Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1931 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Related Information 

(n) French airworthiness directives F–

2003–291 R1, dated July 6, 2005, and F–

2005–109, dated July 6, 2005, also address 

the subject of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(o) You must use the service information 

in Table 1 of this AD to do the actions that 

are required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. If the optional 

replacement is done, you must use the 

service information in Table 2 of this AD to 

do the replacement. The Director of the 

Federal Register approved the incorporation 

by reference of these documents in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point 

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 

France, for a copy of this service information. 

You may review copies at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Room PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington, 

DC; on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at the NARA, 

call (202) 741–6030, or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html. 

TABLE 1.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Service information Revision/issue level Date 

(1) Airbus A300 Temporary Revision 22–001 to Chapter 22–23–00 of the Airbus A300 Fault Isolation Manual.Original .................... April 11, 2003. 

(2) Airbus A300 Temporary Revision 4.03.00/04 to Airbus 300 Flight Manual .................................. Issue 02 ................... November 18, 2003. 

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–22–0120, excluding Appendix 01 .................................................. Original .................... May 13, 2005. 

TABLE 2.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE FOR OPTIONAL ACTIONS

Service information Revision level Date 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–22–0119 ............................................................................................... Original .................... May 13, 2005. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 21, 2006. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–399 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 948 

[WV–111–FOR] 

West Virginia Abandoned Mine Lands 

Reclamation Plan 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We (OSM) are announcing the 

approval of an amendment to the West 

Virginia Abandoned Mine Lands 

Reclamation (AMLR) Plan under the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). The amendment makes numerous 

revisions throughout the State’s AMLR 

Plan, and it is intended to update and 

improve the effectiveness of the West 

Virginia AMLR Plan. 

DATES: Effective date: January 17, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston 

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1027 

Virginia Street, East, Charleston, West 

Virginia 25301, Telephone: (304) 347–

7158. E-mail: chfo@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Abandoned Mine Lands 

Reclamation Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Abandoned Mine 

Lands Reclamation Program 

The West Virginia AMLR Program 

was established by Title IV of SMCRA 

(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to 

concerns over extensive environmental 

damage caused by past coal mining 

activities. The program is funded by a 

reclamation fee collected on each ton of 

coal that is produced. The money 

collected is used to finance the 

reclamation of abandoned coal mines 

and for other authorized activities. 

Section 405 of the Act allows States and 

Indian Tribes to assume exclusive 

responsibility for reclamation activity 

within the State or on Indian lands if 

they develop and submit to the 

Secretary of the Interior for approval, a 

program (often referred to as a plan) for 

the reclamation of abandoned coal 

mined lands. The West Virginia AMLR 

Plan was approved by OSM effective 

February 23, 1981. You can find 

additional information about the West 

Virginia AMLR Plan at 30 CFR 948.20, 

948.25, and 948.26. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated June 27, 2006 

(Administrative Record Number WV–

1469), the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP), 

Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and 

Reclamation submitted an amendment 

to its AMLR Plan under SMCRA (30 

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The amendment 

consists of numerous changes 

throughout the AMLR Plan, some of 

which concern the AML Enhancement 

Rule. In its submittal of the amendment, 

the WVDEP stated that the revision 

incorporates the AML Enhancement 

Rule at 30 CFR Parts 707 and 874, as 

published by OSM in the Federal 

Register on Friday, February 12, 1999 

(64 FR 7470–7483). 

In its submittal letter, the State noted 

that the amendment also contains minor 

organizational and operational changes. 

Minor changes, such as organizational 

changes, re-numbering of sections, 

updating the name of departments or 

agencies, deletion of historical narrative, 

and the correction of typographical and 

grammatical errors, are non-substantive 

changes that do not affect the basis of 

the original approval of the West 

Virginia AMLR Plan. Therefore, we did 

not identify such non-substantive 

changes in our published proposed rule 

notice. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the September 

18, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES

1932 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

54601), 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 October 18, 2006. We 

did not hold a hearing or meeting, 

because no one requested one. We 

received comments from three Federal 

agencies and one State agency. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

Following are the findings we made 

concerning the amendment. OSM’s 

standard for comparison of State AMLR 

amendments with SMCRA and the 

Federal regulations is found in Directive 

STP–1, Appendix 11. This policy 

provides that ‘‘in accordance with 30 

CFR 884.14(a), the proposed plan must 

meet all applicable requirements of the 

Federal statute and rules. That is, a 

State’s statutes, rules, policy statements, 

procedures, and similar materials must 

compare, altogether, with applicable 

requirements of the Federal statute and 

rules, to ensure that the State’s plan, as 

a whole, meets all Federal 

requirements.’’ In addition, any 

amendments to AMLR plans must be 

approved in accordance with the 

procedures set out in 30 CFR 884.14. 

