Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55765

Subpart C—Deposit Activities of All

Savings Associations

§ 557.20 What records should I maintain

on deposit activities?

All federal and state chartered savings

associations (‘‘you’’) should establish

and maintain deposit documentation

practices and records that demonstrate

that you appropriately administer and

monitor deposit-related activities. Your

records should adequately evidence

ownership, balances, and all

transactions involving each account.

You may maintain records on deposit

activities in any format that is consistent

with standard business practices.

PART 561—DEFINITIONS

8. The authority citation for part 561

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463,

1464, 1467a.

§ 561.16 [Amended]

9. Section 561.16 is amended, in

paragraph (a), by removing the phrase ‘‘,

as provided in § 563.6(b) of this

chapter’’.

§ 561.42 [Amended]

10. Section 561.42 is amended by

removing the phrase ‘‘§§ 563.6 and

561.16’’ and adding in its place

‘‘§ 561.16’’.

PART 563—OPERATIONS

11. The authority citation for part 563

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 375b, 1462, 1462a,

1463, 1464, 1467a, 1468, 1817, 1820, 1828,

3806; 42 U.S.C. 4106.

§§ 563.2, 563.3, 563.6, 563.7, 563.9, 563.10

[Removed]

12. Sections 563.2, 563.3, 563.6,

563.7, 563.9, and 563.10 are removed.

PART 563g—SECURITIES OFFERINGS

13. The authority citation for part

563g continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464; 15

U.S.C. 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78p, 78w.

§ 563g.1 [Amended]

14. Section 563g.1 is amended by

removing the last sentence of paragraph

(a)(13).

Dated: October 15, 1997.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Nicolas P. Retsinas,

Director.

[FR Doc. 97–27842 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 913

[SPATS No. IL–081–FOR]

Illinois 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 Illinois permanent

regulatory program (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘‘Illinois program’’) pursuant to

the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). This

amendment provides that areas

revegetated following the removal of

temporary structures such as

sedimentation ponds, roads, and small

diversions are not subject to a

revegetation responsibility period and

bond liability period separate from that

of the permit area or increment thereof

served by such facilities. The

amendment is intended to clarify

ambiguities in the State regulations and

to improve operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 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, IN

46204–1521, Telephone: (317) 226–

6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Illinois 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 Illinois Program

On June 1, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Illinois program. Background

information on the Illinois program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the June 1, 1982 Federal Register (47 FR

23883). Subsequent actions concerning

the conditions of approval and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

913.15, 913.16, and 913.17.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated June 22, 1992

(Administrative Record No. IL–1192),

Illinois submitted a proposed program

amendment consisting of revisions to a

number of its approved regulations.

OSM announced receipt of the proposed

amendment in the August 18, 1992,

Federal Register (57 FR 37127) and, in

the same notice, opened the public

comment period and provided

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period ended on

September 17, 1992. Since no one

requested an opportunity to testify at a

public hearing, the hearing scheduled

for September 14, 1992, was canceled.

By letter dated April 27, 1993

(Administrative Record No. IL–1207),

Illinois submitted revisions to its

proposed amendment in response to

concerns raised by OSM in letters dated

September 2, 1992, and October 2, 1992

(Administrative Record Nos. IL–1204

and IL–1205, respectively), and in

response to comments received from

other governmental agencies and

individuals. OSM announced receipt of

the revised amendment in the May 17,

1993, Federal Register (58 FR 28804)

and, in the same notice, reopened the

public comment period and again

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing. The public comment period

closed on June 16, 1993. As with the

previous submittal, no one requested an

opportunity to testify at a public

hearing; therefore, the hearing

scheduled for June 11, 1993, was

canceled.

OSM subsequently announced its

decision on most provisions of the

proposed amendment in the September

3, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 46845).

However, in the same document, OSM

stated at 58 FR 46849–50 (finding 11(c))

and 30 CFR 913.15(o)(4) that it was

deferring a decision on the proposed

revisions to sections 1816.116(a)(2)(C)

and 1817.116(a)(2)(C) of title 62 of the

Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) until

additional opportunity for public

comment was provided in a separate

Federal Register document. That

commitment was fulfilled by the notice

published on September 15, 1993 (58 FR

48333), which reopened the public

comment period until October 15, 1993.

