55332 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; 25 U.S.C. 13.

§ 181.1 Purpose.

This part will assist the BIA Indian

Highway Safety Program Administrator

to disperse funds DOT/NHTSA has

made available. The funds assist

selected tribes with their proposed

Highway Safety Projects. These projects

are designed to reduce traffic crashes,

reduce impaired driving crashes,

increase occupant protection education,

provide Emergency Medical Service

training, and increase police traffic

services.

§ 181.2 Definitions.

Appeal means a written request for

review of an action or the inaction of an

official of the BIA that is claimed to

adversely affect the interested party

making the request.

Applicant means an individual or

persons on whose behalf an application

for assistance and/or services has been

made under this part.

Application means the process

through which a request is made for

assistance or services.

Grant means a written agreement

between the BIA and the governing

body of an Indian tribe or Indian

organization wherein the BIA provides

funds to the grantee to plan, conduct, or

administer specific programs, services,

or activities and where the

administrative and programmatic

provisions are specifically delineated.

Grantee means the tribal governing

body of an Indian tribe or Board of

Directors of an Indian organization

responsible for grant administration.

Recipient means an individual or

persons who have been determined as

eligible and are receiving financial

assistance or services under this part.

§ 181.3 Am I eligible to receive a program

grant?

The Indian Highway Safety Program

grant is available to any federally

recognized tribe. Because of the limited

financial resources available for the

program, the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA) is unable to award grants to all

applicants. Furthermore, some grant

recipients may only be awarded a grant

to fund certain aspects of their proposed

tribal projects.

§ 181.4 How do I obtain an application?

BIA mails grant application packages

for a given fiscal year to all federally

recognized tribes by the end of February

of the preceding fiscal year. Additional

application packages are available from

the Program Administrator, Indian

Highway Safety Program, P.O. Box 2003,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. Each

application package contains the

necessary information concerning the

application process, including format,

content, and filing requirements.

§ 181.5 How are applications ranked?

BIA ranks each timely filed

application by assigning points based

upon four factors.

(a) Factor No. 1—Magnitude of the

problem (Up to 50 points available). In

awarding points under this factor, BIA

will take into account the following:

(1) Whether a highway safety problem

exists.

(2) Whether the problem is

significant.

(3) Whether the proposed tribal

project will contribute to resolution of

the identified highway safety problem.

(4) The number of traffic accidents

occurring within the applicant’s

jurisdiction over the previous 3 years.

(5) The number of alcohol-related

traffic accidents occurring within the

applicant’s jurisdiction over the

previous 3 years.

(6) The number of reported traffic

fatalities occurring within the

applicant’s jurisdiction over the

previous 3 years.

(7) The number of reported alcoholrelated traffic fatalities occurring within

the applicant’s jurisdiction over the

previous 3 years.

(b) Factor No. 2—Countermeasure

selection (Up to 40 points available). In

awarding points under this factor, BIA

will take into account the following:

(1) Whether the countermeasures

selected are the most effective for the

identified highway safety problem.

(2) Whether the countermeasures

selected are cost effective.

(3) Whether the applicant’s objectives

are realistic and attainable.

(4) Whether the applicant’s objectives

are time framed and, if so, whether the

time frames are realistic and attainable.

(c) Factor No. 3—Tribal Leadership

and Community Support (Up to 10

points available). In awarding points

under this factor, BIA will take into

account the following:

(1) Whether the applicant proposes

using tribal resources in the project.

(2) Whether the appropriate tribal

governing body supports the proposal

plan, as evidenced by a tribal resolution

or otherwise.

(3) Whether the community supports

the proposal plan, as evidenced by

letters or otherwise.

(d) Factor No. 4—Past Performance (+

or ¥10 points available). In awarding

points under this factor, BIA will take

into account the following:

(1) Financial and programmatic

reporting requirements.

(2) Project accomplishments.

§ 181.6 How are applicants informed of the

results?

BIA will send a letter to all applicants

notifying them of their selection or nonselection for participation in the Indian

Highway Safety Program for the

upcoming fiscal year. BIA will explain

to each applicant not selected for

participation the reason(s) for nonselection.

§ 181.7 Appeals.

You may appeal actions taken by BIA

officials under this part by following the

procedures in 25 CFR part 2.

Dated: October 9, 1997.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–28010 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

REVIEW COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 2702

Regulations Implementing the

Freedom of Information Act

AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health

Review Commission (Commission).

