Ohio Regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation Program Amendment

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

30 CFR Part 935

[OH-234; Amendment Number 63R]

Ohio Regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation Program

Amendment

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

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the approval of a proposed amendment to the

Ohio permanent regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land reclamation programs

(hereinafter referred to as the Ohio programs) under the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The amendment was

initiated by Ohio and is intended to reduce and reorganize the

engineering staff of the Ohio programs in response to recent drops in

Ohio coal production. The amendment would abolish 3.6 Ohio engineering

staff positions and would reorganize the remaining engineering staff

positions to assume the existing job duties. This program amendment

does not propose any revisions to Ohio's coal mining law or rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Daniel L. Schrum, Acting Director, Columbus Field Office, Office of

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 4480 Refugee Road, Suite

201, Columbus, Ohio 43232; Telephone: (614) 866-0578.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Ohio Program.

II. Discussion 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 Ohio Program

On August 16, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally

approved the Ohio program. Information on the general background of the

Ohio program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of

comments, and a detailed explanation of the conditions of approval of

the Ohio program, can be found in the August 10, 1982, Federal Register

(47 FR 34688). Subsequent actions concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments are identified at 30 CFR 935.11, 935.15, 935.16.

II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendment

By letter dated March 15, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-1845),

the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation

(Ohio), submitted proposed Program Amendment Number 63 (PA 63). In that

submission, Ohio proposed to reduce the staff of the Ohio programs by

abolishing 28 existing positions. Ohio also proposed to reorganize the

remaining staff positions to assume the existing job duties. PA 63

contained no proposed revisions to Ohio's coal mining law in the Ohio

Revised Code or coal mining rules in the Ohio Administrative Code.

OSM announced receipt of PA 63 in the April 8, 1993, Federal

Register (58 FR 18185), and in the same document opened the public

comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment period closed on

May 10, 1993.

OSM and Ohio staff met on May 20, 1993, to discuss OSM's

preliminary concerns and questions about PA 63. By letter dated June

16, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-1890), Ohio submitted additional

information in response to those OSM concerns and questions. Through an

oversight, OSM did not reopen the public comment period at that time.

Subsequently, by letter dated November 2, 1993 (Administrative

Record No. OH-1948), OSM formally provided Ohio with its questions and

comments on the March 15 and June 16, 1993, submissions of PA 63. OSM's

questions and comments were listed under the following six headings:

Streamlining of AML Designs; Engineering: Bond Forfeitures;

Engineering: Inspection and Enforcement Issues; Position Descriptions;

Bond Forfeiture Program; and SOAP Program.

By letter dated December 6, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-

1971), Ohio provided its responses to OSM's November 2, 1993, questions

and comments. In addition, Ohio included three attachments. The first

attachment was a November 5, 1993, letter to OSM explaining

organizational responsibilities within Ohio's engineering/geotechnical

support group and AML program. The second attachment was a log of

engineering inspection and enforcement activity. The third attachment

was an example of the revised position description for Ohio's

reclamation inspectors, dated April 5, 1993. In its December 6, 1993,

Administrative Record information, Ohio noted that additional position

descriptions for Ohio's engineering management staff were being revised

but did not attach copies.

[[Page 56524]]

OSM announced receipt of Ohio's additional Administrative Record

information in the January 21, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 3325),

and, in the same document opened the public comment period and provided

an opportunity for a public hearing on the adequacy of the proposed

amendment. The public comment period closed on February 7, 1994.

During its review of Ohio's December 6, 1993, response and

attachments, OSM identified two concerns regarding engineering

practices and engineering workload which OSM staff communicated to the

State during a meeting held on April 20, 1994 (Administrative Record

No. OH-2012). Ohio responded in a letter dated April 21, 1994

(Administrative Record No. OH-2014) with additional information on both

issues. OSM announced receipt of this additional information, along

with the explanatory information submitted by Ohio on June 16, 1993,

and reopened the comment period for PA 63 in the June 9, 1994, Federal

Register (59 FR 29748). The public comment period closed on June 24,

1994.

