[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56523-56528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27807]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 935

[OH-234; Amendment Number 63R]


Ohio Regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation Program 
Amendment

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the approval of a proposed amendment to the 
Ohio permanent regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land reclamation programs 
(hereinafter referred to as the Ohio programs) under the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The amendment was 
initiated by Ohio and is intended to reduce and reorganize the 
engineering staff of the Ohio programs in response to recent drops in 
Ohio coal production. The amendment would abolish 3.6 Ohio engineering 
staff positions and would reorganize the remaining engineering staff 
positions to assume the existing job duties. This program amendment 
does not propose any revisions to Ohio's coal mining law or rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Daniel L. Schrum, Acting Director, Columbus Field Office, Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 4480 Refugee Road, Suite 
201, Columbus, Ohio 43232; Telephone: (614) 866-0578.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Ohio Program.
II. Discussion 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 Ohio Program

    On August 16, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally 
approved the Ohio program. Information on the general background of the 
Ohio program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of 
comments, and a detailed explanation of the conditions of approval of 
the Ohio program, 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, 935.15, 935.16.

II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated March 15, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-1845), 
the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation 
(Ohio), submitted proposed Program Amendment Number 63 (PA 63). In that 
submission, Ohio proposed to reduce the staff of the Ohio programs by 
abolishing 28 existing positions. Ohio also proposed to reorganize the 
remaining staff positions to assume the existing job duties. PA 63 
contained no proposed revisions to Ohio's coal mining law in the Ohio 
Revised Code or coal mining rules in the Ohio Administrative Code.
    OSM announced receipt of PA 63 in the April 8, 1993, Federal 
Register (58 FR 18185), and in the same document opened the public 
comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the 
adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment period closed on 
May 10, 1993.
    OSM and Ohio staff met on May 20, 1993, to discuss OSM's 
preliminary concerns and questions about PA 63. By letter dated June 
16, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-1890), Ohio submitted additional 
information in response to those OSM concerns and questions. Through an 
oversight, OSM did not reopen the public comment period at that time.
    Subsequently, by letter dated November 2, 1993 (Administrative 
Record No. OH-1948), OSM formally provided Ohio with its questions and 
comments on the March 15 and June 16, 1993, submissions of PA 63. OSM's 
questions and comments were listed under the following six headings: 
Streamlining of AML Designs; Engineering: Bond Forfeitures; 
Engineering: Inspection and Enforcement Issues; Position Descriptions; 
Bond Forfeiture Program; and SOAP Program.
    By letter dated December 6, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-
1971), Ohio provided its responses to OSM's November 2, 1993, questions 
and comments. In addition, Ohio included three attachments. The first 
attachment was a November 5, 1993, letter to OSM explaining 
organizational responsibilities within Ohio's engineering/geotechnical 
support group and AML program. The second attachment was a log of 
engineering inspection and enforcement activity. The third attachment 
was an example of the revised position description for Ohio's 
reclamation inspectors, dated April 5, 1993. In its December 6, 1993, 
Administrative Record information, Ohio noted that additional position 
descriptions for Ohio's engineering management staff were being revised 
but did not attach copies.

[[Page 56524]]