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Mine Safety and

Health Review Commission is revising

its regulations implementing the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to

reflect recent changes to the FOIA as a

result of the Electronic Freedom of

Information Act Amendments of 1996.

This revision also implements certain

changes in the manner in which FOIA

requests are processed by the

Commission, and in the rates charged to

certain categories of requesters for time

spent by Commission employees

searching for and reviewing documents.

DATES: This rule is effective October 24,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman Gleichman, General Counsel,

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review

Commission, 1730 K Street, NW., 6th

Floor, Washington DC 20006–3867,

telephone (202) 653–5610, FAX (202)

653–5030; or Richard L. Baker,

Executive Director, Federal Mine Safety

and Health Review Commission, 1730 K

Street, NW., 6th Floor, Washington DC

20006–3867, telephone (202) 653–5625,

FAX (202) 653–5030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 2, 1996, the President

signed into law the Electronic Freedom

of Information Act Amendments of 1996
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55333

(EFOIA), Pub. L. 104–231, 110 Stat.

3048 (1996), which amends the FOIA, 5

U.S.C. 552. Among other things, EFOIA

requires agencies to promulgate

regulations that provide for expedited

processing of requests for records. In

addition, EFOIA changes the time limit

for responding to a FOIA request from

ten to twenty days and specifies the

circumstances in which an agency may

extend the time within which it will

respond to a FOIA request, and enables

a requester to request ‘‘expedited

processing’’ of a FOIA request where he

can demonstrate a ‘‘compelling need’’

for the information requested. EFOIA

also contains provisions regarding the

availability of documents in electronic

form, the treatment of electronic

records, and the establishment of

‘‘electronic reading rooms.’’

The Commission issues amendments

to its regulations implementing the

Freedom of Information Act, 29 CFR

part 2702, in order to comply with

EFOIA. In addition, the Commission is

making some minor adjustments in its

procedures for responding to FOIA

requests and in the fees charged to

certain categories of requesters for time

spent by Commission employees

searching for and reviewing documents

responsive to requests.

II. Analysis of the Regulations

Section 2702.1 Purpose and Scope

The Commission is adding new

language to this section to refer to

EFOIA. In addition, the Commission is

adding new language to indicate that

additional guidance on obtaining

information from the Commission can

be found in the document entitled

‘‘Reference Guide for Obtaining

Information from the Federal Mine

Safety and Health Review Commission,’’

and that this document is available

upon request from the Commission.

Section 2702.2 Location of Offices

This section has been modified to

provide updated information

concerning the addresses of the

Commission’s headquarters and regional

offices, and to include a new address for

the Commission’s regional office in

Denver, Colorado.

Section 2702.3 Requests for

Information

Paragraph (a) contains language from

the previous § 2702.3 regarding the

procedure for submitting a FOIA request

to the Commission. Paragraph (a) also

contains new language directing

requesters to describe the record

requested to the fullest extent possible

and specify the preferred form or format

of the response, including an electronic

format. In addition, paragraph (a)

contains language indicating the

Commission will accommodate

requesters as to the form or format

requested if the record is readily

reproducible in that form or format, and

that the Commission will respond in the

most accessible form or format if the

requester does not specify the preferred

form or format of the response.

Paragraph (b) contains language

derived from the previous section

§ 2702.3 concerning determinations by

the Commission whether to respond to

a FOIA request and appeals of adverse

determinations. The language in

previous paragraph (b) has been

modified to indicate that where it is not

possible to obtain the consent of a

majority of the Commissioners to the

initial determination made by the

Executive Director as the result of a tie

vote, the recommendation of the

Executive Director would control and be

deemed to be approved by the

Commission. In addition, the language

of paragraph (b) has been modified to

indicate that the time periods for

making the initial determination

whether to comply with a request, and

for appealing from an adverse

determination, have been extended from

10 to 20 working days.

Paragraph (c) contains new language,

based on provisions of EFOIA,

providing that the Commission may

propose extending the 20-day time

period for responding to a FOIA request

for up to 10 additional days in the case

of ‘‘unusual circumstances.’’ Paragraph

(c) defines ‘‘unusual circumstances’’

that may justify such a delay as:

(i) The need to search for and collect

requested records from other facilities

separate from the office processing the

request;

(ii) The need to search for, collect,

and appropriately examine a

voluminous amount of separate and

distinct records that are requested in a

single request;

(iii) The need for consultation, which

shall be conducted with all practicable

speed, with another agency having a

substantial interest in the determination

of the request, or among two or more

components of the agency having

substantial subject matter interest in the

request; or

(iv) The need to consult with the

submitter of requested information.

