[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28362-28363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13336]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 914
[SPATS No. IN-144-FOR]
Indiana Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
is clarifying its decision and responses to comments it received on an
amendment to the Indiana regulatory program (Indiana program) under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The
amendment concerned revisions to and additions of statutes pertaining
to other State and Federal laws and permit revisions. At the request of
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), we are providing
clarification of our decision findings and responses to comments for
two provisions relating to permit revisions that we disapproved in a
previous final rule decision document dated March 16, 1999 (64 FR
12890). This clarification supplements our previous findings made in
section III. Director's Findings and our responses to comments made in
section IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments of that final rule
document, but does not affect our decision made in section V.
Director's Decision.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Director,
Indianapolis Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania
Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1521. Telephone (317)
226-6700. Internet: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 16, 1999, we published a final rule
approving, with certain exceptions, a May 14, 1998, amendment to the
Indiana program. The amendment concerned revisions to Indiana Code (IC)
14-8 and several sections of IC 14-34 made by the Indiana House
Enrolled Act No. 1074 (HEA 1074). By letter dated May 12, 1999, the
IDNR asked us to clarify our disapproval of two revisions to the
Indiana Code that were included in HEA 1074. The IDNR was concerned
that the language we used in the preamble discussion of the disapproved
revisions would have an adverse impact on the existing approved Indiana
program. This final rule clarifies the preamble discussion of our final
decision and our responses to the comments received on these two
revisions. First, we disapproved IC 14-34-5-7-7(a), which defined a
permit revision. Second, we disapproved IC 14-34-5-8.2(4), which added
a guideline that would require Indiana to approve postmining land use
changes, with specified exceptions, as nonsignificant permit revisions.
IC 14-34-5-7(a), Definition of Permit Revision
As proposed, this provision would define a permit revision as a
change in mining or reclamation operations from the approved mining and
reclamation plans that adversely affect the permittee's compliance with
state statutes and regulations. In the March 16, 1999, Federal Register
notice disapproving this provision, we cited three problems with the
proposed language. The discussion of those three problems is not
intended to affect the currently approved regulation at 310 IAC 12-3-
121(a)(1) cited by the Indiana Coal Council (ICC) in their comments of
June 26,1998, in support of the proposed change (Administrative Record
No. IND-1617). The portion of this regulation cited by the ICC requires
revisions to permits for changes in surface coal mining or reclamation
operations described in the original application and approved under the
original permit, when such changes constitute a significant departure
from the method of conduct of mining or reclamation operations
contemplated by the original permit. In addition to the portion cited
by the ICC, the regulation at 310 IAC 12-3-121(a)(1) goes on to state
that changes which constitute a significant departure shall include,
but not be limited to, those that could result in an operator's
inability to comply with applicable requirements (emphasis added). The
proposed statutory change we disapproved would have been in conflict
with the current regulation in that it would have imposed a limitation
inconsistent with this previous approved regulation. However, we do not
intend for our disapproval of IC 14-34-5-7(a) to impact the current
discretion that Indiana has within its approved program to determine
when a revision is required.
IC 14-34-5-8.2(4) Post-Mining Land Use as Nonsignificant Permit
Revisions
As proposed, this provision would classify a revision as
nonsignificant that involved a land use change other than those listed
in IC 14-34-5-8.1(8). Section 8.1(8) listed, as significant revisions,
residential land uses, commercial or industrial land uses, recreational
land uses, and developed water resources meeting the size criteria of
30 CFR 77.216(a). In a letter faxed to us on December 21, 1998,
responding to our concerns regarding this provision, the IDNR indicated
that it interpreted this provision to mean that Indiana would retain
discretion to determine that land use changes other than those listed
in IC 14-34-8.1(8) could be significant revisions (Administrative
Record No. IND-1627). However, we disapproved this proposed revision
because we feel that it is clear on its face that the proposed change
would remove such discretion. We went on to explain
[[Page 28363]]
that we felt there are clearly times when other land use changes could
warrant being considered a significant revision. However, it is not our
intent to indicate that all other land use changes must be considered a
significant revision. Nor is it our intent to alter OSM's position as
reflected in other regulatory actions relating to significant permit
revisions, such as those for the Federal program in Tennessee. We do
feel that it is essential for Indiana to continue to have the
discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, that other land use
changes besides those listed in section 8.1(8) may constitute a
significant revision. Therefore, this provision was disapproved.
Dated: May 18, 1999.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 99-13336 Filed 5-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