This notice also included similar

proposed revisions to the Kentucky and

Ohio regulations as well as a discussion

of OSM’s proposed policy concerning

restart of the revegetation responsibility

period every time a small portion of the

permit area requires reseeding or

replanting. Subsequently, in the May 29,
55766 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1996, Federal Register (61 FR 26792),

OSM approved similar proposed

revisions to the Colorado regulations,

based on the adoption of the proposed

OSM policy published on September 15,

1993 (58 FR 48333).

Only Illinois’ proposed revisions are

under consideration in this final rule

document. The Kentucky and Ohio

proposals will be addressed in a

separate final rule document. Since no

one requested an opportunity to testify

at a public hearing, no hearing was held.

The amendment revises two

regulations defining normal husbandry

practices and other activities that will

not restart the liability period. It also

includes a document explaining how

the State intends to interpret and

implement these rules. This policy

document specifies that Illinois will

consider the reseeding of areas from

which temporary features such as

sedimentation ponds, roads, and

diversions have been removed after

vegetation is established on the

surrounding area to be nonaugmentative.

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 deferred

revisions at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C)

and 1817.116(a)(2)(C) and the

accompanying policy document that

explains how the State intends to

implement these rules.

A. OSM’s policy concerning the term

of liability for reclamation of roads and

temporary sediment control structures.

As outlined in the May 29, 1996,

Federal Register (61 FR 26792), OSM

has adopted the policy published for

comment in the September 15, 1993,

Federal Register (58 FR 48333). Section

515(b)(20) of SMCRA provides that the

revegetation responsibility period shall

commence ‘‘after the last year of

augmented seeding, fertilizing,

irrigation, or other work’’ needed to

assure revegetation success. In the

absence of any indication of

Congressional intent in the legislative

history, OSM interprets this

requirement as applying to the

increment or permit area as a whole, not

individually to those lands within the

permit area upon which revegetation is

delayed solely because of their use in

support of the reclamation effort on the

planted area. As implied in the

preamble discussion of 30 CFR

816.46(b)(5), which prohibits the

removal of ponds or other siltation

structures until two years after the last

augmented seeding, planting of the sites

from which such structures are removed

need not itself be considered an

augmented seeding necessitating an

extended or separate liability period (48

FR 44038–44039, September 26, 1983).

The purpose of the revegetation

responsibility period is to ensure that

the mined area has been reclaimed to a

condition capable of supporting the

desired permanent vegetation.

Achievement of this purpose will not be

adversely affected by this interpretation

of section 515(b)(20) of SMCRA since (1)

the lands involved are relatively small

in size and either widely dispersed or

narrowly linear in distribution and (2)

the delay in establishing revegetation on

these sites is due not to reclamation

deficiencies or the facilitation of

mining, but rather to the regulatory

requirement that ponds and diversions

be retained and maintained to control

runoff from the planted area until the

revegetation is sufficiently established

to render such structure unnecessary for

the protection of water quality.

In addition, the areas affected likely

would be no larger than those which

could be reseeded (without restarting

the revegetation period) in the course of

performing normal husbandry practices,

as that term is defined in 30 CFR

816.116(c)(4) and explained in the

preamble to that rule (53 FR 34636,

34641; September 7, 1988; 52 FR 28012,

28016; July 27, 1987). Areas this small

would have a negligible impact on any

evaluation of the permit area as a whole.

Most importantly, this interpretation is

unlikely to adversely affect the

regulatory authority’s ability to make a

statistically valid determination as to

whether a diverse, effective permanent

vegetative cover has been successfully

established in accordance with the

appropriate revegetation success

standards. From a practical standpoint,

it is usually difficult to identify

precisely where such areas are located

in the field once revegetation is

established in accordance with the

approved reclamation plan.

The above discussion of the rules in

30 CFR Part 816, which applies to

surface mining activities, also pertains

to similarly or identically constructed

section in 30 CFR Part 817, which

applies to underground mining

activities.

