[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23826]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 27, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 946

 

Virginia Regulatory Program Amendment

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the approval, with exceptions, of a proposed 
amendment to the Virginia regulatory program (hereinafter referred to 
as the Virginia program) under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The proposed amendment includes 
changes to Virginia's regulations relative to siltation structures and 
impoundments, revegetation standards for success, and roads and road 
construction. The amendment is intended to revise the State program to 
be consistent with the corresponding Federal standards and to clarify 
and correct inconsistencies in Virginia's rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap Field Office, P.O. Drawer 
1217, Powell Valley Square Shopping Center, Room 220, Route 23, Big 
Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone: (703) 523-4303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Virginia Program

    The Secretary of the Interior approved the Virginia program on 
December 15, 1981. Background information on the Virginia program 
including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and 
the conditions of approval can be found in the December 15, 1981, 
Federal Register (46 FR 61085-61115). Subsequent actions concerning the 
conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 
946.11, 946.12, 946.13, 946.15, and 946.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated October 22, 1993 (Administrative Record No. VA-
829), Virginia submitted proposed amendments to its regulatory program. 
The amendments address issues initially submitted to OSM on October 1, 
1990 (Administrative Record Number VA-768), but subsequently withdrawn 
by Virginia in a letter dated May 12, 1992 (Administrative Record No. 
VA-818), as discussed in the final rule issued July 7, 1992 (57 FR 
29788). Virginia submitted the request to withdraw portions of the 
October 1, 1990, submission (as modified April 18, 1991) in order to 
reconsider various proposals. Virginia's October 22, 1993, submission 
addresses the sections that Virginia withdrew in its May 12, 1992, 
letter except for Secs. 773.16(c)(4)(ii) and 773.16(c)(7).
    OSM announced receipt of the October 22, 1993, proposed amendments 
in the November 4, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 58827), and in the 
same document opened the public comment period and provided opportunity 
for a public hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendments. The 
public comment period closed on December 6, 1993.

III. Director's Findings

    Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17 are the Director's findings concerning the 
proposed amendment.
    Revisions not specifically discussed below concern nonsubstantive 
wording changes, or revised cross-references and paragraph notations to 
reflect organizational changes resulting from this amendment.

1. Section 480-03-19.816/817.49(a)(3)

    Virginia proposes to add new stability design requirements at 
Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.49(a)(3)(ii) for impoundments not meeting the 
size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a), except for a coal mine 
waste impounding structure. The impoundments, located where failure 
would not be expected to result in loss of life or serious property 
damage, shall have a minimum static safety factor of 1.3 for a normal 
pool with steady state seepage saturation conditions. These proposed 
provisions are substantively identical to the Federal rule at 30 CFR 
816/817.49(a)(3)(ii). The amendment further provides for use of earth 
embankments whose top widths are no less than 10 feet and whose 
embankment slopes are 2h:1v or flatter, provided the permittee 
documents that a minimum static safety factor of 1.3 can be met using 
the graphical solution methods outlined in the ``Bureau of Mines Report 
of Investigations/1981, RI 8564, Factor of Safety Charts for Estimating 
the Stability of Saturated and Unsaturated Tailings Pond Embankments, 
United States Department of the Interior.'' By letter dated February 
23, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-836), OSM advised Virginia that 
the graphical solution methods could be used in lieu of engineering 
tests, for low hazard impoundments not meeting the size or other 
criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) if all the appropriate parameters needed 
to use the graphs in RI 8564 are adequately documented for each 
embankment. OSM pointed out that the appropriate parameters included:

--Unit weight of the soil
--Height of the embankment
--Internal friction angle
--Cohesion
--Pore pressure ratio
--Slope of the embankment
--Depth factor

    In addition to satisfying these parameter requirements, OSM stated 
that the embankment would have to be constructed of homogeneous 
material and the stiff base under the foundation must be flat. By 
letter dated March 16, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-837), 
Virginia agreed that the parameters set forth in OSM's letter of 
February 23, 1994, will be required by the State for use with the 
graphs in RI 8564 and that the parameters must be documented for each 
embankment. Virginia further agreed that the embankment will be 
required to be constructed of homogeneous material and the stiff base 
under the foundation will be required to be flat. The Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii), 780.25(c)(3) and 
784.16(c)(3) provide for an alternative to engineering tests that 
establish for impoundments a minimum static safety factor of 1.3. If a 
State regulatory authority, through the State program amendment 
process, can establish engineering design standards that ensure 
stability comparable to the 1.3 minimum static safety factor, then such 
design standards are no less effective than 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii). The 
Director has determined that the proposed amendment to the Virginia 
regulations at Sec. VR 480.03.19.816/817.49(a)(3)(ii), as clarified by 
Virginia on March 16, 1994, ensures stability comparable to the 1.3 
minimum static safety factor and is no less effective than the Federal 
rules at 30 CFR 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii).

