OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION & ENFORCEMENT For Release June 25, 1996 Jerry Childress (202) 208-2719 jchildre@osmre.gov FINALIZED SURFACE MINE OVERSIGHT DIRECTIVE ISSUED Robert J. Uram, Director of the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), today released a final version of OSM Directive REG-8, "Oversight of State Regulatory Programs," for evaluation years 1996 and 1997. The final directive establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities for evaluating state regulatory programs for coal mining operation. It is based on an interim version of REG-8 issued January 30, 1996, and incorporates changes recommended by OSM units, states, and customers who reviewed and commented on the draft. The directive was developed by an OSM/State Oversight Team. Uram emphasized that the new version of REG-8 represents a new and "fundamentally different results-based oversight strategy." It applies to all OSM organizational units and personnel involved in oversight of state programs. "Under the new strategy, OSM's oversight evaluation activities now focus on the successes of states in meeting the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's goals for environmental protection as well as prompt, effective reclamation of land mined for coal, Uram said. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt called the new oversight concept "one of the outstanding environmental achievements of the Clinton administration. "Reaching agreement with the states on oversight of their surface mining programs will prove to be an extraordinary benefit to OSM's primary customers -- the families who live and work in America's coalfields," Babbitt said. The states participation in the process and their endorsement of the new strategy are the clearest indication yet of how strong the federal-state shared commitment has grown. Uram added: "The changes we have made in the way we conduct oversight are major. However, the new approach has already resulted in more meaningful oversight. We've eliminated unnecessary paperwork, cut procedural details, and limited data collection to what's needed for effective program evaluation. The main focus has shifted from process to on-ground results." Under the directive, OSM Field Offices and Regional Coordinating Centers, in cooperation with state regulators, are developing state-specific evaluation plans tailored to the unique conditions of each state's surface mining program, according to OSM officials. OSM's role will not involve any duplication of the state's program implementation. "State program evaluation is no longer driven by the Washington mandates of the past," Uram said. "Instead, we are going with performance agreements worked out by consensus with each state to develop state-specific evaluation plans tailored to the unique conditions of each statežs surface mining program. We are well pleased with the initial results of this new oversight approach, Uram said. žOSM and the States are making significant progress in targeting substantive issues for review and measuring critical end results. Furthermore, OSM and the States are engaged in a shared commitment to identify common goals and direct state and federal resources in cooperative, evaluative efforts toward more meaningful oversight. (NOTE TO EDITORS: An attachment to this news release lists the current status of performance agreements between OSM and the 24 primacy states.) When the interim directive was issued in January, Uram established an Oversight Steering Committee, composed of OSM and State staffers, to monitor implementation of the new approach, and to field comments and recommendations for changes to the directive. According to Uram, the committee received several comments which have resulted in valuable adjustments to Directive REG-8. "I endorse the committeežs revisions," Uram said. "I believe they clarify and provide additional guidance that will be helpful to all concerned. The revisions also assure that the data and information needs of both OSM and the states will be accommodated." Requests for additional information or copies of Directive REG-8 should be directed to James Fulton, OSM Western Regional Coordinating Center, Suite 3320, 1999 Broadway, Denver, CO 80225, (303) 672-5524 or jfulton@osmre.gov. -DOI- Frequently requested information about OSM is available 24 hours a day by Fax-on-Demand at: (202) 219-1703. June 20, 1996 A Message from the Director On January 30 of this year, OSM released a new, interim version of Directive REG-8, "Oversight of State Regulatory Programs," which establishes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities for conducting oversight of State regulatory programs for Evaluation Year (EY) 1996. This new version of Directive REG-8 is based on the efforts of an OSM/State Oversight Team to develop an innovative, fundamentally different, results-based oversight strategy. Under the new strategy, OSM's oversight evaluation activities now focus on the successes of States in meeting the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's goals for environmental protection and prompt, effective reclamation of land mined for coal. In addition, the State program evaluation is no longer driven by the Washington mandates of the past. Instead, the new oversight guidelines substitute performance agreements worked out by consensus between each State and OSM Field Office whereby a State-specific