Paragraph (c) also contains language

providing that when the Commission

determines it cannot make a response

determination within an additional 10

working day period, it will notify the

requester and provide him with an

opportunity to limit the scope of the

request so that it may be processed

within the extended time limit, or an

opportunity to arrange an alternative

time frame for processing the request or

a modified request. Paragraph (c) further

provides that a refusal by a requester to

reasonably modify the request or

arrange for an alternative time frame

shall be considered as a factor in

determining whether ‘‘exceptional

circumstances’’ exist for purposes of

paragraph (d) of § 2702.3, described

below. In addition, paragraph (c)

contains new language providing that,

whenever it reasonably appears that

certain requests by the same requester,

or a group of requesters acting in

concert, actually constitute a single

request that would otherwise satisfy the

‘‘unusual circumstances’’ specified in

the paragraph, and the requests involve

clearly related matters, such requests

may be aggregated for purposes of this

paragraph, but that multiple requests

involving unrelated matters will not be

aggregated.

Paragraph (d) contains new language

providing that if the Commission is

unable to comply with the extended

time limit for responding to a request set

forth in paragraph (c) of § 2702.3, it may

request additional time to complete its

review of the records, and request a

court to retain jurisdiction and allow it

such additional time to complete its

review, if it can show that exceptional

circumstances exist and that it is

exercising due diligence in responding

to the request. Paragraph (d) further

states that, for the purposes set forth

herein, ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ do

not include a delay that results from a

predictable workload of requests, unless

the Commission demonstrates

reasonable progress in reducing its

backlog of pending requests. Paragraph

(d) also provides that refusal by a

requester to reasonably modify the

scope of a request or arrange an

alternative time frame for processing the

request (or a modified request) under

paragraph (c) shall be considered as a

factor in determining whether

exceptional circumstances exist.

Paragraph (e) contains new language,

based upon a provision of EFOIA,

authorizing a person requesting records

from the Commission to request

expedited processing of his request in

cases in which he can demonstrate a

compelling need for the records

requested. A ‘‘compelling need’’ is

defined in paragraph (e) to mean:

(i) That a failure to obtain the

requested records on an expedited basis

could reasonably be expected to pose an

imminent threat to the life or physical

safety of an individual; or
55334 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) The information is urgently

needed by a person primarily engaged

in disseminating information in order to

inform the public concerning actual or

alleged Federal Government activity.

Paragraph (e) further provides that a

person making a request for expedited

processing shall make a showing of

compelling need by means of a

statement certified by that person to be

true and correct to the best of his

knowledge and belief. In addition,

paragraph (e) provides that the

Commission will provide notice to a

requester of its determination whether

to grant expedited processing in

response to a requester’s claim of

compelling need within 10 calendar

days after receipt of the request.

Paragraph (e) also provides that the

Commission will provide expeditious

consideration of administrative appeals

of determinations whether to provide

expedited processing, and will process

the request as soon as practicable once

a determination has been made to grant

expedited processing.

Paragraph (f) contains new language,

based upon a provision of EFOIA,

providing that when the Commission

denies a request for records, in whole or

in part, it will make a reasonable effort

to estimate the volume of the records

denied and provide this estimate to the

person making the request, unless

providing such an estimate would harm

an interest protected by the exemption

pursuant to which the request is denied.

Paragraph (g) contains new language

providing that the Commission will

provide any reasonably segregable

portion of a record to the person

requesting it after the deletion of any

exempt portions of the record.

Paragraph (g) also contains language,

based upon a provision of EFOIA,

providing that the Commission will

indicate the amount of information

deleted on the released portion of the

record, at the place in the record the

deletion is made, if technically feasible,

unless indicating the extent of the

deletion would harm an interest

protected by the exemption pursuant to

which the deletion is made.

Section 2702.4 Materials Available

The language of previous § 2702.4 has

been modified to indicate the

availability of the Commission’s

reference guide for requesting records or

publicly available information from the

Commission, and to make other minor

clarifying changes in the description of

the materials available from the

Commission.

Section 2702.5 Fee Applicable—

Categories of Requesters

The language of § 2702.5 has been

revised slightly to clarify the

circumstances under which a series of

FOIA requests from a requester, or a

group of requesters acting in concert,

will be aggregated for the purpose of

assessing fees.

Section 2702.6 Fee Schedule

Paragraph (a) has been revised to

reflect adjustments in the fees charged

to certain categories of requesters for

time spent by Commission employees in

searching for information and records.