2. Section VR 480-03-19.816/817.116(b)(3)

    Virginia proposes to revise Sec. VR 480-03-19.816/
817.116(b)(3)(v)(A) regarding the stocking of trees, shrubs, half-
shrubs, and the ground cover established on the revegetated area where 
woody plants are used for wildlife management, recreation, shelter 
belts, or forest uses other than commercial forest land, by deleting 
the phrase ``approximate the stocking and ground cover on the 
surrounding unmined area.'' The Director finds the deleted language to 
be duplicative of requirements already found in the Virginia program. 
Therefore, the proposed deletion will not render Virginia's regulations 
less effective than the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3).

3. Section VR 480-03-19.816/817.116(c)(3)

    Virginia proposed to revise these subsections by deleting the term 
``conservation'' and replacing that term with the term ``husbandry.'' 
In its submittal of this amendment Virginia stated that the wording 
change was made to make the language consistent with the counterpart 
Federal provisions at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4). In addition to the 
proposed wording change, Virginia submitted administrative record 
information containing a list of normal husbandry practices and related 
reference materials intended to support the practices identified by 
Virginia as normal husbandry practices.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4) allow State 
regulatory authorities to select certain husbandry practices that will 
not extend the period of responsibility for successful revegetation and 
the bond liability of the permittee. These practices must be expected 
to continue as part of the postmining land use or that after 
discontinuance, the likelihood of permanent success is not reduced. 
Such practices must be submitted through the State program amendment 
process and must be approved by OSM before the State can implement such 
practices.
    Upon review of the materials provided by Virginia, OSM determined 
that there was no document establishing the list of practices as 
Virginia policy. In addition, there was no information explaining how 
the lists and technical references would be used. In a letter to 
Virginia dated February 23, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-836), 
OSM addressed its concerns with the proposed husbandry practices 
amendment. Virginia responded by letter dated May 12, 1994 
(Administrative Record No. VA-838). The State provided the following 
clarification.
    Virginia stated that within 30 days of OSM's approval of the 
husbandry practices provision, Virginia will issue a policy statement 
concerning husbandry practices. The draft policy statement submitted by 
Virginia reads as follows:

    The Virginia program at 480-03-19.816/817.116(c)(3) provides 
that the Division may approve selective husbandry practices that may 
be utilized without extending the period of responsibility for 
revegetation success and bond liability. On October 1, 1990, DMLR 
submitted for OSM's approval a limited list of the selected 
practices that can be used in Virginia. On ____________ OSM 
published in the Federal Register its final approval of the selected 
husbandry practices.
    Pursuant to this program amendment, there are a finite number of 
husbandry practices that have been approved by OSM. Coal surface 
mining operations may utilize only this list of practices without 
extending the bond liability period. For a copy of the program 
amendment or a description and supporting literature/publications, 
please contact Jerry Legg at the Division's Big Stone Gap Office.

    This draft language satisfies one of OSM's concerns about the 
proposed husbandry practices by making the following point: The list of 
husbandry practices approved by OSM comprises the only approved 
husbandry practices which may be used by industry without restarting 
the period of responsibility for reclamation success and bond 
liability.
    The following husbandry practices, were submitted and described by 
Virginia on October 22, 1993 (Administrative Record Number VA-829).
    Forestry--Common management practices for the land use of unmanaged 
forestry that will be allowed in Virginia without the restart of the 
bonding liability period:

Replanting of trees
Herbicide application
Pest control
Repair of rills and gullies as necessary to implement the land use

    Commercial Forestry--Common management practices for land use of 
commercial forestry that will be allowed in Virginia without the 
restart of the bonding liability period:

Replanting of trees
Herbicide application
Basal pruning
Insecticide application
Mowing
Fertilization and liming
Repair of rills and gullies as necessary to implement the land use