B. Comparison of Illinois’ policy with

OSM’s policy clarification. Illinois’

policy document specifies that the State

will consider limited reseeding and

associated fertilization and liming of

areas where features such as sediment

ponds, roads, and small diversions have

been removed as non-augmentative on

agricultural and non-agricultural lands

where the area is small in relation to the

watershed of the area. The statement

also stipulates that any minor reseeded

area be revegetated under approved

plans and that vegetation be fully

established at the time of final bond

release. Illinois’ reference to roads in its

statement is interpreted by OSM to

mean those roads necessary for

maintenance of sediment ponds,

diversions, and reclamation areas.

Ancillary roads used for maintenance

do not include haul roads or other

primary roads which should either have

been removed upon completion of

mining or approved to be retained for an

approved postmining land use. On April

11, 1997 (Administrative Record No. IL–

1243). OSM discussed the above

interpretation of roads with Illinois.

Illinois agreed with OSM’s

interpretation of the meaning of the

term ‘‘roads’’ as used in its policy

document.

Because Illinois’ policy document

stipulates that these small reclaimed

areas must be revegetated under

approved plans, the policy ensures that

the vegetation of these areas would be

subject to Illinois’ counterparts to the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111

and those portion of Illinois’

counterparts to the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 816.116 related to the

attainment of the postmining land use.

Illinois’ policy requirement that

vegetation on these small areas be fully

established at the time of final bond

release would tend to discourage the

removal of ponds, roads, or diversions

toward the end of the liability period for

the surrounding area. If removal of the

structures occurs toward the end of the

liability period for the larger reclaimed

area, the areas where the ponds or

diversions existed would not qualify for

final bond release until diverse,

effective, and permanent vegetative

cover is established that meets the

standards of Illinois’ counterpart to 30

CFR 816.111.

Although Illinois’ policy document is

primarily concerned with the definition

of normal husbandry practices, the term

‘‘non-augmentative’’ is used in reference

to the removal of sediment ponds,

roads, and small diversions that were

used in support of reclamation. OSM

interprets this to mean Illinois considers

removal of these structures as nonaugmentative, but not as a normal

husbandry practice. OSM agrees that

removal of such structures, while being

non-augmentative, in not a normal

husbandry practice.

Based on the above discussion, the

Director finds that Illinois’ policy is

consistent with and no less effective

than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.46(b) (5) and (6), 816.150(f)(6), and

sections 515(b) (19) and (20) of SMCRA,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55767

as clarified by OSM in the September

15, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR

48333).

C. Removal of Required Regulatory

Program Amendment 30 CFR 913.16(o).

In the December 13, 1991, Federal

Register (56 FR 64986), OSM placed

required regulatory program amendment

30 CFR 913.16(o) on the Illinois

program. It required Illinois to either

submit revisions to 62 IAC

1816.116(a)(2)(C) and 1817.116(a)(2)(C)

to require OSM approval of all normal

husbandry practices other than those

specifically listed in its approved

program or delete the provisions

providing Illinois with the authority to

approve unspecified husbandry

practices. By letter dated June 22, 1992

(Administrative Record No. IL–1192),

Illinois submitted proposed changes to

its program. As part of these revisions,

at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and

1817.116(a)(2)(C), Illinois proposed to

revise its revegetation standards by

specifying normal husbandry practices

for the State. These included approved

agricultural practices described in the

Illinois Agronomy Handbook and those

practices which are part of an approved

conservation plan subject to the Food,

Agriculture, Conservation and Trade

Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.). The

Illinois Agronomy Handbook is

published by the University of Illinois—

Cooperative Extension Service, Office of

Agricultural Communications and

Education. It includes recommended

fertility management practices for row

crops and hayland, which are tailored

for site specific soil conditions; crop

rotation practices; tillage practices; and

application practices on unmined land

in Illinois.

Subsequently, by letter dated April

27, 1993 (Administrative Record No. IL–

1207), Illinois submitted revisions to its

proposed amendment in response to

issue letters prepared by OSM on

September 2, and October 2, 1992

(Administrative Record Nos. IL–1204

and IL–1205, respectively), and in

response to comments received from

other agencies and individuals.

Included in these revisions was the

policy document in which Illinois

explained how it would determine what

are normal husbandry practices and

how it would judge management

practices on mined land against the

recommended agricultural management

practices and soil conservation practices

of the referenced documents.

