Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/12/01/E8-28445/pennsylvania-regulatory-program
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 17:51:36
Document Index: 69327701

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 732', 'arts 816', 'art 816', 'art 817', 'art 850', 'art 850', '§\u2009601']

A Rule by the Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office on 12/01/2008
72717-72725 (9 pages)
1. 25 Pa. Code 87.1, 88.1, 89.5, and 210.11. Definitions
2. 25 Pa. Code 87.1 and 88.1. Definitions
4. 25 Pa. Code 87.126. Use of Explosives: Public Notice of Blasting Schedule
6. 25 Pa. Code 87.129. Use of Explosives: Records of Blasting Operations
8. 25 Pa. Code 88.137. Use of Explosives: Records of Blasting Operations
9. 25 Pa. Code 88.493. Minimum Environmental Protection Performance Standards
12. 25 Pa. Code 210.17. Issuance and Renewal of Licenses
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E8-28445 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E8-28445
Start Further Info Start Printed Page 72718
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “* * * a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Pennsylvania program on July 30, 1982. You can find background information on the Pennsylvania program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in the July 30, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 33050). You can also find later actions concerning Pennsylvania's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 938.11, 938.12, 938.13, 938.15, and 938.16.
We announced receipt of the State's letters and the proposed regulatory changes in the July 31, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 43087). In the same notice, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the amendments. We received a request from the public to hold a public hearing and subsequently we re-opened the public comment period and announced the public hearing in the September 11, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 53351). We held a public hearing on September 21, 2006. The public comment period ended on September 28, 2006.
PADEP sent us a revised version of the amendment on April 4, 2008. The revisions are minor and non-substantive in nature, but some warrant noting because they involve wording changes. These changes are as follows: Definitions of the terms “blast” and “blasting” are added to sections 87.1 and 88.1; “vibrations” are further clarified to mean “ground or airblast” vibrations in sections 87.127(a) and (b), and in sections 88.135(a) and (b); “noise” is changed to “airblast” in section 87.127(e) (1); the term “sound pressure” is changed to “airblast” in sections 88.135(h) and (i); and the words “identification of and the” are added to section 88.137(4). We did not reopen the comment period when we received these revisions because, as noted above, we believe they do not change the substance of any of the amended provisions.
We received comments from the Mountain Watershed Association, Citizens Coal Council, Tri-State Citizens Mining Network's Center for Coalfield Justice, Ten Mile Protection Network, Concerned Citizens of Ligonier, Youghiogheny Riverkeeper, and the Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. dated September 21, 2006, (Administrative Record No. PA 887.08 and 887.09).
Following are the findings we made concerning the Amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. In some cases, Pennsylvania made the same modifications to regulations in several different chapters. In those cases, we discussed all the similar regulations together. Any revisions we do not specifically discuss below concern non-substantive wording or editorial changes and are approved herein without discussion. Our discussion of the amendment appears below by the applicable sections of the Pennsylvania Code.
PADEP added a definition for the term “mine opening blasting” to 25 Pa. Code 87.1, 88.1, 89.5, and 210.11 as follows:
“Mine opening blasting—Blasting conducted for the purpose of constructing a shaft, slope, drift, or tunnel mine opening for an underground mine, either operating or under development, from the surface down to the point where the mine opening connects with the mineral strata to be or being extracted.”
While this provision has no direct Federal counterpart, its meaning is consistent with current mining practices; it is also consistent with SMCRA and the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
PADEP added definitions for the following words: “Blast” and “Blasting.” While these provisions have no direct Federal counterparts, their meanings are consistent with current mining practices and are also consistent with SMCRA and the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving them. They read as follows:
“Blast—A detonation of explosives.”
“Blasting—The detonation of explosives.”
PADEP is changing subsection (b) to correct a reference error from “87.125” to “87.126 (relating to use of explosives: preblasting survey).”