OSM and Ohio staff met on July 14, 1994, to discuss Ohio's progress

with the reorganization of its engineering staff and whether the

proposed staffing levels could handle the anticipated engineering

workload (Administrative Record No. OH-2038). As of that date, Ohio had

completed its engineering reorganization but could not yet provide OSM

with projected workload calculations.

In the September 1, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 45206), the

Director of OSM announced his partial approval and deferral of PA 63.

The Director approved the proposed staffing changes to ten areas of

Ohio's programs but deferred his decision on the proposed changes to

Ohio's engineering staff. The Director deferred that portion of his

decision based on Ohio's April 21, 1994, letter to OSM (Administrative

Record No. OH-2014) and the July 14, 1994, meeting with Ohio

(Administrative Record No. OH-2038) in which Ohio indicated that its

reorganization of engineering resources was still underway. Ohio agreed

to resubmit the engineering portion of the amendment, upon completion,

to OSM for review.

On November 1, 1994 (Administrative Record No. OH-2068), OSM

requested an update from Ohio on the State's progress in documenting

the results of its engineering reorganization. OSM and Ohio staff met

on November 29, 1994, to discuss that progress (Administrative Record

No. OH-2071). Ohio provided copies of four supporting documents at that

time.

On November 29, 1994 (Administrative Record No. OH-2072), the Ohio

Inspector General (OIG) published his report of investigation

concerning the Sands Hill coal slurry impoundment. Ohio's PA 63 was

mentioned specifically in the allegations discussed in the OIG report.

The report stated that the OIG's investigation did not develop any

information that the Chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Reclamation reorganized the Division of Reclamation to

benefit the coal industry.

OSM and Ohio staff met again on December 15, 1994 (Administrative

Record No. OH-2074), at which time Ohio provided several additional

documents describing Ohio's projection of the engineering resources

needed to support its regulatory program. On December 30, 1994, Ohio

provided a similar analysis of the engineering needs of its AML program

(Administrative Record No. OH-2089). On January 23, 1995

(Administrative Record No. OH-2084), OSM provided comments to Ohio on

these engineering work projections.

By letter dated February 2, 1995 (Administrative Record No. OH-

2088), Ohio submitted its revised engineering staff configuration as

Program Amendment Number 63 Revised (PA 63R). In this submission, Ohio

is proposing to reduce the engineering staff of the Ohio regulatory and

AML programs down to 10.4 full-time positions by abolishing 3.6 of the

14 engineering positions which supported those programs prior to PA 63.

As with the previous submissions of PA 63, PA 63R contains no proposed

revisions to Ohio's coal mining law in the Ohio Revised Code or coal

mining rules in the Ohio Administrative Code.

Ohio's February 2, 1995, submission of PA 63R consisted of five

parts:

(1) Description and justification of engineering staff actions;

(2) Proposed table of organization showing the 10.4 engineering

staff positions;

(3) Proposed position description for Engineering Specialists;

(4) Personnel table showing distribution of work percentages of its

10.4 engineering staff positions between Ohio's regulatory and AML

programs; and

(5) Eight documents included by reference: table of organization,

position description, personnel table, regulatory workload assessment,

regulatory workload: geographic distribution--1993, regulatory work

logs--1993, regulatory ARP logs--1993, and AML workload analysis.

As justification for these engineering staff changes, Ohio also

submitted a narrative explaining its staffing proposal and summarizing

the results of an engineering workload analysis conducted by Ohio with

OSM assistance. Ohio also stated its plans to conduct on-going

assessment of any additional engineering support needed by its

regulatory and AML programs.

OSM announced receipt of PA 63R in the February 17, 1995, Federal

Register (60 FR 9317), and in the same document opened the public

comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment period closed on

March 20, 1995.

