1668 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(purchases only); premiums paid on

purchases of primary insurance; losses

recovered on purchases of primary

insurance; construction, engineering,

architectural, and mining services

(purchases only); merchanting services

(sales only); financial services

(purchases only, by companies or parts

of companies that are not financial

services providers); advertising services;

computer and data processing services;

data base and other information

services; telecommunications services;

operational leasing services; and

‘‘other’’ private services. ‘‘Other’’

private services covers transactions in

the following types of services: Satellite

photography services, security services,

actuarial services, salvage services, oil

spill and toxic waste cleanup services,

language translation services, and

account collection services.

[FR Doc. 97–743 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–EA–M

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD

29 CFR Part 102

Rules of Agency Organization

AGENCY: National Labor Relations

Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The National Labor Relations

Board (NLRB) issues a final rule which

deletes all references in its rules and

regulations to the ‘‘deputy’’ chief judge

in San Francisco, California, and

substitutes therefor, where appropriate,

references to the ‘‘associate’’ chief judge

in San Francisco, California, the correct

title of the position.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

J. Toner, Executive Secretary, National

Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street,

NW, Room 11600, Washington, DC

20570. Phone: (202) 273–1940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Requirements

This rule merely conforms current

regulations to properly reflect the

Agency’s current organizational

structure, relates solely to agency

organization, procedure and practice,

and will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

businesses or impose any information

collection requirements. Accordingly,

the Agency finds that prior notice and

comment is not required for these rules

and that good cause exists for waiving

the general requirement of delaying the

effective date under the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), and that

the rules are not subject to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601), Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Act (5 U.S.C. 801),

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501), or Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 102

Administrative practice and

procedure, Labor management relations.

29 CFR part 102 is amended as

follows:

PART 102—RULES AND

REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for 29 CFR

part 102 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Section 6, National Labor

Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151,

156). Section 102.117(c) also issued under

Section 552(a)(4)(A) of the Freedom of

Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.

552(a)(4)(A)). Sections 102.143 through

102.155 also issued under Section 504(c)(1)

of the Equal Access to Justice Act, as

amended (5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1)).

§ 102.24 [Amended]

2. Section 102.24, paragraph (a) is

amended by substituting ‘‘associate’’ for

‘‘deputy’’ in the third and fifth

sentences.

§ 102.25 [Amended]

3. Sec. 102.25 is amended by

substituting ‘‘associate’’ for ‘‘deputy’’ in

the first sentence.

§ 102.30 [Amended]

4. Sec. 102.30, paragraph (c) is

amended by substituting ‘‘associate’’ for

‘‘deputy’’ in the last sentence.

§ 102.34 [Amended]

5. Sec. 102.34 is amended by

substituting ‘‘associate’’ for ‘‘deputy’’ in

the first sentence.

6. Sec. 102.35, paragraph (b) is

amended by:

A. revising the first sentence of the

introductory text to read as set forth

below:

B. deleting ‘‘deputy chief’’ in the

second sentence of the introductory

text, and ‘‘deputy,’’ in (b) (1), (3) and (5).

§ 102.35 Duties and powers of

administrative law judges; assignment and

powers of settlement judges.

* * * * *

(b) Upon the request of any party or

the judge assigned to hear a case, or on

his or her own motion, the chief

administrative law judge in Washington,

D.C., the associate chief judge in San

Francisco, California, the associate chief

judge in Atlanta, Georgia, or the

associate chief judge in New York, New

York may assign a judge who shall be

other than the trial judge to conduct

settlement negotiations. * * *

§ 102.36 [Amended]

7. Sec. 102.36 is amended by

substituting ‘‘associate’’ for ‘‘deputy’’.

§ 102.42 [Amended]

8. Sec. 102.42 is amended by

substituting ‘‘associate’’ for ‘‘deputy’’ in

the third sentence.

9. Section 102.149, paragraph (b) is

amended by revising the first sentence

to read as follows:

§ 102.149 Filing of documents; service of

documents; motions for extension of time.

* * * * *

(b) Motions for extensions of time to

file motions, documents, or pleadings

permitted by section 102.150 or by

section 102.152 shall be filed with the

chief administrative law judge in

Washington, D.C., the associate chief

judge in San Francisco, California, the

associate chief judge in New York, New

York, or the associate chief judge in

Atlanta, Georgia, as the case may be, not

later than 3 days before the due date of

the document. * * *

Dated, Washington, D.C., January 7, 1997.

By direction of the Board.

