last publication of the newspaper

advertisement required by subsection

(2)(A). Missouri previously required that

written objections be filed within 60

days after the application is filed.

Missouri’s revised rule contains

substantively the same requirements for

filing written objections as the

counterpart Federal regulation at 30

CFR 773.13(b)(2), including the 30-day

time frame. Therefore, we find that

Missouri’s rule at 10 CSR 40–

6.070(4)(A) is no less effective than the

Federal regulation.

6. 10 CSR 40–6.090(4) Permit

Revisions. Missouri is revising 10 CSR

40–6.090 (4)(B)2 to read as follows:

The scale or extent of permit application

information requirements and procedures,

including notice and hearings, applicable to

revision requests shall be sufficient to

demonstrate compliance with all applicable

rules. Any application for a revision which

proposes significant alterations in the

operations described in the materials

submitted in the application for the original

permit under 10 CSR 40–6.030, 10 CSR 40–

6.040, 10 CSR 40–6.050, 10 CSR 40–6.060, 10

CSR 40–6.100, 10 CSR 40–6.110 or 10 CSR

40–6.120 or in the conditions of the original

permit, at a minimum, shall be subject to the

requirements of 10 CSR 40–6.070 and 10 CSR

40–6.080.

Missouri’s rule at 10 CSR 40–6.070

contains requirements for review, public

participation, and approval of permit

applications. It includes Missouri’s

provisions for permit terms and

conditions. Missouri’s rule at 10 CSR

40–6.080 contains requirements for

administrative and judicial review of

decisions on permit applications.

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR

774.13(b)(2) requires the regulatory

authority to establish guidelines for the

scale or extent of revisions for which all

the permit application information

requirements and procedures, including

notice, public participation, and notice

of decision requirements shall apply.

We find that Missouri’s revised rule at

10 CSR 40–6.090(4)(B)(2) is consistent

with this Federal requirement, and we

are approving it.

E. 10 CSR 40–7 Bond and Insurance

Requirements for Surface Coal Mining

and Reclamation Operations

1. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6) Bond

Requirements—Type of Bonds. On

September 29, 1992 (57 FR 44673), we

required Missouri to revise its rule at 10

CSR 40–7.011(6)(D)8 to provide that,

upon issuance of a cessation order,

mining operations shall not resume

until the regulatory authority has

determined that an acceptable bond has

been posted as required by the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 800.16(e)(2). We

codified this requirement at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(14). In response to this

requirement, Missouri revised its rule

provisions at 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(A)8

for surety bonds and 10 CSR 40–

7.011(6)(D)8 for self-bonds to require

that when a cessation order is issued for

failure to replace bond coverage, mining

operations shall not resume until the

director has determined that an

acceptable bond has been posted.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23601

Missouri’s revised provisions at 10

CSR 40–7.011(6)(A)8 and 40–

7.011(6)(D)8 have substantively the

same requirements for replacing bond

coverage as the counterpart Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 800.16(e) for

surety bonds and 800.23(g) for selfbonds. Therefore, Missouri’s revised

rules are no less effective than the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Missouri’s revision to 10 CSR 40–

7.011(6)(D)(8) satisfies the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(14),

which we are removing.

2. 10 CSR 40–7.021 Duration and

Release of Reclamation Liability.

a. 10 CSR 40–7.021(1)(C) and (D)/40–

7.021(2)(B)5 and 6 Termination of

Jurisdiction. On September 29, 1992 (57

FR 44674), we required Missouri to

relocate its provisions at 10 CSR 40–

7.021(2)(B)5 and 6 that addressed

termination of jurisdiction to an

appropriate location in its regulations.

Missouri had placed these provisions

under its phase II bond release

requirements. We were concerned that

this location could lead to possible

misinterpretation of the requirements

for phase II bond release and

termination of jurisdiction. We codified

this requirement at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(16). In response to the

required amendment, Missouri removed

its provisions from 10 CSR 40–

7.021(2)(B)5 and 6 and added them to

10 CSR 40–7.021(1)(C) and (D) under its

period of liability requirements.

