Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63685

Ohio program. Background information

on the Ohio program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval can be found in the August 10,

1982, Federal Register (47 FR 34688).

Subsequent actions concerning

conditions of approval and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

935.11, 935.12, 935.15, and 935.16.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated June 24, 1997

(Administrative Record No. OH–2173–

00), Ohio submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA and in response to a required

amendment at 30 CFR 935.16. Ohio

submitted letters of clarification on

August 19, 1997 (Administrative Record

No. OH–2173–07), and October 14, 1977

(Administrative Record No. OH–2173–

08). The proposed amendment was

announced in the July 7, 1997, Federal

Register (62 FR 36248). The revision to

Ohio Revised Code 1513.13(E)(2) was

inadvertently omitted from the notice.

Ohio proposes to require that if a final

order relating to Chapter 1513 is issued

under section 1513.13 and becomes the

subject of judicial review, at the request

of any party, a sum equal to the

aggregate amount of all costs and

expenses, including attorney fees, as

determined by the court to have been

necessary and reasonably incurred by

the party for or in connection with their

participation in the judicial proceedings

may be awarded to either party, in

accordance with (E)(1) of section

1513.13 as the court, on the basis of

judicial review, considers proper.

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is seeking

comments on whether the proposed

amendment satisfies the applicable

program approval criteria of 30 CFR

732.15. Specifically, OSM is seeking

comments on the revision to the State’s

regulations that was submitted on June

24, 1997 (Administrative Record No.

OH–2173–00), with the addition noted

above. Comments should address

whether the proposed amendment

satisfies the applicable program

approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the

amendment is deemed adequate, it will

become part of the Ohio 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 Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center will not

necessarily be considered in the final

rulemaking or included in the

Administrative Record.

IV. Procedural Determination

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 subsection (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 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 935

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 19, 1997.

John A. Holbrook, II,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–31578 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 926

[SPATS No. MT–018–FOR]

Montana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and

extension of public comment period and

opportunity for public hearing on

proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

announcing receipt of additional

explanatory information pertaining to a

previously proposed amendment to the

Montana regulatory program

(hereinafter, the ‘‘Montana program’’)

under the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

additional explanatory information for

Montana’s proposed rules pertain to

permit requirements and a notice of

intent to prospect. The amendment is

intended to revise the Montana program

to provide additional safeguards, clarify

ambiguities, and improve operational

efficiency.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., m.s.t. December

17, 1997.
63686 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or hand delivered to Guy

Padgett at the address listed below.

Copies of the Montana program, the

proposed amendment, and all written

comments received in response to this

document will be available for public

review at the addresses listed below

during normal business hours, Monday

through Friday, excluding holidays.

Each requester may receive one free

copy of the proposed amendment by

contacting OSM’s Casper Field Office.

Guy Padgett, Director, Casper Field

Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 100

East ‘‘B’’ Street, Room 2128, Casper,

WY, 82601–1918, Telephone: (307)

261–5776.

Steve Welch, Chief, Industrial and

Energy Minerals Bureau, Montana

Department of Environmental Quality,

P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT, 59620–

0091, Telephone: (406) 444–4964.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Guy Padgett, Telephone: (307) 261–

5776.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Montana Program

On April 1, 1980, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Montana program. General background

information on the Montana program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and

conditions of approval of the Montana

program can be found in the April 1,

1980, Federal Register (45 FR 21560).

Subsequent actions concerning

Montana’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

926.15, 926.16, and 926.30.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated March 5, 1996,

Montana submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

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

(Administrative Record No. MT–15–01).

Montana submitted the proposed

amendment at its own initiative. The

provisions of the Administrative Rules

of Montana that Montana proposed to

revise were: 26.4.410, permit renewal;

26.4.1001, permit requirement; and

26.4.1001A, notice of intent to prospect.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the April 10,

1996, Federal Register (61 FR 15910),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (Administrative Record

No. MT–15–04). Because no one

requested a public hearing or meeting,

none was held. The public comment

period ended on May 10, 1996.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to the

requirements for prospecting permits

and notices of intent to prospect at

26.4.1001(1)(a) and 26.4.1001A(1) and

(1)(b)(ii). OSM notified Montana of the

concerns by letter dated December 6,

1996 (Administrative Record No. MT–

15–09). Montana responded in a letter

dated November 6, 1997, by submitting

additional explanatory information

(Administrative Record No. MT–15–12).