As revised, subsection (b) provides as follows:
“Blasts that use more than 5 pounds of explosive or blasting agents shall be conducted according to the schedule required by section 87.126 (relating to use of explosives: public notice of blasting schedules).”
This provision corrects a reference error. We find that the provision does not render the Pennsylvania program less stringent than SMCRA or less effective than the Federal regulations, and are approving it.
PADEP is changing “shall” to “must” in (b)(2) after “schedule” and deleting the phrase “Each period may not exceed 4 hours” at subsection (b)(2)(ii).
As amended, subsection (b)(2)(ii) provides as follows:
(b)(2) The blasting schedule must contain at a minimum the following:
(b)(2)(ii) Dates and time periods when explosives are to be detonated. Start Printed Page 72719
PADEP is changing subsection (a) by adding the following after “schedule”:
* * * except that mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast, for that mine opening, may be conducted at any time of day or night as necessary to maintain stability of the mine opening to protect the health and safety of mineworkers. For mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast, for that mine opening, the Department may approve ground or airblast vibration limits at a dwelling, public building, school, church or commercial or institutional structure, that are less stringent than those specified in subsection (e) or (m) if consented to, in writing, by the structure owner and lessee, if leased to another party.
As amended, subsection (a) provides as follows:
Blasting shall be conducted between sunrise and sunset, at times announced in the blasting schedule, except that mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast, for that mine opening, may be conducted at any time of day or night as necessary to maintain stability of the mine opening to protect the health and safety of mineworkers. For mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast, for that mine opening, the Department may approve ground or airblast vibration limits at a dwelling, public building, school, church or commercial or institutional structure, that are less stringent than those specified in Subsections (e) or (m) if consented to, in writing, by the structure owner and lessee, if leased to another party.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.61 require that “[s]ections 817.61-68 apply to surface blasting activities incident to underground coal mining, including, but not limited to, initial rounds of slopes and shafts.” Since the Federal regulations do not define the terms “incident to underground coal mining” or “initial rounds of slopes and shafts”, PADEP has the discretion to apply a reasonable cut-off point with respect to underground blasting, beyond which the regulations need not be applied. PADEP has determined that mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast is not subject to all of Pennsylvania's blasting regulations, because it is not blasting conducted pursuant to a surface coal mining operation, but rather is underground mine blasting; as such, any exceptions to regulatory applicability, including those exceptions set forth in section 87.127(a), are permissible, according to PADEP. We find that mine opening blasting after the second blast is indeed a reasonable point to terminate full regulatory coverage pursuant to 30 CFR 817.61-68. Therefore, the exceptions proposed in section 87.127(a) are no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.61, and are approved.
PADEP is revising subsection (b) by adding new language “ airblast or ground vibration limits,” after “or” and by deleting the term “excessive noise” at the end of the sentence and replacing existing language with “the adverse affects of ground vibration, airblast, or safety hazards.”
As amended, subsection (b) provides as follows:
The Department may specify more restrictive time periods, airblast or ground vibration limits, based on public requests or other relevant information, according to the need to adequately protect the public from the adverse affects of ground vibration, airblast, or safety hazards.
We find that the provision as provided does not render the Pennsylvania program less stringent than SMCRA or less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(b)(1)(ii) and 816.67(d)(5), which allow the regulatory authority to set more stringent airblast limits or ground vibration limits if necessary to prevent damage due to blasting. Therefore, we are approving it.
PADEP is revising subsection (e) by deleting the following language, “unless the structure is owned by the person who conducts the surface mining activities and is not leased to another person. The lessee may sign a waiver”, and replacing that language with the following language “unless the structure is located on the permit area when the structure owner and lessee, if leased to another party, have each signed a* * *”
Airblast shall be controlled so that it does not exceed the noise level specified in this subsection at a dwelling, public building, school, church or commercial or institutional structure, unless the structure is located on the permit area when the structure owner and lessee, if leased to another party, have each signed a waiver relieving the operator from meeting the airblast limitations of this subsection.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(b) set airblast limits only at structures outside the permit area, whereas Pennsylvania has chosen to also set airblast limits at structures inside the permit area. Since there is no Federal requirement to set airblast limits at structures within the permit area, any waiver Pennsylvania proposes to its airblast limits for such structures cannot be less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(b). Therefore, we are approving it.