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 Ohio

PA 63R. Section 503(a)(3) of SMCRA requires that a State regulatory

authority must have sufficient administrative and technical personnel,

as well as funding, to implement, administer and enforce its approved

programs. The Director's findings discussed below reflect his

determinations that under the proposed reduction and reorganization of

Ohio's engineering staff, Ohio has sufficient engineering personnel to

implement, administer and enforce its approved programs.

(1) Overall Justification for Engineering Staff Changes

Ohio's overall justification for the reduced engineering staff

levels is based on the decline, between 1987 and 1992, in the issuance

of new permits, the number of active permits, the number of inspections

and enforcement actions, and in overall coal production. The Director

concurs that this five-year decline has occurred as a result of the

overall decline in Ohio coal production since 1977 (Administrative

Record No. OH-2154). The Director also concurs that this present

industry downturn has had direct impact on Ohio's programs and that

Ohio's goals of reducing and streamlining its engineering program are

therefore appropriate.

(2) Proposed Changes to Ohio Regulatory Engineering Staff

Ohio is proposing to have a total of 3.2 full-time engineering

staff positions dedicated to its regulatory program. These 3.2

positions will be made up of varying percentages of the work hours of

eight employees: 25 percent of one Central Office Engineer, 50 percent

of

[[Page 56525]]

two Field Engineers, 25 percent of one Field Engineer, 20 percent of

one Surveyor, and 50 percent of three Engineering Specialists. This

staffing level represents a reduction of 0.8 full-time staff positions

from the 4.0 regulatory engineering positions that existed prior to PA

63.

Ohio has submitted a proposed Position Description for the three

Engineering Specialist positions which it plans to create to provide

technical assistance to its Central Office and Field Engineers. Ohio

has also provided an explanation of the need for and responsibilities

of these positions in the narrative portion of PA 63R.

Ohio has documented that the decrease in the number of active mine

permits between 1987 and 1992 has also meant a corresponding decrease

in engineering workload in the Inspection and Enforcement section. This

engineering workload includes reviews of mine plans, pond designs, and

general engineering assistance to inspectors. Ohio estimates that

between 1570 and 4312 engineering staff hours will be needed each year

to accomplish these tasks. OSM estimates the required hours to be in

the range of 2100 to 6000 hours annually.

With the proposed 0.8 reduction in regulatory engineering staff,

Ohio estimates that 3758 hours of engineering staff time will be

available to meet these needs. Because this figure falls within both

Ohio's and OSM's projections of needed resources, the Director finds

that this engineering staff reduction is commensurate with the decrease

in Ohio's regulatory engineering workload and will not prevent Ohio

from effectively conducting its approved program. During oversight of

the Ohio program, OSM will monitor the engineering workload to assure

that there will be adequate staffing levels to implement the Ohio

program.

(3) Proposed Changes to Ohio AML Engineering Staff

Ohio is proposing to have a total of 7.2 full-time engineering

staff positions dedicated to its AML program. These 7.2 positions will

be made up of varying percentages of the work hours of eleven

employees: 100, 70, and 50 percent of three Central Office Engineers,

respectively; 65 percent of one Field Engineer; 45 percent of two Field

Engineers; 80 percent of one Surveyor; 50 percent of three Engineering

Specialists; and 100 percent of one Drafting Technician. This staffing

level represents a reduction of 2.8 full-time staff positions from the

10.0 AML engineering positions that existed prior to PA 63.

Ohio's Federal AML Program is responsible for reclaiming mined

lands which were abandoned prior to August 3, 1977 and which are

causing danger to the public's health and safety. The program selects,

designs, and constructs AML reclamation projects to abate these public

hazards. Income to Ohio's Federal AML Program is based, in part, on the

amount of Federal coal severance taxes paid by Ohio coal mine

operators. With the overall decline in Ohio's Statewide coal production

since 1977, the funding available to Ohio's Federal AML program and the

number of AML reclamation projects designed and constructed have also

decreased.