evaluation plan is tailored to the unique conditions of the State surface mining program. We are well pleased with the initial results of this new oversight approach. As you will see in the attached table showing the status of the performance agreements, OSM and the States are making significant progress in targeting substantive issues for review and measuring critical end results. Furthermore, OSM and the States are engaged in shared commitment to identify common goals and direct State and Federal resources in cooperative, evaluative efforts toward more meaningful oversight. At the time of release of the interim directive, I indicated that an Oversight Steering Committee (OSC), composed of OSM and State staff, would continue to monitor the implementation of the new oversight approach; and comments were welcome. The OSC received several comments from OSM units, the States, and customers, and met twice to review and discuss these comments. As a result, the OSC recommended some adjustments to Directive REG-8. I endorse these revisions to the directive and thus am distributing final Directive REG-8 so it can be implemented immediately for EY 1996 and EY 1997. The revisions clarify and provide additional guidance on several issues that commenters found confusing or contradictory. The revisions also assure that the data and information needs of OSM and the States will be accommodated. Attached are a summary of the major revisions and the comments and their disposition. A notable change being implemented is that the evaluation year now will run concurrently with the Federal fiscal year (October 1 - September 30). This is necessary to accommodate Federal reporting requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Under this schedule, the evaluation year will end on September 30 and annual reports will be due within two months of the end of the period (i.e., by December 1). This also means the current reporting period for EY 1996 will capture activities and data only for nine months with a final report due by December 1, 1996. The new evaluation year (EY 1997) begins on October 1, 1996. Although this will require OSM and the States to expedite the process for this year and will result in only nine months of oversight data and activities for this reporting period, it is necessary to assure coordination with GPRA reporting requirements. In the final analysis, this will serve as yet another step toward the elimination of individual State oversight reports and the eventual incorporation of State data and oversight information into OSM's annual report to Congress. I know that many of the OSM Field Offices and State regulatory authorities are still working through the new procedures associated with the revised directive and these latest adjustments will require additional time and attention. However, I am optimistic that the revisions will prove helpful and will not unduly complicate your efforts to implement the oversight performance agreements that you have negotiated. The OSC will continue to monitor activities under the directive and I encourage you to share your experiences and comments with them on an ongoing basis. Thank you for your commitment to the successful implementation and quality improvement of OSM's oversight program. Robert J. Uram Attachment 1 STATUS OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING AND THE PRIMACY STATES Alabama Signed Availability of permit documents to public Bond Forfeiture Sites Waste Disposal Site Review Bond Release (Contemporaneous Reclamation) Study for Off-site Impacts Review of Waste/Spoil Disposal Facilities Review of Maintenance of Enforcement Values Alaska N/A Actual Oversight Will Be Limited Since There Is Only One Mine Active In The State Arkansas Signed Following Areas May Be Evaluated: Surface Water Discharges Groundwater Protection Blasting Contemporaneous Reclamation Backfilling and Grading/AOC Revegetation Post Mining Land Use Topsoil Storage and Replacement Effectiveness of SRA Customer Satisfaction Colorado Signed Off-site Impacts Hydrologic Quality Reclamation Success Contemporaneous Reclamation Oversight Complete Inspections Colorado Internal Reviews Include: Bond Adequacy Verification Inspectable Unit Verification Approximate Original Contour Policy Review Development of Electronic Data Transmission Public Participation Illinois Signed Contemporaneous Reclamation Off-site Impacts Bond Release Public Outreach Bond Adequacy Indiana Signed Off-site Impacts Contemporaneous Reclamation Bond Releases Overall Reclamation Success, Title V & IV Indiana (cont.) Public Outreach AVS Study Bond Adequacy and Bond Forfeiture Study Iowa Accepted but Off-site Impacts not signed End Results Bond Release and Forfeiture Assistance Customer Service Civil Penalties Inspection and Enforcement Procedures Grants AML Procedures Program Amendments Kansas Signed Customer Service Off-site Impacts End Results Program Amendments AML Procedures Grants Kentucky Signed Aerial Overflight Reviews Phase 1 and 3 Bond Releases AMD Inspections Kentucky (cont.) Water Monitoring Report Reviews Down-dip Underground Mine Study Remining Citizens Complaints Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative General AML Oversight Louisiana Tentative Met with Louisiana on June 11, 1996. All differences were resolved -- it will be signed as soon as it can be processed. Topics are: Protection of Streams and Stream Buffer Zones Surface