PADEP is deleting existing language in section 87.127(e)(1) and revising the maximum allowable noise level to 133 dBL.
As amended, subsection (e)(1) provides as follows:
While the current Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(b)(1)(i) provide for a range of the maximum allowable airblast depending on the lower frequency limit of the measuring system used, a maximum airblast vibration of 133 dBL is appropriate when the lower frequency limit of the measuring system is 2 hertz (Hz) or lower.
All blasting seismographs manufactured today have 2 hertz microphones based on a standard developed with the International Society of Explosives Engineers Standards Committee. In addition, the Pennsylvania regulations, at 25 Pa. Code 87.54, require submission of a blasting plan, “explaining how the applicant intends to comply with sections 87.124-129. * * *” With respect to the 133 dBL maximum airblast level, the applicant must describe the type of monitoring system that will ensure compliance with that level. Since the measuring system (i.e., seismograph microphone) with the lower frequency response of 2 hertz or lower is the only one for which the 133 dBL limit is appropriate, we expect that the PADEP will only approve the use of this system. Based upon this, OSM finds that this revision is no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(b)(1)(i) since all operators who measure airblasts with blasting seismo-graphs will be required to use a measuring system with a lower frequency response of 2 hertz or lower, (+/−3dB). Therefore, we are approving this revised maximum decibel level.
PADEP is revising subsection (f)(1) to lower the distance from a blasting area where an operator must barricade and guard public highways and entrances to the operation from 1,000 feet to 800 feet. PADEP is also adding new language concerning alternative measures following the existing language.
As amended, subsection (f)(1) provides as follows:
The operator may use an alternative measure to this requirement if the operator demonstrates, to the Department's satisfaction, that the alternative measure is at least as effective at protecting persons and property from the adverse affects of a blast. Alternative measures are measures such as: Start Printed Page 72720
(I) The diameter of holes.
While this provision has no direct Federal counterpart, we find that it is consistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.66(c), pertaining to access control, since any alternative measure chosen must be shown to be at least as effective at protecting persons and property as are barricades. Therefore, we are approving it.
PADEP is revising subsection (j) by deleting the cross-reference to subsection (n) and changing it to (m). This change was proposed because the proposed deletion of subsection (l), which is discussed below, will result in the relettering of the subsequent subsections of section 87.127. Thus, subsection (n) will become subsection (m) if the deletion of subsection (l) is approved. Since we are approving the deletion of subsection (l), we are also approving this cross-referencing change.
PADEP is deleting subsection (l) in its entirety. Subsection (l) previously provided as follows:
The use of a formula to determine maximum weight of explosives per delay for blasting operations at a particular site may be approved by the Department if the peak particle velocity of 1 inch per second required in 87.126 (relating to use of explosives: Public notice of blasting schedule) would not be exceeded.
While the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(d)(3) allow an operator to use a scale distance equation to determine the maximum weight of explosives allowable to be detonated in any 8-millisecond period without seismic monitoring, regulatory authorities are not required to provide the operators with this option. Therefore, we find that the deletion of the option to use a formula to determine maximum weight of explosives is no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(d), and we are approving it.
PADEP is changing subdivision (4) by adding the phrase: “identification of and the” after “The” at the beginning of the paragraph.
As amended subdivision (4) provides as follows:
We find that the provision as provided does not render the Pennsylvania program less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.68(d). Therefore, we are approving it.
