[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25846-25850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11887]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 906
Colorado Regulatory Program
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed amendment to the Colorado
regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as the ``Colorado
program'') under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA). Colorado proposed revisions to a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) of the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Water Quality Control
Division (WQCD) of the Colorado Department of Health for water quality
management at coal mines. The amendment revises the Colorado program to
be consistent with SMCRA and the implementing Federal regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas E. Ehmett, Telephone: (505) 766-1486.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Colorado Program
On December 15, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Colorado program. General background information on the
Colorado program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition
of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Colorado program can
be found in the December 15, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 82173).
Subsequent actions concerning Colorado's program and program amendments
can be found at 30 CFR 906.11, 906.15, 906.16, and 906.30.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated March 18, 1994, Colorado submitted a proposed
amendment to its program pursuant to SMCRA (administrative record No.
CO-604). Colorado submitted the proposed amendment in response to a
letter dated April 7, 1993 (administrative record No. CO-539), that OSM
sent to Colorado in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c). The amendment
consisted of a MOU dated February 9, 1994, between DMG and WQCD for
water quality management at coal mines. Colorado proposed that this MOU
would replace a January 21, 1985, MOU.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed MOU in the April 7, 1994,
Federal Register (59 FR 16578), provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited public
comment on its adequacy (administrative record No. CO-606). Because no
one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was held. The public
comment period ended on May 9, 1994.
During its review of the proposed MOU, OSM identified concerns
relating to certain provisions of item No. 2 of the ``Enforcement''
section of the proposed MOU. These concerns pertain to Colorado's
reliance on referenced 2 Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR) 407.2, Rule
4.05, which provides general authority for the enforcement of Federal
and State water quality laws, but does not provide specific enforcement
authority for effluent limitation violations under 40 CFR Part 434. OSM
notified Colorado of the concerns by letter dated June 16, 1994
(administrative record No. CO-627).
Colorado responded to OSM's concerns in a letter dated June 23,
1994, by submitting additional explanatory information (administrative
record No. CO-629). Based upon the additional explanatory information
for the proposed MOU submitted by Colorado, [[Page 25847]] OSM reopened
the public comment period in the July 29, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR
38575, administrative record No. CO-637). The public comment period
ended on August 15, 1994.
During its review of the additional information submitted by
Colorado, OSM identified concerns pertaining to the enforcement of
effluent standards and the actual standards for effluent limits. OSM
notified Colorado of the concerns by letter dated September 16, 1994
(administrative record No. CO-646).
Colorado responded to OSM's concerns in a letter dated December 7,
1994, by submitting additional explanatory information (administrative
record No. CO-651). Based upon the additional explanatory information
for the proposed MOU submitted by Colorado, OSM reopened the public
comment period in the December 30, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 67690,
administrative record No. CO-654). The public comment period ended on
January 17, 1994.
III. Director's Findings
As discussed below, the Director, in accordance with SMCRA and 30
CFR 732.15 and 732.17, finds that the proposed MOU submitted by
Colorado on March 18, 1994, and as supplemented with additional
explanatory information on June 23 and December 7, 1994, is no less
effective than the requirements of the corresponding Federal
regulations and no less stringent than SMCRA. Accordingly, the director
approves the proposed MOU.
1. Purpose, Understanding, and Understanding Between the Parties
Colorado entitled the introductory sections of the proposed MOU as
``Purpose,'' ``Understanding,'' and ``Understanding Between the
Parties.''
In the ``Purpose'' section of the proposed MOU, Colorado states
that the MOU defines the respective responsibilities of DMG and WQCD
regarding coal mining activities as they impact the hydrologic balance.
This section of the MOU indicates that the purpose of the MOU is to (1)
ensure that appropriate corrective actions are applied to minimize the
period of noncomplaint discharge; (2) ensure that noncomplaint
discharges are appropriately cited in a timely manner and do not
receive an economic benefit over other facilities as a result of
noncompliance; (3) provide for coordination of enforcement actions in
order to minimize dual enforcement to the extent possible, while
maintaining the integrity of the programs implemented by DMG and WQCD;
and (4) foster enhanced communications and working relationships
between DMG and WQCD.
The ``Understanding'' section of the proposed MOU provides
recognition of the specific and separate statutory responsibilities of
DMG and WQCD to review permit applications, monitor and inspect field
sites, and take enforcement action. It also provides recognition of the
potential for duplication and inconsistent actions by DMG and WQCD in
the management of the hydrologic balance and water quality issues with
respect to the responsibilities of each party and provides that the MOU
will address each area of responsibility separately.
