Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22723 

1The MOU can be viewed online at http:// 

www.osmre.gov/resources/ref/mou/ 

ASCM061109.pdf. 

HHSF223200730236G, ERG Task No. 

0193.16.001.001. 

Dated: April 26, 2010. 

Leslie Kux, 

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10078 Filed 4–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Parts 780, 784, 816, and 817 

RIN 1029–AC63 

Stream Protection Rule; Environmental 

Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent 

to prepare an environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), intend to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

under section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) to analyze the effects of 

potential rule revisions under the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act) to improve protection of streams 

from the adverse impacts of surface coal 

mining operations. We are requesting 

comments for the purpose of 

determining the scope of the EIS. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your electronic or written 

comments on June 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods, 

although we request that you use 

electronic mail if possible: 

• Electronic mail: Send your 

comments to sra-eis@osmre.gov. 

• Mail, hand-delivery, or courier: 

Send your comments to Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, Administrative Record, 

Room 252–SIB, 1951 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Craynon, Chief, Division of Regulatory 

Support, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 

Constitution Ave., NW., MS 202–SIB, 

Washington, DC 20240; Telephone 202– 

208–2866. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Why are we planning to revise our rules? 

II. What is the proposed federal action? 

III. How do I submit comments? 

IV. How do I request to participate as a 

cooperating agency? 

I. Why are we planning to revise our 

rules? 

On December 12, 2008 (73 FR 75814– 

75885), we published a final rule 

modifying the circumstances under 

which mining activities may be 

conducted in or near perennial or 

intermittent streams. That rule, which 

this document refers to as the 2008 rule, 

took effect January 12, 2009. A total of 

nine organizations challenged the 

validity of the rule in two complaints 

filed on December 22, 2008, and January 

16, 2009 (amended complaint filed 

February 17, 2009): Coal River Mountain 

Watch, et al. v. Salazar, No. 08–2212 

(D.D.C.) (‘‘Coal River’’) and National 

Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Salazar, 

No. 09–115 (D.D.C.) (‘‘NPCA’’). Under 

the terms of a settlement agreement 

signed by the parties on March 19, 2010, 

we agreed to use best efforts to sign a 

proposed rule by February 28, 2011, and 

a final rule by June 29, 2012. We also 

agreed to consult with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act, as appropriate, 

prior to signing the final action. On 

April 2, 2010, the court granted the 

parties’ motion to hold the judicial 

proceedings in abeyance. 

However, we had already embarked 

on that course following the change of 

Administrations on January 20, 2009. 

On June 11, 2009, the Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior, the 

Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and the Acting Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 

entered into a memorandum of 

understanding 1 (MOU) implementing 

an interagency action plan designed to 

significantly reduce the harmful 

environmental consequences of surface 

coal mining operations in six 

Appalachian states, while ensuring that 

future mining remains consistent with 

Federal law. Among other things, the 

MOU committed us to consider 

revisions to key provisions of our rules, 

including the 2008 rule and 

approximate original contour 

requirements, to better protect the 

environment and public health from the 

impacts of Appalachian surface coal 

mining. 

Consequently, on November 30, 2009, 

we published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 

soliciting comments on ten potential 

rulemaking alternatives. See 74 FR 

62664–62668. In addition, consistent 

with the MOU, we invited the public to 

identify other rules that we should 

revise. We also announced our intent to 

prepare a supplement to the EIS 

developed in connection with the 2008 

rule. 

We received approximately 32,750 

comments during the 30-day comment 

period that closed December 30, 2009. 

After evaluating those and other 

comments, we determined that 

development of a comprehensive stream 

protection rule (one that is much 

broader in scope than the 2008 rule) 

would be the most appropriate and 

effective method of achieving the goals 

set forth in the MOU and the ANPRM. 

We believe that this holistic approach 

will better protect streams and related 

environmental values. The broader 

scope of the stream protection rule 

means that we will need to prepare a 

new environmental impact statement 

rather than the supplement to the 2008 

EIS that we originally intended to 

prepare. 

II. What is the proposed federal action? 

The proposed Federal action consists 

of revisions to various provisions of our 

rules to improve protection of streams 

from the impacts of surface coal mining 

operations nationwide. We do not 

believe that it would be fair, 

appropriate, or scientifically valid to 

apply the new protections only in 

central Appalachia, as some 

commenters on the ANPRM advocated. 

Streams are ecologically significant 

regardless of the region in which they 

are located. Principal elements of the 

proposed action include— 

• Adding more extensive and more 

specific permit application 

requirements concerning baseline data 

on hydrology, geology, and aquatic 

biology; the determination of the 

probable hydrologic consequences of 

mining; and the hydrologic reclamation 

plan; as well as more specific 

requirements for the cumulative 

hydrologic impact assessment. 

• Defining the term ‘‘material damage 

to the hydrologic balance outside the 

permit area.’’ This term is critically 

important because, under section 

510(b)(3) of SMCRA, the regulatory 

authority may not approve a permit 

application unless the proposed 

operation has been designed to prevent 

material damage to the hydrologic 

balance outside the permit area. This 

term includes streams downstream of 

the mining operation. 