A. Minor Revisions to West Virginia’s 

AMLR Plan Provisions 

West Virginia proposed numerous 

minor organizational and operational 

changes, re-numbering of sections, 

updating the name of departments or 

agencies, and the correction of 

typographical and grammatical errors. 

Because the changes to these previously 

approved plan provisions are minor, we 

find that they meet the requirements of 

the Federal regulations and the Act and 

are hereby approved. 

B. Revisions to West Virginia’s AMLR 

Plan Provisions That Have the Same 

Meaning as the Corresponding 

Provisions of the Federal Regulations 

and the Act 

West Virginia proposed revisions to 

the following plan provisions. The State 

AMLR Plan revisions contain language 

that is the same as, or similar to, the 

corresponding sections of the Federal 

regulations and are hereby approved. 

B.1. Introduction B; 30 CFR 884.13(d); 

description of the organization. 

B.2. Section I; 30 CFR 884.13(a); 

designation by the Governor. 

B.3. Section I; 30 CFR 884.13(b); legal 

opinion by State Attorney General. 

B.4. Section III A; 30 CFR 

884.13(c)(2); description of procedures 

for identifying projects. 

B.5. Section III B; 30 U.S.C. 1233(a) 

and 30 CFR 884.13(c)(2); factors 

considered for prioritizing reclamation 

projects. 

B.6. Section III B item 6(e); 30 CFR 

707.5; Abandoned Mine Lands 

Reclamation Enhancement Rule, 

definitions. 

B.7. Section III item 6(e)(i); 30 CFR 

874.17(a); consultation with Title V 

regulatory authority, with the noted 

exceptions that the Code of State 

Regulations (CSR) 38–2–3.31.a and 

3.31.c have not been fully approved by 

OSM. 

B.8. Section III B item 6(e)(i)(I); 30 

CFR 707.5; definition of government 

financed construction. 

B.9. Section III B item 6(e)(i)(II); 30 

CFR 707.5 and 874.17(a); agency 

procedures for less than 50 percent 

government funding. 

B.10. Section III B item 6(e)(i)(III); 30 

CFR 874.17(b); concurrence with Title V 

regulatory authority. 

B.11. Section III B item 6(e)(i)(IV); 30 

CFR 874.17(c); documentation. 

B.12. Section III B item 6(e)(i)(V); 30 

CFR 874.17(d); special requirements. 

B.13. Section III B item 6(e)(i)(VI); 30 

CFR 874.17(e); limitation. 

B.14. Section III B item 8; 30 CFR 

884.13(c)(2); project tracking system. 

B.15. Section IV item 3; 30 CFR 

884.13(c)(3); coordination of 

reclamation among abandoned mine 

lands programs. 

B.16. Section VIII; 30 CFR 

884.13(c)(7); public participation and 

involvement. 

B.17. Section IX A; 30 CFR 

884.13(d)(1); organization of the 

designated agency. 

B.18. Section IX B; 30 CFR 705 and 

884.13(d)(2); personnel staffing policies, 

including restrictions on financial 

interests by State employees. 

B.19. Section IX C; 30 CFR 

884.13(d)(3); purchasing and 

procurement systems. 

B.20. Section IX D; 30 CFR 

884.13(d)(4); accounting system. 

C. Revisions to West Virginia’s AMLR 

Plan Provisions That Are Not the Same 

as the Corresponding Provisions of the 

Federal Regulations and the Act 

C.1. Section II. Purposes of the State 

Reclamation Program. Language is 

deleted and added to clarify that 

expenditures from the AMLR 

reclamation fund are selected on the 

basis of the priorities identified at W. 

Va. Code 22–2–4. The priorities 

identified at W. Va. Code 22–2–

4(b)(1)(A) through (F) are substantively 

identical to the priorities identified in 

SMCRA at section 403(a)(1) through 

(a)(5) with one exception. The priority 

identified at W. Va. Code 22–2–

4(b)(1)(D), concerning expenditures for 

research and demonstration projects 

relating to the development of surfacemining reclamation and water quality 

control program methods and 

techniques, is not authorized by SMCRA 

as a priority for expenditures from the 

AMLR fund. This provision was 

formerly codified at section 403(4) of 

SMCRA, but it was deleted on October 

24, 1992. 

However, we note that the State has 

also amended the AMLR Plan at Section 

III. B. concerning the prioritization of 

problems. Amendments to section III B 

and B(4) also address the AMLR Fund 

priority requirements. The first 

paragraph at section III B that is being 

amended references the priority 

requirements at W. Va. Code 22–2–4. 

