Rule2024-17330
Pennsylvania Regulatory Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 8, 2024
Effective
September 9, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentSurface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e1c11091b100d3e110d130c1b50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7959880929984b798849a8592d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.
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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 8, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.