These ``Purpose'' and ``Understanding'' sections provide clarity
and detail that are not inconsistent with the hydrologic protection
provisions of section 515(b)(10) of SMCRA and the implementing Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816.41 through 816.57, and the inspection and
monitoring provisions of section 517 of SMCRA and the implementing
Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 840.
The ``Understanding Between the Parties'' section of the proposed
MOU indicates that DMG and WQCD may modify the MOU by written
concurrence of both parties, that the MOU replaces a previous MOU
entered into by DMG and WQCD on January 21, 1985, that nothing in the
MOU shall be construed to preempt or alter the statutory or regulatory
responsibilities and authorities of DMG and WQCD, and that the MOU
shall remain in effect until either party decides to terminate it.
For the purposes of this document, the Director wishes to clarify
that this proposed MOU replaces not only the 1985 MOU, which OSM had
not reviewed and approved as part of the Colorado program, but it also
replaces a December 15, 1980, MOU that OSM had approved (December 15,
1980, 45 FR 82173, 82211). With respect to the statement that the MOU
will remain in effect until either DMG or WQCD terminates it, the
Director wishes to clarify that any revision or termination of this
MOU, which is a part of the Colorado program, must be approved by OSM
in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17. As required by 30 CFR 732.17(b)(5),
Colorado must notify OSM of any changes in this agreement. Based upon
this understanding, the ``Understanding Between the Parties'' section
of the proposed MOU is not inconsistent with 30 CFR 732.17(b)(5).
For the above-stated reasons, the Director finds that the
``Purpose,'' ``Understanding,'' and ``Understanding Between the
Parties'' sections of the proposed MOU are not inconsistent with
sections 515(b)(10) and 517 of SMCRA and 30 CFR 816.41 through 816.57,
Part 840, and 732.17(b)(5). Therefore, the Director approves these
sections of the proposed MOU.
2. Review of Permit Applications
In the ``Review of Permit Applications'' section of the proposed
MOU, Colorado provides that DMG and WQCD will coordinate the review of
hydrologic information submitted with a coal mining permit application
with respect to information relevant to the Colorado Discharge Permit
System (CDPS) permits for process/mine water and stormwater point
source discharges. Such coordination includes (1) DMG and WQCD advising
potential coal mine permit applicants during pre-application meetings
of the need to contact the other party to the MOU; (2) DMG reviewing
coal permit applications to determine whether sediment control
structures are designed to meet technology-based effluent limitations
and to ensure that any stormwater control technologies are in
conformance with the Rules and Regulations for Coal Mining and Colorado
Revised Statutes 34-33-101 et seq., the Colorado Surface Coal Mining
Reclamation Act; (3) DMG and WQCD conferring, as appropriate, during
the course of permit review and drafting, to coordinate where there may
be duplication of effort or potential conflict between DMG and WQCD,
and to keep each other apprised of the technical developments of the
other Division; and (4) WQCD providing copies to DMG of all final CDPS
permit actions for coal mines at the time of issuance and DMG providing
copies to WQCD of all notices of final action on coal mining permits.
The ``Review of Permit Applications'' section of the proposed MOU
is not inconsistent with the permit approval or denial requirements of
section 510 of SMCRA and the Federal regulation requirements for permit
processing at 30 CFR Part 773. Therefore, the Director approves this
section of the proposed MOU.
3. Training
In the ``Training'' section of the proposed MOU, Colorado provides
that WQCD will provide water quality sample collection training to DMG
staff upon the request of DMG and that each party will provide general
inspection training upon the request of the other party to the
MOU. [[Page 25848]]
There is no section of SMCRA or the Federal regulations that
corresponds to this section of the proposed MOU. However, this section
is not inconsistent with SMCRA and the implementing Federal
regulations. Therefore, the Director approves the ``Training'' section
of the proposed MOU.
4. Inspections, Monitoring, and Sample Analysis
In the ``Inspections, Monitoring and Sample Analysis'' section of
the proposed MOU, Colorado provides that DMG and WQCD will coordinate
inspections, monitoring, and sample analysis. Such coordination
includes (1) DMG, at item 1 of this section, collecting, in those
instances where effluent violations are suspected, water quality
samples at CDPS discharge points during the course of conducting normal
site inspection obligations, and, in those instances where an
unpermitted discharge is suspected, DMG collecting a water quality
sample for analysis; (2) DMG including, in its inspection reports which
accompany a sample result specified in item 1, a detailed description
of site conditions and a discussion as to whether a precipitation event
has occurred at the site within the preceding 24 hours; (3) WQCD
paying, to the extent funds allow, for the cost of analysis for samples
collected pursuant to item 1, and then delivering such samples to the
Laboratory Division of the Colorado Department of Health for analysis,
with DMG absorbing the cost of obtaining the samples and transmitting
them to the lab; and (4) DMG following, for its sample collections, all
chain-of-custody and other normal enforcement procedures to ensure
sample integrity.