    OSM announced receipt of Ohio's additional Administrative Record 
information in the January 21, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 3325), 
and, in the same document opened the public comment period and provided 
an opportunity for a public hearing on the adequacy of the proposed 
amendment. The public comment period closed on February 7, 1994.
    During its review of Ohio's December 6, 1993, response and 
attachments, OSM identified two concerns regarding engineering 
practices and engineering workload which OSM staff communicated to the 
State during a meeting held on April 20, 1994 (Administrative Record 
No. OH-2012). Ohio responded in a letter dated April 21, 1994 
(Administrative Record No. OH-2014) with additional information on both 
issues. OSM announced receipt of this additional information, along 
with the explanatory information submitted by Ohio on June 16, 1993, 
and reopened the comment period for PA 63 in the June 9, 1994, Federal 
Register  (59 FR 29748). The public comment period closed on June 24, 
1994.
    OSM and Ohio staff met on July 14, 1994, to discuss Ohio's progress 
with the reorganization of its engineering staff and whether the 
proposed staffing levels could handle the anticipated engineering 
workload (Administrative Record No. OH-2038). As of that date, Ohio had 
completed its engineering reorganization but could not yet provide OSM 
with projected workload calculations.
    In the September 1, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 45206), the 
Director of OSM announced his partial approval and deferral of PA 63. 
The Director approved the proposed staffing changes to ten areas of 
Ohio's programs but deferred his decision on the proposed changes to 
Ohio's engineering staff. The Director deferred that portion of his 
decision based on Ohio's April 21, 1994, letter to OSM (Administrative 
Record No. OH-2014) and the July 14, 1994, meeting with Ohio 
(Administrative Record No. OH-2038) in which Ohio indicated that its 
reorganization of engineering resources was still underway. Ohio agreed 
to resubmit the engineering portion of the amendment, upon completion, 
to OSM for review.
    On November 1, 1994 (Administrative Record No. OH-2068), OSM 
requested an update from Ohio on the State's progress in documenting 
the results of its engineering reorganization. OSM and Ohio staff met 
on November 29, 1994, to discuss that progress (Administrative Record 
No. OH-2071). Ohio provided copies of four supporting documents at that 
time.
    On November 29, 1994 (Administrative Record No. OH-2072), the Ohio 
Inspector General (OIG) published his report of investigation 
concerning the Sands Hill coal slurry impoundment. Ohio's PA 63 was 
mentioned specifically in the allegations discussed in the OIG report. 
The report stated that the OIG's investigation did not develop any 
information that the Chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 
Division of Reclamation reorganized the Division of Reclamation to 
benefit the coal industry.
    OSM and Ohio staff met again on December 15, 1994 (Administrative 
Record No. OH-2074), at which time Ohio provided several additional 
documents describing Ohio's projection of the engineering resources 
needed to support its regulatory program. On December 30, 1994, Ohio 
provided a similar analysis of the engineering needs of its AML program 
(Administrative Record No. OH-2089). On January 23, 1995 
(Administrative Record No. OH-2084), OSM provided comments to Ohio on 
these engineering work projections.
    By letter dated February 2, 1995 (Administrative Record No. OH-
2088), Ohio submitted its revised engineering staff configuration as 
Program Amendment Number 63 Revised (PA 63R). In this submission, Ohio 
is proposing to reduce the engineering staff of the Ohio regulatory and 
AML programs down to 10.4 full-time positions by abolishing 3.6 of the 
14 engineering positions which supported those programs prior to PA 63. 
As with the previous submissions of PA 63, PA 63R contains no proposed 
revisions to Ohio's coal mining law in the Ohio Revised Code or coal 
mining rules in the Ohio Administrative Code.
    Ohio's February 2, 1995, submission of PA 63R consisted of five 
parts:
    (1) Description and justification of engineering staff actions;
    (2) Proposed table of organization showing the 10.4 engineering 
staff positions;
    (3) Proposed position description for Engineering Specialists;
    (4) Personnel table showing distribution of work percentages of its 
10.4 engineering staff positions between Ohio's regulatory and AML 
programs; and
    (5) Eight documents included by reference: table of organization, 
position description, personnel table, regulatory workload assessment, 
regulatory workload: geographic distribution--1993, regulatory work 
logs--1993, regulatory ARP logs--1993, and AML workload analysis.
    As justification for these engineering staff changes, Ohio also 
submitted a narrative explaining its staffing proposal and summarizing 
the results of an engineering workload analysis conducted by Ohio with 
OSM assistance. Ohio also stated its plans to conduct on-going 
assessment of any additional engineering support needed by its 
regulatory and AML programs.
    OSM announced receipt of PA 63R in the February 17, 1995, Federal 
Register (60 FR 9317), and in the same document opened the public 
comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the 
adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment period closed on 
March 20, 1995.

