44894 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities, the

agency must analyze regulatory options

that would minimize any significant

impact of a rule on small entities. The

agency can identify at least one

company which manufactures quality

assurance products which are used in

the selenium batch testing process. FDA

has not prohibited the use of these batch

testing products. They will still be

available to feed mills if the feed mills

wish to test every batch of selenium

premix. As this final rule does not

impose any new costs on this or other

firms, under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the agency

certifies that this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

requires (in section 202) that agencies

prepare an assessment of anticipated

costs and benefits before proposing any

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

Governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector of $100 million. Because

the rule does not require any

expenditures by industry members or

State or local governments, FDA is not

required to perform a cost/benefit

analysis under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act.

IV. Final Action

The Commissioner has determined

that the interim rule published on

October 17, 1995, should be finalized

without modification.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 573

Animal feeds, Food additives.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 573 is

amended as follows:

PART 573—FOOD ADDITIVES

PERMITTED IN FEED AND DRINKING

WATER OF ANIMALS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 573 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409 of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21

U.S.C. 321, 342, 348).

2. Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 21 CFR 573.920 that was

published in the Federal Register of

October 17, 1995 (60 FR 53702), is

adopted as a final rule without change.

Dated: August 8, 1997.

William K. Hubbard,

Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 97–22476 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 904

[SPATS No. AR–027–FOR]

Arkansas Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: OSM is correcting a final rule

that appeared in the Federal Register of

April 29, 1997 (62 FR 23129). This

document amended the Arkansas

regulatory program (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘‘Arkansas program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

When citing the part of the regulation

that Arkansas proposed to remove, OSM

inadvertently omitted the letter of the

paragraph that was proposed for

removal. Likewise, OSM inadvertently

omitted the letter of the paragraph from

the Federal regulation that was a

counterpart to this State regulation that

was proposed for removal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendment to 30

CFR part 904 (62 FR 23129) is effective

April 29, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 5100

East Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74135–6548, Telephone:

(918) 581–6430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.

97–10990, appearing on page 23129 in

the Federal Register of Tuesday, April

29, 1997, the following correction is

made:

On page 23133, the second column,

lines two and three, ‘‘ASCMRC 816.89’’

and ‘‘30 CFR 816.89’’ should read

‘‘ASCMRC 816.89(d)’’ and ‘‘30 CFR

816.89(d)’’, respectively.

Dated: August 7, 1997.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–22414 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 914

[SPATS No. IN–138–FOR; State Program

Amendment No. 95–3 II]

Indiana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Indiana regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Indiana program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Indiana proposed

revisions to its rules pertaining to the

small operator assistance program

(SOAP). Topics covered in the proposed

amendment are definitions for program

administrator and qualified laboratory,

eligibility for assistance, filing for

assistance, application approval and

notice, program services and data

requirements, qualified laboratories,

assistance funding, and applicant

liability. The amendment is intended to

revise the Indiana program to be

consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations and to incorporate

changes desired by the State.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1997.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Indiana Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Indiana Program

On July 29, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Indiana program. Background

information on the Indiana program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the July 26, 1982, Federal Register (47

FR 32107). Subsequent actions

concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments can be found

at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, and 914.16.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44895

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated January 13, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1550),

Indiana submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA. Indiana submitted the

proposed amendment at its own

initiative. The proposed amendment

revises the Indiana Administrative Code

(IAC) at 310 IAC 12–3 pertaining to

SOAP.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the February

18, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 7192),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing or

meeting on the adequacy of the

proposed amendment. A proposed rule

correction notice was published in the

March 18, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR

12766). The public comment period

closed on March 20, 1997. Because no

one requested a public hearing or

meeting, none was held.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to

technical errors at 310 IAC 12–3–130(5),

definition of qualified laboratory; 310

IAC 12–3–131(2)(B), eligibility for

assistance; and 310 IAC 12–3–

132(a)(3)(C), filing for assistance. OSM

notified Indiana of these concerns by

letter dated March 26, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1562).

By letter dated April 30, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1569),

Indiana responded to OSM’s concerns

by submitting additional explanatory

information showing that the editorial

errors at 310 IAC 12–3–130(5), 12–3–

131(2)(B), and 12–3–132(a)(3)(C) had

either been corrected or would be

corrected in an Errata to be published

upon final approval of the proposed

amendment by the Governor of Indiana.

Because the additional information

merely clarified certain provisions of

Indiana’s proposed amendment, OSM

did not reopen the public comment

period.

III. Director’s Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, are the director’s

findings concerning the proposed

amendment.