Before discussing the several changes PADEP has proposed to this section of its anthracite mining regulations, it is appropriate to offer a summary of our standards for the review of proposed revisions to Pennsylvania's anthracite mining performance standards.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11, pertaining to performance standards for anthracite mining in Pennsylvania, provide as follows:
In 1979, we explained in the preamble to the previous version of 30 CFR 820.11 how we would decide, pursuant to 30 CFR part 732, whether changes to Pennsylvania's anthracite mining performance standards could be approved:
If the [anthracite performance standard] regulations existing as of August 3, 1977 are made less stringent in any manner, the Secretary must elect to develop specific Federal performance standards to supplement the amended State regulation or, of [sic] considered desirable, the Secretary may apply the performance standards for surface mining and underground coal mining of Parts 816 and 817.
We interpret the standard above to mean that if we find a proposed anthracite performance standard provision to be no less stringent than the performance standard existing as of August 3, 1977, we will approve it under Section 529(a) of SMCRA, which required that the Federal regulations adopt the original (August 3, 1977) Pennsylvania anthracite regulations, and apply them to anthracite mining in lieu of SMCRA's own performance standards. If, however, we find the provision to be less stringent than its August 3, 1977 predecessor, we may still approve it, if we determine that it is no less effective than its Federal regulatory counterpart in 30 CFR part 816 or part 817. We will not approve any provision that is less stringent than its August 3, 1977, predecessor, and that is also less effective than its Federal regulatory counterpart.
PADEP added the following language to subsection (a) after “sunset”:
* * * except that mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast for that mine opening may be conducted at any time of day or night as necessary to maintain stability of the mine opening to protect the health and safety of mineworkers. For mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast, for that mine opening, the Department may approve ground or airblast vibration limits at a dwelling, public building, school, church or commercial or institutional structure, that are less stringent than those specified in Subsection (h) if consented to, in writing, by the structure owner and lessee, if leased to another party.
Blasting shall be conducted between sunrise and sunset, except that mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast for that mine opening may be conducted at any time of day or night as necessary to maintain stability of the mine opening to protect the health and safety of mineworkers. For mine opening blasting conducted after the second blast, for that mine opening, the Department may approve ground or airblast vibration limits at a dwelling, public building, school, church or commercial or institutional structure, that are less stringent than those specified in Subsection (h) if consented to, in writing, by the structure owner and lessee, if leased to another party.
While the allowance of exceptions to the requirement that blasting be conducted in daylight would render Pennsylvania's regulation less stringent than the current Pennsylvania provision, the proposed changes are no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.61, for the reasons more fully discussed above in the finding for section 87.127(a). Therefore, in accordance with Section 529(a) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11, we are approving this revision to the special permanent program performance standards for anthracite mines in Pennsylvania.
PADEP changed subsection (b) by adding the following phrases: “airblast or ground vibration limits,” after “periods” and “from the adverse affects Start Printed Page 72721of ground vibration, airblast, or safety hazards” after “public.”
The Department may specify more restrictive time periods, airblast or ground vibration limits, based on other relevant information, according to the need to adequately protect the public from the adverse affects of ground vibration, airblast, or safety hazards.
Pennsylvania's proposal to allow the PADEP to specify more restrictive airblast or ground vibration limits adds potential protections from blasting that are not in the current version of this provision. In addition, Pennsylvania has proposed to make clear what it is protecting the public from: The adverse effects of ground vibration, airblast, or safety hazards. These proposed changes would not render section 88.135(b) less effective than the current Pennsylvania provision. Therefore, in accordance with Section 529(a) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11, we are approving this revision to the special permanent program performance standards for anthracite mines in Pennsylvania.
PADEP amended subsection (f)(1) by adding new language concerning alternative measures following the existing language.
PADEP is revising subsection (h) to delete the existing language, “the maximum peak particle velocity may not exceed 2 inches per second” and adding the following new language after “operations,”, “* * * the blasts shall be designed and conducted in a manner that achieves either a scaled distance of 90 or meets the maximum allowable peak particle velocity as indicated by Figure 1 * * *” PADEP further changed the last sentence of this subsection by replacing “sound pressure” with “airblast” and by removing the phrase, “130 DB linear at a frequency 6Hz or lower” and replacing it with “133 dBL.”