As discussed in finding 51 of the

September 29, 1992, Federal Register,

Missouri’s rules for termination of

jurisdiction are substantively the same

as the counterpart Federal regulations at

30 CFR 700.11(d). Both the Federal

regulations and Missouri’s rules clarify

the circumstances under which a

regulatory authority may terminate or

reassert jurisdiction for the reclaimed

sites of completed surface coal mining

and reclamation operations. Because

regulatory jurisdiction may only be

terminated upon the final release of a

performance bond or, where no bond

was required, upon a finding that all

reclamation had been successfully

completed, we find locating these

provisions under its requirements

concerning the period of reclamation

liability at 10 CSR 40–7.021(1) is

appropriate. Therefore, we are

approving Missouri’s deletion of 10 CSR

40–7.021(2)(B)5 and 6 and addition of

10 CSR 40–7.021(1)(C) and (D). We are

also removing the required amendment

at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(16).

b. 10 CSR 40–7.021(2) Criteria for

Release of Reclamation Liability.

Missouri replaced the term ‘‘sediment

ponds’’ with the term ‘‘siltation

structures’’ in its rule at 10 CSR 40–

7.021(2)(A). The revised provision

provides that phase I bond must be

retained on unreclaimed temporary

structures, such as roads, siltation

structures, diversions and stockpiles.

Because the term ‘‘siltation

structures,’’ as defined in Missouri’s

rules at 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)89 and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5,

includes a broader range of sediment

control structures than the term

‘‘sedimentation ponds,’’ we find that

Missouri’s revision will provide

additional guidance for retention of

phase I bond for unreclaimed temporary

structures.

c. 10 CSR 40–7.021(3) Bond Release

Application Procedures. Missouri added

the following new procedure at 10 CSR

40–7.021(3)(C):

(C) At the time of final or phase III bond

release submittal, the operator shall include

evidence that an affidavit has been recorded

with the recorder of deeds in the county

where the mined land is located generally

describing the parcel or parcels of land where

operations such as underground mining,

auger mining, covering of slurry ponds, or

other underground activities occurred which

could impact or limit future use of that land.

This requirement shall be applicable to

mined land where phase I reclamation was

completed on or after September 1, 1992.

There is no counterpart Federal

regulation. However, we find that this

new requirement does not conflict with

any existing Federal or State

requirements concerning performance

bond release. Therefore, 10 CSR 40–

7.021(3)(C) will not make Missouri’s

rules concerning performance bond

release at 10 CSR 40–7.021 less effective

than the counterpart Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 800.40.

F. 10 CSR 40–8 Definitions and

General Requirements

1. 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)12 Definition

of Best Technology Currently Available.

Missouri replaced the term

‘‘sedimentation ponds’’ with the term

‘‘siltation structures,’’ in its definition of

‘‘best technology currently available.’’

Because the term ‘‘siltation

structures’’ provides a broader

classification of sediment control

structures than the term ‘‘sedimentation

ponds’’ and because sedimentation

ponds are included in the Missouri and

the Federal definitions of ‘‘siltation

structure’’ at 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)89

and 30 CFR 701.5, respectively, we find

that Missouri’s revision will not make

its definition of ‘‘best technology

currently available’’ less effective than

the counterpart Federal definition at 30

CFR 701.5.

2. 10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)87 and 40–

8.010(1)(A)89 Definitions of

Sedimentation Pond and Siltation

Structure, respectively. Missouri

removed its definition of

‘‘sedimentation pond’’ at 10 CSR 40–

8.010(1)(A)87 and added its substantive

provisions to the following new

definition of ‘‘siltation structure’’ at 10

CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)89:

Siltation structure means a sedimentation

pond, a series of sedimentation ponds, or

other treatment facility, it also means a

primary sediment control structure designed,

constructed and maintained in accordance

with 10 CSR 40–3.040(6) and including, but

not limited to, barrier, dam or excavated

depression which slows down water runoff

to allow sediment to settle out. A siltation

structure shall not include secondary

sedimentation control structures, such as

straw dikes, riprap, check dams, mulches,

dugouts and other measures that reduce

overland flow velocity, reduce runoff volume

or trap sediment, to the extent that those

secondary sedimentation structures drain to

the siltation structure.