Water Hydrology Citing Violations Compliance With Other Laws Contemporaneous Reclamation Off-site Impacts Maryland Accepted but AMD Inspections not signed Bond Release Compliance Monitoring Maryland (cont.) Assistance in Development of Automated Inspection Forms Other Areas For Review Are Still Being Negotiated For EY 1996 Missouri Signed Off-site Impacts End Results Reclamation Timeliness Customer Service AVS Implementation Inspection Assistance Bond Release Bond Forfeiture Assistance Montana Tentative Program Maintenance State Program Amendments Reclamation Success As Built Pond Design Construction and Certification Approximate Original Contour Alternate Reclamation New Mexico Accepted But Topsoil Study Not Signed Post-Mining Land Use New Mexico (cont.) Blasting North Dakota Accepted But Overall Success of State Program Not Signed Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) Off-site Impacts Groundwater Monitoring Potential Contamination Water Replacement Wells Adversely Affected Mine Permit Records Located in County Offices Notice of Intent to Explore Records Follow-up on Inventory of Single Closed Channel Spillways Follow-up on Pre-mine Data Base for Landowner/Residential Wells Adjacent to Permit Area Ohio Signed Contemporaneous Reclamation Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative Remining General AML Oversight Evaluation of Off-site Impacts Evaluation of Bond Releases Ohio (cont.) Assistance In Several Program Areas Through Joint Problem Solving Teams Oklahoma Signed 30 CFR 733 Issues Surface/Ground-water Hydrology Program Amendments Air Pollution Control Fish and Wildlife Protection Plans Blasting Permit Review Procedures Bonding Whistle Blower Protection Conflicts of Interest Appropriateness of Abatement Periods, and Measures Citizen Complaints Off-site Impacts Alternative Methods for Recalculating Bond Liability at Phase I and II release Pennsylvania Signed Remining Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative Grants AMD Inspections Pennsylvania (cont.) AML Lien Procedures State Wildlife and Wetlands Enhancements RSI Inspections are On Active Mining Permits Texas Tentative Revised in accordance with Texas comments and sent on June 7, 1996, for signing. Topics Include: Bond Release Abatement of Violations Prescriptions Postmining Land Use and Revegetation Wetland Protection Historic and Cultural Resources Contemporaneous Reclamation Off-site Impacts Utah Signed Highwall Elimination as a Part of Approximate Original Contour Restoration Erosional Stability (at Phase II Bond Release) Alternative Sediment Control Small Area Exemptions Surface and Ground- water Protection Citizen Involvement Virginia Signed State Will Conduct Self-evaluation In The Following Areas: Surface/Ground Water Protection and Inspection Frequency Joint Teams Will Study Backfill Settlement Problems, Bond Forfeiture Reclamation, Phase III Bond Release Reclamation, and AML Emergency Construction Management Approximately 115 Joint Inspections Will Be Conducted On Active Permits Placing Emphasis On Water Loss/Degradation Complaints, General Hydrology Information, Highwall Settlement, and Blasting West Virginia Signed Off-site Damage Bond Release Permanent Program AMD Inventory Alternative Enforcement Show Cause Inspection Reporting There Are Seven Program Areas Where Issues Have Been Previously Identified and Commits To Joint State/OSM Resolution Using Action Plans Or Other Mutually Agreeable Procedures Wyoming Signed Blasting Approximate Original Contour Enhancement Features Probable Hydrologic Consequences Verif icati on of Predi ction s Alternate Sediment Control Measures (ASCMSs) Program Maintenance State Program Amendments Attachment 2 Summary of Major Changes from Interim to Final Directive REG-8 The evaluation year is changed to run concurrently with the Federal fiscal year (October 1 -September 30) to accommodate Federal reporting requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Under this schedule, the evaluation year will end on September 30 and annual reports will be due within two months of the end of the period (i.e., by December 1). The current reporting period for EY 1996 will capture activities and data only for nine months with a final report due by December 1, 1996. The directive also applies to the new evaluation year (EY 1997), which will begin on October 1, 1996. Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are revised to clarify the data requirements or to collect additional data that will be needed by OSM or the States. Table 1 is revised to include coal production from the previous two years in addition to the current evaluation period to allow the reader to see changes in production. Coal production data and the source of the data are qualified by providing an explanation with Table 1 to make the data more consistent. Instructions reference the source of production data as the OSM Denver Division of Financial Management, based on OSM-1 forms. Table 2 is expanded to include a breakdown in the number of inspectable units by land type (State, Private, or Federal) similar to Table 2 of past years. This change recognizes workload associated with Federal lands where there is a State/Federal cooperative agreement. A new column is added to allow the number of inspectable units to be entered by States that have multiple permits counted as one inspectable unit. Tables 3 and 4 are combined into one table, now Table 3. Table 3 