[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64797-64801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 938

[SATS No. PA-170-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2108-0007; S1D1S SS08011000 
SX064A000 234S180110 S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 23XS501520]


Pennsylvania Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSMRE), are approving a request from Pennsylvania for the removal of a 
required amendment to the Pennsylvania regulatory program (hereinafter, 
the Pennsylvania program) under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The required amendment 
directed Pennsylvania to submit regulations requiring that siltation 
structures (e.g., sedimentation ponds) not be removed any sooner than 
two years after the last augmented seeding.

DATES: The effective date is September 9, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Owens, Acting Field Office 
Director, Pittsburgh Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement, Telephone: (412) 937-2827. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program

    Subject to OSMRE oversight, 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 program includes, among other things, 
State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with 
the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). Based on 
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.

II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated August 9, 2018 (Administrative Record No. PA 
903.00), Pennsylvania requested removal of a required amendment from 
its program. This amendment, 30 CFR 938.16(rrr), requires Pennsylvania 
to amend three subsections in title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code (Pa. 
Code), specifically subsections 87.108(c), Hydrologic balance: 
sedimentation ponds (applicable to surface coal mining), 89.24(c), 
Performance Standards: Sedimentation ponds (applicable to underground 
coal mining), and 90.108(c), Hydrologic balance: sedimentation ponds 
(applicable to coal refuse disposal sites), or otherwise to amend its 
program to require, without exception, that sedimentation ponds not be 
removed sooner than two years after the last augmented seeding.
    We gave notice of receipt of Pennsylvania's August 9, 2018, request 
in the May 1, 2019, Federal Register (84 FR 18435). In the same notice, 
we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a 
public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not 
hold a public hearing or meeting because none was requested. The public 
comment period ended on May 31, 2019. We received no comments.

III. OSMRE's Findings

    We are approving Pennsylvania's request to eliminate the required 
amendment as described below and approving language we previously 
rejected as being less effective than the Federal regulations. The 
following are findings we made concerning Pennsylvania's request under 
SMCRA at 30 U.S.C. 1253, State Programs, and the Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 732.15, Criteria for approval or disapproval of State programs, 
and 732.17, State program amendments.

A. Pennsylvania's Rationale

    With this request, Pennsylvania presents a number of reasons why 
the required amendment should be removed and why previously submitted 
language revising 25 Pa. Code 87.108(c)--Sedimentation Ponds: Surface 
Coal Mines; 89.24(c)--Sedimentation Ponds: Underground Mines and Coal 
Preparation Facilities; and 90.108(c)--Sedimentation Ponds: Coal Refuse 
Disposal should be approved. The previously submitted revised language 
required that sedimentation ponds be maintained until the disturbed 
area has been stabilized and revegetated and removal is approved by the 
Department, and that the ponds may not be removed sooner than 2 years 
after the last augmented seeding unless the Department finds that the 
disturbed area has been sufficiently revegetated and stabilized.
1. Use of Best Technology Currently Available (BTCA)
    In support of removing the required amendment and accepting the 
revised language, Pennsylvania identifies the 1985 court decision in In 
re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, 620 F. Supp. 1519 
(D.D.C.), as well as our 1986 rule suspending 30 CFR 816.46(b)(2) and 
817.46(b)(2), and reasons that 30 CFR 816.46(b)(1) now governs sediment 
control. Pennsylvania also notes that when a pond is removed prior to 
two years after the last augmented seeding, its program requires that 
sediment control measures that have been determined by the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to constitute BTCA must 
at that point be in place. 25 Pa. Code 87.108(i), 90.108(j). 
Pennsylvania also notes that its program establishes vegetation 
standards (25 Pa. Code 87.147-87.153, 87.155, 87.156, 89.86, 90.151-
90.157, 90.159, and 90.160) as the BTCA. For example, 25 Pa. Code 
87.147(b) requires the establishment of ``a diverse, effective and 
permanent vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the 
area of land to be affected and capable of self-regeneration and plant 
succession at least equal in extent of cover to the natural vegetation 
of the area. . . .''.
    Pennsylvania's submission also references Montana and Ohio as 
successfully amending their programs and receiving OSMRE approval to 
allow removal of sedimentation ponds sooner than two years after last 
augmented seeding if replaced by BTCA. See 55 FR 19727 (May 11, 1990) 
(regarding the Montana program); 59 FR 58778 (November 15, 1994) 
(regarding the Ohio program).
2. Approval Required Prior to Removal
    In support of removing the required amendment and accepting the 
revised language, Pennsylvania also indicates that 25 Pa. Code 
87.108(c), 89.24(c), and