A. Withdrawal of Previously Approved

SOAP Amendment

Indiana notified OSM in its letter

dated January 13, 1997, that the Indiana

Legislative Service Agency had rejected,

for procedural reasons, a proposed

SOAP amendment dated May 3, 1995,

which was approved by the Director and

codified on October 25, 1995 (60 FR

54593). Since Indiana did not adopt the

SOAP amendment, the Director is

removing the approval and is amending

30 CFR 914.15 to reflect this decision.

B. Revisions to Indiana’s Rules That Are

Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal

Regulations

1. The proposed State rules listed in

the table contain language that is the

same as or similar to the corresponding

sections of the Federal regulations

pertaining to SOAP. Differences

between the proposed State rules and

the Federal regulations are

nonsubstantive.

Topic State regulation Federal regulation

counterpart

Definition for program administrator .............................................................................. 310 IAC 12–3–130(4) ......... 30 CFR 795.3

Definition for qualified laboratory ................................................................................... 310 IAC 12–3–130(5) ......... 30 CFR 795.3

Eligibility for assistance .................................................................................................. 310 IAC 12–3–131 ............. 30 CFR 795.6

Filing for assistance ....................................................................................................... 310 IAC 12–3–132 ............. 30 CFR 795.7

Application approval and notice ..................................................................................... 310 IAC 12–3–132.5 .......... 30 CFR 795.8

Program services and data requirements ...................................................................... 310 IAC 12–3–133 ............. 30 CFR 795.9

Qualified laboratories ..................................................................................................... 310 IAC 12–3–134.1 .......... 30 CFR 795.10

Assistance funding ......................................................................................................... 310 IAC 12–3–134.5 .......... 30 CFR 795.11

Applicant liability ............................................................................................................. 310 IAC 12–3–135 (a) (1)

through (3) and (b).

30 CFR 795.12

Because the above proposed revisions

are identical in meaning to the

corresponding Federal regulations, the

Director finds that Indiana’s proposed

rules are no less effective than the

Federal regulations.

2. Indiana also proposed to remove

previously approved 310 IAC 12–3–134,

concerning qualified laboratories, and to

replace it with 310 IAC 12–3–134.1. As

noted in the above table, 310 IAC 12–

3–134.1 is substantively identical to the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 795.10,

concerning qualified laboratories.

Therefore, the proposed removal of 310

IAC 12–3–134 will not render the

Indiana rules less effective than the

Federal regulations.

C. Revisions to Indiana’s Rules With No

Corresponding Federal Regulations

At 310 IAC 12–3–135(a)(4), Indiana

proposed to include another criterion

under which a SOAP applicant is

responsible for reimbursing Indiana for

the cost of services rendered under its

program. This criterion requires the

applicant to reimburse Indiana if mining

does not begin within six months after

obtaining the permit. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 795.12(a),

concerning applicant liability for

reimbursement of the cost of services,

do not contain this specific requirement.

However, the Director finds the

proposed regulation is not inconsistent

with the intent of the requirements of

SMCRA or the Federal regulations

pertaining to reimbursement for SOAP

services. Therefore, the addition of this

new criterion does not render the

Indiana rules less effective than the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part

795.12.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

OSM solicited public comments on

the proposed amendment, but none

were received.

Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),

the Director solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from various

Federal agencies with an actual or

potential interest in the Indiana program

(Administrative Record No. IND–1552).

On February 13, 1997, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service responded that it had

no specific comments on the program

amendment (Administrative Record No.

IND–1554). On March 6, 1997, the U.S.

Mine Safety and Health Administration

responded that no comments were being

submitted for the proposed revisions

(Administrative Record No. IND–1561).
44896 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii),

OSM is required to obtain the written

concurrence of the EPA with respect to

those provisions of the proposed

program amendment that relate to air or

water quality standards promulgated

under the authority of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None

of the revisions that Indiana proposed to

make in this amendment pertain to air

or water quality standards. Therefore,

OSM did not request the EPA’s

concurrence.

Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from the EPA

(Administrative Record No. IND–1552).

The EPA did not respond to OSM’s

request.

State Historical Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM

is required to solicit comments on

proposed amendments which may have

an effect on historic properties from the

SHPO and ACHP. OSM solicited

comments on the proposed amendment

from the SHPO and ACHP

(Administrative Record No. IND–1552).

Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded

to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based upon the above findings, the

Director approves the proposed

amendments as submitted by Indiana on

January 13, 1997, and as revised on

April 30, 1997.

The Director approves the rules as

proposed by Indiana with the provision

that they be fully promulgated in

identical form to the rules submitted to

and reviewed by OSM and the public.