The fees have been raised from $10 to

$15 per hour for clerical time, and from

$20 to $30 per hour for professional

time.

Paragraph (b) has been revised

slightly, primarily to reflect an

adjustment in the fee charged to certain

categories of requesters for the initial

examination by the Commission’s

Executive Director of documents located

in response to a request to determine if

they may be withheld from disclosure.

This fee has been raised from $30 to $45

per hour.

Language has been added to

paragraph (c) to indicate that the fee

charged for copying computer tapes or

discs, photographs, and other

nonstandard documents will be the

actual direct cost incurred by the

Commission.

Section 2702.7 No Fees; Waiver or

Reduction of Fees

The language of § 2702.7 is essentially

unchanged. Minor, non-substantive

revisions have been made to the

language of paragraph (b).

Matters of Regulatory Procedure

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and

Review

The Commission has determined that

these revised rules are not subject to

Office of Management and Budget

review because they do not constitute

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within

the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Commission has determined

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601–611) that these rules will not

have a substantial economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This rule implements the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), a statute

concerning the release of Federal

Government records, and does not

economically impact Federal

Government relations with the private

sector. Therefore, a Regulatory

Flexibility Statement and Analysis has

not been prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Commission has determined that

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35) does not apply because

these revised rules do not contain any

information collection requirements or

recordkeeping requirements that require

the approval of the Office of

Management and Budget.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2702

Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of information.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 29 CFR 2702 is amended as

follows:

PART 2702—REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTING THE FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION ACT

1. The authority citation for part 2704

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 113, Federal Mine Safety

and Health Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95–165 (30

U.S.C. 801 et seq.); 5 U.S.C. 552; Pub. L. 104–

231, October 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 3048.

2. Section 2702.1 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 2702.1 Purpose and scope.

The Federal Mine Safety and Health

Review Commission (Commission) is an

independent agency with authority to

adjudicate contests between the Mine

Safety and Health Administration of the

U.S. Department of Labor and private

parties, as well as certain disputes

solely between private parties, arising

under the Federal Mine Safety and

Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

The purpose of these rules is to

establish procedures for implementing

the Freedom of Information Act, 5

U.S.C. 552, as amended by the

Electronic Freedom of Information Act

Amendments of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–

231, 110 Stat. 3048; to provide guidance

for those seeking to obtain information

from the Commission; and to make all

designated information readily available

to the public. Additional guidance on

obtaining information from the

Commission can be found in the

document entitled ‘‘Reference Guide for

Obtaining Information from the Federal

Mine Safety and Health Review

Commission,’’ which is available upon

request from the Commission. The

scope of these rules may be limited to

requests for information that is not

presently the subject of litigation before

the Commission and that is not

otherwise governed by the

Commission’s Procedural Rules at 29

CFR part 2700.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55335

3. Section 2702.2 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 2702.2 Location of offices.

The Commission maintains its central

office at 1730 K Street NW., 6th Floor,

Washington DC 20006–3867. It has two

regional offices for Administrative Law

Judges, one at Skyline Towers No. 2,

Tenth Floor, 5203 Leesburg Pike, Falls

Church, Virginia 22041–3474, and the

other at 1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite

280, Denver, Colorado 80204–3582.

4. Section 2702.3 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 2702.3 Requests for information.

(a) All requests for information should

be in writing and should be mailed or

delivered to Executive Director, Federal

Mine Safety and Health Review

Commission, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street

NW., Washington, DC 20006–3867. The

words ‘‘Freedom of Information Act

Request’’ should be printed on the face

of the envelope. Requests for

information shall describe the particular

record requested to the fullest extent

possible and specify the preferred form

or format (including electronic formats)

of the response. The Commission shall

accommodate requesters as to form or

format if the record is readily

reproducible in the requested form or

format. When requesters do not specify

the preferred form or format of the

response, the Commission shall respond

in the form or format in which the

record is most accessible to the

Commission.

(b) A determination whether to

comply with the request will be made

by the Executive Director, with the

consent of a majority of the

Commissioners. In the event of a tie vote

of the Commissioners regarding the

Executive Director’s determination

whether to comply with a request, the

Executive Director’s recommendation

will be deemed approved by the

Commission. Except in unusual

circumstances, as described in

paragraph (c) of this section the

determination will be made within 20

working days of receipt. Appeals of

adverse decisions may be made, in

writing, to the Chairman of the

Commission, at the same address,

within 20 working days. Determination

of appeals will be made by the

Chairman within 20 working days after

receipt. If the records to be disclosed are

not provided with the initial letter

setting forth the determination as to the

request, the records will be sent as soon

as possible thereafter.

