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
66820 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

regulations at 30 CFR 816.83 and 817.83

require refuse piles to meet the

requirements of 816.81 and 817.81,

respectively. At 30 CFR 816.81(c)(2) and

817.81(c)(2), respectively, a disposal

facility shall be designed to attain a

minimum long-term static safety factor

of 1.5. The Director is approving

Alabama’s proposed exception because

it is no less effective than the Federal

regulations.

C. Revisions to Alabama’s Regulations

With No Corresponding Federal

Regulations

1. Rule 880–X–5A–.22 Orders and

Decisions

Alabama proposed to replace the

existing requirements with the

following new requirements. At

paragraph (1)(a), the hearing officer is to

make a written decision within 30 days

after the close of ‘‘any’’ hearing. OSM

has regulations for hearings that provide

time frames of 30 or 60 days in which

written decisions must be furnished to

the participants of the hearing based

upon the reason the hearing is being

held. For example, the Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 775.11(b)(4)

regarding administrative review of

decisions on permits require that

decisions be made, in writing, within 30

days after these hearings. As another

example, the Federal regulation at 30

CFR 769.18 regarding decisions on

petitions for designating lands

unsuitable for mining requires that a

written decision be made within 60

days of the completion of the hearing.

The Director finds that Alabama’s

proposal for requiring decisions to be

made within 30 days after the close of

‘‘any’’ hearing is no less effective than

the Federal regulations and is approving

it.

At paragraph (1)(b), Alabama

proposed that the Division of Hearings

and Appeals (DHA) provide copies of all

orders of the hearing officer to all

parties. Parties other than the regulatory

authority will receive copies of the

orders by the first class mail. The

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 769.18(b)

regarding decisions on petitions for

designating lands unsuitable for mining

and 30 CFR 775.11(b)(4) regarding

administrative review of decisions on

permits, require written hearing

decisions to be sent to each person who

participated in the hearing. The Director

finds that Alabama’s proposed

amendment is not inconsistent with the

Federal regulations and is approving it.

At paragraph (2), Alabama proposed

that any party may petition the

Commission for an expedited review of

any pending appeal if the hearing officer

fails to render a decision within the

time specified in paragraph (1)(a). OSM

does not have a counterpart Federal

regulation that provides for an

expedited review of any pending appeal

if the hearing officer fails to render a

decision within specified time frames.

The Director finds that Alabama’s

proposed regulation is not inconsistent

with the Federal regulations and is

approving it.

2. Rule 880–X–6A–.06 License

Application Requirements

At paragraph (k), Alabama proposed

to replace the reference to ‘‘Chapter

880–X–7’’ with the corrected reference

to ‘‘Chapter 880–X–8.’’ The Director is

approving this correction.

3. Rule 880–X–10C–.36 Disposal of

Excess Spoil and 880–X–10D–.33

Disposal of Excess Spoil and

Underground Development Waste

At paragraphs (16)(a) in the first

sentence, Alabama proposed to remove

the language ‘‘in natural ground along

the periphery of the fill.’’ The Director

is approving the removal of this

language because there is no Federal

counterpart and because the removal of

this language will not render the

Alabama program less effective than the

Federal regulations.

4. Rules 880–X–10C–.38 and 880–X–

10D–.34 Coal Mine Waste: General

Requirements

Alabama proposed to remove existing

paragraphs (1)(d) for its regulations and

to redesignate existing paragraphs (1)(e)

and (1)(f) as paragraph (1)(d) and (1)(e),

respectively. The Director is approving

theses revisions because there is no

Federal counterpart regulation to

existing paragraph (d) that the State

proposed to remove and because its

removal will not render the Alabama

program less effective than the Federal

regulations.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

OSM solicited public comments on

the proposed amendment. No public

comments were received.

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 Alabama

program. OSM received comments from

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated

April 24, 1997 (Administrative Record

No. AL–0564), and the U.S. Department

of Labor Mine Safety and Health

Administration dated May 5, 1997

(Administrative Record No. AL–0565).

The agencies stated that they either had

no comments or no concerns regarding

the amendment.

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.). None

of the revisions that Alabama proposed

to make in this amendment pertain to

air or water quality standards.

Therefore, OSM did not request the

EPA’s concurrence.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),

OSM solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from the EPA

(Administrative Record No. AL–0563).

The EPA did not respond to OSM’s

request.

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 No. AL–0563).

The ACHP did not respond to OSM’s

request. OSM received a comment dated

June 3, 1997, from the Alabama

Historical Commission (Administrative

Record No. AL–0567). The Alabama

Historical Commission felt that

properties eligible for inclusion on the

National Register along with properties

listed on the National Register should be

included in the Alabama Surface

Mining Commission Rules regarding

procedures for areas unsuitable for

mining at 880–X–7B–.07(6)(a). The

Alabama Historical Commission felt that

this inclusion of properties would be

appropriate because it would conform

with the Advisory Council on Historic

Properties’ regulations at 36 CFR Part

800. In response to these comments,

Alabama did not propose to amend its

regulation at 880–X–7B–.07(6)(a) which

is substantially identical to the Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 761.12(f)(1), and,

therefore, is not inconsistent with the

Federal requirement. Also, in acting on

State program amendments, the

Directory only addresses those sections

of a State’s laws and regulations where

revisions are proposed by the State.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66821

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves the proposed

amendment as submitted by Alabama

on March 28, 1997, and as revised on

July 9 and 30, 1997.