now provides data for State permitting actions including applications as well as issued permits and other permitting actions. An optional line is added to allow inclusion of midterm permit review information if available. Table 4, OFF-SITE IMPACTS (Table 5 in interim Directive REG- 8) is reformatted to make the table more user-friendly. The data columns concerning Impact Mitigated/Unmitigated and State Action are removed due to the subjective nature of those terms. References to incidences were changed to Impacts to lessen confusion on this concept. The term Resources Impacted is changed to Resources Affected and air is deleted from the list. The table allows either the number of permits or the number of mine sites to be identified when counting off-site impacts and the number of observations. Instructions also are clarified. Instructions for Optional Tables listed as 6a, b, and c are revised to provide a new optional table to address reclamation accomplishments within a State even though bond release has not been achieved. Table 7, BOND FORFEITURE ACTIVITY, is expanded to provide better information on bond forfeitures by providing data from past years. The new Table 7 follows the format of Table 13 used in past years. Several terms used throughout the directive either are deleted or better defined. These terms include "mitigated/unmitigated;" "reparable/irreparable;" and "disturbed area." Attachment 3 Response to Comments On January 31, 1996, the Director of OSM released the newly revised Directive REG-8, "Oversight of State Regulatory Programs," which establishes new policies, procedures, and responsibilities for evaluating State regulatory programs. The directive was released in interim form. The Director provided the users of the document with the opportunity to supply comments and feedback to the Oversight Steering Committee (OSC) by March 31, 1996. The OSC would then review the comments and offer recommendations to refine the document as necessary. Fourteen individuals, groups, or agencies submitted comments. State agencies commenting were the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, North Dakota Public Service Commission, Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, and the Kentucky Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. OSM entities included the Indianapolis, Charleston and Birmingham Field Offices, the Office of Communications, and the Program Support Division, Western Regional Coordinating Center. The Kentucky Coal Association and Gennaro G. Marino, an engineering consultant, also submitted comments. Five comments disagreed with the focus on bond release to indicate successful reclamation. Four comments were concerned with the table and explanation for disturbed acres. Four comments were received concerning Table 5, "Off-Site Impacts" and the associated explanation, and two comments questioned the flow chart diagraming the oversight approach. 1. Contemporaneous Reclamation Six commentors stated concerns over how contemporaneous reclamation would be measured. These commentors do not think that using contemporaneous reclamation as defined in Directive REG-8 for evaluation of the success of reclamation is appropriate for all State programs. Commentors note that federal regulations do not require operators to apply for bond release within any specific time frame. State commentors noted that at any time there is a significant amount of land eligible for bond release, and thus the directive should include other means for determining the effectiveness of reclamation. Some States require operators to report the status of reclamation on lands. One State suggested that a table be added to summarize the total number of acres backfilled, graded, topsoiled, and seeded. The OSC considered the comments objecting to using bond release information as the only measurement of reclamation accomplishments on-the-ground. The OSC decided that it is necessary to use bond release as the standard measurement since bond release is the only time that specific findings are made as to the site meeting the required performance standards for each phase of reclamation. In addition, data on the status of reclamation is not available in all States. To address this concern, Directive REG-8 is revised to provide an optional opportunity for States to report reclamation accomplishments on acres where bond has not been released by providing the optional table recommended by the State. The bond release data in Table 5 (former Table 6) still will be used as the standard measurement. However, the optional data may provide additional information that will show that areas are being reclaimed, even though bond has not been released. The suggested format is included as an optional Table 6a. By retaining bond release as the standard for reclamation success, the OSC hopes to spur the filing for bond release by operators as quickly as the land becomes eligible for bond release, and to focus on bond release as a vital measurement of reclamation success and program effectiveness. Unreleased acreage eligible for release presents an additional inspection and enforcement burden upon State programs. Thus, those acres can cause the cost of government to increase at the expense of taxpayers and fee payers. 