Ohio estimates that, at current AML project levels, between 3502

and 22364 engineering staff hours are required annually to plan,

design, and monitor Federal AML and emergency reclamation projects.

With the proposed 2.8 reduction in AML engineering staff, Ohio

estimates that 7951 hours of engineering staff time will be available

to meet these needs. Because this figure falls within Ohio's projection

of needed resources, the Director finds that this engineering staff

reduction is commensurate with the decrease in Ohio's AML engineering

workload and will not prevent Ohio from effectively conducting its

approved program. As previously stated, during oversight of the Ohio

program, OSM will monitor the engineering workload to assure that there

will be adequate staffing levels to implement the Ohio program.

(4) On-going Assessment of Ohio Engineering Support

Both Ohio and OSM acknowledge the approximate nature of the

workload estimates contained in PA 63R. In acknowledgement of this

condition, Ohio has included in PA 63R a proposal to conduct on-going

assessments of the actual engineering support needed by its programs.

These assessments will allows Ohio to detect and correct any shortfall

in engineering resources, should any such shortfall occur.

The Director concurs with this approach and is requiring Ohio to

periodically assess the effectiveness of the engineering staff changes

proposed in PA 63R and to evaluate the need for additional staff or

other organizational changes.

With this provision, the Director finds, in accordance with section

503(a)(3) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 732.17, that all of proposed PA 63R meets

the requirements of SMCRA and the Federal regulations in that Ohio has

sufficient engineering personnel to implement its approved programs.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

On April 8, 1993, January 21, 1994, June 9, 1994, and February 17,

1995, the Director solicited public comments and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed amendment. One

commenter requested a public hearing, but that request was later

withdrawn and so no hearings were held.

By letter dated May 10, 1993 (Administrative Record No. OH-1878),

the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) submitted

substantive comments on 13 topics concerning PA 63. The Director

discussed 12 of those topic areas in the September 1, 1994, Federal

Register (59 FR 45206) as part of this decision to partially approve

and defer PA 63. The remaining OCSEA comments concern Ohio's proposed

engineering staff changes:

(1) As a result of staff reductions, one regulatory engineer is now

performing the work of five engineers. This represents approximately an

80 percent reduction in the regulatory engineering staff. This drastic

reduction is not justified by the much smaller decrease in engineering

services for mining operations.

The Director notes that, before the submission of PA 63, the

engineering portion of Ohio's regulatory staff (also know as the

Inspection and Enforcement section or ``I & E section'') had five

regulatory engineering positions (three environmental engineers and two

project engineers), but only four of the five positions were filled.

The remaining environmental engineer position was vacant.

After the first submission of PA 63, OSM raised its various

engineering concerns with Ohio. Pursuant to those discussions, Ohio

revised its engineering section to satisfy OSM's concerns and created

positions for three engineering specialists, who will work directly

with an engineer. Ohio determined, and OSM agrees, that Ohio's

engineers were spending a significant portion of their time reviewing

work and projects which could be more efficiently conducted by

engineering specialists. Ohio is also requiring a surveyor to devote 20

percent of his time to the engineering portion of the I & E section.

After Ohio implements its engineering staffing plan, the engineering

portion will be composed not only of four engineers (devoting up to 50

percent of their time to the I & E section), but three engineering

specialists (devoting up to

[[Page 56526]]

50 percent of their time to the I & E section) and a surveyor to assist

the engineers. The net effect will be a loss of 0.8 engineering

positions devoted to regulatory tasks as compared to the staffing level

which existed prior to the initial submission of PA 63. There will be

more engineering positions in place; but those positions will be

conducting a wider range of regulatory and non-regulatory engineering

work.

The Director finds that the addition of the three engineering

specialists and the surveyor to the engineering section creates a more

effective distribution of the workload of the engineering portion of

the I & E section because it will free up more time for the engineers

to perform those tasks which are best suited for the engineers and

their areas of expertise. The Director also finds that the reduction of

full-time positions by 0.8 is nominal in light of the reduced workload.