    Hayland/Pasture--Common management practices for the land use of 
hayland/pasture that will be allowed in Virginia without the restart of 
the bonding liability period:

Repair of rills and gullies
Application of lime fertilizer
Maintenance, weed and brush control
Rotation or continuous grazing
Reseeding or spot seeding
Fencing

    Commercial, Industrial, Residential, or Recreational--Common 
management practices for the land uses of commercial, industrial, 
residential, or recreational that will be allowed in Virginia without 
the restart of the bonding liability period:

Planting or replanting of trees
Application of lime and fertilizer
Surface roughing or the repair of rills and gullies
Seeding or reseeding
Irrigation
Sodding
Weed and pest control
Topsoiling and other standard landscaping practices
Gravel or asphalt
Construct structures

    In the administrative record information provided by Virginia 
concerning the husbandry practices of reseeding and spot seeding, these 
practices are limited to those situations listed below.

Hayland/Pasture

    Periodic reseeding to maintain or improve the desired combination 
of grasses and legumes.
    Seeding for weed control.
    Spot seeding in high traffic areas: e.g., around water troughs, 
salt licks, and areas damaged by livestock.
    Seeding of reclaimed rills and gullies.

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, or Recreational

    Reseeding to prevent rill erosion.
    Seeding to maintain the desired mix of plants.
    In its May 12, 1994, letter to OSM, Virginia also clarified the 
following points concerning its implementation of the husbandry 
practices provision. Virginia proposes to limit the extent of reseeding 
or spot seeding that it will allow as husbandry practice to a maximum 
of 10 percent of the applicable area. Virginia will also use the 10-
percent figure to limit areas where liming, fertilization, and 
irrigation may be used in excess of the levels normally applied to 
similar lands with the same land use.
    The 10-percent figure is inspired by the Virginia regulations 
concerning revegetation success. Specifically, VR 480-03-
19.816.116(a)(2) provides that ground cover, production, or stocking 
shall be considered equal to the approved success standard when they 
are not less than 90 percent of the approved success standard. The 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) have a similar standard.
    While the 10-percent statistical standard in the revegetation rules 
does not directly apply to husbandry practices, the proposed limiting 
of reseeding or spot seeding to 10 percent is reasonable. However, the 
Director finds that some additional limits must apply. For example, 
normal husbandry practices do not include large barren blocks of the 
reclaimed area. On the contrary, large blocks of barren areas (such as 
a block representing 10 percent of the applicable area) would indicate 
failed reclamation, not successful revegetation. Additionally, in 
revegetated areas which pass the established 90-percent standard bare 
or poorly revegetated areas are likely to be scattered about the 
applicable area, and not large blocks of barren land. Again, large 
blocks of barren areas would indicate failed reclamation. Consequently, 
the reseeding of such large blocks of barren areas representing failed 
reclamation would be augmentative seeding and would necessitate the 
restarting of the period of responsibility for reclamation success and 
bond liability. In addition, the reestablished vegetation must be in 
place for a sufficient length of time so as not to adversely affect 
Virginia's ability to make a valid determination at the time of bond 
release of the success of the reclamation.
    In the special case of the repair of rills and gullies as part of a 
forestry postmining land use, the administrative record contains a 
September 27, 1990, letter from the Virginia Department of Forestry. In 
that letter, the Regional Forester states that rills and gullies need 
not be repaired ``as a part of typical forest management unless the 
magnitude of the gully would interfere with the land use (of 
forestry).'' The letter goes on to say that rills and gullies often 
occur naturally in the steep slope areas of the Appalachian Region. OSM 
agrees that the repair of occasional and minor rills and gullies where 
proper grading and erosion management is practiced could be considered 
part of normal forestry management practice.
    Virginia clarified its interpretation of the degree of allowable 
repair of rills and gullies. Since erosion is a natural phenomenon, the 
repair of minor rills and gullies is not viewed by the Virginia program 
as a violation, nor does it require restarting of the bonding clock. 
However, the State added, the Virginia program considers erosion that 
repeatedly creates rills and gullies over a large area as a violation 
of at least one performance standard and potentially a violation of 
several standards. When the permittee fails to comply with the Virginia 
performance standards and rills and gullies repeatedly develop over a 
large area, Virginia will require restarting of the responsibility 
period. Virginia has demonstrated, and the Director finds through this 
amendment, and Virginia's clarifications and administrative record 
information, that in the State of Virginia, certain specified instances 
of rill and gully repair associated with land used for Forestry, 
Commercial forestry, Commercial, industrial, residential, or 
recreational, and Hayland/pasture will be considered a normal husbandry 
practice.
    Virginia also clarified that the husbandry practices for areas 
designed to enhance fish and wildlife will be consistent with the 
practices set forth for unmanaged forestry. The Director finds this to 
be reasonable.
    Virginia stated that since the Virginia coalfields are primarily 
located on steep slopes, there has been no incident where cropland, 
other than hay, has been developed on the postmining land use. 
Consequently, Virginia has not developed nor proposes any husbandry 
practice for such croplands. Should the Virginia coalfields expand or 
crop production become a viable option, the State will develop 
husbandry practices relevant to those crops and submit them to OSM for 
approval. Such practices will not be permitted by the State until 
approved by OSM. The Director concurs with the understanding that the 
State will submit any new husbandry practices to OSM for approval prior 
to their being permitted in Virginia.
    With the exceptions listed below, the Director finds the proposed 
amendment as augmented by the administrative record information 
submitted with this amendment, and as clarified by Virginia by letter 
dated May 12, 1994, is no less effective than the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4). This finding is made with the 
understanding that the policy statement to be issued by Virginia 
concerning normal husbandry practices will be identical in meaning to 
the draft language of that policy statement submitted to OSM by letter 
dated May 12, 1994. The Director is not approving as normal husbandry 
practice the reseeding of large blocks of areas made barren by poor 
reclamation, or where the reestablished vegetation has not been in 
place for a sufficient length of time for Virginia to make a valid 
determination of the success of the reclamation at the time of bond 
release.