Section III B is amended by deleting 

item III B.(4) concerning funding 

priority for research and demonstration 

projects relating to the development of 

surface mining reclamation and water 

quality control program methods and 

techniques. Therefore, it appears that 

expenditures for research and 

demonstration projects will not be 

considered as priority for which AMLR 

expenditures can be made. Taken as a 

whole, therefore, we understand that the 

West Virginia AMLR Plan will not 

provide expenditures from the AMLR 

Fund for research and development 

projects and, therefore, is consistent 

with the priorities identified in SMCRA 

at section 403(a). We are approving the 

amendments to sections II and III B. and 

III B. 4 with that understanding. 

C.2. Section III B. Item 6.(e). The 

existing language is deleted concerning 

waiving any requirement that a 

reclamation contractor obtain a 

reclamation permit to extract or remove 

coal if the waiver will facilitate removal 

of coal and the mining is incidental to 

the project. The deleted language was 

not consistent with section 528 of 

SMCRA concerning surface mining 

operations not subject to the Act, nor 

consistent with the definition of surface 

coal mining operations at 30 CFR 700.5. 

Section 528 provides that the following 

activities are not subject to the Act: (1) 

The extraction of coal by a landowner 

for his/her own noncommercial use 

from land owned or leased by him/her; 

and (2) the extraction of coal as an 

incidental part of Federal, State or local 

government-financed highway or other 

construction under regulations 

established by the regulatory authority. 

The definition of surface coal mining 

operations at section 701(28)(A) of 

SMCRA and 30 CFR 700.5 also exclude 

from the definition of surface coal 

mining operations activities that include 

the extraction of other minerals, where 

coal does not exceed 162⁄3 percent of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1933 

tonnage of minerals removed for 

purposes of commercial use or sale, or 

coal exploration subject to section 512 

of SMCRA. Because the deleted 

language excluded reclamation projects 

from the definition of ‘‘surface coal 

mining operations’’ even though those 

projects should not have been excluded, 

we are approving the deletion. 

C.3. Section III B Item 6(g). The 

existing language concerning the 

recovery of coal from refuse piles, 

impoundments, or abandoned mine 

workings containing coal is deleted. The 

deleted language allowed coal removal 

incidental to a proposed reclamation 

project. The Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 707 and 30 CFR 874.17 exempt 

the extraction of coal which is 

incidental only to government-financed 

construction from the requirements of 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations, if 

that extraction meets specified criteria 

which ensure that the construction is 

government-financed and that the 

extraction of coal is incidental to it. We 

find that the deletion removes language 

that is not consistent with applicable 

requirements of SMCRA and the Federal 

regulations, and it can be approved. We 

must note that the removal of existing 

abandoned coal refuse piles within the 

State is also regulated pursuant to CSR 

38–2–3.14. 

C.4. Section VI H, contractor’s 

responsibilities regarding waste and 

borrow areas outside the construction 

limits. The State deleted four items at 

the end of paragraph H. concerning 

waste sites on private land that are used 

in conjunction with an abandoned mine 

land project. Contractor responsibilities 

regarding waste and borrow areas 

outside of construction limits continued 

to be specified at paragraph H (1) 

through (5). We find that the deletion 

does not render the West Virginia 

AMLR Plan less effective than 30 CFR 

884.13(c) concerning policies and 

procedures for conducting a reclamation 

program, or 30 CFR 884.13(c)(6) 

concerning policies and procedures for 

rights of entry and can be approved. 

C.5. Section IX C. Purchasing and 

Procurement. The existing language 

concerning the procedures concerning 

design consultant services and 

construction contracts is deleted and 

replaced with language detailing the 

procedures to be followed for projects 

greater than $250,000, projects less than 

$250,000, and definitions. The Plan also 

includes a reference to the State of West 

Virginia Purchasing Handbook: W. Va. 

Code 5G–1, 59–3–1, and 5A–3, and 

Legislative Rule 148 CSR 1. 

The Federal regulations at 43 CFR 

12.76 concerning procurement, provide, 

at subsection 12.76(a), that when 

procuring property and services under a 

grant, a State will follow the same 

policies and procedures it uses for 

procurements from its non-Federal 

funds. Further, the State shall ensure 

that every purchase order or other 

contract includes any clauses required 

by Federal statutes and executive orders 

and their implementing regulations. 