[[Page 64798]]

90.108(c) require the regulatory authority to approve the removal of 
the ponds as required by 30 CFR 816.46(b)(5), which we infer reflects 
Pennsylvania's view that the required approval provides a safeguard 
against the possibility that sedimentation ponds would be removed 
prematurely.
3. Revegetation Experience
    In further support of removing the required amendment and accepting 
the revised language, Pennsylvania recounts its experience with 
revegetation and notes that revegetation is often established in less 
than two years. Pennsylvania adds that because siltation structures 
pose reclamation liability and, in some cases, a potential public 
safety hazard, they should be removed as soon as they are no longer 
necessary, which is often less than two years.
4. No Statutory Prohibition
    Finally, in support of removing the required amendment and 
accepting the revised language, Pennsylvania states that there is no 
statutory prohibition to Pennsylvania's approach.
    In conclusion, Pennsylvania asserts that its program's approach, 
with the revised language and without the required amendment, is no 
less effective than the Federal program for the reasons mentioned 
above. Therefore, Pennsylvania is requesting that the required program 
amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(rrr) be removed and proposed revisions to 25 
Pa. Code sections 87.108(c), 89.24(c), and 90.108(c) be approved.

B. Background of Regulatory Scheme

    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR parts 816 and 817 (Permanent 
program performance standards for surface mining and underground 
mining, respectively) require operators to minimize disturbance of the 
hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas and to prevent 
material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area 
during mining and reclamation activities. 30 CFR 816.41(a) and 
817.41(a). The standards address groundwater and surface water 
protections and include a requirement that additional contributions to 
streamflow of suspended solids or runoff outside the permit area be 
prevented to the extent possible using the BTCA. 30 CFR 816.45(a)(1) 
and 817.45(a).
    To assist in achieving these objectives, operators often construct 
siltation structures for sediment control of surface drainage. The 
Federal regulations define a siltation structure as ``a sedimentation 
pond, a series of sedimentation ponds, or other treatment facility.'' 
30 CFR 701.5. Siltation structures were originally considered by OSMRE 
to be the BTCA. They are designed, constructed, and maintained to 
provide adequate sediment storage volume and adequate detention time to 
allow the effluent from the ponds to meet State and Federal effluent 
limitations. As discussed below, the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
816.46(b)(5) specifically prohibits removal of siltation structures 
sooner than two years after the last augmented seeding.
    Challengers of a 1983 Federal rule that, in part, expanded the 
definition of ``siltation structure'' to include ``other treatment 
facilities'' (51 FR 41952) asserted in litigation that, in certain 
circumstances, siltation structures of any type can cause adverse 
effects on the hydrologic balance. The court concluded that the 
preamble to the final rule failed to provide sufficient rationale for 
requiring siltation structures in every instance. In re Permanent 
Surface Mining Reclamation Litigation, 620 F. Supp. 1519, 1568 (D.D.C. 
1985). Consequently, the court remanded the challenged regulations at 
30 CFR 816.46(b)(2) and 817.46(b)(2) to the Secretary for further 
analysis and explanation. In response, OSMRE suspended the remanded 
rules. 51 FR 41952, 41957-41958 (November 20, 1986). The effect of this 
suspension was to require that sediment control of surface drainage be 
governed by BTCA rather than requiring such drainage to be passed 
specifically through siltation structures. We concluded that when 
measures other than siltation structures (which under Federal 
regulations include vegetation, see 30 CFR 701.5) are determined to be 
BTCA, the performance standards of 30 CFR 816.45 and 817.45 will 
control. 51 FR 41957-41958. We also concluded that where siltation 
structures are determined to be BTCA, the performance standards in 30 
CFR 816.46(b)-(d) and 817.46(b)-(d) will continue to apply. Id.
    Since the suspension in 1986, OSMRE has approved revisions to two 
State programs (Montana and Ohio) to allow the removal of siltation 
structures sooner than two years after last augmented seeding if 
replaced by BTCA. In 1990, OSMRE approved a revision to Montana's 
program and the two-year retention requirement for sedimentation ponds 
and siltation structures. See 55 FR 19727 (May 11, 1990). Montana 
proposed to require that sedimentation ponds and other treatment 
facilities not be removed sooner than two years after the last 
augmented seeding within the drainage unless otherwise approved by the 
State in compliance with water quality performance standards/
regulations and sediment control standards/regulations. The revision 
required that a pond removed sooner than two years after the last 
augmented seeding within the drainage area must be replaced by a 
sediment control measure determined by the regulatory authority to 
constitute BTCA. In 1994, OSMRE approved a revision to Ohio's program 
and the two-year retention requirement for sedimentation ponds and 
siltation structures. See 59 FR 58778 (Nov. 15, 1994). OSMRE approved 
Ohio's proposal revising its regulations to authorize removal of 
siltation structures sooner than two years after the last augmented 
seeding, upon a demonstration that revegetation is the BTCA for 
sediment control.
    The required amendment Pennsylvania seeks to remove here was 
imposed by OSMRE in response to a 1996 proposed amendment by PADEP. The 
proposed amendment covered a number of provisions and a range of topics 
including revisions to 25 Pa. Code sections 87.108(c), 89.24(c), and 
90.108(c), which would have allowed reclamation of sedimentation ponds 
in less than two years. See 62 FR 60169 (November 7, 1997). 
Specifically, the 1996 proposal required that sedimentation ponds be 
maintained until the disturbed area is stabilized and revegetated and 
removal is approved by PADEP. Pennsylvania also proposed to delete 
related references to ``other treatment facilities.'' We presumed at 
the time that this deletion was proposed because the Pennsylvania 
regulations at 25 Pa. Code sections 87.108, 89.24, and 90.08 require 
all draining to be passed through sedimentation ponds rather than by 
any other treatment method. 62 FR 60172. OSMRE approved the removal of 
references to ``other treatment facilities.'' Id.
    Unlike the Montana and Ohio revisions, referenced above, 
Pennsylvania's 1996 submission made no reference to any requirement 
that removal of siltation structures sooner than two years after the 
last augmented seeding would be approved upon a demonstration that 
revegetation is the BTCA for sediment control.
    Because Pennsylvania's proposal presumptively precluded the use of 
any ``other treatment facilities'' and required the use of 
sedimentation ponds rather than any other treatment method, OSMRE did 
not approve an exception to the temporal requirement related to 
siltation structure removal. Therefore, OSMRE did not approve revisions 
to 25 Pa. Code sections 87.108(c), 89.24(c),