The counterpart Federal regulation at

30 CFR 701.5 defines ‘‘siltation

structure’’ to mean a sedimentation

pond, a series of sedimentation ponds,

or other treatment facility. As shown

above, Missouri’s proposed definition of

‘‘siltation structure’’ at 10 CSR 40–

8.010(1)(A)89 contains the language

from the Federal definition and the

previously approved language from its

definition of ‘‘sedimentation pond’’ at

10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)87. As discussed

throughout this document, Missouri

replaced all instances of the term

‘‘sedimentation pond’’ with the term

‘‘siltation structure’’ in its rules at 10

CSR 40. Because Missouri no longer

uses the term ‘‘sedimentation pond’’ in

its rules and because Missouri added

the substantive language from its

currently approved definition of

‘‘sedimentation ponds’’ to its definition

of ‘‘siltation structure,’’ we find that

Missouri’s removal of its definition of

‘‘sedimentation pond’’ will not make its

rules less effective than the Federal

regulations. Also, because Missouri’s

definition of ‘‘siltation structure’’ at 10

CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)89 includes the

language from the Federal definition of

‘‘siltation structure’’ at 30 CFR 701.5, we

find that Missouri’s definition is no less

effective than the Federal definition.

3. 10 CSR 40–8.030(1) Inspections.

On September 29, 1992 (57 FR 44675),

we required Missouri to revise 10 CSR

40–8.030(1)(F) and (G) to remove

limitations regarding the required

number of inspections of abandoned

mine sites. We codified this requirement

at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(18). In response to

this requirement, Missouri proposed

revisions to its regulations at 10 CSR

40–8.030(1)(F)4.A and 40–8.030(1)(G).

23602 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Missouri revised 10 CSR 40–

8.030(1)(F)4.A by requiring a site to be

classified as abandoned only in cases

where a permit has either expired or

been revoked. Missouri’s revised rule is

substantively identical to the

counterpart Federal regulation at 30

CFR 840.11(g)(4)(i). Missouri revised 10

CSR 40–8.030(1)(G) by removing its

existing provisions and adding new

provisions that require Missouri to

inspect abandoned sites on a frequency

commensurate with the public health

and safety and environmental

conditions present. Missouri must

always perform at least one complete

inspection per calendar year for each

abandoned site. Missouri’s revised rule

incorporates criteria that must be taken

into consideration and documented

before it can reduce inspection

frequencies at an abandoned site. We

find that Missouri’s new provisions are

substantively identical to the Federal

regulation provisions at 30 CFR

840.11(h). We also find that Missouri’s

revisions at 10 CSR 40–8.030(1)(F)4.A

and 40–8.030(1)(G) removed the

previous limitations regarding the

required number of inspections of

abandoned mine sites and satisfied the

required amendment at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(18). Therefore, we are

approving 10 CSR 40–8.030(1)(F)4.A

and 40–8.030(1)(G), and we are

removing the required amendment at 30

CFR 925.16(p)(18).

4. 10 CSR 40–8.070(2)(C) Exemption

for Coal Extraction Incidental to the

Extraction of Other Minerals.

a. 10 CSR 40–8.070(2)(C)1.A

Definition of Cumulative Measurement

Period. Missouri’s current rule at 10

CSR 40–8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a) requires

that, for coal or other minerals extracted

prior to November 1, 1990, a person

with an approved exemption for coal

extraction incidental to the extraction of

other minerals submit a written report

of cumulative production and revenue

every October after that. On September

29, 1992, we required Missouri to

amend 10 CSR 40–8.070(2)(C)1.A(II) to

provide appropriate dates for reporting

of cumulative production that are no

earlier than the date Missouri’s October

10, 1990, amendment is published in

the Federal Register as a final rule. We

codified this requirement at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(20). In response to this

requirement, Missouri amended 10 CSR

40–8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a) to require that,

for coal or other minerals extracted prior

to October 1, 1990, a person with an

approved exemption for coal extraction

incidental to the extraction of other

minerals submit an annual written

report of cumulative production and

revenue on September 30, 1992, and

every September 30 after that.