2. Disturbed Acres Four commentors indicated concerns regarding the collection and use of data for acres disturbed. One commentor stated that Directive REG-8 does not provide enough detail concerning the parameters for total disturbed acres and that there is no useful purpose for the data. Another commentor stated it is not clear what standard will be used to determine how many acres of mined and reclaimed acres would constitute acceptable program implementation. A State also suggested that the data should be annotated to explain any significant increases in disturbed acreage not offset by reclaimed acres, such as opening a new mining area or starting a new mine. The OSM Office of Communications indicated that reporting the amount of land disturbed each year would fill a long-standing OSM data void; however, steps should be taken to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the information. The OSC believes that disturbed acreage is important data for program managers and policy makers, showing the scope of the effect mining is having within a State. Revised Directive REG-8 defines disturbed area by referencing the definition in 30 CFR 701.5, and revised Table 6 allows for a footnote to explain any significant increase in disturbed acreage that is not offset by reclaimed acres, such as opening a new mining area or starting a new mine. 3. Off-Site Impacts Four commentors were confused by the explanation of off-site impacts and Table 5, especially the use of the terms "incidences, impacts and observations." Commentors also were concerned with the process for determining whether State actions left an impact mitigated or unmitigated. One commentor said it took considerable time to understand the concept and most users of the findings would be confused. The fact that some observations could result in more than one impact was confusing. One State requested that the discussion be clarified to refer to adverse impacts not allowed under the program, since mining activities almost always cause some type of off-site impacts; however, OSM needs to focus on those that are not allowed and that are considered violations under the State program. Table 5 is reformatted to make the table more user-friendly. References to "incidences" are changed to "Impacts" to lessen confusion on this concept. The term "Resources Impacted" is changed to "Resources Affected." The table allows either the number of permits or the number of mine sites to be identified when counting off-site impacts and the number of observations. The OSC agrees that the table should not include "mitigated/unmitigated" or "reparable/irreparable." Those terms are too subjective and thus would cause difficulty in interpretation. Instructions were also clarified. With regard to the suggestion to limit off-site impacts to those not allowed under the State program, the directive is revised to indicate protection from off-site impacts (prohibited by the State programs), but not revised to refer to adverse impacts. Users of the policy can analyze off- site impacts and make relevant findings and determinations in relation to the goal of SMCRA to eliminate or minimize off-site impacts. In addition, users of the policy will make determinations regarding what is an off-site impact and can determine the degree of off-site impacts being evaluated. 4. Oversight Approach Diagram Two commentors indicated concerns with the oversight diagram in the interim Directive REG-8. One commentor stated that if the flow chart is followed literally, then OSM would not report concerns with design or safety issues unless there is an on-the-ground or off-site impact. Another commentor noted that the statement "Did the achievement result in on- the-ground or off-site impacts?" should be changed to "Did the lack of achievement..." The basis of the first comment goes to the change in the focus of the oversight policy. The new policy incorporates a new "fundamentally different" results-based strategy. The focus of OSM's evaluation changes from review of the processes that make up a State program to the end results achieved under a State program. While OSM will focus its evaluation on end results, should design or safety issues arise, OSM and the State will work together to assure that corrective measures are developed to prevent problems from developing. In this regard, it is important to note that OSM recognizes and supports primacy and does not intend to duplicate a State's primary authority in carrying out SMCRA requirements in a State. With regard to the second comment, the OSC agrees and the chart is revised to include the wording "lack of". 5. Hydrologic Reclamation A State recommended revised language under Item II.C.3 explaining measurements for hydrologic reclamation. The revised language indicates that the protection of the hydrologic balance could be verified through the review of state inspection reports, Discharge Monitoring Reports, quarterly pond inspections, and Annual Hydrology Reports. The OSC has adopted the suggested language for Item II.C.3. 6. Tables 3 and 4 for Permitting Actions A State suggested that the volume of permitting activity should include revisions. The OSC agrees. Tables 3 and 4 have been combined into one table, now Table 3. Table 3 now provides data for State permitting actions including applications as well as issued permits and other permitting actions. An optional line was added to allow inclusion of midterm permit review information, if available. 