Lastly, the Director finds that the existing staff is capable of

effectively performing all the functions required by Ohio's regulatory

program. For further discussion, see Comment 2 below.

(2) Ohio is assigning engineer job duties to personnel not

necessarily qualified to perform those duties and with job descriptions

which only include assisting an engineer and which do not require

performing the actual duties.

The Director disagrees with the commentor. As discussed in the

previous comment, Ohio found that the engineers were performing tasks

that could have been done by other trained personnel. Ohio is free to

delegate to non-engineers those engineering support activities so long

as those personnel are capable of performing those duties.

As part of PA 63R, Ohio is transferring selected responsibilities

from its engineers to engineering specialists and mine inspectors. OSM

has reviewed the position descriptions provided by Ohio for the

proposed new engineering specialist positions and existing inspector

positions affected by the engineering staff changes. OSM has concluded

that the proposed responsibilities for reviewing mining plans and pond

designs, collecting field data, and operating computer applications are

within the scope and capability of these positions.

This determination is based on the fact the Ohio's coal mining law

and rules do not specifically require review of any part of mining

permits by an engineer employed by Ohio. Rather, the permittee cannot

conduct specific activities such as build a pond, construct a road, or

develop an excess spoil site until that activity is approved by the

Chief. The rules are not specific about how the Chief will develop or

document decisions concerning engineering-type activities.

Historically, Ohio field inspectors and permit reviewers have requested

engineering review of typical engineering-type activities as part of

the permit-approval process; but that review need not be done by a

registered engineer.

The use of non-engineer design specialists is addressed in Ohio

Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4733. Non-engineers can perform all duties

provided that those duties ``do not include responsible charge of

engineering or survey work'' (ORC 4733.18(B)(1)) and the design

specialist is ``an employee or subordinate of a person holding a

certificate of registration'' (ORC 4733.18(B)(1)). Ohio has stated that

the three engineering specialists will work directly with an engineer

and under the supervision of a professional engineer (Administrative

Record No. OH-2155).

(3) Ohio did not consider recommendations from its engineering

staff in purchasing a UNIX computer system and that system has a high

learning curve and does not meet the needs of the engineering staff.

This comment is beyond the scope of this amendment because it

concerns an internal resource management issue which is not directly

related to Ohio's proposed staffing changes. Therefore, the Director is

acknowledging but making no response to this comment.

The Director notes that one of the engineering specialists will be

assigned to the TIPS workstation. TIPS is an advanced workstation that

utilizes sophisticated computer software which is capable of

substantially reducing the amount of time needed to evaluate certain

type of projects in both the AML and regulatory programs. Ohio will

assess the continued needs of its engineering program with regard to

the use of SEDCAD, another engineering software program capable of

predicting concentration of settleable and suspended solids in the

effluent from sedimentation ponds and otherwise analyzing drainage

control systems on surface mines.

(4) Ohio has taken a systematic and planned approach to decimate

the effectiveness and productivity of the engineering and design

section. What was once a highly effective section has been dismantled

without any survey work, designers, drafters, and less engineers to be

replaced with machines with no personnel to operate them.

The Director disagrees that Ohio has decimated the effectiveness

and productivity of the engineering and design section. The reduced and

reorganized engineering staff now proposed in PA 63R is capable of

performing all functions required by Ohio's programs.

OSM also received comments on PA 63 and PA 63R dated June 22, 1994

(Administrative Record No. OH-2026), and July 13, 1995 (Administrative

Record No. OH-2145), from Howard R. Fauss, P.E. In his June 22, 1994,

letter, Mr. Fauss commented that the former Chief of the Division of

Reclamation, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, restructured the

Division of Reclamation to reduce or eliminate engineer's input into

the review of mining and operations plans. According to Mr. Fauss, the

Chief drastically reduced engineering hours available for regulatory

purposes and eliminated engineers dedicated to those tasks. The Chief's

plan was to create an engineering organizational structure with limited

accountability, no individual responsibility for assisting the

reclamation inspector, and no qualified engineers available to do such

work. Engineers were pressed to do AML rather than regulatory work,

with 44 persons on Ohio's AML staff and only three regulatory

engineers.