Missouri’s October 10, 1990,

amendment was published in the

Federal Register on September 29, 1992.

Therefore, the initial annual reporting

date proposed at 10 CSR 40–

8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a) of September 30,

1992, and subsequent annual reporting

date of September 30 satisfy a portion of

the required amendment at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(20). However, Missouri’s

proposed rule still specifies the end of

the period for which cumulative

production and revenue is calculated is

where the coal or other minerals were

extracted prior to October 1, 1990,

which is a date earlier than September

29, 1992. This date needs to be revised

to be no earlier than September 29,

1992. Therefore, we find that Missouri’s

proposed rule at 10 CSR 40–

8.070(2)(C)1.A(II) is less effective than

the counterpart Federal regulation at 30

CFR 702.5(a)(2), and we are not

approving the October 1, 1990, date

proposed at 10 CSR 40–

8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a). Also, Missouri did

not revise its rule at 10 CSR 40–

8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(b). This rule still

refers to extraction of coal or other

minerals commenced on or after

November 1, 1990, which is earlier than

the required date. Based on this finding,

we are modifying the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(20).

b. 10 CSR 40–8.070(2)(C)10.F

Revocation and Enforcement—Direct

Enforcement. Missouri’s current rules at

paragraph (2)(C)10.F provide direct

enforcement requirements for operators

who did or did not conduct activities in

accordance with the terms of an

approved exemption before revocation

of the exemption. Subparagraph

(C)10.F(I) specifies that an operator

mining in accordance with the terms of

an approved exemption shall not be

cited for violations of the commission

which occurred prior to the revocation

of the exemption. Subparagraph

(C)10.F(II) specifies that an operator

who does not conduct activities in

accordance with the terms of an

approved exemption shall be subject to

direct enforcement action for violations

of the commission. Subparagraph

(C)10.F(III) specifies that upon

revocation of an exemption or denial of

an exemption application, an operator

shall comply with the reclamation

standards of the commission. On

September 29, 1992, we required

Missouri to amend its rules at 10 CSR

40–8.070(2)(C)10.F(I), (II), and (III). We

codified these requirements at 30 CFR

925.16(p)(21). The counterpart Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 702.17(d)(1), (2),

and (3) have similar requirements with

the exception that the Federal

regulations either specify violations of

the regulatory program or reclamation

standards of the regulatory program.

Missouri’s current rules limit its direct

enforcement requirements to violations

or reclamation standards of its

commission rather than its regulatory

program. In response to the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(21),

Missouri replaced the term

‘‘commission’’ with the term ‘‘regulatory

program’’ in each of its rules at 10 CSR

40–8.070(2)(C)10.F(I), (II), and (III).

We find that Missouri’s revised rules

at 10 CSR 40–8.070(2)(C)10.F(I), (II), and

(II) are substantively identical to the

counterpart Federal regulations at 30

CFR 702.17(d)(1), (2), and (3),

respectively, and we are approving

them. We also find that Missouri’s

revisions satisfy the required

amendment at 30 CFR 925.16(p)(21),

which we are removing.

G. 10 CSR 40–9.020 Abandoned Mine

Reclamation and Restoration;

Reclamation

1. Missouri revised its rule at 10 CSR

40–9.020(1)(D)4 to require the

commission to find in writing whether

coal lands and waters damaged and

abandoned after August 3, 1977, meet

the specified eligibility requirements

and priority objectives. Missouri also

added the requirement that the

commission find in writing that the

reclamation priority of the site is the

same or more urgent than the

reclamation priority for other lands and

waters. Missouri’s revised rule reads as

follows:

The commission finds in writing that the

site meets the eligibility requirements of this

section and the priority objectives stated in

subsections (4)(A) and (B) of this rule and

that the reclamation priority of the site is the

same or more urgent than the reclamation

priority for other lands and waters eligible

pursuant to this section. Priority will be

given to those sites which are in the

immediate vicinity of a residential area or

which have an adverse economic impact

upon a community.

