64324 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

approximately 21.4 to 33 nautical miles,

thus fully encompassing the new SIAP.

The area would be depicted on

aeronautical charts for pilot reference.

The coordinates for this airspace docket

are based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas extending upward

from 700 feet or more above the surface

of the earth are published in Paragraph

6005 of FAA Order 7400.9E, dated

September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Big Piney, WY [Revised]

Big Piney-Marbleton Airport, WY

(Lat. 42°35′06′′N, long. 110°06′40′′W)

Big Piney VOR/DME

(Lat. 42°34′46′′N, long. 110°06′33′′W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within 4.8 miles

southwest and 8.3 miles northeast of the Big

Piney VOR/DME 134° and 314° radials

extending from 4 miles northwest to 16.6

miles southeast of the VOR/DME; that

airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet

above the surface within 7.9 miles southwest

and 11.8 miles northeast of the Big Piney

134° and 314° radials extending from 10.1

miles northwest to 33 miles southeast of the

VOR/DME.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on

November 13, 1997.

Glenn A. Adams III,

Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 97–31928 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–97–3032]

RIN 2125–AE25

Revision of the Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices: General

Provisions and Traffic Control for

School Areas

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments

to the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (MUTCD); Request for

Comments.

SUMMARY: The MUTCD is incorporated

by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart

F, approved by the Federal Highway

Administrator, and recognized as the

national standard for traffic control on

all public roads. The FHWA announced

its intent to rewrite and reformat the

MUTCD on January 10, 1992, at 57 FR

1134. This document proposes new text

for the MUTCD in Part 1, General

Provisions, and Part 7, Traffic Control

for School Areas. The purpose of this

effort is to reformat the text for clarity

of intended meanings, to include metric

dimensions and values for the design

and installation of traffic control

devices, and to improve the overall

organization and discussion of the

contents in the MUTCD. The proposed

changes to the MUTCD are intended to

expedite traffic, promote uniformity,

improve safety, and incorporate

technology advances in traffic control

device application.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

September 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Signed, written comments

should refer to the docket number that

appears at the top of this document and

must be submitted to the Docket Clerk,

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001. All comments received

will be available for examination at the

above address between 10 a.m. and 5

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. Those desiring

notification of receipt of comments must

include a self-addressed, stamped

postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information regarding the notice of

proposed amendments contact Ms.

Linda Brown, Office of Highway Safety,

Room 3414, (202) 366–2192, or Mr.

Raymond Cuprill, Office of Chief

Counsel, Room 4217, (202) 366–0834,

Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The

proposed text for Parts 1 and 7 of the

MUTCD is available from the FHWA

Office of Highway Safety (HHS–10). It is

also available on the FHWA home page

at the following Internet address: http:/

/www.ohs.fhwa.dot.gov/devices/

mutcd.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1988

MUTCD is available for inspection and

copying as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7,

appendix D. It may be purchased for

$44.00 from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA

15250–7954, Stock No. 650–001–00001–

0. This notice is being issued to provide

an opportunity for public comment on

the desirability of proposed

amendments to the MUTCD. Based on

the comments submitted and upon its

own experience, the FHWA will issue a

final rule concerning the proposed

changes included in this notice.

The National Committee on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) has

taken the lead in this effort to rewrite

and reformat the MUTCD. The NCUTCD

is a national organization of individuals

from the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO), the Institute of

Transportation Engineers (ITE), the

National Association of County

Engineers (NACE), the American Public

Works Association (APWA), and other

organizations that have extensive
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64325

experience in the installation and

maintenance of traffic control devices.

Although the MUTCD will be revised

in its entirety, it will be done in phases

due to the enormous volume of text. The

FHWA reviewed the NCUTCD’s

recommendations for MUTCD Part 3—

Markings, Part 4—Signals, and Part 8—

Traffic Control for Roadway-Rail

Intersections. The proposed text for

Parts 3, 4, and 8 was published as Phase

1 of the MUTCD rewrite effort in a

previous notice of proposed amendment

dated January 6, 1997, at 62 FR 691.

This notice of proposed amendment is

Phase 2 of the MUTCD rewrite effort

and includes the proposed text for

MUTCD Part 1, General Provisions, and

MUTCD Part 7, Traffic Control for

School Areas. The public will have an

opportunity to review and comment on

the remaining parts of the MUTCD in a

future notice of proposed amendment.

The FHWA invites comments on the

proposed text for Part 1 and Part 7 of the

MUTCD. A summary of the significant

changes contained in these sections of

the Manual is provided in this notice of

proposed amendment.