These proposed revisions, which were

approved in the September 3, 1993,

Federal Register (58 FR 46849), and the

policy document satisfy required

regulatory program amendment 30 CFR

913.16(o). Therefore, the Director is

taking this opportunity to remove it

from the Illinois program.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on Illinois’ policy

document and OSM’s proposed policy.

Comments were received from the

Illinois Department of Mines and

Minerals (now the Illinois Department

of Natural Resources—Office of Mines

and Minerals), the Kentucky Coal

Association, the Kentucky Resources

Council, the Lignite Energy Council, the

National Coal Association, and the

North Dakota Public Service

Commission. Except for the Kentucky

Resources Council, all of the

commenters were in favor of the policy.

In response to the Director’s proposed

clarification of OSM policy, the

Kentucky Resources Council initiates its

comments with the premise that OSM

has proposed to treat the initial seeding

and restoration of areas disturbed by

diversions, roads and sedimentation

ponds as ‘‘normal husbandry practices.’’

It then argues that the initial seeding of

such areas is not normal husbandry

practice, and any revegetation other

than ‘‘husbandry practices’’ as defined

by 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) constitutes

‘‘augmented seeding’’ and would

therefore require extension of the full

liability period for the establishment of

permanent vegetation. First, the Director

did not base not restarting the liability

period on the contention that

revegetation of such areas is a normal

husbandry practice. Second, the

Director does not agree that any

revegetation other than ‘‘normal

husbandry practices’’ constitutes

‘‘augmented seeding.’’ The legislative

history of the Act reveals no specific

Congressional intent in the use of the

term ‘‘augmented seeding.’’

Accordingly, OSM’s interpretation of

augmented seeding is given deference so

long as it has a rational basis. OSM

would not consider the seeding of small

areas, such as ponds and their

associated diversions and roads, as

augmented seeding. For further

discussion of such rationale, see the

Director’s Finding A. Under the

proposed Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio

amendments, areas reclaimed following

removal of temporary structures such as

sedimentation ponds and associated

structures and roads would not be

subject to a separate or extended bond

liability period apart form the

applicable permit area served by such

structures. The seeding of sedimentation

ponds and their associated diversions

and roads is not the result of

reclamation failure, but because 30 CFR

816.46(b)(5) prohibits the removal of

temporary sedimentation ponds until

two years after the last augmented

seeding.

The Kentucky Resources Council

overlooks the fact that for the vast

majority of the reclaimed area the

revegetation responsibility period will

be at least five years. Neither

Congressional history nor the language

of the statute distinguishes between

initial overall reclamation of a mined

area and the subsequent restoration of

temporary structures like sedimentation

ponds and maintenance roads. In the

absence of such distinction, the

Secretary is delegated discretion to

determine whether a proposed state

amendment is no less effective than the

Act and consistent with the counterpart

Federal regulation. The Director’s stated

interpretation of Section 515(b)(20) is

that it applies ‘‘to the increment or

permit area as a whole, not individually

to those lands within that area upon

which revegetation is delayed solely

because of their use in support of the

reclamation effort of the planted area.’’

See 58 FR 48333, September 15, 1993.

OSM has taken a consistent position

in approving an amendment to the

Colorado surface mining program which

provided that reclaimed temporary

drainage control facilities shall not be

subject to the extended liability period

for revegetative success or the related

bond release criteria (61 FR 26792, May

29, 1996). The Director, therefore, does

not agree with the commenter’s

interpretation of Section 515(b)(20) of

SMCRA.

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 Illinois

program. Comments were received from

the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S.

Bureau of Mines. The U.S. Forest

Service commented that it had reviewed

OSM’s proposed rule to clarify its policy

towards revegetation and agreed with

the proposed rule.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines suggested

that OSM consider the significant

differences in the reclamation of

sediment structures and roads, since

sediment structures generally possess

characteristics necessary for successful

reclamation, while roads generally

require significant initial work to
55768 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

develop a necessary growth

environment. OSM agrees with the

commenter. OSM’s policy and Illinois’

regulations and policy document

require that when such structures are

removed, the land on which they were

located must be regraded and

revegetated in accordance with

approved plans and the requirements of

30 CFR 816.111 through 816.116, or

state counterparts. Because the Illinois

policy will be limited to small areas,

roads posing significant potential for

reclamation problems will be excluded.