The counterpart Federal regulation at

30 CFR 874.12(d) also requires a written

determination of eligibility for these

sites. Therefore, we find that Missouri’s

revised rule at 10 CSR 40–9.020(1)(D)4

is consistent with the requirements of

the counterpart Federal regulation at 30

CFR 874.12(d)(3), and we are approving

it.

2. Missouri added the following new

provision at 10 CSR 40–9.020(1)(F):

If reclamation of a site covered by an

interim or permanent program permit is

carried out under the State reclamation

program, the permittee of the site shall

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23603

reimburse the abandoned mine land

reclamation fund for the cost of the

reclamation that is in excess of any bond

forfeited to ensure reclamation. In performing

reclamation under subsection (1)(D) of this

rule, the commission shall not be held liable

for any violations of any performance

standards or reclamation requirements

specified in Chapter 444 RSMo (1994) nor

shall a reclamation activity undertaken on

such lands or waters be held to any standards

set forth in Chapter 444 RSMo (1994).

We find that Missouri’s rule at 10 CSR

40–9.020(1)(F) is substantively identical

to the counterpart Federal regulation at

30 CFR 874.12(g), and we are approving

it.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Federal Agency Comments

On October 18, 2000, under section

503(b) of SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.17(h)(11)(i) of the Federal

regulations, we requested comments on

the amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Missouri program

(Administrative Record No. MO–662.2).

We did not receive any comments.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we

are required to obtain the written

concurrence of the EPA for those

provisions of the program amendment

that relate to air or water quality

standards issued 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.).

None of the revisions that Missouri

proposed to make in this amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards.

Therefore, we did not ask the EPA for

its concurrence.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we

requested comments on the amendment

from the EPA (Administrative Record

No. MO–662.2). The EPA did not

respond to our request.

State Historical Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are

required to request comments from the

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that

may have an effect on historic

properties. On October 18, 2000, we

requested comments on Missouri’s

amendment (Administrative Record No.

MO–662.2), but neither responded to

our request.

Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the

amendment, but did not receive any.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, we

approve, with certain exceptions and

additional requirements, the

amendment as sent to us by Missouri on

October 5, 2000.

With the requirement that Missouri

further revise its rules, we do not

approve, as discussed in: finding No.

C.3.f(2)(b), 10 CSR 40–3.040(10)(O)3.C

and 40–3.200(10)(O)3.C, design

precipitation event requirements for

permanent and temporary

impoundments; finding No. C.5.b, 10

CSR 40–3.240, air resource protection,

to the extent that it is missing pertinent

requirements relating to control of

erosion and air pollution; finding No.

F.4.a, 10 CSR 40–8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a),

definition of cumulative measurement

period, to the extent that it uses October

1, 1990, for determining the end of the

period for which cumulative production

and revenue is reported.

To implement this decision, we are

amending the Federal regulations at 30

CFR part 925, which codify decisions

concerning the Missouri program. We

are making this final rule effective

immediately to expedite the State

program amendment process and to

encourage Missouri to bring its program

into conformity with the Federal

standards. SMCRA requires consistency

of State and Federal standards.

Effect of Director’s Decision

Section 503 of SMCRA provides that

a State may not exercise jurisdiction

under SMCRA unless the State program

is approved by the Secretary. Similarly,

30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any

alteration of an approved State program

be submitted to OSM for review as a

program amendment. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit

any changes to State programs that are

not approved by OSM. In the oversight

of the Missouri program, we will

recognize only the statutes, rules and

other materials approved by the

Secretary or by us, together with any

consistent implementing policies,

directives and other materials. We will

require the enforcement by Missouri of

only such provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

roles of the Federal and State

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that State laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires

that State programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

under SMCRA. Section 405(d) of

SMCRA requires State abandoned mine

reclamation programs to be in

compliance with the procedures,

guidelines, and requirements of

SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each 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. Decisions

on proposed abandoned mine land

reclamation plans and revisions

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 part 884 of the

Federal regulations.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed State regulatory program