As amended, subsection (h) provides as follows:
In all blasting operations, the blasts shall be designed and conducted in a manner that achieves either a scaled distance of 90 or meets the maximum allowable peak particle velocity as indicated by Figure 1 at the location of any dwelling, public building, school, church or commercial or institutional building. Peak particle velocities shall be recorded in three mutually perpendicular directions; longitudinal, transverse and vertical. The maximum peak particle velocity shall be the largest of any of three measurements. The Department may reduce the maximum peak particle velocity allowed, if it determines that a lower standard is required because of density of population or land use, age or type of structure, geology or hydrology of the area, frequency of blasts, or other factors. The airblast level may not exceed 133 dBL.
These proposed changes to section 88.135(h) would not render the provision less stringent than the current Pennsylvania regulation. More specifically, we conclude that the proposed uniform maximum airblast level of 133 dBL is no less stringent than the current Pennsylvania regulation, for the same reasons that we concluded that the same revision to 25 Pa. Code 87.127 (e)(1) did not render that provision less effective than the corresponding Federal regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Section 529(a) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11, we are approving these changes to the special permanent program performance standards for anthracite mines in Pennsylvania.
PADEP is revising subsection (i) by deleting the word “limitation” and by adding the phrase “and airblast limitations.”
As amended subsection (i) provides as follows:
The maximum peak particle velocity and airblast limitations of this section do not apply at the following locations:
While the proposed change exempts certain structures from airblast limitations as well as peak particle velocity limitations, and is less stringent than the current Pennsylvania regulation, it is substantively identical to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(e).
Therefore, in accordance with Section 529(a) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11, we are approving this revision to the special permanent program performance standards for anthracite mines in Pennsylvania.
PADEP is removing subsection (l) in its entirety. This subsection previously provided as follows:
The use of a formula to determine maximum weight of explosives per delay for blasting operations at a particular site may be approved by the Department if the peak particle velocity of 2 inches per second would not be exceeded.
This proposed deletion would not render section 88.135 less stringent than the current Pennsylvania regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Section 529(a) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11, we are approving this revision to the special permanent program performance standards for anthracite mines in Pennsylvania.
PADEP is revising subdivision (4) by adding the phrase: “identification of and the” after “The” at the beginning of the paragraph.
Since the proposed change requires that additional data be provided in the records of blasting regulations, it would not render section 88.137 less stringent than the current Pennsylvania Start Printed Page 72722regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Section 529(a) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11, we are approving this revision to the special permanent program performance standards for anthracite mines in Pennsylvania.
PADEP is revising subdivision (7)(i) by replacing the existing language “initial rounds of slopes, shafts and tunnels” with new language “mine opening blasting.”
As amended, subdivision (7)(i) provides as follows:
Since the proposed change adds mine opening blasting to the list of activities to be subject to the referenced permitting requirement (88.45) and performance standards (88.134-137), and since mine opening blasting includes initial rounds of slope, shafts, and tunnels, it would not render section 88.493 less stringent than the current version of the regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Section 529(a) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11, we are approving this revision to the special permanent program performance standards for anthracite mines in Pennsylvania.
PADEP is revising this section to replace the existing language “initial rounds of slopes, shafts and tunnels” with “mine opening blasting.”
As amended, 25 Pa. Code 89.62 provides as follows:
As noted above in finding no. 5, the Federal regulations do not define the term “initial rounds of slopes and shafts”. However, the PADEP's definition of mine opening blasting includes “blasting for the purpose of constructing a shaft, slope, drift or tunnel mine opening”, which naturally would include blasting for the initial rounds of slopes and shafts. Therefore, this revision is no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.61(a) and (c)(1) and is hereby approved.
PADEP is revising this section to add new language after “Commonwealth”, “Except for persons engaging in mine opening blasting.”