4. VR Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.151(b)

    Virginia proposes to revise this section by changing the title from 
``Embankments'' to ``Safety factor,'' and by changing the language in 
(b)(1) to (1) reference ``organic material'' rather than ``vegetative 
material,'' and (2) add the phrase ``or other unsuitable material.'' 
These changes were proposed by Virginia in response to an issue letter 
from OSM dated March 20, 1991 (Administrative Record No. VA-792). The 
issue letter refers to the proposed program amendment submitted by 
Virginia on October 1, 1990, as discussed herein at II. Submission of 
Amendment. In that letter, OSM also asked Virginia to amend this rule 
to reflect that keyway cuts extend a minimum of two feet below the toe 
of the fill and that material placed in road embankments will be within 
acceptable moisture content levels. In its current submission, Virginia 
did not make the suggested changes, but provided clarification intended 
to show that its current regulations adequately address OSM's concerns.
    Virginia's Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) 
interprets its existing regulations to require keyway cuts beneath 
embankments on steep slopes to provide for stability of road 
embankments. The design of the keyway will be prepared by, or under the 
direction of, the applicant's registered professional engineer and will 
be reviewed by a DMME engineer. A minimum width of ten feet is 
specified and the keyway must be sloped inward in all cases. While 
other specifications may be proposed by the applicant or required by 
DMME, taking into account the conditions of the site, DMME believes the 
general requirement that keyway cuts be constructed at the toe of the 
road fills on steep slopes and the specific width and slope standards 
provide sufficient detail to ensure road embankment stability in most 
site specific cases. However, DMME interprets its regulations to 
require appropriate design given unusual site specific conditions. DMME 
retains the authority to require a keyway that has a two foot minimum 
depth below the toe of a road fill embankment as necessary when the 
foundations of the embankment is located in bedrock.
    DMME also feels that its current regulations adequately address 
OSM's concerns regarding moisture content of materials placed in road 
embankments on steep slopes. According to DMME, its regulations require 
such road embankments to be constructed in uniform compacted layers. In 
order to achieve a desired degree of compaction, materials must be 
placed within the acceptable range of moisture content. The DMME 
interprets its rule to embody the requirement that materials must be 
within the acceptable range of moisture content if the larger 
performance standard, that of placement in compacted layers, is to be 
achieved. DMME believes that its existing regulation is as effective as 
the Federal regulation. The Director finds that based upon the March 
20, 1991, letter and the clarification provided by Virginia, that VR 
480-03-19.816/817.151(b)(1) through (4) as set forth in Virginia's 
October 22, 1993, submission is consistent with the Federal rules set 
forth at 30 CFR 816/817.151, 780.37(c) and 784.24(c).