Subsection 12.76(b) also provides that 

grantees and sub-grantees will use their 

own procurement procedures which 

reflect applicable State and local laws 

and regulations, provided that the 

procurements conform to applicable 

Federal law and standards identified in 

this section. Furthermore, 30 CFR 

886.20 requires the State to follow 

administrative procedures governing 

accounting, payment, property and 

related requirements contained in 43 

CFR Part 12, subpart C. The State 

procedures described above are from the 

State of West Virginia Purchasing 

Handbook, which, in conjunction with 

WVDEP’s own administrative 

procedures have been determined to 

comply with Federal procurement 

requirements and 30 CFR Part 886. 

Therefore, because the State’s AMLR 

Plan provisions remain consistent with 

the Federal purchasing and 

procurement requirements at 30 CFR 

884.13(d)(3), we are approving these 

amendments. 

C.6. State Emergency Program 

B. Legal Opinion from State Attorney 

General Regarding Emergency Program 

Administration. In the second sentence, 

the citation ‘‘WV Code Section 22–3’’ is 

deleted. This citation is deleted because 

the West Virginia AMLR Act provisions 

are located at W. Va. Code 22–2. 

Accordingly, in the third sentence, the 

citation ‘‘Chapter 22–3–4(b)(1)(A)’’ is 

changed to ‘‘Chapter 22–2–4(b)(1)(A).’’

In the language that follows, a reference 

to Title ‘‘38’’ is deleted and a reference 

to Title ‘‘59’’ is added in its place 

because Title 59–1 is the State’s AMLR 

Rule. We find that with these revisions 

to the West Virginia AMLR Plan, the 

Plan remains consistent with the 

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.13(b) 

concerning legal authority under State 

law to conduct the AMLR program. 

Therefore, we are approving these 

revisions. 

C.7. C. Policies and Procedures 

Regarding the Emergency Reclamation 

Program. Existing Item 6, which 

concerns a public meeting for a previous 

amendment to the AMLR Plan, is being 

deleted. Because the deleted language 

only concerns a public meeting for a 

previous amendment to the AMLR Plan, 

that language is no longer necessary. 

Public participation concerning the 

current amendment and any future 

revisions to the State’s AMLR Plan is 

discussed in Section VIII. We find that 

the public participation provisions of 

the West Virginia AMLR Plan remain 

consistent with the Federal 

requirements at 30 CFR 884.13(c)(7). 

Therefore, we are approving this 

deletion. 

C.8. D. Item 2. Administrative and 

Managerial Structure. The following 

language is being deleted at the 

beginning of Item 2: 

Six of the positions assigned to the 

Emergency Group of the Abandoned Mine 

Lands and Reclamation Section consist of 

technical personnel. These positions include 

5 inspectors and 2 engineers. 

The deleted language quoted above 

was inconsistent and unnecessary. The 

inaccuracy stems from the reference to 

six positions consisting of 5 inspectors 

and two engineers. Subsequent 

paragraphs continue to clarify that 

engineers and inspectors for the 

Emergency Program are located at each 

field office in the northern and southern 

part of the State. However, the exact 

number of these positions is not 

specified to provide WVDEP added 

flexibility to satisfy future program 

demands. The engineers must be mining 

and/or civil engineers with the technical 

expertise to render plans and 

specifications for correction of 

abandoned mine problems. The 

inspectors will monitor all day-to-day 

construction activities on emergency 

projects. These provisions are consistent 

with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

884.13(d)(2) concerning personnel 

staffing policies. Therefore, the deletion 

of the quoted language is approved. 

C.9. The last sentence of the existing 

second paragraph is also being deleted. 

That sentence stated that ‘‘[t]hese are all 

newly created positions.’’ This deleted 

language is unnecessary and no longer 

accurate. Therefore, the deletion of that 

language can be approved. Additionally, 

the last two sentences in the existing 

third paragraph (the second sentence 

contains a reference to page 75) are 

being deleted. In their place, a new 

sentence is added which states that 

‘‘This procedures (sic) is in compliance 

to [with] the Department of 

Administration, Division of 

Purchasing.’’ As discussed above under 

Finding C.5, the Federal regulations at 

43 CFR 12.76 concerning procurement 

provide that when procuring property 

and services under a grant, a State will 

follow the same policies and procedures 

it used for procurements from its nonFederal funds. Therefore, because we 

find both the deletion and the new 

language to be consistent with the 

Federal requirements at 30 CFR 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES

1934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

884.13(d)(3) regarding purchasing and 

procurements systems, they can be 

approved. 

C.10. Item 3. Under paragraph (c) 

Immediate Follow-up, at (ii), the phrase 

‘‘[a]n engineer, realty specialist, and 

other’’ is deleted and replaced with the 

term ‘‘[a]ppropriate personnel.’’ Also, 

language is being deleted which 

provides that ‘‘[t]his visit will be 

coordinated with the Federal Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement.’’ As amended, 

subparagraph (ii) reads as follows: 

(ii) Appropriate personnel will be 

dispatched to the site as soon as possible if 

a valid emergency situation exists. 