The ``Inspections, Monitoring and Sample Analysis'' section of the
proposed MOU is not inconsistent with the inspection and monitoring
requirements of section 517 of SMCRA and the Federal. regulation
requirements for inspection and enforcement at 30 CFR Part 840.
Therefore, the Director approves this section of the proposed MOU.
5. Enforcement
As discussed below, Colorado proposed several MOU provisions
concerning enforcement.
a. Enforcement of effluent limitations. In its April 7, 1993, 30
CFR Part 732 letter requiring Colorado to revise its program, OSM cited
the January 21, 1985, MOU which stated that ``as a matter of general
practice, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) [of which DMG is a
part], will be responsible for enforcing water quality protection
pertaining to the requirements for design and maintenance of structures
and the requirements to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance
from sources other than the point of discharge,'' and the Department of
Health (DOH) [of which WQCD is a part], ``will be responsible for
enforcing water quality control standards at the point of discharge.''
OSM concluded that DNR had ceded its authority to enforce effluent
limitations to DOH, which was a significant change from the December
15, 1980, MOU approved by OSM as a part of the Colorado program.
In response to the 30 CFR part 732 letter, Colorado proposed, in
the introductory paragraph of the ``Enforcement'' section of the
proposed MOU, that ``[a]s a matter of general practice, DMG will be
responsible for enforcing the requirements for design and maintenance
of water quality protection structures and the requirements to minimize
the disturbance to the hydrologic balance in accordance with the Rules
for Coal Mining at section 4.05,'' and ``WQCD will be responsible for
enforcing CDPS permit conditions, including effluent limitations, and
provisions of site specific stormwater management plans that are unique
to the CDPS permit.''
Colorado also proposed in the ``Enforcement'' section of the
proposed MOU at item No. 1, that WQCD is solely responsible for
enforcement of the CDPS permit program against point source discharges
of pollutants into the State's surface waters that are conducted
without an effective CDPS permit and for the enforcement of CDPS permit
conditions; at item No. 2, that DMG shall, upon receipt of the
completed analysis, determine whether a violation of the Rules for Coal
Mining at section 4.05 has occurred, as determined by comparison with
the Federal effluent limitation guidelines found at 40 CFR part 434,
and if DMG determines a violation has occurred, it shall issue a notice
of violation within 3 days of receipt of the completed analysis, and it
will provide a copy of the NOV and all other pertinent information to
WQCD; and at item No. 7, that, if an incident other than those
described in items 1 and 2 above occurs and such incident is a
violation of requirements under the jurisdiction of both DMG and WQCD,
then the two Divisions shall meet to coordinate enforcement proceedings
and minimize, to the maximum extent possible, duel enforcement.
The introductory paragraph and item Nos. 1 and 2 of this section of
the proposed MOU state, and Colorado has affirmed (administrative
record No. CO-629), that WQCD is solely responsible for enforcement of
the CDPS program relating to mine water and stormwater point source
discharges and DMG is responsible for enforcement of Federal water
quality standards at 40 CFR Part 434. Through these provisions,
Colorado has clarified that DMG retains its responsibility to enforce
effluent limitations that are part of its coal mining program pursuant
to SMCRA. Through these clarifications, Colorado has satisfied the
concerns raised by OSM in its April 7, 1993, 30 CFR Part 732 letter.
DMG's enforcement of the effluent limitations at 40 CFR Part 434 is
consistent with section 515 of SMCRA and with the Federal regulation at
30 CFR 816.42, which specifically requires that discharges of water
from areas disturbed by surface mining activities shall be in
compliance with the effluent limitations for coal mining promulgated by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 40 CFR Part 434.
However, OSM expressed a concern about the introductory paragraph
and item No. 2 of this section of the proposed MOU that both cite Rule
4.05 as a basis for DMG enforcing the Federal effluent limitations at
40 CFR Part 434 (administrative record No. CO-627). OSM was concerned
that, since this rule does not explicitly incorporate the Federal
effluent limitations at 40 CFR Part 434, it might not serve as an
adequate legal authority for Colorado to indicate in the MOU that DMG
will enforce the effluent limitations at 40 CFR Part 434 by issuing a
notice of violation if an exceedance of these limitations has occurred.