5. VR Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.152

    Virginia proposes to revise the language of this rule relating to 
the waiver of design standards for existing roads. As originally 
submitted on October 22, 1993, the proposed language could be read to 
imply that existing roads do not have to meet the performance standards 
of VR 480-03-19.816/817.150 and 816/817/151. In its issue letter dated 
February 23, 1994, OSM suggested new language which would resolve the 
controversy. In its March 16, 1994, response to the issue letter, 
Virginia revised the proposed language consistent with OSM's 
suggestion. The current proposal provides that where existing roads 
that are to be used meet the performance standards of 816/817.150 and 
816/817.151 and it can be demonstrated that reconstruction to meet the 
design standards of those provisions would result in greater 
environmental harm, the Division may waive the design requirements. 
Therefore, the Director finds that the provisions of VR 480-03-19.816/
817.152, as revised on March 16, 1994, are not inconsistent with the 
requirements of 30 CFR 701.11(e) which allow existing structures that 
meet the performance standards but not the design requirements to be 
exempt from meeting the design requirements.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    The Director solicited public comments and provided an opportunity 
for a public hearing on the proposed amendment. No public comments were 
received, and because no one requested an opportunity to speak at a 
public hearing, no hearing was held.

Agency Comments

    Pursuant to section 503(b) of SMCRA and the implementing 
regulations of 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited comments 
from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in 
the Virginia program. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Mine 
Safety and Health Administration, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency acknowledged receipt of the amendment without comment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), the Director is required to obtain 
the written concurrence of the Administrator of the EPA with respect to 
any provisions of a State program amendment that relate to air or water 
quality standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) or the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.). The Director has determined that this amendment contains no 
provisions in these categories and that EPA's concurrence is not 
required.

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, the Director approves, with the 
exceptions noted in Finding 3 above, the proposed amendment with 
supplemental administrative record information which was submitted by 
Virginia on October 22, 1993, and as revised on March 16, 1994, and on 
May 12, 1994.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 946, codifying decisions 
concerning the Virginia program, are being amended to implement this 
decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to 
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to 
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without 
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by 
SMCRA.

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. Thus, any changes to the State program are not operational 
until approved by OSM. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) 
prohibit any unilateral changes to approved State programs. In the 
oversight of the Virginia program, the Director will recognize only the 
statutes, regulations and other materials approved by him, together 
with any consistent implementing policies, directives and other 
materials, and will require the enforcement by Virginia of only such 
provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

    This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 
Review).

Executive Order 12778

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has 
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the 
applicable standards of subsection (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 OMB 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 946

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: September 16, 1994.
Ronald C. Recker,
Acting Assistant Director, Eastern Support Center.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII, 
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth 
below.

PART 946--VIRGINIA

    1. The authority citation for part 946 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 946.15 is amended by adding paragraph (hh) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 946.15  Approval of regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *
    (hh) The following amendment, with supplemental administrative 
record information, pertaining to the Virginia regulatory program, as 
submitted to OSM on October 22, 1993, and revised on March 16, 1994, 
and May 12, 1994, is approved, except as noted herein, effective 
September 27, 1994. The amendment consists of revisions to the 
following provisions of the Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation 
Regulations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          VR 480-03-19.816                                              Topic                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
816.49(a)(3)(ii)...................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;        
                                      Impoundments.                                                             
816.116(b)(3)(v)(A)................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;        
                                      Revegetation: Standards for Success.                                      
816.116(c)(3)......................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;        
                                      Revegetation: Standards for Success, except not approved as normal        
                                      husbandry practice is the reseeding of large blocks of areas made barren  
                                      by poor reclamation, or where the reestablished vegetation has not been in
                                      place for a sufficient length of time for Virginia to make a valid        
                                      determination of the success of the reclamation at the time of bond       
                                      release.                                                                  
816.151(b).........................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities; Primary
                                      Roads.                                                                    
816.152............................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;        
                                      Existing Roads.                                                           
817.49(a)(3)(ii)...................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;    
                                      Impoundments.                                                             
817.116(b)(3)(v)(A)................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;    
                                      Revegetation: Standards for Success.                                      
817.116(c)(3)......................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;    
                                      Revegetation: Standards for Success.                                      
817.151(b).........................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;    
                                      Primary Roads.                                                            
817.152............................  Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;    
                                      Existing Roads.                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-23826 Filed 9-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M