The language concerning the 

requirement to coordinate the site visit 

with OSM is being deleted because that 

requirement already exists at Item 

3(a)(i). Specifically, Item 3(a) provides 

that the investigator’s tasks for 

investigations of potential emergency 

situations are as follows: at (i), 

‘‘Coordinate Site visit with Office of 

Surface Mining as needed.’’ More 

importantly, Item 3(c)(i) requires the 

OSM Field Office Director to make the 

final determination that an emergency 

exists or does not exist. Therefore, we 

are approving the deletion. 

C.11. At paragraph (iv), the words 

‘‘color’’ and ‘‘slides’’ are being deleted 

as a form of documentation of damage 

by realty personnel to show abandoned 

mine land problems and impacts, 

including structural damage. As revised, 

‘‘photos’’ are required for such 

documentation. We find that this 

revision is acceptable, because it 

acknowledges that digital photography 

has largely replaced slide photography 

as a means of documentation. Therefore, 

we are approving the deletion. 

C.12. F. Emergency Purchases, Item 6. 

This item is being deleted. The deleted 

language reads as follows: 

6. In addition to the above stated 

procedure, at the time of this writing an open 

end or bilateral contract for construction 

services is being assembled which may be 

utilized for emergency services. 

The following page shows the technical 

evaluation sheet used to assist in selecting 

consultants. The factors may be revised in 

the future to reflect different needs. 

The State has chosen not to 

implement the open end or bilateral 

contract for construction services and, 

therefore, the deleted language is not 

needed. We are approving the deletion, 

because the State’s regular purchasing 

and procurement systems for emergency 

projects are consistent with 30 CFR 

884.13(d)(3). 

C.13. G. Emergency Reclamation 

Activities 

Language is being deleted that relates 

to the number of emergency projects 

completed between 1979 and 1986. The 

deleted information is historical 

information that was useful in making 

decisions regarding a previous 

amendment to the West Virginia AMLR 

Plan. The revised AMLR Plan continues 

to provide information concerning the 

probable number and types of 

emergencies that are likely to occur in 

the State on an annual basis. This 

information is used in the development 

of the West Virginia Abandoned Mine 

Land Performance Agreement, which is 

negotiated between OSM and the State 

approximately every two years and 

determines which State AML activities 

are evaluated by OSM on an annual 

basis. Therefore, we are approving the 

deletion of the historical information, 

because it is no longer relevant. 

C.14. Water Supply Amendment; 

Target areas for AML assistance. Item 

(3). In the second paragraph, the words 

‘‘and submitted to the Federal Office of 

Surface Mining for funding approval’’

are deleted from the end of the first 

sentence. As revised, the sentence reads 

as follows: ‘‘After a pool of eligible 

projects is determined, potential 

projects are selected.’’ However, the 

State Plan continues to seek OSM 

approval prior to initiating a project. In 

the last paragraph, the State AMLR Plan 

states that ‘‘WVDEP will request an 

‘‘Authorization to Proceed’’ (ATP) from 

OSM prior to initiating a project.’’ In 

addition, all National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) compliance 

documentation is required prior to the 

initiation on any new water supply 

project. Therefore, we are approving the 

deletion. 

C.15. Revision to West Virginia’s AMLR 

Plan Reflecting Amendments to Title IV 

of the SMCRA 

A. Expanded Eligibility Criteria. Item 

(2). In the second paragraph, the citation 

‘‘45 FR 14810–14819 March 6, 1980’’ is 

being deleted and replaced by the 

following citation: ‘‘66 FR 31250–31258, 

June 11, 2001.’’ The June 11, 2001, 

Federal Register notice contains the 

revised guidelines for abandoned mine 

land reclamation programs and projects. 

Therefore, we are approving the citation 

change. 

C.16. B. State Acid Mine Drainage 

Treatment and Abatement Program 

Language is being amended 

concerning coordination between the 

State and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS). The State 

has deleted references to the Rural 

Abandoned Mine Program and to the 

U.S. Bureau of Mines. As amended, the 

language is as follows: 

After consultation with the NRCS, the State 

may reclaim certain areas that are severely 

impacted by acid mine drainage. (This 

coordination will continue the already 

present cooperative effort between the State 

and the NRCS). 