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 Ohio 
PA 63R. Section 503(a)(3) of SMCRA requires that a State regulatory 
authority must have sufficient administrative and technical personnel, 
as well as funding, to implement, administer and enforce its approved 
programs. The Director's findings discussed below reflect his 
determinations that under the proposed reduction and reorganization of 
Ohio's engineering staff, Ohio has sufficient engineering personnel to 
implement, administer and enforce its approved programs.

(1) Overall Justification for Engineering Staff Changes

    Ohio's overall justification for the reduced engineering staff 
levels is based on the decline, between 1987 and 1992, in the issuance 
of new permits, the number of active permits, the number of inspections 
and enforcement actions, and in overall coal production. The Director 
concurs that this five-year decline has occurred as a result of the 
overall decline in Ohio coal production since 1977 (Administrative 
Record No. OH-2154). The Director also concurs that this present 
industry downturn has had direct impact on Ohio's programs and that 
Ohio's goals of reducing and streamlining its engineering program are 
therefore appropriate.

(2) Proposed Changes to Ohio Regulatory Engineering Staff

    Ohio is proposing to have a total of 3.2 full-time engineering 
staff positions dedicated to its regulatory program. These 3.2 
positions will be made up of varying percentages of the work hours of 
eight employees: 25 percent of one Central Office Engineer, 50 percent 
of 

[[Page 56525]]
two Field Engineers, 25 percent of one Field Engineer, 20 percent of 
one Surveyor, and 50 percent of three Engineering Specialists. This 
staffing level represents a reduction of 0.8 full-time staff positions 
from the 4.0 regulatory engineering positions that existed prior to PA 
63.
    Ohio has submitted a proposed Position Description for the three 
Engineering Specialist positions which it plans to create to provide 
technical assistance to its Central Office and Field Engineers. Ohio 
has also provided an explanation of the need for and responsibilities 
of these positions in the narrative portion of PA 63R.
    Ohio has documented that the decrease in the number of active mine 
permits between 1987 and 1992 has also meant a corresponding decrease 
in engineering workload in the Inspection and Enforcement section. This 
engineering workload includes reviews of mine plans, pond designs, and 
general engineering assistance to inspectors. Ohio estimates that 
between 1570 and 4312 engineering staff hours will be needed each year 
to accomplish these tasks. OSM estimates the required hours to be in 
the range of 2100 to 6000 hours annually.
    With the proposed 0.8 reduction in regulatory engineering staff, 
Ohio estimates that 3758 hours of engineering staff time will be 
available to meet these needs. Because this figure falls within both 
Ohio's and OSM's projections of needed resources, the Director finds 
that this engineering staff reduction is commensurate with the decrease 
in Ohio's regulatory engineering workload and will not prevent Ohio 
from effectively conducting its approved program. During oversight of 
the Ohio program, OSM will monitor the engineering workload to assure 
that there will be adequate staffing levels to implement the Ohio 
program.

(3) Proposed Changes to Ohio AML Engineering Staff

    Ohio is proposing to have a total of 7.2 full-time engineering 
staff positions dedicated to its AML program. These 7.2 positions will 
be made up of varying percentages of the work hours of eleven 
employees: 100, 70, and 50 percent of three Central Office Engineers, 
respectively; 65 percent of one Field Engineer; 45 percent of two Field 
Engineers; 80 percent of one Surveyor; 50 percent of three Engineering 
Specialists; and 100 percent of one Drafting Technician. This staffing 
level represents a reduction of 2.8 full-time staff positions from the 
10.0 AML engineering positions that existed prior to PA 63.
    Ohio's Federal AML Program is responsible for reclaiming mined 
lands which were abandoned prior to August 3, 1977 and which are 
causing danger to the public's health and safety. The program selects, 
designs, and constructs AML reclamation projects to abate these public 
hazards. Income to Ohio's Federal AML Program is based, in part, on the 
amount of Federal coal severance taxes paid by Ohio coal mine 
operators. With the overall decline in Ohio's Statewide coal production 
since 1977, the funding available to Ohio's Federal AML program and the 
number of AML reclamation projects designed and constructed have also 
decreased.
    Ohio estimates that, at current AML project levels, between 3502 
and 22364 engineering staff hours are required annually to plan, 
design, and monitor Federal AML and emergency reclamation projects. 
With the proposed 2.8 reduction in AML engineering staff, Ohio 
estimates that 7951 hours of engineering staff time will be available 
to meet these needs. Because this figure falls within Ohio's projection 
of needed resources, the Director finds that this engineering staff 
reduction is commensurate with the decrease in Ohio's AML engineering 
workload and will not prevent Ohio from effectively conducting its 
approved program. As previously stated, during oversight of the Ohio 
program, OSM will monitor the engineering workload to assure that there 
will be adequate staffing levels to implement the Ohio program.