(c)(1) In unusual circumstances as

described in this paragraph, when

additional time is needed to respond to

the initial request, the Commission shall

acknowledge the request in writing

within the 20-day period, describe the

circumstances requiring the delay, and

indicate the anticipated date for a

substantive response that may not

exceed 10 additional working days,

except as provided in paragraph (d) of

this section. With respect to a request

for which a written notice has extended

the time limit by 10 additional working

days, and the Commission determines

that it cannot make a response

determination within that additional 10

working day period, the requester will

be notified and provided an opportunity

to limit the scope of the request so that

it may be processed within the extended

time limit, or an opportunity to arrange

an alternative time frame for processing

the request or a modified request.

Refusal by the requester to reasonably

modify the request or arrange for an

alternative time frame shall be

considered as a factor in determining

whether exceptional circumstances exist

for purposes of paragraph (d) of this

section. For purposes of this paragraph,

‘‘unusual circumstances’’ that may

justify a delay are:

(i) The need to search for and collect

the requested records from other

facilities that are separate from the

office processing the request;

(ii) The need to search for, collect,

and appropriately examine a

voluminous amount of separate and

distinct records that are requested in a

single request;

(iii) The need for consultation, which

shall be conducted with all practicable

speed, with another agency having a

substantial interest in the determination

of the request, or among two or more

components of the agency having

substantial subject matter interest in the

request; or

(iv) The need to consult with the

submitter of requested information.

(2)Whenever it reasonably appears

that certain requests by the same

requester, or a group of requesters acting

in concert, actually constitute a single

request that would otherwise satisfy the

unusual circumstances specified in this

paragraph, and the requests involve

clearly related matters, such requests

may be aggregated for purposes of this

paragraph. Multiple requests involving

unrelated matters will not be aggregated.

(d) In the event that the Commission

is unable to comply with the time limits

for responding to a request specified in

paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, it

may request additional time to complete

its review of the records, and request a

court to retain jurisdiction and allow it

such additional time to complete its

review, if it can show that exceptional

circumstances exist and that it is

exercising due diligence in responding

to the request. For purposes of this

paragraph, ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’

do not include a delay that results from

a predictable workload of requests,

unless the agency demonstrates

reasonable progress in reducing its

backlog of pending requests. Refusal by

a person to reasonably modify the scope

of a request or arrange an alternative

time frame for processing the request (or

a modified request) under paragraph (c)

of this section shall be considered as a

factor in determining whether

exceptional circumstances exist for

purposes of this paragraph.

(e)(1) A person requesting records

from the Commission pursuant to this

section may request expedited

processing of his request in cases in

which he can demonstrate a compelling

need for the records requested. For

purposes of this paragraph a compelling

need means:

(i) That a failure to obtain the

requested records on an expedited basis

could reasonably be expected to pose an

imminent threat to the life or physical

safety of an individual; or

(ii) The information is urgently

needed by a person primarily engaged

in disseminating information in order to

inform the public concerning actual or

alleged Federal Government activity.

(2) A demonstration of compelling

need by a person making a request for

expedited processing shall be made by

a statement certified by such person to

be true and correct to the best of his

knowledge and belief. Notice of the

determination whether to grant

expedited processing in response to a

requester’s claim of compelling need

shall be provided to the person making

the request within 10 calendar days

after receipt of the request. The

Commission will provide expeditious

consideration of administrative appeals

of determinations whether to provide

expedited processing. Once a

determination has been made to grant

expedited processing, the Commission

will process the request as soon as

practicable.

(f) In denying a request for records, in

whole or in part, the Commission shall

make a reasonable effort to estimate the

volume of the records denied, and

provide this estimate to the person

making the request, unless providing

such an estimate would harm an interest

protected by the exemption pursuant to

which the request is denied.

(g) Any reasonably segregable portion

of a record shall be provided to the

person requesting it after the deletion of

any exempt portions of the record. The

amount of information deleted shall be
55336 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

indicated on the released portion of the

record, at the place in the record the

deletion is made if technically feasible,

unless indicating the extent of the

deletion would harm an interest

protected by the exemption pursuant to

which the deletion is made.