The proposed new style of the

MUTCD would be a 3-ring binder with

81⁄2 x 11 inch pages. Each part of the

MUTCD would be printed separately in

a bound format and then included in the

3-ring binder. If someone needed to

reference information on a specific part

of the MUTCD, it would be easy to

remove that individual part from the

binder. The proposed new text would be

in column format and contain four

categories as follows: (1) Standards—

representing ‘‘shall’’ conditions; (2)

Guidance—representing ‘‘should’’

conditions; (3) Options— representing

‘‘may’’ conditions; and (4) Support—

representing descriptive and/or general

information. This new format would

make it easier to distinguish standards,

guidance, and optional conditions for

the design, placement, and application

of traffic control devices. For review

purposes during this rewrite effort,

dimensions will be shown in both

metric and English units. This will

make it easier to compare text shown in

the 1988 Edition with the proposed new

edition. However, the adopted final

version of the new MUTCD will be

solely in metric units.

This effort to rewrite and reformat the

MUTCD will be an ongoing activity over

the next 2–3 years. Some of the other

issues which will be addressed in future

notices of proposed amendment are:

minimum retroreflectivity standards for

signs and pavement markings; signing

for low-volume rural roads; and traffic

control for light-rail grade crossings.

These proposed changes to the MUTCD

are intended to expedite traffic, promote

uniformity, improve safety, and

incorporate technology advances in

traffic control device application.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to

Part 1—General Provisions

The following items are the most

significant proposed revisions to Part 1.

Introduction

Under the category heading

STANDARD, the FHWA proposes to

include the definition of ‘‘traffic control

devices’’ which is also included in the

proposed Section 1A.14, Definition of

Words and Phrases. Also proposed is a

discussion of 23 CFR part 655, subpart

F, related to the MUTCD and the FHWA

policies and procedures. Under the

category heading SUPPORT, the FHWA

proposes to include a discussion of the

FHWA role and additional history

regarding the MUTCD.

Purpose of Traffic Control Devices

In Section 1A.1, the FHWA proposes

to use the term ‘‘road users’’ since it

encompasses both motorized and nonmotorized traffic.

Principles of Traffic Control Devices

In Section 1A.2, under the category

heading GUIDANCE, the FHWA

proposes to include ‘‘speed’’ as a

consideration that should govern the

design, operation, placement, and

location of various traffic control

devices since the traveling speed of road

users can affect their ability to

appropriately respond to the driving

task.

In this same section, the FHWA

proposes to include a reference to 23

CFR part 655, subpart F, which contains

the policies and procedures that address

the requirement for national uniformity

of traffic control devices on all streets

and highways. The last paragraph in

this same section is new. The FHWA

proposes to include this new discussion

to make sure that the minimum

capabilities of the road users as

described in the Uniform Vehicle Code

are considered when selecting,

installing, and maintaining traffic

control devices.

Design of Traffic Control Devices

In Section 1A.3, under the category

heading STANDARD, the FHWA

proposes to add the word ‘‘colors’’ to

the statement that all signs shall be

adopted using the procedures described

in Section 1A.11. The FHWA also

proposes adding a statement under the

category heading OPTION to explain

that State and local highway agencies

may develop word message signs to

notify road users of special regulations

or to warn of special situations or

hazards.

Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices

In Section 1A.5, the FHWA proposes

to include language to explain the

difference between functional and

physical maintenance. Functional

maintenance is required to determine if

a certain traffic control device needs to

be updated to meet current and

changing traffic conditions. In addition,

physical maintenance is recommended

to ensure that the device is legible,

visible, and operating properly.

Responsibility of Traffic Control Devices

In Section 1A.7, the FHWA proposes

to reference 23 CFR 655.603 which

adopts the MUTCD as the national

standard for all traffic control devices

on any street, highway, or bicycle trail

open to public travel and which

requires that any State or other Federal

agency MUTCD shall be in substantial

conformance with the national MUTCD.

Placement Authority

The 1988 MUTCD states that all traffic

control devices must only be installed

by a public authority or other official

jurisdiction. The FHWA proposes to

expand the wording in this sentence to

cover not only traffic control devices but

other signs and messages within the

highway right-of-way. The 1988

MUTCD also states that any

unauthorized sign placed on the

highway right-of-way by a private

organization or individual constitutes a

public nuisance. The FHWA proposes to

expand this wording to cover not only

signs but any unauthorized traffic

control device.

Engineering Study or Judgment

Required

In the 1988 MUTCD the terms

engineering judgment and engineering

study were used interchangeably. The

FHWA proposes to include distinct

definitions in Section 1A.14 to explain

the difference between these two terms.

