[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X94-10330]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 30, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 935

 

Ohio Regulatory Program Amendment

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 
Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and extension of public comment 
period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSM is reopening the public comment period for proposed 
Program Amendment Number 62 Revised (PA 62R) to the Ohio permanent 
regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as the Ohio program) under 
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The amendment 
was initiated by Ohio and is intended to make the Ohio program as 
effective as the corresponding Federal regulations. The amendment 
concerns the removal of siltation structures prior to two years after 
the last augmented seeding upon a demonstration that alternative 
measures are the best technology currently available for sediment 
control.
    This document sets forth the times and locations that the Ohio 
program and proposed amendment to that program will be available for 
public inspection, the dates and times of the reopened comment period 
during which interested persons may submit written comments on the 
proposed amendment, and the procedures that will be followed regarding 
the public hearing, if one is requested.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 4 p.m. on April 
14, 1994. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will 
be held at 1 p.m. on April 11, 1994. Requests to present oral testimony 
at the hearing must be received on or before 4 p.m. on April 6, 1994. 
Any disabled individual who has need for a special accommodation to 
attend a public hearing should contact the individual listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to testify at the hearing 
should be mailed or hand delivered to Richard J. Seibel, Director, 
Columbus Field Office, at the address listed below. Copies of the Ohio 
program, the proposed amendment, and all written comments received in 
response to this document will be available for public review at the 
addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through 
Friday, excluding holidays. Each requester may receive, free of charge, 
one copy of the proposed amendment by contacting OSM's Columbus Field 
Office.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Columbus Field 
Office, 4480 Refugee Road, suite 201, Columbus, Ohio 43232, Telephone: 
(614) 866-0578.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, 1855 
Fountain Square Court, Building H-3, Columbus, Ohio 43224, Telephone: 
(614) 265-6675.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard J. Seibel, Director, Columbus Field Office, Telephone: (614) 
866-0578.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 16, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally 
approved the Ohio program. Background information on the Ohio program, 
including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and a 
detailed explanation of the conditions of approval, can be found in the 
August 10, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 34688). Subsequent actions 
concerning the conditions of approval and program amendments are 
identified at 30 CFR 935.11, 935.12, 935.15, and 935.16.

II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated March 4, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-1841), 
the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation 
(Ohio) submitted proposed Program Amendment Number 62 (PA 62). In this 
amendment, Ohio proposed to revise three rules in the Ohio 
Administrative Code (OAC) to authorize the removal of siltation 
structures prior to two years after the last augmented seeding upon a 
demonstration that alternative measures are the best technology 
currently available for sediment control. Ohio proposed that this 
demonstration must be specific and be contained in or amended into the 
permit, and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Chief of 
the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation (the 
Chief). As part of and in support of PA 62, Ohio also submitted 
Administrative Record information discussing Ohio's intended 
implementation of this proposal.
    OSM announced its receipt of proposed PA 62 in the Federal Register 
(58 FR 17372) on April 2, 1993. The public comment period ended on May 
3, 1993. The public hearing scheduled for April 27, 1993, was not held 
because no one requested an opportunity to testify.
    By letter dated September 20, 1993, (Administrative Record No. OH-
1931), OSM provided its comments to Ohio on the March, 4, 1993, 
submission of PA 62. OSM found that, in order for OSM to approve PA 62, 
Ohio must demonstrate that vegetation established earlier than the end 
of the first two years will control sediment no less effectively than a 
siltation structure. Further, Ohio must supply the policy or review 
criteria by which the State will review proposals from permittees that 
certain erosion-control methods other than siltation structures are the 
best technology currently available.
    By letter dated October 20, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-
1943), Ohio provided its initial response to OSM's September 20, 1993, 
comments on PA 62. Ohio requested additional time to develop the 
required information and requested technical assistance from OSM in 
developing that information. Ohio and OSM staff met on February 11, 
1994, (Administrative Record No. OH-1988) to discuss the available 
information on pond removal and erosion control.
    By letter dated March 1, 1994 (Administrative Record No. OH-1994), 
Ohio resubmitted Program Amendment Number 62 Revised (PA 62R) which is 
intended to resolve the two requirements in OSM's September 20, 1993, 
letter. Ohio submitted additional documents in support of PA 62R by 
letter dated March 10, 1994 (Administrative Record No. OH-1994). In 
total, PA 62R consists of new proposed revisions to two Ohio rules, 
revisions to an existing Ohio Policy/Procedure Directive, and five 
technical study articles intended to correlate vegetative ground cover 
with runoff and soil loss. Each of these three parts of PA 62R is 
discussed briefly below:

A. Rule Revisions

    (1) OAC 1501:13-4-05 paragraph (E)(1)(g) and 13-4-14 paragraph 
(E)(1)(f): Ohio is further revising these two paragraphs to provide 
that the plan in each permit application for protection of the 
hydrologic balance shall describe the measures to be taken to prevent, 
to the extent possible using the best technology currently available, 
additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow, or runoff 
outside the permit area. The Chief may determine that vegetation is the 
best technology currently available for this prevention upon a 
demonstration by the permittee that vegetation is established and that 
drainage from the area meets effluent limitations and does not 
contribute suspended solids to streamflow. If the applicant proposes to 
make such a demonstration after vegetation is established and to remove 
siltation structures sooner than two years after the last augmented 
seeding of a drainage area, the applicant shall state such intentions 
in the timetable and plans for removal of sediment control structures 
required by paragraphs (H)(1)(b)(iv) or (H)(1)(c)(iv) of OAC 1501:13-4-
05 or OAC 1501:13-4-14.
    (2) OAC 1501:13-4-05 and 13-4-14 paragraph (H)(1)(b)(iv): Ohio is 
further revising these two paragraphs to provide that the detailed 
design plans for impoundment structures that meet or exceed size or 
other criteria of MSHA shall describe the timetable and plans to remove 
each structure, if appropriate. The applicant must include a statement 
of intent if the applicant proposes to demonstrate that vegetation is 
the best technology currently available and proposes to remove 
siltation structures sooner than two years after the last augmented 
seeding of the drainage area.
    (3) OAC 1501:13-4-05 and 13-4-14 paragraph (H)(1)(c)(iv): Ohio is 
further revising these two paragraphs to insert the same proposed 
language as quoted above for paragraph (H)(1)(b)(iv) in order that the 
language also apply to the detailed design plans for impoundment 
structures that do not meet the size or other criteria of MSHA.

B. Revisions to Ohio Policy/Procedure Directive

    As part of and in support of PA 62R, Ohio is proposing to revise 
its existing Inspection and Enforcement Policy/Procedure Directive 
Number 93-4 entitled ``Removal of Siltation Structures and Termination 
of NPDES Monitoring.'' The proposed revisions to the Policy/Procedure 
Directive concern the content of revised OAC 1501:13-9-04 paragraph 
(G)(2)(e), the requirements for timing of augmented seeding, the 
methods to be used to evaluate success of ground cover, and the use of 
the form for requesting removal of siltation structures.

C. Supporting Study Articles

    As part of and in support of PA 62R, Ohio has also submitted five 
technical study articles intended to correlate vegetative ground cover 
with runoff and soil loss:
    (1) Hofmann, L., R.E. Ries, and J.E. Gilley. ``Relationship of 
Runoff and Soil Loss to Ground Cover of Native and Reclaimed Grazing 
Land.'' Agronomy Journal, Vol. 75, July-August 1983, P. 599-602.
    (2) Hofmann, L. and R.E. Ries. ``Relationship of soil and plant 
characteristics to erosion and runoff on pasture and range.'' Journal 
of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol 46, Number 2, March-April 1991, p. 
143-147.
    (3) Ries, R.E. and L. Hofmann. ``Relationship of Ground Cover of 
Short and Midgrass Communities to Soil Loss.'' North Dakota Farm 
Research, Vol. 44, Number 2, September-October 1986, p. 29-31.
    (4) USDA, Agricultural Research Service and The Ohio State 
University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. ``Final 
Report: Research on the Hydrology and Water Quality of Watersheds 
Subjected to Surface Mining.'' USDI, Bureau of Mines Contract Report 
Nos. J0166054 and J0166055, January 1984, 35 p.
    (5) USDA, Agricultural Research Service and The Ohio State 
University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. 
``Postmining Results in Muskingum County, Ohio: Research on the 
Hydrology and Water Quality of Watersheds Subjected to Surface 
Mining.'' USDI, Bureau of Mines Contract Report Nos. J0166054 and 
J0166055, April 1983, 196 p.

III. Public Comment Procedures

    OSM is reopening the comment period on the proposed Ohio program 
amendment to provide the public an opportunity to reconsider the 
adequacy of the proposed amendment in light of the additional materials 
submitted. In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM 
is now seeking comment on whether the amendment proposed by Ohio 
satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If 
the amendment is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Ohio 
program.

Written Comments

    Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues 
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the 
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated 
under DATES or at locations other than the Columbus Field Office will 
not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included in 
the Administrative Record.

Public Hearing

    Persons wishing to comment at the public hearing should contact the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m. on April 
6, 1994. The location and time of the hearing will be arranged with 
those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity 
to testify at the public hearing, the hearing will not be held.
    Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is 
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of 
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials 
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
    The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all 
persons scheduled to comment have been heard. Persons in the audience 
who have not been scheduled to comment and who wish to do so will be 
heard following those scheduled. The hearing will end after all persons 
scheduled to comment and persons present in the audience who wish to 
comment have been heard.

Public Meeting

    If only one person requests an opportunity to comment at a hearing, 
a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons 
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed 
amendment may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings shall be open to the 
public and, if possible, notices of the meetings will be posted in 
advance at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. A written summary of 
each public meeting will be made a part of the Administrative Record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed/final rule is exempted from review by the Office of 
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12778

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 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 such program is drafted and promulgated 
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA 
(30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since 
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not 
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C).

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.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: March 23, 1994.
Robert J. Biggi,
Acting Assistant Director, Eastern Support Center.
[FR. Doc. 94-7499 Filed 3-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M