As amended, 25 Pa. Code 210.12 provides as follows:
The provisions that follow, but that are omitted from the provision, are references to the Pennsylvania Anthracite Coal Mine Act (52 P.S. 70.101-70.1405) and the Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Mine Act (52 P.S. 701-101-701-706). These statutes regulate underground anthracite and bituminous mining, respectively, and include separate requirements for blasters and blasting activities. However, PADEP regulates mine opening blasting as surface blasting incident to underground mining, in accordance with the Federal regulations. This provision clarifies that distinction, in that it requires blasters to obtain licenses to conduct surface blasting. While the provision has no direct Federal requirement, we find it to be no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 850, and hereby approve it.
PADEP is revising subsection (a) to add the following new language “mine opening blasting” after “demolition,” and after “mining,”.
As amended, section 210.17 provides as follows:
The proposed change makes clear that mine opening blasting is not general blasting, but rather is a specific classification of blasting to which all requirements of Chapter 210 apply. While the provision has no direct Federal counterpart, we are approving it because it is consistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 850, which require certification of blasters engaged in the use of explosives in surface coal mining operations.
We asked for public comments on the amendment in the July 31, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 43087) and then extended the comment in the September 11, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 53351).
We held a public hearing on the rulemaking on September 21, 2006 (Administrative Record No. 887.11) and received responses from three different commenters representing Mountain Watershed Association.
Response: We are approving the changes applicable to mine opening blasting after the second blast, in section 87.127(a), because, as explained in finding no. 5, such blasting is not regulated under 30 CFR 817.61-68.
2. Commenters objected to the change in language to “the adverse effect of vibration or safety hazards” in section 87.127(b) when the Federal rules require protection of the public from “adverse noise and other impacts.”
Response: The Federal counterpart regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(b)(1)(ii) and 816.67(d)(5) allow the regulatory authority to establish lower airblast or ground vibration limits where necessary to prevent damage. The commenters' reference to protecting the public from “adverse noise and other impacts” is Start Printed Page 72723found in 30 CFR 816.64(a)(2), which pertains to exceptions to the requirement to conduct blasting between sunrise and sunset, but does not pertain to the establishment of lower airblast or ground vibration limits. By requiring stricter limits to protect the public from “the adverse effects of ground vibration, airblast, or safety hazards, Pennsylvania's revised regulation will provide at least the same, if not greater, protection than its Federal counterparts.
3. Commenters expressed concern regarding the allowance of weaker vibration limits and air blast limits in section 87.127(e). This amendment, according to the commenters, is less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(e), in that it would allow Pennsylvania to approve lower vibration limits at a structure owned by a person other than the permittee.
Response: We disagree with the commenters. As noted in finding no. 5, above, we are approving this revision to 25 Pa. Code 87.127(e) because Federal regulations include no airblast limits for structures located within the permit area.
4. A commenter expressed concern that the proposed maximum airblast as proposed in section 87.127(e)(1) exceeds the Federal counterpart in 30 CFR 816.67(b)(1).
Response: We acknowledge the commenter's concern; however, as noted in finding no. 5, above, we are approving this revision to 25 Pa. Code 87.127(e)(1). Our approval is based on the fact all blasting seismographs manufactured today have 2 hertz microphones based on a standard developed with the International Society of Explosives Engineers Standards Committee, and based on our conclusion that the State's blasting plan regulation, in concert with revised subdivision (e)(1), will preclude the PADEP from approving the use of any blasting seismograph that uses a different type of microphone. Therefore only the 133 dBL limit is applicable.
5. Commenters express concern about the 1000' to 800' change for blocking roads and the option of alternative access control in section 88.135(f)(1). Commenters are concerned that OSM is allowing the Pennsylvania State Program to eliminate access control in lieu of alternative measures.
Response: The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.66 merely require access control to the blast area. They do not specifically require that public highways and entrances to the operation be barricaded and guarded by the operator.