7. Inspection and Violation Statistics An OSM commentor indicated that inspection and violation statistics have been provided to the public since 1977 and there is considerable interest in these numbers. The OSC notes the change in the focus of the oversight policy from evaluating processes like inspection and enforcement to evaluating end results. Since the new oversight process is results-oriented, the OSC does not believe it is appropriate to continue to collect this procedural data as part of the oversight process. OSM intends to continue to collect this data through a separate mechanism and presently has another team reviewing the data needs of the agency and the public outside of the oversight process. Thus, the OSC will refer this suggestion to the data team. Also, State members of the OSC will be discussing with States the issue of how inspection and enforcement data should be provided. 8. Coal Production An OSM Field Office indicated a need to clarify the basis for the table on coal production to indicate the source of tonnage reported, whether tonnage is raw or clean, tonnage sold, gross tons, etc. The OSC agreed and Table 1 is revised to include production from the previous two years in addition to the current evaluation period to allow the reader to see changes in production. Coal production data and the source of the data are qualified by providing an explanation with Table 1 in order to make the data more consistent. Instructions reference the source of production data as information from the OSM Denver Division of Financial Management as reported on OSM-1 forms. 9. Oversight Evaluation Year An OSM commentor recommended changing the evaluation year to the fiscal year. The commentor indicated a need for the data in the annual report to be available earlier than envisioned in interim Directive REG-8 with the calendar year cycle. Also noted was the need to connect the data and evaluation to the Government Performance and Results Act, which will be tied to the Federal fiscal year. The OSC agreed to change the evaluation year to the October 1 - September 30 cycle. The OSC decided to recommend cut-off of the current evaluation year on September 30, 1996, and to have the annual reporting cycle on a Federal fiscal year basis. Annual reports will be due within two months of the end of the period (by December 1, 1996, for the current reporting period). The current transitional reporting period will cover nine months. The OSC believes that this may be a first step directed at eliminating State-specific annual reports and beginning the process of having State- specific summaries in the OSM Annual Report to Congress. 10. Bonding Oversight An OSM commentor expressed concerns about eliminating bonding oversight. The commentor noted that bonding is a part of SMCRA and State programs that does not lend itself to "results-oriented" oversight. The bonding oversight process has provided a vehicle to provide training and assistance and has been beneficial to State personnel and to the commentor. The OSC recognizes that bonding is an important process of State programs. Oversight has been conducted on bond amounts and bonding documents since State programs were first implemented during 1982-83. OSM has made much progress working with States to ensure adequate bond amounts. The OSC believes prior oversight has thoroughly documented past problems and has accounted for resolution and improvements in all program processes, including bonding. Oversight now is intended to focus on end results, including the accomplishment of reclamation success. OSM expects that States, as part of the internal review of their program processes, periodically will review their bonding process and seek assistance from OSM as needed when those reviews indicate a problem. Table 7 for Bond Forfeiture Activity is revised to provide better information on bond forfeitures by providing data from past years. The new Table 7 follows the format of Table 13 used in previous years. Evaluation of forfeiture activity should be an important focus of the revised oversight. In addition, should oversight evaluations indicate problems in the achievement of reclamation success, OSM/State teams could conduct follow-up reviews of bond levels and bond documents, as well as other process details. OSM can provide technical assistance based on the results of follow-up reviews. 11. Additional Details on Staffing and Funding One commentor wanted more detail in the tables on "staffing" and "funds granted by OSM." For staffing the commentor would like to see the number of attorneys, as well as the administrative and fiscal personnel. For funds, the commentor would like a breakdown to reflect how the money is spent. The commentor would also like a listing of any memoranda of agreements in which the State is involved. The OSC has not adopted nationally the changes suggested by the commentor, but the comment has been forwarded to the appropriate Field Office. Directive REG-8 allows for the inclusion of such additional data and information in the annual report. 12. Evaluation Impact on National Regulations One commentor suggested that the new evaluation process should also be aimed at determining the real success of the national regulations. The OSC agrees. If there is ever a widespread failure to meet desired outcomes, one possible cause might be the regulations themselves. If so, the oversight process will identify this as a potential reason for poor results in achieving the desired end results. 