[[Page 64799]]

and 90.108(c) and further directed the State to amend its program to 
address the perceived deficiencies.

C. OSMRE Findings

    In its request to remove required amendment 30 CFR 938.16(rrr), 
Pennsylvania presents a more robust justification for why the required 
amendment should be removed and why Pennsylvania's approach, including 
the revisions to 25 Pa. Code sections 87.108(c), 89.24(c), and 
90.108(c), should be approved.
1. Use of BTCA
    The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.46(b)(5) requires that 
siltation structures not be removed sooner than two years after the 
last augmented seeding. However, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.46(b)(2) and 817.46(b)(2), which mandated use of siltation 
structures, were suspended on November 29, 1986 (51 FR 41952) because 
the preamble failed to provide a sufficient rationale for requiring 
siltation structures in every instance. Explaining the effect of the 
suspensions, OSMRE stated that the ``regulatory authority must 
determine on a case-by-case basis what constitutes the `best technology 
currently available' as required by the Act and 30 CFR 701.5 which 
defines BTCA.'' 51 FR 41957.
    The effect of this suspension is to require that sediment control 
of surface drainage be governed by BTCA rather than requiring such 
drainage to be passed specifically through siltation structures for two 
years. In the 1986 rulemaking, OSMRE announced, in light of the change, 
that when measures other than siltation structures (which would include 
vegetation) are determined to be BTCA, the performance standards of 30 
CFR 816.45 will control. 51 FR 41957. OSMRE then explained that where 
siltation structures are determined to be BTCA, the performance 
standards in 30 CFR 816.46(b)-(d) will control. 51 FR 41957-41958.
    Under Pennsylvania's current program, if PADEP determines that a 
disturbed area featuring a siltation structure has been sufficiently 
revegetated and stabilized, it may conclude that vegetation has become 
BTCA, regardless of whether the siltation structure has been in place 
for two years from the last augmented seeding. This conclusion is 
consistent with the 1986 rulemaking, in which we indicated that ``the 
regulatory authority must determine on a case-by-case basis what 
constitutes the `best technology currently available.' '' 51 FR 41957. 
It is also consistent with our determinations in the Montana and Ohio 
rulemakings where we approved rules that allowed removal of siltation 
structures in less than two years if replaced by measures determined to 
be BTCA. BTCA is defined in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5 as:

equipment, devices, systems, methods, or techniques which will (a) 
prevent, to the extent possible, additional contributions of 
suspended solids to stream flow or runoff outside the permit area, 
but in no event result in contributions of suspended solids in 
excess of requirements set by applicable State or Federal laws; and 
(b) minimize, to the extent possible, disturbances and adverse 
impacts on fish, wildlife and related environmental values, and 
achieve enhancement of those resources where practicable.

30 CFR 701.5 adds that BTCA includes use of ``vegetative selection and 
planting requirements'' and provides that the regulatory authority has 
``discretion to determine the best technology currently available on a 
case-by-case basis, as authorized by the Act and this chapter.'' We 
recognize that a State may employ different types of BTCA to address 
effluent limitations and sediment storage requirements. We also 
recognize that the Pennsylvania program, without the required amendment 
at 30 CFR 938.16(rrr), still requires that water quality criteria and 
effluent limitations be satisfied, whether by use of siltation 
structures or another form of BTCA. 25 Pa. Code 87.106 (BTCA 
requirement); 25 Pa. Code 87.102(a) (water quality criteria); 25 Pa. 
Code 87.102(b) (effluent limitations).
2. Approval Required Prior to Removal
    The Federal regulations require the approval of the regulatory 
authority before siltation structures can be removed. As noted, 
Pennsylvania's submission points out that siltation structures must be 
maintained until the regulatory authority finds the disturbed area has 
been stabilized and revegetated. See 25 Pa. Code 87.108(c), 89.24(c), 
90.108(c). Although Pennsylvania's submission does not explicitly say 
so, we think this requirement, in conjunction with use of BTCA, provide 
an adequate safeguard against the possibility that sedimentation ponds 
would be removed prematurely.
3. No Statutory Prohibition
    Pennsylvania asserts that there are no Federal statutory 
prohibitions that preclude approval of its request to allow removal of 
siltation structures sooner than two years following last augmented 
seeding. We recognize that the SMCRA provisions at 30 U.S.C. 
1265(b)(10)(B)(i) and 1266(b)(9)(B) do not prescribe the type of BTCA 
to be used to control sediment. As discussed in the November 20, 1986, 
Federal Register notice, we anticipated that siltation structures will 
most likely constitute the ``Best Technology Currently Available''; 
however, case-by-case determinations should be made by the regulatory 
authority to determine if siltation structures are necessary to control 
surface water runoff. Pennsylvania's submission references revegetation 
standards that must be met before the regulatory authority determines 
that any siltation structures are not required on the site. Through 
this determination, if the site has been successfully reclaimed and 
revegetated with no surface runoff exceeding Federal or State effluent 
standards, then removal of the siltation structures would be approved 
because they would not be required to collect surface runoff from the 
site. Under these standards, Pennsylvania's program would establish 
reclamation and revegetation as the BTCA for controlling surface 
runoff.
    For the reasons explained above, we find that removal of the 
required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(rrr) and approval of the revised 
language to 25 Pa. Code sections 87.108(c), 89.24(c), and 90.108(c), 
would result in a program that is no less effective than the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.46(b)(1) and 816.46(b)(5) and that is 
consistent with SMCRA, and we are thus approving the request to remove 
the required amendment and approving the proposed revisions to 25 Pa. 
Code sections 87.108(c), 89.24(c), and 90.108(c).

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    In the May 1, 2019, Federal Register notice announcing our receipt 
of this amendment, we asked for public comments (Administrative Record 
No. PA-903.05). The comment period closed on May 31, 2019. No requests 
for public meetings or hearings were received. We did not receive any 
comments.

Federal Agency Comments

    On August 27, 2018, 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 903.01). We did not 
receive any comments.

