[Federal Register: May 26, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 101)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 28362-28363] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26my99-7] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 914 [SPATS No. IN-144-FOR] Indiana Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Final rule; clarification. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is clarifying its decision and responses to comments it received on an amendment to the Indiana regulatory program (Indiana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The amendment concerned revisions to and additions of statutes pertaining to other State and Federal laws and permit revisions. At the request of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), we are providing clarification of our decision findings and responses to comments for two provisions relating to permit revisions that we disapproved in a previous final rule decision document dated March 16, 1999 (64 FR 12890). This clarification supplements our previous findings made in section III. Director's Findings and our responses to comments made in section IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments of that final rule document, but does not affect our decision made in section V. Director's Decision. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Director, Indianapolis Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1521. Telephone (317) 226-6700. Internet: INFOMAIL@indgw.osmre.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 16, 1999, we published a final rule approving, with certain exceptions, a May 14, 1998, amendment to the Indiana program. The amendment concerned revisions to Indiana Code (IC) 14-8 and several sections of IC 14-34 made by the Indiana House Enrolled Act No. 1074 (HEA 1074). By letter dated May 12, 1999, the IDNR asked us to clarify our disapproval of two revisions to the Indiana Code that were included in HEA 1074. The IDNR was concerned that the language we used in the preamble discussion of the disapproved revisions would have an adverse impact on the existing approved Indiana program. This final rule clarifies the preamble discussion of our final decision and our responses to the comments received on these two revisions. First, we disapproved IC 14-34-5-7-7(a), which defined a permit revision. Second, we disapproved IC 14-34-5-8.2(4), which added a guideline that would require Indiana to approve postmining land use changes, with specified exceptions, as nonsignificant permit revisions. IC 14-34-5-7(a), Definition of Permit Revision As proposed, this provision would define a permit revision as a change in mining or reclamation operations from the approved mining and reclamation plans that adversely affect the permittee's compliance with state statutes and regulations. In the March 16, 1999, Federal Register notice disapproving this provision, we cited three problems with the proposed language. The discussion of those three problems is not intended to affect the currently approved regulation at 310 IAC 12-3- 121(a)(1) cited by the Indiana Coal Council (ICC) in their comments of June 26,1998, in support of the proposed change (Administrative Record No. IND-1617). The portion of this regulation cited by the ICC requires revisions to permits for changes in surface coal mining or reclamation operations described in the original application and approved under the original permit, when such changes constitute a significant departure from the method of conduct of mining or reclamation operations contemplated by the original permit. In addition to the portion cited by the ICC, the regulation at 310 IAC 12-3-121(a)(1) goes on to state that changes which constitute a significant departure shall include, but not be limited to, those that could result in an operator's inability to comply with applicable requirements (emphasis added). The proposed statutory change we disapproved would have been in conflict with the current regulation in that it would have imposed a limitation inconsistent with this previous approved regulation. However, we do not intend for our disapproval of IC 14-34-5-7(a) to impact the current discretion that Indiana has within its approved program to determine when a revision is required. IC 14-34-5-8.2(4) Post-Mining Land Use as Nonsignificant Permit Revisions As proposed, this provision would classify a revision as nonsignificant that involved a land use change other than those listed in IC 14-34-5-8.1(8). Section 8.1(8) listed, as significant revisions, residential land uses, commercial or industrial land uses, recreational land uses, and developed water resources meeting the size criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a). In a letter faxed to us on December 21, 1998, responding to our concerns regarding this provision, the IDNR indicated that it interpreted this provision to mean that Indiana would retain discretion to determine that land use changes other than those listed in IC 14-34-8.1(8) could be significant revisions (Administrative Record No. IND-1627). However, we disapproved this proposed revision because we feel that it is clear on its face that the proposed change would remove such discretion. We went on to explain [[Page 28363]] that we felt there are clearly times when other land use changes could warrant being considered a significant revision. However, it is not our intent to indicate that all other land use changes must be considered a significant revision. Nor is it our intent to alter OSM's position as reflected in other regulatory actions relating to significant permit revisions, such as those for the Federal program in Tennessee. We do feel that it is essential for Indiana to continue to have the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, that other land use changes besides those listed in section 8.1(8) may constitute a significant revision. Therefore, this provision was disapproved. Dated: May 18, 1999. Brent Wahlquist, Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center. [FR Doc. 99-13336 Filed 5-25-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P