(4) On-going Assessment of Ohio Engineering Support

    Both Ohio and OSM acknowledge the approximate nature of the 
workload estimates contained in PA 63R. In acknowledgement of this 
condition, Ohio has included in PA 63R a proposal to conduct on-going 
assessments of the actual engineering support needed by its programs. 
These assessments will allows Ohio to detect and correct any shortfall 
in engineering resources, should any such shortfall occur.
    The Director concurs with this approach and is requiring Ohio to 
periodically assess the effectiveness of the engineering staff changes 
proposed in PA 63R and to evaluate the need for additional staff or 
other organizational changes.
    With this provision, the Director finds, in accordance with section 
503(a)(3) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 732.17, that all of proposed PA 63R meets 
the requirements of SMCRA and the Federal regulations in that Ohio has 
sufficient engineering personnel to implement its approved programs.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

     On April 8, 1993, January 21, 1994, June 9, 1994, and February 17, 
1995, the Director solicited public comments and provided an 
opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed amendment. One 
commenter requested a public hearing, but that request was later 
withdrawn and so no hearings were held.
    By letter dated May 10, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-1878), 
the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) submitted 
substantive comments on 13 topics concerning PA 63. The Director 
discussed 12 of those topic areas in the September 1, 1994, Federal 
Register (59 FR 45206) as part of this decision to partially approve 
and defer PA 63. The remaining OCSEA comments concern Ohio's proposed 
engineering staff changes:
    (1) As a result of staff reductions, one regulatory engineer is now 
performing the work of five engineers. This represents approximately an 
80 percent reduction in the regulatory engineering staff. This drastic 
reduction is not justified by the much smaller decrease in engineering 
services for mining operations.
    The Director notes that, before the submission of PA 63, the 
engineering portion of Ohio's regulatory staff (also know as the 
Inspection and Enforcement section or ``I & E section'') had five 
regulatory engineering positions (three environmental engineers and two 
project engineers), but only four of the five positions were filled. 
The remaining environmental engineer position was vacant.
    After the first submission of PA 63, OSM raised its various 
engineering concerns with Ohio. Pursuant to those discussions, Ohio 
revised its engineering section to satisfy OSM's concerns and created 
positions for three engineering specialists, who will work directly 
with an engineer. Ohio determined, and OSM agrees, that Ohio's 
engineers were spending a significant portion of their time reviewing 
work and projects which could be more efficiently conducted by 
engineering specialists. Ohio is also requiring a surveyor to devote 20 
percent of his time to the engineering portion of the I & E section. 
After Ohio implements its engineering staffing plan, the engineering 
portion will be composed not only of four engineers (devoting up to 50 
percent of their time to the I & E section), but three engineering 
specialists (devoting up to 