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.). The

deferred provision from Illinois

proposed amendment did not 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. IL–1225). It

responded on October 18, 1993

(Administrative Record No. IL–1231),

that it concurred without comment.

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 Nos. IL–1226

and IL–1228). Neither the SHPO and

ACHP responded to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above finding, the

Director approves Illinois’ regulations at

62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and

1817.116(a)(2)(C) and its policy

document as submitted on June 22,

1992, and as revised on April 27, 1993.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 913, codifying decisions concerning

the Illinois program, are being amended

to implement this decision. 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

OSM has determined and certifies

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that

this rule will not impose a cost of $100

million or more in any given year on

local, state, or tribal governments or

private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: October 3, 1997.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR part 913 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 913—ILLINOIS

1. The authority citation for part 913

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 913.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 913.15 Approval of Illinois regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55769

Original amendment submission

date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

June 22, 1992 ............................. October 22, 1997. ....................... 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C); 1817.116(a)(2)(C); Non-augmentation Policy

Statement.

§ 913.16 [Amended]

3. Section 913.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (o).

[FR Doc. 97–27982 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 157–0055a; FRL–5912–7]

Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule for

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment,

EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule

for the approval of a revision to the

California State Implementation Plan.

EPA published the direct final rule on

August 25, 1997 at 62 FR 44909,

approving revisions to a rule from the

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD).

As stated in that Federal Register

document, if adverse or critical

comments were received by September

24, 1997, the effective date would be

delayed and notice would be published

in the Federal Register. EPA

subsequently received adverse

comments on that direct final rule. EPA

will address the comments received in

a subsequent final action on this or a

future revision of this rule in the near

future. EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this document.

DATES: The direct final rule published at

62 FR 44909 is withdrawn as of October

22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR–

4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, Telephone: (415) 744–1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

rule located in the final rules section of

the August 25, 1997 Federal Register,

and in the short informational

document located in the proposed rule

section of the August 25, 1997 Federal

Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: October 9, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of part 52, Chapter I, Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations if

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

Subpart F—California

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

§ 52.220 [Amended]

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

removing paragraph (c)(224)(i)(D).

[FR Doc. 97–27978 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–5911–8]

Final Determination To Extend

Deadline for Promulgation of Action on

Section 126 Petitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending by an

additional one month the deadline for

taking final action on petitions that

eight States have submitted to require

EPA to make findings that sources

upwind of those States contribute

significantly to nonattainment problems

in those States. Under the Clean Air Act

(CAA or Act), EPA is authorized to grant

this time extension if EPA determines

that the extension is necessary, among

other things, to meet the purposes of the

Act’s rulemaking requirements. By this

document, EPA is making that

determination. The eight States that

have submitted the petitions are

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and

Vermont.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

as of October 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard J. Hoffman, Office of General

Counsel, MC–2344, 401 M St. SW,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–5892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Today’s action is procedural, and is

set in the context of a series of actions

EPA is taking to address the problem of

the transport of tropospheric ozone and

its precursors—especially oxides of

nitrogen (NOX)—across the eastern

region of the United States.

The most recent step EPA has taken

to address regional ozone transport was

the signing of a proposed rulemaking

that the State implementation plans

(SIPs) of 22 States and the District of

Columbia, all in the eastern half of the

United States, must be revised under

CAA sections 110(k)(5) and 110(a)(1) to

include provisions reducing NOX

emissions because those emissions

contribute significantly to ozone

nonattainment or maintenance problems

in downwind states. EPA Administrator

Carol M. Browner signed this proposed

rulemaking—referred to in this notice as

the NOX SIP call—on October 10, 1997.

The proposal is designed to assure that

SIPs meet the requirements of CAA

section 110(a)(2)(D), which mandates

that SIPs contain adequate provisions

prohibiting emissions that significantly

contribute to downwind nonattainment

problems. This proposal is based on

information indicating that emissions

from those 23 jurisdictions have an

adverse impact on downwind areas with

respect to both of the ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS)—the long-standing one-hour

standard and the eight-hour standard

that was promulgated by notice dated

July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856). EPA’s

proposals were based generally on

recommendations and technical

analyses from the Ozone Transport

Assessment Group (OTAG), which was

an organization comprising EPA, states,