In response to this concern, Colorado provided in its December 7,
1994, letter to OSM an Attorney General's opinion that the general
language of the water quality protection provisions of CRS 34-33-
120(2)(b) and (j)(ii)(a) and Rules 4.05(1)(b) and 4.05.2(8), which
require compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations, serve
as adequate legal authority for Colorado's enforcement of the effluent
limitations at 40 CFR Part 434 (administrative record No. CO-651).
Nevertheless, Colorado has agreed to revise Rule 4.05 to explicitly
incorporate the 40 CFR Part 434 effluent limitations by reference
(administrative record No. CO-629).
Item No. 7 of the ``Enforcement'' section of the proposed MOU
provides that if an incident occurs that is a violation of requirements
under the jurisdiction of both DMG and WQCD, then the two Divisions
will coordinate enforcement proceedings and minimize, to the maximum
extent possible, dual enforcement. This provision is not inconsistent
with section 515 of SMCRA [[Page 25849]] and with the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816.42. However, the Director wishes to emphasize
that DMG is the designated regulatory authority for Colorado's SMCRA-
approved program under the documentation it provided to OSM in
accordance with the requirements of 30 CFR 731.14(d), and as the
designated regulatory authority, it must ensure that the State program
is properly implemented, administered, and enforced. When situations
arise in which the enforcement responsibilities of DMG and WQCD are not
clearly defined by the MOU, DMG must ensure that the enforcement
requirements of the approved program are fully and completely met.
In conclusion, the introductory paragraph and item Nos. 1, 2, and 7
of the ``Enforcement'' section of the proposed MOU satisfy the concerns
raised by OSM in its 30 CFR Part 732 letter and are no less stringent
than the corresponding Federal provisions of section 515 of SMCRA and
no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.42.
Therefore, the Director approves these parts of the proposed MOU.
b. Pattern-of-violations and show-cause processes. Colorado
proposed at item No. 5 of the ``Enforcement'' section of the proposed
MOU, that DMG shall, within 90 days of execution of the proposed MOU,
initiate rulemaking so that the notices of violation issued by WQCD
that cite a 1-day exceedance shall be incorporated into DMG's processes
for patterns of violations and show-cause orders. These processes are
those addressed in Rules 5.03.3 (1) and (2) that require Colorado to
issue an order to a permittee to show cause why his or her permit and
right to mine should not be suspended or revoked because of a pattern
of violations caused by the permittee's willful or unwarranted
noncompliance with Colorado's coal mining program or permit
requirements.
Colorado has informally submitted to OSM for review an amendment to
these rules. In accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(f)(2), OSM has requested
a timetable for Colorado's enactment of these rules in its formal State
rulemaking process and a timetable for submission of a formal amendment
to OSM.
Based on the foregoing discussion, and Colorado's steps to amend
its program to make it consistent with this portion of the MOU, the
Director finds that item No. 5 of the ``Enforcement'' section of the
proposed MOU is not inconsistent with the pattern-of-violation and
show-cause order processes at section 521 of SMCRA and 30 CFR Parts 840
and 843. Therefore, the Director approves this part of the proposed
MOU.
c. Other enforcement provisions. Colorado stated in the
``Enforcement'' section of the proposed MOU (1) At item No. 3, that,
when WQCD pursues a violation based upon evidence collected by a DMG
inspector, the DMG inspector will be available to present testimony and
expertise to WQCD, and WQCD staff will be available to assist DMG in
any enforcement action in which WQCD has knowledge and may be of
assistance; (2) at item No. 4, that DMG shall not issue notices of
violation for self-reported exceedances as submitted on WQCD Discharge
Monitoring Report forms; (3) at item No. 6, that, for other violations
at coal mining sites identified by WQCD, compliance and enforcement
activities will be consistent with the procedures and time frames
provided in Colorado's Enforcement Management System guidance document;
and (4) at item No. 8, that, if during a coal mine inspection DMG
determines that there is imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public or significant environmental harm to land, air, or water
resources, DMG shall issue a cessation order pursuant to the Rules for
Coal Mining at 5.03.2.
Item Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the ``Enforcement'' section of the
proposed MOU are not inconsistent with the inspection and monitoring
requirements of section 517 of SMCRA, the enforcement requirements of
section 521 of SMCRA, and the inspection and enforcement requirements
of 30 CFR Parts 840, 842, and 843. Therefore, the Director approves
these parts of the proposed MOU.