6. A commenter asserted that the distance measured should be clarified to include an object for measurement (from the blast hole) and outside the permit area in section 87.129.
Response: We disagree with the commenter. The introductory paragraph of 25 Pa. Code 87.129 requires a record to be kept for each “blast,” and should, therefore, be interpreted to mean that the object of measurement is the nearest blast hole. We also note that the Pennsylvania regulations are more effective because it requires maintaining information for the regulating of blasts that occur near buildings located both inside the permit area as well as outside the permit area.
7. In reference to the proposed deletion of section 87.127(l), one commenter questioned the validity of the Siskind theory of peak particle velocity of one inch per second, when, according to the commenter, this theory “was condemned back in 1980 by [Siskind's] peers * * *, [is] based on data and a methodology that has never been fully tested, and * * * violates common sense.”
Response: Since subsection (l) is being deleted in its entirety, and since the one inch per second peak particle velocity standard is not otherwise at issue in this revision, the comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
8. A commenter opposed the use of the peak particle velocity measure as a measure of safety or blasting damage, but rather advocated consideration of the actual damage caused by blasting. This same commenter stated that the pre-blast survey should be used by the PADEP for comparing the condition of the structure before and after blasting; if the structure is more damaged after blasting, the burden should be on the operator to prove that the damage was not caused by blasting.
Response: The use of peak particle velocity as a blasting threshold is authorized by the Federal regulations, at 30 CFR 816.67 and 817.67. Pre-blast surveys and presumptions of liability are not subjects of this revision.
9. Commenters expressed numerous concerns about the amendments to section 88.135 (25 Pa. Code 88.135 is in the Pennsylvania Code for Anthracite Coal Mining), namely that of the peak particle velocity and maximum allowable noise levels.
Response: As discussed in the findings above, where proposed revisions to anthracite performance standards are no less effective than those currently in the Pennsylvania program, we are approving them pursuant to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11. We are approving the changes to 88.135(b), (f)(1), and (l) and one change to 88.135(h). Where proposed changes would be less effective than the current versions of the Pennsylvania regulations, but are no less effective than their Federal counterparts, we are also approving them pursuant to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 820.11. We are approving the revisions to 88.135(a) and (i). Finally, we are approving the proposed change to 88.135(h), which would allow a higher maximum airblast level of 133 dBL. Our approval is based on the fact all blasting seismographs manufactured today have 2 hertz microphones based on a standard developed with the International Society of Explosives Engineers Standards Committee, and based on our conclusion that the State's blasting plan regulation, in concert with revised subdivision (e)(1), will preclude the PADEP from approving the use of any blasting seismograph that uses a different type of microphone. Therefore only the 133 dBL limit is applicable.
10. A commenter stated that OSM's summary of the amendment should be written in plain language, and include portions of the regulations immediately preceding and following the amended provisions, so that people may more readily understand the changes.
Response: OSM will take this comment under consideration when writing subsequent Federal Register notices announcing receipt of program amendments.
11. A commenter disputed OSM's statement in the proposed rule that the amendment “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.” To the contrary, the commenter stated, “[b]lasting damages have a significant economic effect on private homeowners.”
Response: Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the term “small entity” means the same thing as the terms “small business”, “small organization” and “small governmental jurisdiction”. 5 U.S.C. § 601(6) Thus, the provision cited does not apply to individuals, including private homeowners.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and Section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Pennsylvania program (Administrative Record No. PA 887.01). No comments were received. Start Printed Page 72724
Based on the above findings, we are approving the Pennsylvania program amendment sent to us on June 8, 2006, as revised on July 5, 2006, and on April 4, 2008 (Administrative Record No. PA 887.00, 887.02, and 887.12, respectively). To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 938 which codify decisions concerning the Pennsylvania program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this regulation effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
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; and (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 Pennsylvania submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon Start Printed Page 72725counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.
[FR Doc. E8-28445 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]