[[Page 64800]]

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to obtain written 
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that 
relate to air or water quality standards issued 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.). Although we sought EPA concurrence in the Montana 
and Ohio rulemakings, we do not interpret section 30 CFR 
732.17(h)(11)(ii) (including the undefined phrase ``relate to . . . 
water quality standards'') to apply in this instance because the 
Pennsylvania program's requirement that operators comply with State 
water quality and effluent standards (25 Pa. Code 87.106, 87.102) is 
not affected by this rule. Without the required amendment at 30 CFR 
938.16(rrr), the program still mandates that water quality criteria and 
effluent limitations in section 87.102 be met through some form of 
BTCA. See 25 Pa. Code 87.106. Nonetheless, on August 27, 2018, under 30 
CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments from the EPA on the 
amendment (Administrative Record No. PA 900.01). No comments were 
received.

V. OSMRE's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we are approving the request from 
Pennsylvania sent to us on August 6, 2018 (Administrative Record No. PA 
903.00). To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 938.16 that codify decisions concerning the 
Pennsylvania program by removing subsection 938.16(rrr). We are also 
approving the proposed revisions to 25 Pa. Code sections 87.108(c), 
89.24(c), and 90.108(c). In accordance with the Administrative 
Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of 
publication. 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. SMCRA requires 
consistency of State and Federal standards, and we have determined that 
Pennsylvania's program, without the required amendment, achieves this.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12630--Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    This rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications that would result in private 
property being taken for government use without just compensation under 
the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. 
This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal 
regulations.

Executive Orders 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review, 13563--
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 14094--Modernizing 
Regulatory Review

    Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, 
provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993 (OMB Memo M-94-
3), the approval of State program and/or plan amendments is exempted 
from OMB review under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive 
Order 14094. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements 
Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required 
by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined that 
this Federal Register document meets the criteria of Section 3 of 
Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency 
review its legislation and proposed regulations to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity; that the agency write its legislation and 
regulations to minimize litigation; and that the agency's legislation 
and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct 
rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden 
reduction. Because Section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal 
legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under 
this Executive Order to the quality of this Federal Register document 
and to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this 
Executive Order did not extend to the language of the State regulatory 
program and/or plan to the program and/or amendment that Pennsylvania 
drafted.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule has no potential Federalism implications as defined under 
Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 13132 directs 
agencies to ``grant the States the maximum administrative discretion 
possible'' with respect to Federal statutes and regulations 
administered by the States. Pennsylvania, through its approved 
regulatory program, implements and administers SMCRA and its 
implementing regulations at the State level. This rule only corrects 
the CFR to reflect our prior approvals of the Pennsylvania program 
submitted and drafted by the State and, thus, has no effect on the 
maximum administrative discretion we are directed to give to States.

Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its 
government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment 
to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-
governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under 
the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in 
Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial 
direct effects on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Tribes. The basis for this 
determination is that our decision on the Pennsylvania program does not 
include Indian lands as defined by SMCRA or other Tribal lands and it 
does not affect the regulation of activities on Indian lands or other 
Tribal lands. Indian lands under SMCRA are regulated independently 
under the applicable Federal Indian program. The Department's 
consultation policy also acknowledges that our rules may have Tribal 
implications where the State proposing the amendment encompasses 
ancestral lands in areas with minable coal. We are currently working to 
identify and engage appropriate Tribal stakeholders to devise a 
constructive approach for consulting on these amendments.

Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of 
Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant 
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because 
this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not 
a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 
13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

[[Page 64801]]

National Environmental Policy Act

    Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 
1251(a) and 1292(d), respectively, and the U.S. Department of the 
Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), State program 
amendments are not 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 include requests and requirements of an 
individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and 
report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain 
information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.) is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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. 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.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    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 on an analysis of the 
corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to 
constitute a major rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. This determination 
is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which 
were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Thomas D. Shope,
Regional Director, North Atlantic--Appalachian Region.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 938 is amended 
as set forth below:

PART 938--PENNSYLVANIA

0
1. The authority citation for part 938 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 938.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  938.15  Approval of Pennsylvania regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Original amendment submission date      Date of final publication              Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
August 9, 2018..........................  September 8, 2024..........  25 Pa. Code 87.108(c), 89.24(c), and
                                                                        90.108(c); removal of sedimentation
                                                                        ponds before 2 years if replaced by
                                                                        BTCA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  938.16  [Amended]

0
3. Section 938.16 is amended by removing paragraph (rrr).

[FR Doc. 2024-17330 Filed 8-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P