6. Coordination
In the ``Coordination'' section of the proposed MOU, Colorado
provides that in the event that a conflict develops regarding the
issuance of a notice of violation or other permit matters, DMG and WQCD
will, as soon as practical, meet to resolve any differences. This
section also provides for quarterly or more frequent meetings between
DMG and WQCD for the purposes of enhancing each Division's knowledge of
the respective priorities, issues, and administrative procedures of the
other Division.
There is no section of SMCRA or the Federal regulations that
corresponds to this section of the proposed MOU. However, this section
is not inconsistent with SMCRA and the implementing Federal
regulations. Therefore, the Director approves the ``Coordination''
section of the proposed MOU.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Following are summaries of all substantive oral and written
comments on the proposed amendment that were received by OSM, and OSM's
responses to them.
1. Public Comments
OSM invited public comments on the proposed amendment, but none
were received.
2. Federal Agency Comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or
potential interest in the Colorado program.
In a letter dated April 12, 1994, the Soil Conservation Service
stated that it did not have any comment at that time (administrative
record No. CO-608). However, in a subsequent letter dated August 2,
1994, the Soil Conservation Service stated that it would recommend no
changes in the current provisions of item No. 1 of the proposed MOU,
but it felt that with regard to item No. 2, it was extremely important
that the permitting procedures associated with mine discharges and
effluent limitations, as described in 40 CFR Part 434, be made as
specific and understandable as possible (administrative record No. CO-
638). It also stated that Colorado should incorporate at the soonest
possible date a reference to 40 CFR Part 434 in its rules. OSM
acknowledges the Soil Conservation Service's concerns. As discussed in
finding No. 5a, Colorado has agreed to submit a proposed amendment to
its rules at 2 CCR 407.2 Rule 4.05 to require compliance with the
effluent limits at 40 CFR Part 434. OSM is engaged in conversations
with Colorado to encourage it to submit the proposed amendment in a
timely manner.
In separate telephone conversations on April 19 and July 29, 1994,
and January 18, 1995, the Bureau of Mines stated it had no comments on
the proposed MOU (administrative record Nos. CO-610, CO-636, and CO-
656).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers responded on April 28 and August
10, 1994, and January 31, 1995, that it found the changes to be
satisfactory (administrative record Nos. CO-613, CO-639, and CO-660).
By letters dated July 21 and September 8, 1994, the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) stated that the amendment had been
reviewed by MSHA personnel and that it appeared there were no conflicts
with [[Page 25850]] the requirements of 30 CFR as they pertain to mine
safety (administrative record Nos. CO-633 and CO-645).
3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to solicit
the written concurrence of 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.).
On April 6, 1994, OSM solicited EPA's concurrence with the proposed
MOU (administrative record No. CO-605). By letters dated May 9 and July
28, 1994, and February 1, 1995 (administrative record Nos. CO-616, CO-
634, and CO-659), EPA stated that it believed that the proposed MOU
would have no impact on water quality standards promulgated under the
authority of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
4. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed MOU from the SHPO and ACHP (administrative record No. CO-605).
Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded to OSM's request.
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above findings, the Director approves Colorado's
proposed MOU as submitted on March 18, 1994, and as supplemented with
additional explanatory information on June 23 and December 7, 1994.
Specifically, the Director approves the following portions of the
MOU, as discussed in: Finding No. 1, concerning purpose, understanding,
and understanding between the parties; finding No. 2, concerning review
of permit applications; finding No. 3, concerning training; finding No.
4, concerning inspections, monitoring, and sample analysis; finding No.
5a, concerning enforcement of effluent limitations; finding No. 5b,
concerning pattern-of-violation and show-cause processes; finding No.
5c, concerning other enforcement provisions, and finding No. 6,
concerning coordination.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 906, codifying decisions
concerning the Colorado 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.
VI. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. 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 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 the Federal regulations at 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.
3. 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 of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
4. 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.).
5. 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 that is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 906
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 9, 1995.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Acting Regional Director, Western 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 906--COLORADO
1. The authority citation for Part 906 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 906.15 is amended by adding paragraph (r) to read as
follows:
Sec. 906.15 Approval of regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
(r) The proposed February 9, 1994, memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between the Division of Minerals and Geology of the Colorado
Department of Natural Resources and the Water Quality Control Division
of the Colorado Department of Health for water quality management at
coal mines, as submitted to OSM on March 18, 1994, and as supplemented
with explanatory information on June 23 and December 7, 1994, is
approved effective May 15, 1995.
[FR Doc. 95-11887 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