The Bureau of Mines no longer exists 

and, therefore, the reference to the 

Bureau of Mines can be deleted. Also, 

consultation and coordination between 

the State and the NRCS in abating acid 

mine drainage will continue after these 

revisions are approved. Therefore, we 

are approving the amendments. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We published a Federal Register 

notice on September 18, 2006, and 

asked for public comments on the 

proposed amendments to the West 

Virginia AMLR Plan (Administrative 

Record Number WV–1474). The public 

comment period closed on October 18, 

2006. No comments were received from 

the public, but one State agency and 

three Federal agencies commented on 

the proposed revisions. 

State Agency Comments 

The West Virginia Division of Culture 

and History reviewed the West Virginia 

AMLR Plan to determine its effects on 

cultural resources, and submitted 

comments as required by section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended, and its implementing 

regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 

(Administrative Record Number WV–

1478). 

The Division of Culture and History 

stated that under Subsection III.B, 

Prioritization of Problems, the 

document lists the protection of historic 

or cultural resources as a benefit that 

will be considered in reclamation 

projects. The Division of Culture and 

History reminded WVDEP that this 

should be an alternative that is regularly 

considered during the planning phases 

of a project. 

We must note that this portion of the 

WVAMLR Plan that the Division of 

Culture and History has commented on 

has not been revised by WVDEP. 

Nevertheless, this part of the Plan does 

contain some of the planning 

requirements for AML projects. 

Therefore, as suggested, the WVDEP is 

obligated to regularly consider historic 

or cultural resources in selecting and 

planning AML projects. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1935 

The Division of Culture and History 

commented that under section VI, 

Reclamation of Private Land, subsection 

H, Contractors responsibilities regarding 

waste and borrow areas outside the 

construction limits, the document states 

that the contractor must observe NEPA 

regulations when selecting and utilizing 

offsite borrow and/or waste disposal 

areas. Because NEPA provides for the 

identification and protection of cultural 

resources, the Division of Culture and 

History asked that borrow and waste 

areas be submitted for their review. 

Again, we must point out that this 

portion of the AMLR Plan has not been 

revised by WVDEP. However, under the 

existing State AMLR Plan, contractors 

that use waste and borrow areas outside 

the construction limits must get all 

required clearances, including the 

protection of cultural resources, prior to 

creating any offsite disturbances at 

waste or borrow areas. Waste and 

borrow areas created by AML 

reclamation activities must be 

conducted in accordance with 

applicable State and Federal 

reclamation requirements. If possible, 

waste and borrow areas should be 

located on the reclamation project site. 

Offsite waste and borrow areas should 

be used only when no onsite area is 

available, and it is necessary to protect 

public health and safety. In addition, 

adverse impacts to waste and borrow 

areas should be minimized by 

disturbing the smallest possible area, 

protecting any historic or cultural 

values that may be present, and 

reclaiming the site upon completion of 

the AML project. 

In its final comment, the Division of 

Culture and History stated that it was its 

understanding that exploratory drilling 

occurs prior to its review. The Division 

of Culture and History went on to say, 

it has been its experience that this can 

cause damage to cultural resources that 

may be considered eligible for inclusion 

in the National Register of Historic 

Places. The Division of Culture and 

History concluded that in order to 

prevent future damages to cultural 

resources, it request the opportunity to 

review project plans as they relate to 

exploratory drilling locations. 

We agree that unregulated exploratory 

drilling can cause damage to historic 

and cultural resources. State and 

Federal reclamation requirements 

prohibit such unauthorized activity. 

Exploratory drilling can only be 

authorized when it is part of an 

approved AML project. Because all 

AML projects are subject to review by 

the Division of Culture and History, no 

exploratory drilling should be 

conducted as part of an approved State 

AML project that would result in 

damage to historic or cultural resources. 

Federal Agency Comments 

Under 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2) and 

884.15(a), on September 8, 2006, we 

requested comments on the amendment 

from various other Federal agencies 

with an actual or potential interest in 

the West Virginia AMLR Plan 

(Administrative Record Number WV–

1473). The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) responded 

on September 21, 2006, and stated that 

it had no comments (Administrative 

Record Number WV–1475). 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service (NPS) responded 

with comments (Administrative Record 

Number WV–1477). The NPS 

commented on language in section III B, 

concerning factors considered for 

reclamation project consideration. 

Specifically, the NPS stated that 

language at section III B. 3, and 

throughout this section of the revised 

AMLR Plan, appears to provide the 

WVDEP with the final decision making 

authority in the reclamation design 

without consideration of the landowner 

or adjacent land owner, whether public 

or private. In particular, the NPS stated, 

the various land management agencies 

may have resource protection mandates 

that do not coincide with reclamation 

decisions made by the WVDEP. 

Therefore, the NPS suggested, wording 

should be included in the revised 

AMLR Plan to indicate that where 

adverse impacts are not being mitigated 

through reclamation, or where the 

proposed reclamation appears to be 

adverse to a land owner or land 

management agency (State or Federal), a 

joint approval process should be 

implemented between the WVDEP and 

the affected owner or agency. 