• Revising the regulations governing 

mining activities in or near streams, 

including mining through streams. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
22724 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2See the document entitled ‘‘Acid Mine Drainage 

Policy’’ at http://www.osmre.gov/guidance/ 

significant_guidance.shtm. 

3See http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ 

cooperating/cooperatingagencymemofactors.html. 

• Adding more extensive and more 

specific monitoring requirements for 

surface water, groundwater, and aquatic 

biota during mining and reclamation. 

• Establishing corrective action 

thresholds based on monitoring results. 

• Revising the backfilling and grading 

rules, excess spoil rules, and 

approximate original contour restoration 

requirements to incorporate landform 

restoration principles and reduce 

discharges of total dissolved solids. 

• Limiting variances and exceptions 

from approximate original contour 

restoration requirements. 

• Requiring reforestation of 

previously wooded areas. 

• Requiring that the regulatory 

authority coordinate the SMCRA 

permitting process with Clean Water 

Act permitting activities to the extent 

practicable. 

• Codifying the financial assurance 

provisions of OSM’s March 31, 1997, 

policy statement 2 on correcting, 

preventing, and controlling acid/toxic 

mine drainage and clarifying that those 

provisions apply to all long-term 

discharges of pollutants, not just 

pollutants for which effluent limitations 

exist. 

• Updating the definitions of 

perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

streams. 

We are in the process of developing 

alternatives for the proposed Federal 

action. Comments received in response 

to this notice will assist us in that 

process. 

We will prepare a draft EIS after we 

complete the initial stages of scoping 

and identify which rulemaking 

alternatives will be analyzed in detail. 

Following release of the draft EIS, we 

anticipate publishing a notice of 

proposed rulemaking, unless we select 

an alternative that makes rulemaking 

unnecessary. 

III. How do I submit comments? 

Consistent with 43 CFR 46.235, we 

invite all interested persons, 

organizations, and agencies to provide 

comments, suggestions, and any other 

information relevant to the scope of the 

EIS, the scope of the proposed Federal 

action, potential alternatives for the 

proposed Federal action, and studies 

and impacts that the EIS should 

address. See ADDRESSES for the methods 

by which we will accept comments. We 

do not anticipate conducting any 

meetings dedicated to scoping. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. Comments that we receive after 

the close of the comment period (see 

DATES) or sent to an address other than 

those listed in ADDRESSES may not be 

considered. 

If you previously submitted 

comments in response to the ANPR, you 

do not need to resubmit them. We will 

consider all ANPR comments as part of 

this EIS scoping process. 

IV. How do I request to participate as 

a cooperating agency? 

Consistent with 43 CFR 46.225, we, 

the lead agency, invite eligible Federal, 

state, tribal, and local governmental 

entities to indicate whether they have 

an interest in being a cooperating 

agency in the preparation of the EIS. 

Qualified entities are those with 

jurisdiction by law, as defined in 40 

CFR 1508.15, or special expertise, as 

defined in 40 CFR 1508.26. Potential 

cooperating agencies should consider 

their authority and capacity to assume 

the responsibilities of a cooperating 

agency and make the necessary 

resources available in a timely manner, 

as discussed in the document entitled 

‘‘Factors for Determining Cooperating 

Agency Status,’’ 3 which is Attachment 1 

to the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s January 30, 2002, 

Memorandum for the Heads of Federal 

Agencies: Cooperating Agencies in 

Implementing the Procedural 

Requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. We will not 

be able to provide financial assistance to 

cooperating agencies. 

If you have an interest in participating 

as a cooperating agency, please contact 

the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and identify those 

aspects of the EIS process in which you 

are interested in participating. The 

regulations at 43 CFR 46.230 and Items 

4 through 6 in the document discussed 

in the preceding paragraph list the 

activities in which cooperating agencies 

may wish to participate. 

Dated: April 16, 2010. 

Sterling Rideout, 

Assistant Director, Program Support. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10091 Filed 4–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0890] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Chambers Creek, Steilacoom, WA, 

Schedule Change 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) concerning the 

drawbridge operation regulation for the 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 

Bridge across Chambers Creek, mile 0.0, 

at Steilacoom, Washington, by which 

two-hour notice would have been 

required for openings from 3:30 p.m. to 

7 a.m. every day. The NPRM is being 

withdrawn because of multiple 

objections to the proposed change from 

users of that waterway. 

DATES: The notice of proposed 

rulemaking is withdrawn on April 30, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. You 

may also find this docket on the Internet 

by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 

inserting USCG–2009–0890 in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box and then clicking 

‘‘Search’’. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or e-mail Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge 

Section, Waterways Management 

Branch, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; 

telephone 206–220–7282, e-mail 

address william.a.pratt@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing materials in 

the docket, call Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 8, 2009, we published 

an NPRM entitled ‘‘Drawbridge 

Operation Regulation; Chambers Creek, 

Steilacoom, WA, Schedule Change’’ in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 64641). The 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1