23604 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

provision does not constitute a major

Federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A). Agency

decisions on proposed State and Tribal

abandoned mine land reclamation plans

and revisions are also 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 the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, federal, state, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the State submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart Federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the Federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 925

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: April 25, 2001.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent

Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 925 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 925—MISSOURI

1. The authority citation for Part 925

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 925.12 is amended by

removing the introductory paragraph; by

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and

adding paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to

read as follows:

§ 925.12 State program provisions and

amendments disapproved.

(a) The amendment at 10 CSR 40–

4.030(4)(A), submitted on December 14

and 18, 1987, is disapproved insofar as

it would exempt from prime farmland

performance standards coal preparation

plants, support facilities, and roads

associated with surface coal mining

activities.

(b) The amendment at 10 CSR 40–

4.030(4)(B), submitted on December 14

and 18, 1987, is disapproved insofar as

it would exempt from prime farmland

performance standards water bodies as

a postmining land use.

(c) The definitions of ‘‘coal processing

plant’’ and ‘‘coal preparation plant’’ at

10 CSR 40–8.010(1)(A)18, submitted on

December 14 and 18, 1987, are

disapproved insofar as they exempt

from regulation certain facilities where

coal is subjected to chemical or physical

processing or cleaning, concentrating, or

other processing or preparation, if they

do not separate coal from its impurities.

(d) The amendments at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)3.C and 40–3.200(10)(O)3.C,

submitted on October 5, 2000,

concerning temporary impoundment

design are disapproved effective May 9,

2001.

(e) The amendment at 10 CSR 40–

3.240, submitted on October 5, 2000,

concerning air resource protection is

disapproved effective May 9, 2001, to

the extent that it is missing pertinent

requirements relating to control of

erosion and air pollution.

(f) The amendment at 10 CSR 40–

8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a), submitted on

October 5, 2000, concerning the

definition of cumulative measurement

period is disapproved effective May 9,

2001, to the extent that it uses October

1, 1990, for determining the end of the

period for which cumulative production

and revenue is reported.

3. Section 925.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 925.15 Approval of Missouri regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23605

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication Citation/description

* ** * * * *

October 5, 2000 .......... May 9, 2001 ................ 10 CSR 40–3.010(6); 3.020(1); 3.020(3); 3.040(2)(A)1, 2, 3.B, 4, 5, 6; 3.040(4)(A)1 and (B)3;

3.040(6)(A), (B), (C), (E), (F), (G), (H), (Q), (T), (U); 3.040(8); 3.040(10)(A), (B)5, (L), (M),

(N), (O), (O)1, (O)2.A and B, (O)2.C, (O)3, (O)3.A and B; 3.040(10)(O)3.C [not approved];

3.040(13)(A)1.A and (B)1; 3.040(14)(B)3; 3.040(17); 3.050 Purpose; 3.050(1)(D)1.A;

3.050(2)(A); 3.050(3)(C)1; 3.080(1)(A); 3.080(3)(D); 3.080(8)(A); 3.090; 3.110(4)(A);

3.110(5)(A); 3.110(6)(B); 3.120(5); 3.120(8)(A)4, (B), (D)2 and 8; 3.140(1)(A); 3.200(2)(A)1,

2, 3.A, 4, 5, 6; 3.200(4)(B)3; 3.200(6)(A), (B), (C), (E), (F), (G), (Q), (T), (U); 3.200(8),

3.200(10)(A), (B)5, (K), (L), (M), (N), (O), (O)1, (O)2.A, B, and C, (O)3, (O)3.A and B;

3.200(10)(O)3.C [not approved]; 3.200(12) (A)1.A and (B)1; 3.200(13)(B)3; 3.200(16);

3.240 [partial approval]; 3.270(5); 3.270(8)(A)4 and (B); 4.010 Purpose; 4.010 (3)(J);