We must note that section III B. 3 has 

not been revised by the State. However, 

under SMCRA at section 405(d), West 

Virginia was granted exclusive 

responsibility and authority to 

implement the provisions of its 

approved AMLR program. We believe 

that the West Virginia AMLR Plan 

appropriately addresses the NPS’s 

concern for participation in the 

following ways. The AMLR Plan 

provides for public participation and 

agency review. In section VIII, the 

AMLR Plan provides that all proposed 

AML projects will include a NEPA 

environmental assessment. State and 

Federal agencies will have an 

opportunity to provide input concerning 

the NEPA document for projects which 

relate to their areas of expertise. In 

addition to listing the names of several 

agencies who may review the 

environmental assessments, the AMLR 

Plan provides that other agencies may 

be asked to comment on the 

environmental assessments. At section 

III B. 7, the Plan also requires the 

WVDEP to consider the acceptability of 

post-reclamation land uses in terms of 

compatibility with land uses in the 

surrounding area, consistent with 

applicable State, regional, and local use 

plans and laws, and the needs and 

desires of the community in which the 

project is located. 

The NPS commented that section III 

B. 6(c) provides that if the WVDEP 

determines that the coal or another 

mineral resource is or may be 

economical to mine, the WVDEP shall 

decide whether to approve or proceed 

with the proposed reclamation project, 

or to defer reclamation until it can be 

accomplished during the process of 

future mining. The NPS stated that it is 

concerned that this process places coal 

economics above reclamation needs. 

The NPS stated that it believes that the 

ranking of reclamation projects should 

not include any assumed value of inplace coal. 

While section III B. 6(c) has not been 

revised by the State, we disagree that 

this provision places coal economics 

above reclamation needs. Rather, this 

provision provides the WVDEP with the 

flexibility to consider, among other 

factors, whether coal or other mineral 

resource is economical to mine. The 

provision does not place the economic 

consideration above all others. While it 

is a factor of consideration, it is not the 

most important factor. For example, 

consideration of the economic value of 

the coal would not override specific 

benefits of reclamation such as 

protection of human life, health, and 

safety. In addition, section III.B. 6(d) 

provides that any decision to defer 

reclamation until future mining occurs 

may be reconsidered by the WVDEP 

whenever the WVDEP determines that 

reclamation should be accomplished 

sooner. 

The NPS commented that at section 

III B. 6(f), the provision provides that if 

the mineral estate under the area to be 

reclaimed contains other seams that are 

currently uneconomical to mine, 

provisions should be made allowing the 

coal to be mined in the future. The NPS 

stated that abandoned mine reclamation 

needs should take precedent over 

providing access to coal that may or 

may not be economic to mine at a future 

date. 

Section III B. 6(f) was not revised by 

the State. However, we note that this 

provision does not provide that 

reclamation must be prevented or even 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES

1936 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

delayed to provide for coal removal at 

a later date. Rather, this provision 

essentially directs AMLR Program 

planners to prepare for that eventuality 

by establishing provisions to allow for 

any coal, which is currently 

uneconomical to mine, to be mined in 

the future. If the coal is mined in the 

future, a permit would be required and 

the site would be reclaimed after 

mining. 

Finally, the NPS stated that the 

revised AMLR Plan should include a 

provision for notification of affected 

land owners or land managers of the 

anticipated prioritization and 

scheduling of reclamation to be 

performed. This could be done, the NPS 

stated, through private and public 

announcements as is currently practiced 

with active mining permits. 

The AMLR Plan provides public 

participation and agency review 

provisions at section VIII. That section 

provides that prior to submission of 

non-emergency construction projects to 

OSM for the issuance of an 

Authorization to Proceed (ATP), the 

WVDEP will conduct at least one public 

meeting in Charleston, West Virginia, to 

describe the project submittal’s 

contents. All public meetings will be 

announced via news releases and legal 

advertisements. Legal ads will be placed 

in newspapers with circulations in the 

locations of the proposed projects. 