[[Page 56526]]
50 percent of their time to the I & E section) and a surveyor to assist 
the engineers. The net effect will be a loss of 0.8 engineering 
positions devoted to regulatory tasks as compared to the staffing level 
which existed prior to the initial submission of PA 63. There will be 
more engineering positions in place; but those positions will be 
conducting a wider range of regulatory and non-regulatory engineering 
work.
    The Director finds that the addition of the three engineering 
specialists and the surveyor to the engineering section creates a more 
effective distribution of the workload of the engineering portion of 
the I & E section because it will free up more time for the engineers 
to perform those tasks which are best suited for the engineers and 
their areas of expertise. The Director also finds that the reduction of 
full-time positions by 0.8 is nominal in light of the reduced workload. 
Lastly, the Director finds that the existing staff is capable of 
effectively performing all the functions required by Ohio's regulatory 
program. For further discussion, see Comment 2 below.
    (2) Ohio is assigning engineer job duties to personnel not 
necessarily qualified to perform those duties and with job descriptions 
which only include assisting an engineer and which do not require 
performing the actual duties.
    The Director disagrees with the commentor. As discussed in the 
previous comment, Ohio found that the engineers were performing tasks 
that could have been done by other trained personnel. Ohio is free to 
delegate to non-engineers those engineering support activities so long 
as those personnel are capable of performing those duties.
    As part of PA 63R, Ohio is transferring selected responsibilities 
from its engineers to engineering specialists and mine inspectors. OSM 
has reviewed the position descriptions provided by Ohio for the 
proposed new engineering specialist positions and existing inspector 
positions affected by the engineering staff changes. OSM has concluded 
that the proposed responsibilities for reviewing mining plans and pond 
designs, collecting field data, and operating computer applications are 
within the scope and capability of these positions.
    This determination is based on the fact the Ohio's coal mining law 
and rules do not specifically require review of any part of mining 
permits by an engineer employed by Ohio. Rather, the permittee cannot 
conduct specific activities such as build a pond, construct a road, or 
develop an excess spoil site until that activity is approved by the 
Chief. The rules are not specific about how the Chief will develop or 
document decisions concerning engineering-type activities. 
Historically, Ohio field inspectors and permit reviewers have requested 
engineering review of typical engineering-type activities as part of 
the permit-approval process; but that review need not be done by a 
registered engineer.
    The use of non-engineer design specialists is addressed in Ohio 
Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4733. Non-engineers can perform all duties 
provided that those duties ``do not include responsible charge of 
engineering or survey work'' (ORC 4733.18(B)(1)) and the design 
specialist is ``an employee or subordinate of a person holding a 
certificate of registration'' (ORC 4733.18(B)(1)). Ohio has stated that 
the three engineering specialists will work directly with an engineer 
and under the supervision of a professional engineer (Administrative 
Record No. OH-2155).
    (3) Ohio did not consider recommendations from its engineering 
staff in purchasing a UNIX computer system and that system has a high 
learning curve and does not meet the needs of the engineering staff.
    This comment is beyond the scope of this amendment because it 
concerns an internal resource management issue which is not directly 
related to Ohio's proposed staffing changes. Therefore, the Director is 
acknowledging but making no response to this comment.
    The Director notes that one of the engineering specialists will be 
assigned to the TIPS workstation. TIPS is an advanced workstation that 
utilizes sophisticated computer software which is capable of 
substantially reducing the amount of time needed to evaluate certain 
type of projects in both the AML and regulatory programs. Ohio will 
assess the continued needs of its engineering program with regard to 
the use of SEDCAD, another engineering software program capable of 
predicting concentration of settleable and suspended solids in the 
effluent from sedimentation ponds and otherwise analyzing drainage 
control systems on surface mines.
    (4) Ohio has taken a systematic and planned approach to decimate 
the effectiveness and productivity of the engineering and design 
section. What was once a highly effective section has been dismantled 
without any survey work, designers, drafters, and less engineers to be 
replaced with machines with no personnel to operate them.
    The Director disagrees that Ohio has decimated the effectiveness 
and productivity of the engineering and design section. The reduced and 
reorganized engineering staff now proposed in PA 63R is capable of 
performing all functions required by Ohio's programs.
    OSM also received comments on PA 63 and PA 63R dated June 22, 1994 
(Administrative Record No. OH-2026), and July 13, 1995 (Administrative 
Record No. OH-2145), from Howard R. Fauss, P.E. In his June 22, 1994, 
letter, Mr. Fauss commented that the former Chief of the Division of 
Reclamation, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, restructured the 
Division of Reclamation to reduce or eliminate engineer's input into 
the review of mining and operations plans. According to Mr. Fauss, the 
Chief drastically reduced engineering hours available for regulatory 
purposes and eliminated engineers dedicated to those tasks. The Chief's 
plan was to create an engineering organizational structure with limited 
accountability, no individual responsibility for assisting the 
reclamation inspector, and no qualified engineers available to do such 
work. Engineers were pressed to do AML rather than regulatory work, 
with 44 persons on Ohio's AML staff and only three regulatory 
engineers.
    In his July 13, 1995 letter, Mr. Fauss commented that Ohio's 
proposed fragmentation of individual engineer's duties between 
different programs is a clear recipe for a way not to get the 
regulatory duties accomplished. According to Mr. Fauss, the former 
Chief was always attempting to direct the engineer's attentions to 
anything other than regulatory duties. Even though Ohio's revised 
engineering staff plan looks better on paper, it will not accomplish 
the intended goals. Ponds will still not receive a realistic review 
using SCS-recommended parameters.
    The Director notes these comments and reiterates that OSM's purpose 
in reviewing PA 63R is to determine if the reduced and reorganized 
engineering staff proposed in PA 63R will be capable of performing all 
engineering functions required by Ohio's programs. As discussed above, 
OSM has reviewed Ohio's workload analyses and concluded that the 
proposed staffing should be adequate. Ohio and OSM will continue to 
monitor the engineering workload of Ohio's programs. If those analyses 
indicate that the revised staffing is insufficient, OSM will require 
Ohio to further amend its program.
    It is not appropriate for OSM to attempt to respond to Mr. Fauss' 
comments concerning the intent behind Ohio's engineering staff changes. 
OSM may only decide if those changes are likely to prevent or 
negatively impact Ohio's ability to perform its 