5. Section 2702.4 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 2702.4 Materials available.

Materials which may be made

promptly available from the

Commission include, but are not limited

to:

(a) A guide for requesting records or

publicly available information from the

Commission;

(b) Final opinions, including

concurring and dissenting opinions, as

well as orders, made in the adjudication

of cases;

(c) Indices providing identifying

information to the public as to the

opinions described in the preceding

paragraph which may be relied upon,

used, or cited as precedent;

(d) Statements of policy and

interpretations which have been

adopted by the Commission and are not

published in the Federal Register.

6. Section 2702.5(e) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 2702.5 Fees applicable—categories of

requesters.

* * * * *

(e) For purposes of paragraphs (b)

through (d) of this section, whenever it

reasonably appears that a requester, or

a group of requesters acting in concert,

is attempting to break down a single

request into a series of requests relating

to the same subject matter for the

purpose of evading the assessment of

fees, such requests will be aggregated

and fees assessed accordingly.

7. In Section 2702.6 the first sentence

of paragraph (a) and paragraphs (b) and

(c) are revised to read as follows:

§ 2702.6 Fee schedule.

(a) Search fee. The fee for searching

for information and records shall be $15

per hour for clerical time and $30 per

hour for professional time. * * *

(b) Review fee. The review fee shall be

charged for the initial examination by

the Executive Director of documents

located in response to a request in order

to determine if they may be withheld

from disclosure, and for the deletion of

portions that are exempt from

disclosure, but shall not be charged for

review by the Chairman or the

Commissioners. See § 2702.3. The

review fee is $45 per hour.

(c) Duplicating fee. The copy fee for

each page of paper up to 81⁄2′′ x 14′′

shall be $.15 per copy per page. Any

private section services required will be

assessed at the charge to the

Commission. The fee for copying

computer tapes or discs, photographs,

and other nonstandard documents will

be the actual direct cost incurred by the

Commission. If duplication charges are

likely to exceed $25, the requester shall

be notified of the estimated amount of

fees, unless the requester has indicated

in advance his willingness to pay fees

as high as those anticipated.

8. Section 2702.7(b) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 2702.7 No fees; waiver or reduction of

fees.

* * * * *

(b) Documents shall be furnished

without any charge, or at a charge

reduced below the fees otherwise

applicable, if disclosure of the

information is determined to be in the

public interest because it is likely to

contribute significantly to public

understanding of the operations or

activities of the government and is not

primarily in the commercial interest of

the requester.

* * * * *

Issued this 15th day of October, 1997 at

Washington, D.C.

Mary Lu Jordan,

Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health

Review Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–28206 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6735–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT–7202a; FRL–5902–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA today is approving

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Connecticut. These revisions consist of

1990 base year ozone emission

inventories, and establishment of a

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring

System (PAMS) network.

The inventories were submitted by

Connecticut to satisfy a Clean Air Act

(CAA) requirement that States

containing ozone nonattainment areas

submit inventories of actual ozone

precursor emissions in accordance with

guidance from the EPA. The ozone

emission inventories submitted by

Connecticut are for the State’s portion of

the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut

severe area, and the greater Hartford

serious area. The PAMS SIP revision

was submitted to satisfy the

requirements of the CAA and the PAMS

regulations. The intended effect of this

action is to approve as a revision to the

Connecticut SIP the state’s 1990 base

year ozone emission inventories, and to

approve the PAMS network into the

State’s SIP.

DATES: This action is effective on

December 23, 1997 unless EPA receives

adverse or critical comments by

November 24, 1997. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Susan

Studlien, Deputy Director, Office of

Ecosystem Protection, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, JFK

Federal Building, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02203. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the EPA

Region I office, and at the Connecticut

Department of Environmental

Protection, Bureau of Air Management,

79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106–1630.

Persons interested in examining these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. McConnell, Air Quality

Planning Group, EPA Region I, JFK

Federal Building, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02203; telephone (617)

565–9266.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Connecticut submitted its 1990 base

year emission inventories of ozone

precursors to the EPA on January 13,

1994, as a revision to the State’s SIP.

Revisions to the inventories were

received on February 3, 1994, and

February 16, 1995. Connecticut

submitted a SIP revision establishing a

PAMS network into the State’s overall

ambient air quality monitoring network

on March 2, 1995. This notice is divided

into four parts:

I. Background Information

II. Analysis of State Submission

III. Final Action

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background Information

1. Emission Inventory

Under the CAA as amended in 1990,

States have the responsibility to

inventory emissions contributing to

NAAQS nonattainment, to track these

emissions over time, and to ensure that

control strategies are being implemented