Section VIII also provides that a NEPA 

environmental assessment document 

will be included for each project. The 

AMLR Plan provides that environmental 

assessments may be reviewed by the 

agencies listed in section VIII, and other 

agencies besides those listed may be 

asked to comment on the environmental 

assessments. We suggest that NPS 

contact the WVDEP to discuss the level 

of participation that NPS seeks or for 

those specific projects that it may be 

interested in receiving notification 

about in the future. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Comments 

Under 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2) and 

884.15(a), we also requested comments 

on the amendment from EPA 

(Administrative Record Number WV–

1473). EPA responded by letter dated 

September 27, 2006, and stated that it 

had not identified any apparent 

inconsistencies with the Clean Water 

Act, Clean Air Act, or other statutes and 

regulations under EPA’s jurisdiction 

(Administrative Record Number WV–

1476). EPA stated that it did not have 

any other comments. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we are 

approving the AMLR Plan amendment 

dated June 16, 2006, as submitted by 

West Virginia on June 27, 2006 

(Administrative Record Number WV–

1469). 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR 948.20 and 948.25, which codify 

decisions concerning the West Virginia 

AMLR Plan amendments. We find that 

good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) to make this final rule 

effective immediately. Section 405(d) of 

SMCRA requires that the State have a 

program that is in compliance with the 

procedures, guidelines, and 

requirements established under the Act. 

Making this regulation effective 

immediately will expedite that process. 

SMCRA requires consistency of State 

and Federal standards. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulation. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 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 or Tribal 

abandoned mine land reclamation plans 

and plan amendments because each 

program is drafted and promulgated by 

a specific State or Tribe, not by OSM. 

Decisions on proposed abandoned mine 

land reclamation plans and plan 

amendments submitted by a State or 

Tribe are based solely on a 

determination of whether the submittal 

meets the requirements of Title IV of 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–1243) and 30 

CFR part 884 of the Federal regulations. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of abandoned mine land 

reclamation programs. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 405(d) of SMCRA 

requires State abandoned mine land 

reclamation programs to be in 

compliance with the procedures, 

guidelines, and requirements 

established under SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

The rule does not involve or affect 

Indian Tribes in any way. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

No environmental impact statement is 

required for this rule because agency 

decisions on proposed State and Tribal 

abandoned mine land reclamation plans 

and revisions thereof are categorically 

excluded from compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4332 et seq.) by the Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (516 DM 6, 

appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)). 

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 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1937 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, 

which is the subject of this rule, is based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. 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. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and (c) Does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based upon the fact 

that the State submittal, which is the 

subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation was not considered a major 

rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of $100 million or more in any given 

year. This determination is based upon 

the fact that the State submittal, which 

is the subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation did not impose an unfunded 

mandate. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 

Abandoned mine reclamation 

programs, Intergovernmental relations, 

Surface mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: December 1, 2006. 

H. Vann Weaver, 

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian 

Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 948 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 948—West Virginia 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 948 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 948.20 is amended by 

revising the heading and paragraph (b) 

as follows: 

§ 948.20 Approval of State abandoned 

mine lands reclamation plan. 

* * * * * 

(b) West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection, Office of 

Abandoned Mine Lands and 

Reclamation, 601 57th Street SE., 

Charleston, West Virginia 25304–2345, 

Telephone (304) 926–0485. 

■ 3. Section 948.25 is amended by 

revising the heading, and adding in the 

table a new entry in chronological order 

by ‘‘Date of final publication’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 948.25 Approval of West Virginia 

abandoned mine lands reclamation plan 

amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission 

date Date of final publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

June 27, 2006 ................................ January 17, 2007 ........................... Amendment includes AML enhancement requirements and other revisions to West Virginia’s AMLR Plan dated June 16, 2006. 

[FR Doc. E7–455 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 

[FRL–8269–6] 

Delegation of Authority to the States of 

Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska for New 

Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS), National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP); and Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of delegation of 

authority. 

SUMMARY: The states of Iowa, Missouri 

and Nebraska have submitted updated 

regulations for delegation of EPA 

authority for implementation and 

enforcement of NSPS, NESHAP, and 

MACT. The submissions cover new EPA 

standards and, in some instances, 

revisions to standards previously 

delegated. EPA’s review of the pertinent 

regulations shows that they contain 

adequate and effective procedures for 

the implementation and enforcement of 

these Federal standards. This action 

informs the public of delegations to the 

above-mentioned agencies. 

DATES: This document is effective on 

January 17, 2007. The dates of 

delegation can be found in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents 

relative to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

Effective immediately, all 

notifications, applications, reports, and 

other correspondence required pursuant 

to the newly delegated standards and 

revisions identified in this document 

must be submitted with respect to 

sources located in the jurisdictions 

identified in this document, to the 

following addresses: 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 

Air Quality Bureau, 7900 Hickman 

Road, Urbandale, Iowa 50322 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, Air Pollution Control 

Program, PO Box 176, Jefferson City, 

MO 65102–0176 

Nebraska Department of Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality Division, 1200 

‘‘N’’ Street, Suite 400, PO Box 98922, 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

Duplicates of required documents 

must also continue to be submitted to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES