Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 53275

Drafting Information: The principal

author of the regulations is Judith A.

Lintz, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel

(Income Tax & Accounting), Internal

Revenue Service. However, other

personnel from the IRS and Treasury

Department participated in their

development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

Employment taxes, Estate taxes,

Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 301—PROCEDURE AND

ADMINISTRATION

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 301 continues to read in part as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 301.7623–1 is revised

to read as follows:

§ 301.7623–1 Rewards for information

relating to violations of internal revenue

laws.

[The text of this proposed revised

section is the same as the text of

§ 301.7623–1T published elsewhere in

this issue of the Federal Register.]

Michael P. Dolan,

Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 97–26859 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 946

[VA–111–FOR]

Virginia Abandoned Mine Land

Reclamation Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the

receipt of a proposed amendment to the

Virginia Abandoned Mine Land

Reclamation (AMLR) Program

(hereinafter referred to as the Virginia

Program) under the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., as

amended. The proposed amendment

makes changes to the Ranking and

Selection section and to the AML Water

Project Evaluation form. The proposed

amendment is intended to revise the

Virginia program to be consistent with

SMCRA, and to improve the efficiency

of the Virginia program.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before 4:00 p.m. on

November 13, 1997. If requested, a

public hearing on the proposed

amendments will be held at 1:00 p.m.

on November 10, 1997. Requests to

present oral testimony at the hearing

must be received on or before 4:00 p.m.

on October 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to testify at the hearing should

be mailed or hand-delivered to Mr.

Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap

Field Office at the first address listed

below.

Copies of the Virginia program, the

proposed amendment, a listing of any

scheduled public meetings or hearing,

and all written comments received in

response to this notice will be available

for public review at the address listed

below during normal business hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays:

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement:

Big Stone Gap Field Office, P.O.

Drawer 1217, Powell Valley Square

Shopping Center, Room 220, Route

23, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219,

Telephone: (703) 523–4303.

Virginia Division of Mined Land

Reclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, Big

Stone Gap, Virginia 24219,

Telephone: (703) 523–8100.

Each requester may receive, free of

charge, one copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting the OSM Big

Stone Gap Field Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap

Field Office, Telephone: (703) 523–

4303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Virginia Program

On December 15, 1981, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the Virginia program. Background on

the Virginia program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval can be found in the December

15, 1981 Federal Register (46 FR 61085–

61115). Subsequent actions concerning

the conditions of approval and AMLR

program amendments are identified at

30 CFR 946.20 and 946.25.

II. Discussion of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated September 19, 1997

(Administrative Record No. VA–926),

the Virginia Division of Mined Land

Reclamation (DMLR) submitted a

proposed Program Amendment to the

Virginia Program. This amendment is

intended to revise the Virginia program

to be consistent with SMCRA at section

402(g)(6), and to improve the efficiency

of the Virginia program.

The proposed amendments are as

follows.

Ranking and Selection 884.13(c)(2)

In this section, Virginia proposes to

change the heading of the paragraph

titled ‘‘Acid Mine Drainage

Abatement—Treatment’’ to read ‘‘Set

Aside Funds,’’ and to revise the

language of that subsection to include

the provisions of part A of section

402(g)(6) of SMCRA.

The revised language is as follows:

Set Aside Funds

In accordance with Section 402(g)(6)

of SMCRA, Virginia may, without regard

to the 3 year limitation referred to in

Section 402(g)91)(D) of SMCRA, receive

and retain up to 10 percent of the total

grants made annually under Section

402(g) (1) and (5) of SMCRA by the

Secretary for deposit into either:

A. A special trust fund established

under State law pursuant to which such

amounts (together with all interest

earned on such amounts) are expended

by Virginia solely to achieve the

priorities stated in section 403(a) of

SMCRA after September 30, 1995, or

B. An acid mine drainage abatement

and treatment fund established under

State law as provided for under 30 CFR

Part 876. An interest bearing acid mine

drainage abatement and treatment fund

will be utilized by Virginia, in

consultation with the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, to implement acid

mine drainage abatement-treatment

plans approved by the Secretary of the

Interior.

These plans shall provide for the

comprehensive abatement of the causes

and treatment of the effects of acid mine

drainage within qualified hydrologic

units affected by coal mining practices.

The plan shall include, but shall not be

limited to, each of the following:

(a) An identification of the qualified

hydrologic unit.

(b) The extent to which acid mine

drainage is affecting the water quality

and biological resources within the

hydrologic unit.

(c) An identification of the sources of

acid mine drainage within the

hydrologic unit.
53276 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(d) An identification of individual

projects and the measures proposed to

be undertaken to abate and treat the

causes or effects of acid mine drainage

within the hydrologic unit.

(e) The cost of undertaking the

proposed abatement and treatment

measures.

(f) An identification of existing and

proposed sources of funding for such

measures.

(g) An analysis of the costeffectiveness and environmental

benefits of abatement and treatment

measures.

Under this program, the term

qualified hydrologic unit means a

hydrologic unit:

(a) In which the water quality has

been significantly affected by acid mine

drainage from coal mining practices in

a manner which adversely impacts

biological resources; and

(b) Which contains lands and water

that are:

1. Eligible pursuant to Section 404

and include any of priorities stated in

SMCRA paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of

Section 403(a); and

2. Proposed to be the subject of the

expenditures by the State from amounts

available from the forfeiture of bonds

required under Section 509 or from

other State sources to mitigate acid mine

drainage.