13. Additional Critique of Directive REG-8 One commentor recommended providing another opportunity to critique Directive REG-8 following the first year of use. The OSC agrees and is planning to seek comments on Directive REG-8 at the end of EY 1996 and will offer recommendations for any adjustments during EY 1997. 14. A commentor stated that the format of interim Directive REG-8 is confusing and noted considerable difficulty in using the document to develop an oversight plan. The OSC revised the format by making the annual report section into a separate appendix and numbering the pages of each section and appendices separately. 15. A commentor noted that Table 2 does not include mines on Federal lands as State inspectable units, as would be the case in primacy States with cooperative agreements. Table 2 is expanded to include a breakdown in the number of inspectable units by land type (State/Private or Federal) similar to Table 2 in past years. The change will recognize work load associated with Federal lands where there is a cooperative agreement. A new column is added to allow the number of inspectable units to be entered by States that have multiple permits counted as one inspectable unit. 16. A State commented that it objects to the inclusion of air as a resource affected by off-site impacts, since it has no means to regulate air quality. The OSC agreed and on page II-2 deleted "air" from the list of off-site resources that may be affected. 17. A commentor noted that under the Annual Report section for Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations in the (State) Program, the emphasis is limited to OSM's expectations for the coming year. In the spirit of shared commitment, the expectations provided should be those of the State as well as OSM. The OSC agrees and has added "the State" to the phrase on page III-2. 18. A commentor referenced the heading, "Topic-Specific Evaluation Reports," which includes a list of information the Field Office should consider in reporting evaluation topics. The commentor suggested that the reason the topic was selected for review also should be listed. The OSC agrees and has added, "and why it was selected" to page II- 9. 19. A commentor noted that the last paragraph of II.D.H states that both draft and final reports provided to the State should be included in the Evaluation file. There may be instances where the draft report does not accurately reflect the information reviewed, and would not belong in the Evaluation file, according to the commenter. The OSC does not agree. When there is a draft report and a final report, it is obvious that the final report is conclusive. The draft report should be retained to help show how conclusions were reached in the final report. 20. A commentor referenced Strategy 4.01.01 on page I-6 concerning analysis of customer satisfaction. The commentor recommended analysis of customer participation and proper notification, but not "satisfaction." The commentor noted that any time a regulatory authority handles a complaint, either the citizen or the company will be unhappy; one side will receive a finding contrary to its interests. The OSC understands the comment, but has retained the phrase "satisfaction" with the following explanation. Obviously, the goal of customer service is for all parties to be satisfied with the outcome in all instances. However, we recognize that not all persons will be satisfied with each of the outcomes every time. Thus, the phrase focuses the review onto the entire customer service process. Satisfaction in this case means the customer has been fully informed through a complete explanation of the situation and the applicable requirements, provided information on all rights and obligations, treated fairly throughout the process, and, where possible, is satisfied with the outcome. 21. A comment and two supporting comments were received outlining concerns with the impacts planned subsidence has on pipelines and stating the need for oversight of such situations. The OSC does not believe the oversight policy can be specific to particular situations such as described. Since the comments indicated concerns with an upcoming situation, they have been forwarded to the State regulatory authority and OSM's Field Office. 22. A commentor expressed concern about data collection requirements which go beyond the performance agreement negotiated between OSM and the State. The OSC notes that the section on data collection indicates that to the extent practical, OSM and the State, as part of a PA, will establish a joint database. While data sharing is a goal of the oversight process, it does not override the provisions of a previously completed PA. 23. A commentor stated that the comment period for States' comments on annual reports should be lengthened from 15 to 30 days, especially during the first year of the new oversight. The OSC appreciates the major changes in oversight and reporting and the need for coordination between a Field Office and a State. Hopefully, the annual report will not contain any different information from that resulting from implementation of the PA and the OSM/State cooperative efforts during the evaluation period. Because it is important to complete reports in a more timely manner, no change is made to the comment period. However, a State and Field Office could conceivably structure their own reporting scheme so as to allow for a longer State comment period while preserving OSM's reporting requirements.