[[Page 56527]]
responsibilities under its approved programs. OSM does note, however, 
that the OIG's report (Administrative Record No. OH-2072) did not agree 
with Mr. Fauss' claims concerning the purpose of the engineering 
reductions.
    OSM received no other public comments on PA 63R.

Agency Comments

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited 
comments on PA 63 and PA 63R from the Regional Director of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and from the heads of four other 
Federal agencies and one State agency with an actual or potential 
interest in the Ohio program. Comments received concerning PA 63 were 
discussed in the September 1, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 45211).
    Concerning PA 63R, the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and 
Health Administration, responded without comment. Comments on PA 63R 
were also received from the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO). 
The OHPO did not object to the proposed amendment. However, the OHPO 
noted that historic preservation matters must be fully integrated into 
the planning and engineering process and should be reflected in all job 
descriptions and factored into any evaluations of staffing needs. The 
Director acknowledges the importance of historic preservation planning 
and, through normal oversight of the Ohio program, will ensure that 
these matters are not adversely impacted by the proposed engineering 
staff changes.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the 
written concurrence of the EPA with respect to those provisions of the 
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality 
standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
    None of the revisions that Ohio proposed to make in this amendment 
pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not 
request EPA's concurrence.
    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on PA 
63R from EPA. By letter dated February 28, 1995 (Administrative Record 
No. OH-2096), EPA stated that it had no comments on the amendment.
    No other agency comments were received.

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, the Director approves the proposed 
amendment as submitted by Ohio on February 2, 1995.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 935 codifying decisions 
concerning the Ohio 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 
conform their programs 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 a State program are not enforceable 
until approved by OSM. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) 
prohibit any unilateral changes to approved programs. In the oversight 
of the Ohio program, the Director will recognize only the approved 
program, together with any consistent implementing policies, 
directives, and other materials, and will require the enforcement by 
Ohio of such provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

    This final 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 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 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 
corresponding 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 corresponding Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: November 1, 1995.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating 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 935--OHIO

    1. The authority citation for Part 935 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 935.15 is amended by adding new paragraph (zzz) to read 
as follows:

[[Page 56528]]



Sec. 935.15  Approval of regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *
    (zzz) The following amendment (Program Amendment 63R) pertaining to 
the Ohio regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land reclamation programs, as 
submitted to OSM on February 2, 1995, is approved, effective November 
9, 1995: Reduction and reorganization of engineering staff.

[FR Doc. 95-27807 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M