4.020(2)(B); 4.030 Purpose; 4.030 (3)(A); 4.030(4)(A), (B), (C); 4.030(6)(A), 4.030(7)(B)2

and 7; 4.050(11), (12); 5.010(1)(B); 5.010(2)(E); 6.010(4)(B)2; 6.010(6)(A); 6.020 Purpose;

6.020(5); 6.020(7)(A); 6.030(1)(C), (D), (I); 6.030(2)(C); 6.040(5)(B)1.E; 6.040(16)(C)1 and

3; 6.050(1); 6.050(5)(B)11, (C), and (C)1; 6.050(7)(D)1; 6.050(9)(C)3 and 4, (D)3, (E);

6.050(11)(A), (A)1.A, 2 and 3, (B), (C), (F); 6.050(17)(B); 6.060(4)(C)1 and 5, (D)1, (E)5;

6.070(3) and (3)(B); 6.070(4)(A); 6.070(5)(B)4; 6.070(8)(C), (D)3; 6.070(10) (D);

6.090(4)(B)2; 6.090(6)(A); 6.090(7); 6.100(1)(I); 6.100(2)(C); 6.120(5)(E); 6.120(7)(A), (A)2

and 3, (B)1, (C), (F); 6.120(12)(D)1; 6.120(14)(B)10, (C)1; 6.120(15)(B); 7.011(6)(A)8,

(D)2.C(II), 5.A and C, 8; 7.021(1)(C) and (D); 7.021(2)(A), (B)5 and 6; 7.021(3)(C) and (D);

8.010(1) (A)9, 12, 52.C, 59, 73, 82, 87, 89, and 97B; 8.030(1)(F)4.A and (G); 8.030(6)(A)3

and (B)1; 8.030(10)(A); 8.030(12)(C); 8.050 Purpose; 8.050(1); 8.050(2)(B); 8.050(5)(A)

and (B); 8.050(9)(A); 8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a) [partial approval] and 10.F, (F), (G).

4. Section 925.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs (b),

(f)(1), (g), (p)(5), (p)(9), (p)(10), (p)(11),

(p)(12), (p)(14), (p)(16), (p)(18), (p)(21),

(q), (q)(2), and (u); by revising

paragraphs (p), (p)(4), and (p)(20) and

adding paragraph (v) to read as follows:

§ 925.16 Required program amendments.

* * * * *

(p) By May 10, 2002, Missouri shall

amend its program as follows:

* * * * *

(4) At 10 CSR 40–3.240 by providing

performance standards that address air

quality in a manner no less effective

than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

817.95(a).

* * * * *

(20) At 10 CSR 40–

8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a) and (b) to revise the

definition of cumulative measurement

period to provide appropriate dates for

the end of the period for which

cumulative production and revenue is

reported that are no earlier than

September 29, 1992, in accordance with

the Federal regulation requirements at

30 CFR 702.5(a)(2)(i) and (ii).

* * * * *

(v) By May 10, 2002, Missouri must

submit either an amendment or a

description of an amendment to be

proposed, together with a timetable for

adoption of proposed revisions to

remove its provisions at 10 CSR 40–

3.040(10)(O)3.C and 40–3.200(10)(O)3.C.

5. Section 925.25 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 925.25 Approval of Missouri abandoned

mine land reclamation plan amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication Citation/description

*******

October 5, 2000 .......... May 9, 2001 ................ 10 CSR 40–9.020(1)(D)4 and (F).

[FR Doc. 01–11635 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 936

[SPATS No. OK–025–FOR]

Oklahoma Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule, approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

approving an amendment to the

Oklahoma regulatory program

(Oklahoma program) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Oklahoma proposed

revisions to it rules concerning permit

revisions. Oklahoma intends to revise

its program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining,

5100 East Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74135–6548. Telephone:

(918) 581–6430. Internet:

mwolfrom@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background on the Oklahoma Program

II. Submission of the Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Oklahoma

Program

On January 19, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the