Meaning of Standard, Guidance,

Option, and Support

In Section 1A.10, the FHWA proposes

to more clearly identify standards,

guidance, option, and support

information discussed in the new

edition of the MUTCD by providing

appropriate headings for all text. The

FHWA also proposes to include a

sentence explaining that figures, tables,

and illustrations either complement the

text and/or can constitute a standard,

guidance, option, or support.
64326 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Manual Changes, Interpretations, and

Authority to Experiment

In Section 1A.11, the FHWA proposes

to include a new standard to indicate

that devices that do not conform to the

provisions of the MUTCD shall be

prohibited unless the procedures

discussed in this section are followed.

Definition of Words and Phrases

In Section 1A.14 under the category

heading STANDARDS, the FHWA

proposes to include a consolidated list

of terms and their definitions which are

used in and considered important for

the uniform use of the MUTCD. This

amendment contains a partial list which

will be modified and completed in the

future amendments for the proposed

MUTCD. The amendments will also

consider the need to repeat the

definitions of some terms in applicable

Parts of the MUTCD. The last two

versions of the MUTCD defined most

terms only in the text of applicable

Parts, although previous editions

contained a list similar to the list

proposed. Only the term ‘‘roadway’’ was

defined in Section 1A–9 Definition of

Words and Phrases of the 1988 MUTCD.

As in previous MUTCD editions, the

terms which are not defined in the

MUTCD shall be defined as in the

MUTCD referenced documents.

In Section 1A–14, definitions are

proposed for the following terms. These

terms are used throughout the 1988 and

proposed versions of the MUTCD but

were not specifically defined in the

1988 version: ‘‘approach, engineering

judgment, engineering study, highway

(road and street), intersection, major

roadway, minor roadway, median,

network, retroreflectivity, road user,

traffic, traffic control device, train,

traveled way, vehicle, and warrant.’’

In Section 1A–14 the definition of

‘‘roadway’’ is proposed to be changed

from the definition in the 1988 version

of the MUTCD. The change would

exclude sidewalks and shoulders used

by bicycles from being part of the

roadway. Also, the change would

exclude, through the definition of

vehicle, portions of the highway where

trains, including some light rail,

operate.

In Section 1A–14, definitions are

proposed for the terms ‘‘arterial

highway’’ and ‘‘collector highway.’’ The

definitions of these terms would refine

the proposed standards for the center

line and edge line warrants contained in

two previous proposed amendments:

one dated August 2, 1996, at 61 FR

40484 and one dated January 6, 1997, at

62 FR 691.

In Section 1A–14, the term ‘‘bicycle

path’’ is proposed to replace the term

‘‘bicycle trail.’’ This term will also be

proposed in the future amendment for

the rewrite of Part 9, Traffic Control for

Bicycle Facilities.

In Section 1A–14, the definition for

the term ‘‘average day’’ would be

changed in order to provide more

specific detail. ‘‘Average day’’ is used in

Parts 2 and 4 and is defined in Part 4

of the 1988 MUTCD and in the proposed

text for the rewrite of Part 4.

In Section 1A–14, the term ‘‘traffic

gate’’ is proposed to replace the terms

‘‘resistance gate,’’ ‘‘second gate,’’ and

‘‘warning gate.’’

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to

Part 7—Traffic Controls for School

Areas

The following items are the most

significant revisions to Part 7.

Need for Standards

In section 7A.1, a new Typical School

Route Plan Map is proposed. Paragraph

5 of this same section would be

modified to include middle and high

schools in the development plans for

school routes. Also, paragraph 7 would

be modified to indicate that the various

types of school area traffic control

devices should also be included in a

traffic control plan.

The discussions contained in the

following sections of the 1988 MUTCD

are proposed for deletion: Sections 7A–

5 through 7A–10, 7B–1 through 7B–4,

7B–7 and 7B–8. The information

contained in these sections can be found

in Parts 1 and 2 of the MUTCD or in the

Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs

and Pavement Markings.

The new heading proposed for

Section 7B–1 is ‘‘Size of School Signs’’

and a new Table 7B.1 would be added

to show the dimensions and sizes as

shown in the Standard Highway Signs

Book. This eliminates the need to show

the dimensions and sizes in the

associated text discussion.

In section 7B.7, a new Figure 7–2 is

proposed to provide guidance on the

proper placement of the School

Advance Warning Sign (S1–1).

In section 7B.8 under the GUIDANCE

category, it is proposed that an

engineering study should be conducted

before installing the School Crosswalk

Warning sign (S2–1).

In section 7B.10, the FHWA proposes

changing the title to ‘‘Alternate Plates

for School Speed Limit Assembly

Signs’.

