66818 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1.10, 1.11, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13,

2.15, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.28,

4.3A, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.13, 4.13B, 4.14, 4.14A,

4.14C, 4.14D, 4.14E. 4.18, 4.18A, 4.19, 4.36,

4.37, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0, 7.2, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8,

7.12, 7.13, 8.0, 8.5, 8.9 of the Farm Credit Act

(12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017,

2018, 2019, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091,

2093, 2094, 2096, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2128,

2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2154a, 2183, 2184,

2199, 2201, 2202, 2202a, 2202c, 2202d,

2202e, 2206, 2206a, 2207, 2219a, 2219b,

2243, 2244, 2252, 2279a, 2279a–2, 2279b,

2279b–1, 2279b–2, 2279f, 2279f–1, 2279aa,

2279aa–5, 2279aa–9); sec. 413 of Pub. L. 100–

233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1639.

Subpart D—General Loan Policies for

Banks and Associations

2. Sections 614.4280 and 614.4321 in

subpart G are redesignated as

§§ 614.4155 and 614.4160 in subpart D,

and § 614.4155 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 614.4155 Interest rates.

Loans made by each bank and direct

lender association shall bear interest at

a rate or rates as may be determined by

the institution board. The board shall

set interest rates or approve individual

interest rate changes either on a case-bycase basis or pursuant to an interest rate

plan within which management may

establish rates. Any interest rate plan

shall set loan-pricing policies and

objectives, provide guidance regarding

the circumstances under which

management may adjust rates, and

provide the upper and lower limits on

management authority. Any interest rate

plan adopted shall be reviewed on a

continuing basis by the board, as well as

in conjunction with its review and

approval of the institution’s operational

and strategic business plan.

Subpart G—Interest Rates and

Charges

Subpart G [Removed and Reserved]

3. Subpart G, consisting of

§§ 614.4270, 614.4281, 614.4290,

614.4300 and 614.4320, is removed and

reserved.

Dated: December 16, 1997.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 97–33260 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97–AGL–44]

Modification of Class E Airspace;

Grand Rapids, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E

airspace at Grand Rapids, MI. An

Instrument Landing System (ILS)

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedure (SIAP) to Runway 35 has

been developed for Kent County

International Airport. Controlled

airspace extending upward from 700 to

1,200 feet above ground level (AGL) is

needed to contain aircraft executing the

approach. This action increases the

radius of the existing Class E airspace.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, February 26,

1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle M. Behm, Air Traffic Division,

Airspace Branch, AGL–520, Federal

Aviation Administration, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018, telephone (847) 294–7568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On Friday, September 19, 1997, the

FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71

to modify Class E airspace at Grand

Rapids, MI (62 FR 49182). The proposal

was to add controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 to 1200 feet

AGL to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR) operations in controlled airspace

during portions of the terminal

operation and while transiting between

the enroute and terminal environments.

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA.

No comments objecting to the proposal

were received. Class E airspace

designations 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 will be published

subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71

modifies Class E airspace at Grand

Rapids, MI, to accommodate aircraft

executing the ILS Runway 35 SIAP at

Kent County International Airport by

increasing the radius of the existing

controlled airspace. Controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 to 1200 feet

AGL is needed to contain aircraft

executing the approach. The area will be

depicted on appropriate aeronautical

charts.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. Therefore, this regulation—(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 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).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 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 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

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Grand Rapids, MI [Revised]

Kent County International Airport, MI

(Lat. 42°52′58′′N, long. 85°31′26′′ W)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66819

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 7.0-mile

radius of the Kent County International

Airport.

* * * * *

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on November

24, 1997.

David B. Johnson,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.