Specifically, Montana has submitted a

proposed statute revision contained in

another rulemaking (SPATS No. MT–

017–FOR; Administrative Record No.

MT–14–11) to address OSM’s concerns

with permit requirements and a notice

of intent to prospect. Instead of revising

the proposed rules, Montana explains

that proposed changes to the statute at

Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 82–4–

226(8) to require a permit for

prospecting when more than 250 tons of

coal would be removed, would resolve

OSM’s identified deficiency.

III. Public Comment Procedures

OSM is reopening the comment

period on the proposed Montana

program amendment to provide the

public an opportunity to reconsider the

adequacy of the proposed amendment

in light of the additional materials

submitted. In accordance with the

provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is

seeking comments on whether the

proposed amendment satisfies the

applicable program approval criteria of

30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment is

deemed adequate, it will become part of

the Montana program.

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 Casper Field Office will

not necessarily be considered in the

final rulemaking or included in the

administrative record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

1. 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).

2. 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 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

the Federal regulations at 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.

3. 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)).

4. 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.).

5. 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

that 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.

6. 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63687

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 20, 1997.

Richard J. Seibel,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–31579 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[LA35–1–7305b; FRL–5928–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans,

Louisiana; Reasonable Available

Control Technology for Emissions of

Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA

proposes to conditionally approve in

part, and fully approving in part,

revisions to the Louisiana State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The

revisions incorporate regulations to

control Volatile Organic Compound

emissions from major stationary sources

by means of Reasonable Available

Control Technology. The major

stationary source category controlled by

the conditionally approved regulation is

batch processes. The major stationary

source categories controlled by the fully

approved regulations are Synthetic

Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry (SOCMI) reactors, SOCMI

distillation, and industrial cleanup

solvents. The intended effect of these

rules is to reduce VOC emissions into

the ambient air and thereby reduce

ground-level ozone concentrations.

In the Rules and Regulations Section

of this Federal Register, EPA is

approving the State’s SIP revision as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments. The

rationale for the approval is set forth in

the direct final rule. 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 during the

30-day comment period set forth below

will be addressed in a subsequent final

rule based on this proposed rule. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by January

2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section, at the EPA Region 6 Office

listed below. Copies of the documents

relevant to this proposed rule are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations. Anyone wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733.

Air Quality Division, Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality,

7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton

Rouge, Louisiana 70810.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eaton R. Weiler, of the EPA Region 6 Air

Planning Section at the above address,

telephone (214) 665–2174.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

action of the same title which is

published in the Rules and Regulations

section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: November 10, 1997.

Lynda F. Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31409 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[AK 19–1707; FRL–5923–8]

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Anchorage, Alaska, Carbon Monoxide

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmetnal Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to find

that the Municipality of Anchorage,

Alaska, carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment area has not attained the

CO national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air

Act (CAA). The CO nonattainment

occurred after Anchorage received a one

year extension from the mandated

attainment date of December 31, 1995

for moderate nonattainment areas to

December 31, 1996. This proposed

finding is based on EPA’s review of

monitored air quality data for

compliance with the CO NAAQS. Final

action on this proposed finding would

result in the Anchorage CO

nonattainment area being reclassified by

operation of law as a serious

nonattainment area. The result of such

a reclassification would be that the State

must submit a new State

implementation plan (SIP) providing for

attainment of the CO NAAQS by no

later than December 31, 2000, the CAA

attainment deadline for serious CO

areas.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received by January 2,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comment should be

addressed to Ms. Montel Livingston,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ 107), Docket

AK 17–1705, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle,

WA 98101. Information supporting this

action is available for inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, and the Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation (ADEC),

410 Willoughby, Suite 105, Juneau,

Alaska 99801–1795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Pavitt, Alaska Air Coordinator,

EPA Alaska Operations Office, 907/271–

3688.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions

Concerning Designation and

Classification

The CAA Amendments of 1990 were

enacted on November 15, 1990. Under

Section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each

CO area designated nonattainment prior

to enactment of the 1990 Amendments,

such as the Anchorage area, was

designated nonattainment by operation

of law upon enactment of the 1990

Amendments. Under section 186(a) of

the CAA, each CO area designated

nonattainment under section 107(d) was

also classified by operation of law as

either ‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘serious’’

depending on the severity of the area’s

air quality problem. CO nonattainment