AML Water Project Evaluation Form

The AML Water Project Evaluation

form is currently part of the approved

Virginia program. Virginia is proposing

to change four sections and has

provided the following rationale for the

changes.

Appropriate Project Costs (Cost Per

Connection)

This was revised to more realistically

reflect the cost/hook-ups being

experienced. most cost/hook-ups now

reflect a 10,000–20,000 range. This is

because of the high cost for construction

due to the distance between households,

and he mountainous terrain.

Affordability

‘‘Costs for 4,200 gal. of treated water’’

was changed to read ‘‘Costs for 3,500

gal. of treated water’’ to show the

average use and to match usage rates

used by other funding agencies as

reflected in the review manual

application.

Level of Commitment of Non-AML

Funds

The points award were modified to

encourage local funding and leverage

AML funding to the maximum extent

possible.

AML Bonus Award

This new review category is meant to

promote and encourage awards to

proposed projects which incorporate

regionalization and consolidated

management. Regionalization of water

systems reduces costs and promotes

efficiency in providing water to the

greatest number of households. Points

awarded for this will be between 1–5,

and a total perfect score will now be

105. The average score on projects is

60–80.

In addition to the above changes to

the form, Virginia requested that the

AML Water Project Evaluation form—

figure 2 be removed from the AML State

Reclamation Plan and placed into the

Administrative Record since additional

changes to the form may be necessary in

the future.

The full text of proposed program

amendment submitted by Virginia is

available for public inspection at the

addresses listed above. The Director

now seeks public comment on whether

the proposed amendment is no less

effective than the Federal regulations. If

approved, the amendment will become

part of the Virginia program.

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 884.15, OSM is now seeking

comment on whether the amendment

proposed by Virginia satisfies the

applicable requirements for the

approval of State AMLR program

amendments. If the amendment is

deemed adequate, it will become part of

the Virginia program.

Written Comments

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed in

this rulemaking, and include

explanations in support of the

commenter’s recommendations.

Comments received after the time

indicated under DATES or at locations

other than the Big Stone Gap Field

Office will not necessarily be

considered in the final rulemaking or

included in the Administrative Record.

Public Hearing

Persons wishing to comment at the

public hearing should contact the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by close of

business on October 29, 1997. If no one

requests an opportunity to comment at

a public hearing, the hearing will not be

held.

Filing of a written statement at the

time of the hearing is requested as it

will greatly assist the transcriber.

Submission of written statements in

advance of the hearing will allow OSM

officials to prepare adequate responses

and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on

the specified date until all persons

scheduled to comment have been heard.

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to comment and who

wish to do so will be heard following

those scheduled. The hearing will end

after all persons who desire to comment

have been heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to comment at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. Persons wishing

to meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendments may

request a meeting at the Big Stone Gap

Field Office by contacting the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. All such meetings will be

open to the public and, if possible,

notices of the meetings will be posted in

advance at the locations listed above

under ADDRESSES. A summary of

meeting will be included in the

Administrative Record.

IV. 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 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 53277

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 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.

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

counterpart 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 946

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: October 2, 1997.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–27066 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA 5026b; FRL–5904–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia:

Approval of VOC RACT Determinations

for Individual Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve six

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the

Commonwealth of Virginia for the

purpose of establishing volatile organic

compound (VOC) reasonably available

control technology (RACT) for six major

sources of VOCs located in Virginia. In

the Final Rules section of this Federal

Register, EPA is approving the

Commonwealth’s SIP revision as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial SIP revision and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule and the

accompanying technical support

document. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If adverse comments are received that

do not pertain to all documents subject

to this rulemaking action, those

documents not affected by the adverse

comments will be finalized in the

manner described here. Only those

documents that receive adverse

comments will be withdrawn.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by October 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to David L.

Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO and Mobile

Sources Section, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107; and the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main

Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristeen Gaffney, (215) 566–2092, at the

EPA Region III office or via e-mail at

gaffney.kristeen@epamail.epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Refer to

the information pertaining to this

action, VOC RACT determinations for

individual sources located in Virginia,

provided in the Direct Final action of

the same title located in the Rules and

Regulations Section of this Federal

Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: Spetember 27, 1997.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 97–27128 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA 5029b; FRL–5904–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia:

VOC RACT for Phillip Morris, Hercules,

Virginia Power Station and the

Hopewell Regional Wastewater

Treatment Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve six

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the

Commonwealth of Virginia for the

purpose of establishing volatile organic

compound (VOC) reasonably available

control technology (RACT) for six major

sources located in Virginia. In the Final

Rules section of this Federal Register,

EPA is approving the Commonwealth’s

SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

SIP revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule and the accompanying technical

support document. If no adverse

comments are received in response to

this proposed rule, no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this rule. If

EPA receives adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If adverse comments are

received that do not pertain to all

documents subject to this rulemaking

action, those documents not affected by

the adverse comments will be finalized

in the manner described here. Only

those documents that receive adverse

comments will be withdrawn.