In section 7B.11, the FHWA proposes

a new section to allow the option of

installing a School Speed Zone Ahead

Assembly Sign in advance of a School

Speed Limit Sign or a School Speed

Limit Assembly Sign. The School Speed

Zone Ahead Assembly Sign would

consist of the Reduced Speed Ahead

Sign (R5–2a) with a SCHOOL plate (S4–

3) mounted directly above it.

In section 7C–4, the following new

guidance information is proposed: ‘‘In

the absence of a marked crosswalk, the

Stop line should be placed at the

desired stopping point but should be

placed no more than 9m (30 feet) nor

less than 1.2m (4 feet) from the nearest

edge of the intersecting traveled way.’’

The FHWA proposes deleting the

discussion in Chapter 7D for school

traffic signals and including a reference

to the proposed text in the rewrite of

Part 4.

The FHWA proposes to modify

Chapter 7E, ‘‘Crossing Supervision’’ by

deleting the discussion on legal

authority for adult guards and student

patrols since the States and local

agencies are responsible for establishing

laws regarding these crossing

supervisors. For increased safety, the

FHWA has also added a discussion in

section 7E.4 to include guidance which

provides that the uniforms they use

should be of high-visibility material

which may be seen during daytime,

nightime, and twilight hours.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be

considered and will be available for

examination in the docket at the above

address. Comments received after the

comment closing date will be filed in

the docket and will be considered to the

extent practicable, but the FHWA may

issue a final rule at any time after the

close of the comment period. In

addition to late comments, the FHWA

will also continue to file in the docket

relevant information that becomes

available after the comment closing

date, and interested persons should

continue to examine the docket for new

material.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this

action is not a significant regulatory

action within the meaning of Executive

Order 12866 or significant within the

meaning of Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and

procedures. It is anticipated that the

economic impact of this rulemaking

would be minimal. The new standards

and other changes proposed in this

notice are intended to improve traffic

operations and provide additional

guidance, clarification, and optional

applications for traffic control devices.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64327

The FHWA expects that these proposed

changes will create uniformity and

enhance safety and mobility at little

additional expense to public agencies or

the motoring public. Therefore, a full

regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C.

601–612), the FHWA has evaluated the

effects of this proposed action on small

entities. This notice of proposed

rulemaking adds some new and

alternative traffic control devices and

traffic control device applications. The

proposed new standards and other

changes are intended to improve traffic

operations, expand guidance, and

clarify application of traffic control

devices. As noted previously, any

expenses to public entities or the

motoring public to implement the

proposed changes would be minimal.

Therefore, the FHWA hereby certifies

that these proposed revisions would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism

Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this action would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a federalism assessment.

The MUTCD is incorporated by

reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F,

which requires that changes to the

national standards issued by the FHWA

shall be adopted by the States or other

Federal agencies within two years of

issuance. The proposed amendment is

in keeping with the Secretary of

Transportation’s authority under 23

U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to

promulgate uniform guidelines to

promote the safe and efficient use of the

highway. To the extent that this

amendment would override any existing

State requirements regarding traffic

control devices, it does so in the

interests of national uniformity.

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program Number 20.205,

Highway Planning and Construction.

The regulations implementing Executive

Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to

this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain a

collection of information requirement

for purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action

for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined

that this action would not have any

effect on the quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross reference this action with

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR 655

Design standards, Grant programs—

transportation, Highways and roads,

Incorporation by reference, Signs,

Traffic regulations.

(23 U.S.C. 109(d), 114(a), 315, and

402(a); 23 CFR 1.32, 655.601, 655.602,

and 655.603; 49 CFR 1.48)

Issued: November 25, 1997.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31911 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 926

[SPATS No. MT–017]

Montana Regulatory Program and

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

Plan

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 revisions and

additional explanatory information

pertaining to a previously proposed

amendment to the Montana regulatory

program (hereinafter, the ‘‘Montana

program’’) and abandoned mine land

reclamation plan (hereinafter, the

‘‘Montana plan’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The revisions and

additional explanatory information for

Montana’s proposed statutes consist of

revisions to statutes pertaining to the

designation of the Montana State

Regulatory Authority and reclamation

agency under SMCRA, a statutory

definition of ‘‘prospecting,’’ revegetation

success criteria for bond release, and

prospecting under notices of intent. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Montana program to be consistent with

the corresponding Federal regulations

and SMCRA, and to improve program

efficiency.

DATES: Written comments must be

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

22, 1997.

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–

0901, Telephone: (406) 444–4964.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy

Padgett, Telephone: (307) 261–5776.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Montana Program

and Montana Plan

On April 1, 1980, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Montana program as administrated by

the Department of State Lands. 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.

On October 24, 1980, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the