In his July 13, 1995 letter, Mr. Fauss commented that Ohio's

proposed fragmentation of individual engineer's duties between

different programs is a clear recipe for a way not to get the

regulatory duties accomplished. According to Mr. Fauss, the former

Chief was always attempting to direct the engineer's attentions to

anything other than regulatory duties. Even though Ohio's revised

engineering staff plan looks better on paper, it will not accomplish

the intended goals. Ponds will still not receive a realistic review

using SCS-recommended parameters.

The Director notes these comments and reiterates that OSM's purpose

in reviewing PA 63R is to determine if the reduced and reorganized

engineering staff proposed in PA 63R will be capable of performing all

engineering functions required by Ohio's programs. As discussed above,

OSM has reviewed Ohio's workload analyses and concluded that the

proposed staffing should be adequate. Ohio and OSM will continue to

monitor the engineering workload of Ohio's programs. If those analyses

indicate that the revised staffing is insufficient, OSM will require

Ohio to further amend its program.

It is not appropriate for OSM to attempt to respond to Mr. Fauss'

comments concerning the intent behind Ohio's engineering staff changes.

OSM may only decide if those changes are likely to prevent or

negatively impact Ohio's ability to perform its

[[Page 56527]]

responsibilities under its approved programs. OSM does note, however,

that the OIG's report (Administrative Record No. OH-2072) did not agree

with Mr. Fauss' claims concerning the purpose of the engineering

reductions.

OSM received no other public comments on PA 63R.

Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited

comments on PA 63 and PA 63R from the Regional Director of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and from the heads of four other

Federal agencies and one State agency with an actual or potential

interest in the Ohio program. Comments received concerning PA 63 were

discussed in the September 1, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 45211).

Concerning PA 63R, the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and

Health Administration, responded without comment. Comments on PA 63R

were also received from the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO).

The OHPO did not object to the proposed amendment. However, the OHPO

noted that historic preservation matters must be fully integrated into

the planning and engineering process and should be reflected in all job

descriptions and factored into any evaluations of staffing needs. The

Director acknowledges the importance of historic preservation planning

and, through normal oversight of the Ohio program, will ensure that

these matters are not adversely impacted by the proposed engineering

staff changes.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the

written concurrence of the 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.).

None of the revisions that Ohio proposed to make in this amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not

request EPA's concurrence.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on PA

63R from EPA. By letter dated February 28, 1995 (Administrative Record

No. OH-2096), EPA stated that it had no comments on the amendment.

No other agency comments were received.

V. Director's Decision

Based on the above findings, the Director approves the proposed

amendment as submitted by Ohio on February 2, 1995.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 935 codifying decisions

concerning the Ohio 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

conform their programs 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 a State program are not enforceable

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

prohibit any unilateral changes to approved programs. In the oversight

of the Ohio program, the Director will recognize only the approved

program, together with any consistent implementing policies,

directives, and other materials, and will require the enforcement by

Ohio of such provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This final 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 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 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

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. 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 corresponding Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 1, 1995.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian 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 935--OHIO

1. The authority citation for Part 935 continues to read as

follows:

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

2. Section 935.15 is amended by adding new paragraph (zzz) to read

as follows:

[[Page 56528]]

Sec. 935.15 Approval of regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

(zzz) The following amendment (Program Amendment 63R) pertaining to

the Ohio regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land reclamation programs, as

submitted to OSM on February 2, 1995, is approved, effective November

9, 1995: Reduction and reorganization of engineering staff.

[FR Doc. 95-27807 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M