Virginia Regulatory Program Amendment

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

30 CFR Part 946

Virginia Regulatory Program Amendment

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

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the approval, with exceptions, of a proposed

amendment to the Virginia regulatory program (hereinafter referred to

as the Virginia program) under the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The proposed amendment includes

changes to Virginia's regulations relative to siltation structures and

impoundments, revegetation standards for success, and roads and road

construction. The amendment is intended to revise the State program to

be consistent with the corresponding Federal standards and to clarify

and correct inconsistencies in Virginia's rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap Field Office, P.O. Drawer

1217, Powell Valley Square Shopping Center, Room 220, Route 23, Big

Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone: (703) 523-4303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Virginia Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director's Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director's Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Virginia Program

The Secretary of the Interior approved the Virginia program on

December 15, 1981. Background information on the Virginia program

including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and

the conditions of approval can be found in the December 15, 1981,

Federal Register (46 FR 61085-61115). Subsequent actions concerning the

conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR

946.11, 946.12, 946.13, 946.15, and 946.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

By letter dated October 22, 1993 (Administrative Record No. VA-

829), Virginia submitted proposed amendments to its regulatory program.

The amendments address issues initially submitted to OSM on October 1,

1990 (Administrative Record Number VA-768), but subsequently withdrawn

by Virginia in a letter dated May 12, 1992 (Administrative Record No.

VA-818), as discussed in the final rule issued July 7, 1992 (57 FR

29788). Virginia submitted the request to withdraw portions of the

October 1, 1990, submission (as modified April 18, 1991) in order to

reconsider various proposals. Virginia's October 22, 1993, submission

addresses the sections that Virginia withdrew in its May 12, 1992,

letter except for Secs. 773.16(c)(4)(ii) and 773.16(c)(7).

OSM announced receipt of the October 22, 1993, proposed amendments

in the November 4, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 58827), and in the

same document opened the public comment period and provided opportunity

for a public hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendments. The

public comment period closed on December 6, 1993.

III. Director's Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17 are the Director's findings concerning the

proposed amendment.

Revisions not specifically discussed below concern nonsubstantive

wording changes, or revised cross-references and paragraph notations to

reflect organizational changes resulting from this amendment.

1. Section 480-03-19.816/817.49(a)(3)

Virginia proposes to add new stability design requirements at

Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.49(a)(3)(ii) for impoundments not meeting the

size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a), except for a coal mine

waste impounding structure. The impoundments, located where failure

would not be expected to result in loss of life or serious property

damage, shall have a minimum static safety factor of 1.3 for a normal

pool with steady state seepage saturation conditions. These proposed

provisions are substantively identical to the Federal rule at 30 CFR

816/817.49(a)(3)(ii). The amendment further provides for use of earth

embankments whose top widths are no less than 10 feet and whose

embankment slopes are 2h:1v or flatter, provided the permittee

documents that a minimum static safety factor of 1.3 can be met using

the graphical solution methods outlined in the ``Bureau of Mines Report

of Investigations/1981, RI 8564, Factor of Safety Charts for Estimating

the Stability of Saturated and Unsaturated Tailings Pond Embankments,

United States Department of the Interior.'' By letter dated February

23, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-836), OSM advised Virginia that

the graphical solution methods could be used in lieu of engineering

tests, for low hazard impoundments not meeting the size or other

criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) if all the appropriate parameters needed

to use the graphs in RI 8564 are adequately documented for each

embankment. OSM pointed out that the appropriate parameters included:

--Unit weight of the soil

--Height of the embankment

--Internal friction angle

--Cohesion

--Pore pressure ratio

--Slope of the embankment

--Depth factor

In addition to satisfying these parameter requirements, OSM stated

that the embankment would have to be constructed of homogeneous

material and the stiff base under the foundation must be flat. By

letter dated March 16, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-837),

Virginia agreed that the parameters set forth in OSM's letter of

February 23, 1994, will be required by the State for use with the

graphs in RI 8564 and that the parameters must be documented for each

embankment. Virginia further agreed that the embankment will be

required to be constructed of homogeneous material and the stiff base

under the foundation will be required to be flat. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii), 780.25(c)(3) and

784.16(c)(3) provide for an alternative to engineering tests that

establish for impoundments a minimum static safety factor of 1.3. If a

State regulatory authority, through the State program amendment

process, can establish engineering design standards that ensure

stability comparable to the 1.3 minimum static safety factor, then such

design standards are no less effective than 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii). The

Director has determined that the proposed amendment to the Virginia

regulations at Sec. VR 480.03.19.816/817.49(a)(3)(ii), as clarified by

Virginia on March 16, 1994, ensures stability comparable to the 1.3

minimum static safety factor and is no less effective than the Federal

rules at 30 CFR 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii).

2. Section VR 480-03-19.816/817.116(b)(3)

Virginia proposes to revise Sec. VR 480-03-19.816/

817.116(b)(3)(v)(A) regarding the stocking of trees, shrubs, half-

shrubs, and the ground cover established on the revegetated area where

woody plants are used for wildlife management, recreation, shelter

belts, or forest uses other than commercial forest land, by deleting

the phrase ``approximate the stocking and ground cover on the

surrounding unmined area.'' The Director finds the deleted language to

be duplicative of requirements already found in the Virginia program.

Therefore, the proposed deletion will not render Virginia's regulations

less effective than the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3).

3. Section VR 480-03-19.816/817.116(c)(3)

Virginia proposed to revise these subsections by deleting the term

``conservation'' and replacing that term with the term ``husbandry.''

In its submittal of this amendment Virginia stated that the wording

change was made to make the language consistent with the counterpart

Federal provisions at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4). In addition to the

proposed wording change, Virginia submitted administrative record

information containing a list of normal husbandry practices and related

reference materials intended to support the practices identified by

Virginia as normal husbandry practices.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4) allow State

regulatory authorities to select certain husbandry practices that will

not extend the period of responsibility for successful revegetation and

the bond liability of the permittee. These practices must be expected

to continue as part of the postmining land use or that after

discontinuance, the likelihood of permanent success is not reduced.

Such practices must be submitted through the State program amendment

process and must be approved by OSM before the State can implement such

practices.

Upon review of the materials provided by Virginia, OSM determined

that there was no document establishing the list of practices as

Virginia policy. In addition, there was no information explaining how

the lists and technical references would be used. In a letter to

Virginia dated February 23, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-836),

OSM addressed its concerns with the proposed husbandry practices

amendment. Virginia responded by letter dated May 12, 1994

(Administrative Record No. VA-838). The State provided the following

clarification.

Virginia stated that within 30 days of OSM's approval of the

husbandry practices provision, Virginia will issue a policy statement

concerning husbandry practices. The draft policy statement submitted by

Virginia reads as follows:

The Virginia program at 480-03-19.816/817.116(c)(3) provides

that the Division may approve selective husbandry practices that may

be utilized without extending the period of responsibility for

revegetation success and bond liability. On October 1, 1990, DMLR

submitted for OSM's approval a limited list of the selected

practices that can be used in Virginia. On ____________ OSM

published in the Federal Register its final approval of the selected

husbandry practices.

Pursuant to this program amendment, there are a finite number of

husbandry practices that have been approved by OSM. Coal surface

mining operations may utilize only this list of practices without

extending the bond liability period. For a copy of the program

amendment or a description and supporting literature/publications,

please contact Jerry Legg at the Division's Big Stone Gap Office.

This draft language satisfies one of OSM's concerns about the

proposed husbandry practices by making the following point: The list of

husbandry practices approved by OSM comprises the only approved

husbandry practices which may be used by industry without restarting

the period of responsibility for reclamation success and bond

liability.

The following husbandry practices, were submitted and described by

Virginia on October 22, 1993 (Administrative Record Number VA-829).

Forestry--Common management practices for the land use of unmanaged

forestry that will be allowed in Virginia without the restart of the

bonding liability period:

Replanting of trees

Herbicide application

Pest control

Repair of rills and gullies as necessary to implement the land use

Commercial Forestry--Common management practices for land use of

commercial forestry that will be allowed in Virginia without the

restart of the bonding liability period:

Replanting of trees

Herbicide application

Basal pruning

Insecticide application

Mowing

Fertilization and liming

Repair of rills and gullies as necessary to implement the land use

Hayland/Pasture--Common management practices for the land use of

hayland/pasture that will be allowed in Virginia without the restart of

the bonding liability period:

Repair of rills and gullies

Application of lime fertilizer

Maintenance, weed and brush control

Rotation or continuous grazing

Reseeding or spot seeding

Fencing

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, or Recreational--Common

management practices for the land uses of commercial, industrial,

residential, or recreational that will be allowed in Virginia without

the restart of the bonding liability period:

Planting or replanting of trees

Application of lime and fertilizer

Surface roughing or the repair of rills and gullies

Seeding or reseeding

Irrigation

Sodding

Weed and pest control

Topsoiling and other standard landscaping practices

Gravel or asphalt

Construct structures

In the administrative record information provided by Virginia

concerning the husbandry practices of reseeding and spot seeding, these

practices are limited to those situations listed below.

Hayland/Pasture

Periodic reseeding to maintain or improve the desired combination

of grasses and legumes.

Seeding for weed control.

Spot seeding in high traffic areas: e.g., around water troughs,

salt licks, and areas damaged by livestock.

Seeding of reclaimed rills and gullies.

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, or Recreational

Reseeding to prevent rill erosion.

Seeding to maintain the desired mix of plants.

In its May 12, 1994, letter to OSM, Virginia also clarified the

following points concerning its implementation of the husbandry

practices provision. Virginia proposes to limit the extent of reseeding

or spot seeding that it will allow as husbandry practice to a maximum

of 10 percent of the applicable area. Virginia will also use the 10-

percent figure to limit areas where liming, fertilization, and

irrigation may be used in excess of the levels normally applied to

similar lands with the same land use.

The 10-percent figure is inspired by the Virginia regulations

concerning revegetation success. Specifically, VR 480-03-

19.816.116(a)(2) provides that ground cover, production, or stocking

shall be considered equal to the approved success standard when they

are not less than 90 percent of the approved success standard. The

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) have a similar standard.

While the 10-percent statistical standard in the revegetation rules

does not directly apply to husbandry practices, the proposed limiting

of reseeding or spot seeding to 10 percent is reasonable. However, the

Director finds that some additional limits must apply. For example,

normal husbandry practices do not include large barren blocks of the

reclaimed area. On the contrary, large blocks of barren areas (such as

a block representing 10 percent of the applicable area) would indicate

failed reclamation, not successful revegetation. Additionally, in

revegetated areas which pass the established 90-percent standard bare

or poorly revegetated areas are likely to be scattered about the

applicable area, and not large blocks of barren land. Again, large

blocks of barren areas would indicate failed reclamation. Consequently,

the reseeding of such large blocks of barren areas representing failed

reclamation would be augmentative seeding and would necessitate the

restarting of the period of responsibility for reclamation success and

bond liability. In addition, the reestablished vegetation must be in

place for a sufficient length of time so as not to adversely affect

Virginia's ability to make a valid determination at the time of bond

release of the success of the reclamation.

In the special case of the repair of rills and gullies as part of a

forestry postmining land use, the administrative record contains a

September 27, 1990, letter from the Virginia Department of Forestry. In

that letter, the Regional Forester states that rills and gullies need

not be repaired ``as a part of typical forest management unless the

magnitude of the gully would interfere with the land use (of

forestry).'' The letter goes on to say that rills and gullies often

occur naturally in the steep slope areas of the Appalachian Region. OSM

agrees that the repair of occasional and minor rills and gullies where

proper grading and erosion management is practiced could be considered

part of normal forestry management practice.

Virginia clarified its interpretation of the degree of allowable

repair of rills and gullies. Since erosion is a natural phenomenon, the

repair of minor rills and gullies is not viewed by the Virginia program

as a violation, nor does it require restarting of the bonding clock.

However, the State added, the Virginia program considers erosion that

repeatedly creates rills and gullies over a large area as a violation

of at least one performance standard and potentially a violation of

several standards. When the permittee fails to comply with the Virginia

performance standards and rills and gullies repeatedly develop over a

large area, Virginia will require restarting of the responsibility

period. Virginia has demonstrated, and the Director finds through this

amendment, and Virginia's clarifications and administrative record

information, that in the State of Virginia, certain specified instances

of rill and gully repair associated with land used for Forestry,

Commercial forestry, Commercial, industrial, residential, or

recreational, and Hayland/pasture will be considered a normal husbandry

practice.

Virginia also clarified that the husbandry practices for areas

designed to enhance fish and wildlife will be consistent with the

practices set forth for unmanaged forestry. The Director finds this to

be reasonable.

Virginia stated that since the Virginia coalfields are primarily

located on steep slopes, there has been no incident where cropland,

other than hay, has been developed on the postmining land use.

Consequently, Virginia has not developed nor proposes any husbandry

practice for such croplands. Should the Virginia coalfields expand or

crop production become a viable option, the State will develop

husbandry practices relevant to those crops and submit them to OSM for

approval. Such practices will not be permitted by the State until

approved by OSM. The Director concurs with the understanding that the

State will submit any new husbandry practices to OSM for approval prior

to their being permitted in Virginia.

With the exceptions listed below, the Director finds the proposed

amendment as augmented by the administrative record information

submitted with this amendment, and as clarified by Virginia by letter

dated May 12, 1994, is no less effective than the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4). This finding is made with the

understanding that the policy statement to be issued by Virginia

concerning normal husbandry practices will be identical in meaning to

the draft language of that policy statement submitted to OSM by letter

dated May 12, 1994. The Director is not approving as normal husbandry

practice the reseeding of large blocks of areas made barren by poor

reclamation, or where the reestablished vegetation has not been in

place for a sufficient length of time for Virginia to make a valid

determination of the success of the reclamation at the time of bond

release.

4. VR Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.151(b)

Virginia proposes to revise this section by changing the title from

``Embankments'' to ``Safety factor,'' and by changing the language in

(b)(1) to (1) reference ``organic material'' rather than ``vegetative

material,'' and (2) add the phrase ``or other unsuitable material.''

These changes were proposed by Virginia in response to an issue letter

from OSM dated March 20, 1991 (Administrative Record No. VA-792). The

issue letter refers to the proposed program amendment submitted by

Virginia on October 1, 1990, as discussed herein at II. Submission of

Amendment. In that letter, OSM also asked Virginia to amend this rule

to reflect that keyway cuts extend a minimum of two feet below the toe

of the fill and that material placed in road embankments will be within

acceptable moisture content levels. In its current submission, Virginia

did not make the suggested changes, but provided clarification intended

to show that its current regulations adequately address OSM's concerns.

Virginia's Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME)

interprets its existing regulations to require keyway cuts beneath

embankments on steep slopes to provide for stability of road

embankments. The design of the keyway will be prepared by, or under the

direction of, the applicant's registered professional engineer and will

be reviewed by a DMME engineer. A minimum width of ten feet is

specified and the keyway must be sloped inward in all cases. While

other specifications may be proposed by the applicant or required by

DMME, taking into account the conditions of the site, DMME believes the

general requirement that keyway cuts be constructed at the toe of the

road fills on steep slopes and the specific width and slope standards

provide sufficient detail to ensure road embankment stability in most

site specific cases. However, DMME interprets its regulations to

require appropriate design given unusual site specific conditions. DMME

retains the authority to require a keyway that has a two foot minimum

depth below the toe of a road fill embankment as necessary when the

foundations of the embankment is located in bedrock.

DMME also feels that its current regulations adequately address

OSM's concerns regarding moisture content of materials placed in road

embankments on steep slopes. According to DMME, its regulations require

such road embankments to be constructed in uniform compacted layers. In

order to achieve a desired degree of compaction, materials must be

placed within the acceptable range of moisture content. The DMME

interprets its rule to embody the requirement that materials must be

within the acceptable range of moisture content if the larger

performance standard, that of placement in compacted layers, is to be

achieved. DMME believes that its existing regulation is as effective as

the Federal regulation. The Director finds that based upon the March

20, 1991, letter and the clarification provided by Virginia, that VR

480-03-19.816/817.151(b)(1) through (4) as set forth in Virginia's

October 22, 1993, submission is consistent with the Federal rules set

forth at 30 CFR 816/817.151, 780.37(c) and 784.24(c).

5. VR Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.152

Virginia proposes to revise the language of this rule relating to

the waiver of design standards for existing roads. As originally

submitted on October 22, 1993, the proposed language could be read to

imply that existing roads do not have to meet the performance standards

of VR 480-03-19.816/817.150 and 816/817/151. In its issue letter dated

February 23, 1994, OSM suggested new language which would resolve the

controversy. In its March 16, 1994, response to the issue letter,

Virginia revised the proposed language consistent with OSM's

suggestion. The current proposal provides that where existing roads

that are to be used meet the performance standards of 816/817.150 and

816/817.151 and it can be demonstrated that reconstruction to meet the

design standards of those provisions would result in greater

environmental harm, the Division may waive the design requirements.

Therefore, the Director finds that the provisions of VR 480-03-19.816/

817.152, as revised on March 16, 1994, are not inconsistent with the

requirements of 30 CFR 701.11(e) which allow existing structures that

meet the performance standards but not the design requirements to be

exempt from meeting the design requirements.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the proposed amendment. No public comments were

received, and because no one requested an opportunity to speak at a

public hearing, no hearing was held.

Agency Comments

Pursuant to section 503(b) of SMCRA and the implementing

regulations of 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited comments

from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in

the Virginia program. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Mine

Safety and Health Administration, and the Environmental Protection

Agency acknowledged receipt of the amendment without comment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), the Director is required to obtain

the written concurrence of the Administrator of the EPA with respect to

any provisions of a State program amendment that relate to air or water

quality standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) or the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et

seq.). The Director has determined that this amendment contains no

provisions in these categories and that EPA's concurrence is not

required.

V. Director's Decision

Based on the above findings, the Director approves, with the

exceptions noted in Finding 3 above, the proposed amendment with

supplemental administrative record information which was submitted by

Virginia on October 22, 1993, and as revised on March 16, 1994, and on

May 12, 1994.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 946, codifying decisions

concerning the Virginia 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.

Effect of Director's Decision

Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise

jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the

Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any alteration of

an approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program

amendment. Thus, any changes to the State program are not operational

until approved by OSM. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g)

prohibit any unilateral changes to approved State programs. In the

oversight of the Virginia program, the Director will recognize only the

statutes, regulations and other materials approved by him, together

with any consistent implementing policies, directives and other

materials, and will require the enforcement by Virginia of only such

provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and

Review).

Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required

by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsection (a) and (b) of that section.

However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of

State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.

Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30

CFR 730.11, 732.15 and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State

regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must

be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is

consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and

whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since

section 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] provides that agency

decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not

constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon

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 946

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: September 16, 1994.

Ronald C. Recker,

Acting Assistant Director, Eastern Support 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 946--VIRGINIA

1. The authority citation for part 946 continues to read as

follows:

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

2. Section 946.15 is amended by adding paragraph (hh) to read as

follows:

Sec. 946.15 Approval of regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

(hh) The following amendment, with supplemental administrative

record information, pertaining to the Virginia regulatory program, as

submitted to OSM on October 22, 1993, and revised on March 16, 1994,

and May 12, 1994, is approved, except as noted herein, effective

September 27, 1994. The amendment consists of revisions to the

following provisions of the Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation

Regulations.

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

VR 480-03-19.816 Topic

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

816.49(a)(3)(ii)................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;

Impoundments.

816.116(b)(3)(v)(A)................ Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;

Revegetation: Standards for Success.

816.116(c)(3)...................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;

Revegetation: Standards for Success, except not approved as normal

husbandry practice is the reseeding of large blocks of areas made barren

by poor reclamation, or where the reestablished vegetation has not been in

place for a sufficient length of time for Virginia to make a valid

determination of the success of the reclamation at the time of bond

release.

816.151(b)......................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities; Primary

Roads.

816.152............................ Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;

Existing Roads.

817.49(a)(3)(ii)................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;

Impoundments.

817.116(b)(3)(v)(A)................ Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;

Revegetation: Standards for Success.

817.116(c)(3)...................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;

Revegetation: Standards for Success.

817.151(b)......................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;

Primary Roads.

817.152............................ Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;

Existing Roads.

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

[FR Doc. 94-23826 Filed 9-26-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M