The Director approves the rules as

proposed by Alabama with the

provision that they be fully promulgated

in identical form to the rules submitted

to and reviewed by OSM and the public.

The Director is also taking this

opportunity to correct editorial errors in

the required regulatory program

amendments section at 30 CFR 901.16.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 901, codifying decisions concerning

the Alabama 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 901

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 25, 1997.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 901 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 901—ALABAMA

1. The authority citation for Part 901

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 901.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 901.15 Appoval of Alabama regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

March 28, 1997 ................... December 22, 1997 ........... 880–X–5A–.22(1)(a), (1)(b) and (2); 880–X–6A–.06(k); 880–X–7B–.07(5); 880–X–

9E–.05(2) and (3); 880–X–10C–.23(2)(a), .36(13)(b) and (b)(1), (15)(b)(3), and

(16)(a), .38(1)(d) through (1)(f), .40(3)(a); 880–X–10D–.33(13)(b) and (b)(1),

(15)(b)(3), and (16)(a), .34(1)(d) through (1)(f), and .36(3)(a)
66822 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 901.16 Removed and [Reserved]

3. The text of § 901.16 is removed and

the section and section heading are

reserved.

[FR Doc. 97–33335 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 202

[Docket No. 97–8]

Registration of Claims to Copyright:

Group Registration of Serials

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is

making a technical amendment to one of

the addresses designated in the group

registration procedures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent

Dunlap, Principal Legal Advisor to the

General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R P.O.

Box 70400, Southwest Station,

Washington, D.C. 20024. Telephone:

(202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707–

8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1990,

the Copyright Office adopted a new

registration procedure which permitted

group registration of serial publications

under certain conditions. 55 FR 50556

(1990). This procedure is part of the

regulations of the Copyright Office at 37

CFR Chap. II, §§ 202.3(b)(5) and

202.20(c)(2)(xvii). This document

amends the address to which the

complimentary subscriptions must be

mailed.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202

Claims, Copyright, Registration.

Technical Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Copyright Office is amending part 202

of 37 CFR, chapter II in the manner set

forth below.

PART 202—REGISTRATION OF

CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT

1. The authority citation for part 202

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.

§ 202.3 [Amended]

2. Section 202.3(b)(5)(iii) is amended

to add ‘‘–4161,’’ after ‘‘20540’’.

Dated: December 17, 1997.

Marilyn J. Kretsinger,

Assistant General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–33313 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NY 26–2–176a; FRL–

5936–8]

Determination of Attainment of the

One-Hour Ozone Standard for the

Poughkeepsie, New York Ozone

Nonattainment Area and Determination

Regarding Applicability of Certain

Reasonable Further Progress and

Attainment Demonstration

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is determining,

through direct final procedure, that the

Poughkeepsie moderate ozone

nonattainment area in New York has

attained the one-hour National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for

ozone. This determination is based

upon three years of complete, quality

assured ambient air monitoring data for

the years 1995–97. This data

demonstrates that the one-hour ozone

NAAQS has been attained in this area.

On the basis of this determination, EPA

is also determining that certain

reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements,

along with certain other related

requirements, of Part D of Title 1 of the

Clean Air Act are not applicable to this

area.

In the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register, EPA is proposing this

determination and soliciting public

comment on it. If adverse comments are

received on this direct final rule, EPA

will withdraw this final rule and

address these comments in a final rule

on the related proposed rule which is

being published in the proposed rules

section of this Federal Register.

DATES: This action will be effective

Febraury 5, 1998 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

January 21, 1998. If the effective date is

delayed, a timely document will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to Ronald Borsellino, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290

Broadway, New York, NY 10007–1866.

Copies of the relevant material for this

notice are available for inspection

during normal business hours at:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Kelly, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2, at the above address. Phone:

212–637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) contains various

air quality planning and state

implementation plan (SIP) submission

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. EPA has interpreted provisions

regarding reasonable further progress

(RFP) and attainment demonstrations,

along with certain other related

provisions, so as not to require SIP

submissions if an ozone nonattainment

area subject to those requirements is

monitoring attainment of the one-hour

ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the

NAAQS is demonstrated with three

consecutive years of complete, quality

assured air quality monitoring data). As

described below, EPA has previously

interpreted the general provisions of

subpart 1 of part D of Title I (sections

171 and 172) so as not to require the

submission of SIP revisions concerning

RFP, attainment demonstrations, or

contingency measures. As explained in

a memorandum dated May 10, 1995

from John Seitz to the Regional Air

Division Directors, entitled ‘‘Reasonable

Further Progress, Attainment

Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ EPA

has interpreted the more specific RFP,

attainment demonstration and related

provisions of subpart 2 in the same

manner.

First, with respect to RFP, section

171(1) states that, for purposes of part D

of Title I, RFP ‘‘means such annual

incremental reductions in emissions of

the relevant air pollutant as are required

by this part or may reasonably be

required by the Administrator for the

purpose of ensuring attainment of the

applicable national ambient air quality

standard by the applicable date.’’ Thus,

whether dealing with the general RFP

requirement of section 172(c)(2), or the

more specific RFP requirements of

subpart 2 for classified ozone

nonattainment areas (such as the 15

percent plan requirement of section

182(b)(1)), the stated purpose of RFP is