For the reasons discussed in finding

III.A, the Director is also amending 30

CFR Part 914 by removing the approval

of an Indiana proposed amendment that

was submitted on May 3, 1995, and

codified on October 25, 1995 (60 FR

54593).

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 914, codifying decisions concerning

the Indiana program, are being amended

to implement the above decisions. This

final rule is being made effective

immediately to expedite the State

program amendment process and to

encourage States to bring their programs

into conformity with the Federal

standards without undue delay.

Consistency of State and Federal

standards is required by SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon corresponding Federal regulations

for which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: July 23, 1997.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR part 914 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 914—INDIANA

1. The authority citation for part 914

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 914.15 is amended in the

table by revising the entry for ‘‘Original

amendment submission date’’ of May 3,

1995, and by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

May 3, 1995 ........................ September 14, 1995 .......... 310 IAC 12–5–64.1(c), –128.1(c); correction of typographical, clerical, spelling errors

* * * * * * *

January 13, 1997 ................ August 25, 1997 ................. 310 IAC 12–3–130 (4), (5), –131, –132, –132.5, –133, –134, –134.1, –134.5, –135
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44897

[FR Doc. 97–22412 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 914

[SPATS No. IN–136–FOR; State Program

Amendment No. 95–4]

Indiana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Indiana regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Indiana program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Indiana proposed

revisions and additions to its rules

pertaining to repair or compensation for

material damage resulting from

subsidence caused by underground coal

mining operations and to replacement of

water supplies adversely impacted by

coal mining operations. The amendment

is intended to revise the Indiana

program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Indiana Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Indiana Program

On July 29, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Indiana program. Background

information on the Indiana program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the July 26, 1982, Federal Register (47

FR 32107). Subsequent actions

concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments can be found

at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, and 914.16

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated January 14, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1551),

Indiana submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA. Indiana submitted the

proposed amendment in response to a

May 20, 1996, letter (Administrative

Record No. IND–1540) that OSM sent to

Indiana in accordance with 30 CFR

732.17(c)

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the February

18, 1997. Federal Register (62 FR 7189),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period closed on

March 20, 1997.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified some concerns

pertaining to minor word omissions and

spelling and typographical errors. OSM

notified Indiana of these concerns by

letter dated March 26, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1562).

By letter dated May 1, 1997

(Administrative Record NO. IND–1570),

Indiana responded to OSM’s concerns

by stating that the necessary corrections

will be achieved pursuant to a

published Errata. Based upon the State’s

response and the nature of the concerns,

OSM did not reopen the comment

period.

III. Director’s Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, are the Director’s

findings concerning the proposed

amendment.

Revisions not specifically discussed

below concern nonsubstantive wording

changes, or revised cross-references and

paragraph notations to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.

A. Revisions to Indiana’s Regulations

That Are Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Federal Regulations

Topic State regulations Federal counterpart regulations

Definition for ‘‘Drinking, domestic, or residential water

supply.

310 IAC 12–0.5–39.5 ............................... 30 CFR 701.5

Definition for ‘‘Material damage’’ ....................................... 310 IAC 12.05–72.1 ................................. 30 CFR 701.5

Definition for ‘‘Noncommercial building’’ ........................... 310 IAC 12.05–75.5 ................................. 30 CFR 701.5

Definition for ‘‘Occupied residential dwelling and structures related thereto’’.310 IAC 12.0–77.5 ................................... 30 CFR 701.5

Definition for ‘‘Replacement of water supply’’ ................... 310 IAC 12.0.5–107.5 .............................. 30 CFR 701.5

Protection of hydrologic balance ....................................... 310 IAC 12–3–81(c)(2) ............................. 30 CFR 784.14(e)(3)(iv)

Subsidence control plan .................................................... 310 IAC 12–3–87.1 .................................. 30 CFR 784.20

Water rights and replacement ........................................... 310 IAC 12–5–94 ..................................... 30 CFR 817.41(j)

Subsidence control: General requirements ...................... 310 IAC 12–5–130.1 ................................ 30 CFR 817.121

Because the above proposed revisions

are identical in meaning to the

corresponding Federal regulations, the

Director finds that Indiana’s proposed

rules are no less effective than the

Federal rules.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the proposed

amendment. No public comments were

received, and because no one requested

an opportunity to speak at a public

hearing, no hearing was held.

Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),

the Director solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from various

Federal agencies with an actual or

potential interest in the Indiana program

(Administrative Record No. IND–1553).

OSM received two comments; one from

the U.S. Department of Labor Mine

Safety and Health Administration and

the other from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Administrative Record

Nos. IND–1560 and IND–1559,

respectively). The Mine Safety and

Health Administration responded that it

had no comments on the proposed

amendment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service commented that it could not