Colorado Regulatory Program

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