[FR Doc. 97–33284 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 901

[SPATS No. AL–067–FOR]

Alabama 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 Alabama regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Alabama program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Alabama proposed

revisions to the Alabama Surface

Mining Commission Rules pertaining to

hearing orders and decisions, license

application requirements, procedures

for permit application review,

determination of bond forfeiture

amount, surface and ground water

monitoring, disposal of excess spoil,

and coal mine waste. The amendment is

intended to revise the Alabama program

to provide additional safeguards, clarify

ambiguities, and improve operational

efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur Abbs, Director, Birmingham

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 135

Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood,

Alabama 35209, Telephone: (205) 290–

7282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Alabama 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 Alabama Program

On May 20, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Alabama program. Background

information on the Alabama program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47

FR 22062). Subsequent actions

concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments can be found

at 30 CFR 901.15 and 901.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated March 28, 1997

(Administrative Record No. AL–0562),

Alabama submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA. Alabama submitted the

proposed amendment at its own

initiative.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the April 25,

1997, Federal Register (62 FR 20138),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing or

meeting on the adequacy of the

proposed amendment. The public

comment period closed on May 27,

1997. Because no one requested a public

hearing or meeting, none was held.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to

hearing orders and decisions (Rule 880–

X–5A–.22), and placement of coal mine

waste on refuse piles (Rules 880–X–

10C–.40 and 880–X–10D–.36). OSM

notified Alabama of these concerns by

telephone and fax on June 16, 1997

(Administrative Record No. AL–0570).

By letter dated July 9, 1997

(Administrative Record No. AL–0560),

Alabama responded to OSM’s concerns

regarding placement of coal mine waste

on refuse piles by submitting additional

explanatory information to its proposed

program amendment. Regarding OSM’s

concerns on hearing orders and

decisions, Alabama submitted an

emergency rule, on July 30, 1997

(Administrative Record No. AL–0572),

that changed the number of days in

which hearing officers are to furnish

written decisions on hearings from 60

days to 30 days. Based upon the

additional explanatory information and/

or revisions to the proposed program

amendment submitted by Alabama,

OSM reopened the public comment

period in the October 17, 1997, Federal

Register (62 FR 53996). The public

comment period closed on November 3,

1997.

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 proposed

amendment.

A. Nonsubstantive Revisions to the

Alabama Program

Alabama proposed revisions to the

following previously-approved rules

that are nonsubstantive in nature and

consist of minor editorial, punctuation,

grammatical, and recodification

changes:

Topic State regulations Federal counterpart regulations

Procedures for Permit Application Review ....... 880–X–7B–.07(5) .............................................. 30 CFR 761.12(e)(1)–(e)(3).

Determination of Forfeiture Amount ................. 880–X–9E–.05(2) and (3) ................................. 30 CFR 800.50(d)(1) and (d)(2).

Hydrologic Ground Water Monitoring ............... 880–X–10C–.23(2)(a) ....................................... 30 CFR 816.41(e)(1).

Disposal of Excess Spoil .................................. 880–X–10C–.36(13)(b) and (b)(1) and

(15)(B)(3).

30 CFR 816.71(i) and 816.74(h)(4).

Disposal of Excess Spoil and Underground

Development Waste.

880–X–10D–.33(13)(b) and (b)(1) and

(15)(b)(3).

30 CFR 817.71(i) and 817.74(h)(4).

Because Alabama’s proposed

revisions to these previously-approved

rules are nonsubstantive in nature, the

Director finds that the proposed

revisions do not render Alabama’s rules

less effective than the Federal

regulations.

B. Revisions to Alabama’s Regulations

That Are Not Substantively Identical to

the Corresponding Provisions of the

Federal Regulations Rules 880–X–10C–

.40 and 880–X–10D–.36 Cost Mine

Waste: Refuse Piles

At paragraphs (3)(a), Alabama

proposed an exception to the

requirement that limits coal mine

operators from spreading coal mine

waste in layers thicker than 24 inches.

If engineering data substantiates a

minimum safety factor of 1.5 for the

refuse pile, the State regulatory

authority may approve layers exceeding

24 inches in thickness. The Federal