John J. Toner,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–768 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7545–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 935

[OH–204; Amendment Number 54]

Ohio 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 Ohio regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Ohio program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Ohio proposed revisions

pertaining to twenty-two sections of the

Ohio Revised Code (ORC) to clarify

those sections of State law, to conform

those sections to current State practices,

and to make those sections equivalent to

corresponding Federal laws. The

revisions concern confidential

information on incidental coal
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1669

extraction, the Reclamation

Supplemental Forfeiture Fund, use of

the Reclamation Supplemental

Forfeiture Fund and for non-coal

reclamation, the Coal Mining

Performance Bond Fund, limitations on

the awards of costs and expenses,

reclamation contracts with surface mine

operators, reclamation of interim

forfeiture and insolvent surety sites, use

of police powers, AML reclamation

liens, the Acid Mine Drainage

Abatement and Treatment Fund, lands

eligible for remining, average wage

rates, deletion of obsolete language on

interim continuance of underground

coal mining operations, activities

eligible for Small Operator Assistance,

required staff training, and informal

review of issues as a form of alternative

dispute resolution.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Rieger, Field Branch Chief,

Appalachian Regional Coordinating

Center, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 3

Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220,

Telephone: (412) 937–2153.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Ohio 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 Ohio Program

On August 16, 1982, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

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, 935.15, and 935.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated February 7, 1992

(Administrative Record No. OH–1645),

as modified by letter dated February 27,

1992 (Administrative Record No. OH–

1657), Ohio submitted proposed

Program Amendment Number 54

(PA54). In PA 54, Ohio proposed to

revise 13 sections of the ORC

concerning a number of regulatory and

AML issues. OSM announced receipt of

PA 54 in the April 13, 1992, Federal

Register (57 FR 12779), 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 May 13,

1992.

By letter dated June 15, 1992

(Administrative Record No. OH–1714),

OSM provided Ohio with its questions

and comments about the February 7,

1992, submission of PA 54. On July 20,

1992, OSM and Ohio staff met to

discuss and resolve OSM’s questions

and comments (Administrative Record

No. OH–1746). On July 28, 1992, OSM

and Ohio staff further resolved some of

those issues in a telephone conversation

(Administrative Record No. OH–1754).

In response to OSM’s June 15, 1992,

letter, Ohio submitted Revised Program

Amendment Number 54 (PA 54R) by

letter dated September 2, 1992

(Administrative Record No. OH–1769).

PA 54R contained further revisions to

seven sections of the ORC. OSM

announced receipt of PA 54R in the

October 28, 1992, Federal Register (57

FR 48765), 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 November 27, 1992.

On December 16, 1992

(Administrative Record No. OH–1800),

OSM and Ohio staff conducted a

telephone discussion of the September

2, 1992, resubmission of PA 54R. On

April 30, 1993, OSM and Ohio staff met

informally to discuss the status of the

amendment with respect to the State’s

legislative process.

In the June 11, 1993, Federal Register

(58 FR 32611), the Director of OSM

announced his decision to defer Ohio

PA 54R with the exception of the

Director’s approval of one proposed

change at ORC section 1513.02(F)(3)

which the Ohio General Assembly was

likely to pass in its current form. The

Director made this decision because the

Ohio Legislative Service Commission

had not yet drafted the final statutory

language on which PA 54R would

ultimately be based and because that

language would not be available for

review by OSM within the foreseeable

future.

By letter dated March 31, 1995

(Administrative Record No. OH–2107),

Ohio submitted the final version of PA

54 (PA542R2). This final version

contains the statutory changes approved

by the Ohio General Assembly in Senate

Bill 180 and in House Bill 414. The two

bills were signed by the Ohio Governor

on December 23, 1992, and December

27, 1994, respectively. The revised

statutes went into effect on March 24,

1993, and March 27, 1995, respectively.

Ohio’s March 31, 1995, final

submission of PA 54R reiterated many

of the statute changes previously

proposed in PA 54 and PA 54R, and

withdrew its proposal to amend ORC

Sections 1513.10 and 1513.07 pertaining

to Refunds of Permit Fees as well as

Interfund Transfers. Portions of other

sections were likewise withdrawn as

discussed in their respective sections

below. The March 31, 1995 submission

also proposed new changes to ten

sections of the ORC. OSM discussed all

proposed changes in the April 13, 1992,

October 28, 1992, and April 17, 1995

Federal Register documents concerning

the submissions of PA 54, PA 54R and

PA 54R2, respectively. An issue letter

was sent to Ohio on August 2, 1995 and

a conference call was held on August

29, 1995. Further discussions were held

during 1996. Statute changes which

solely concern Ohio’s non-coal

regulatory program are outside the

jurisdiction of OSM and are not

discussed below. Also, changes to

paragraph notations and nonsubstantive

wording changes are not discussed.

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

amendments.

1. Confidential Information Regarding

Exemption Requests for Incidental Coal

Extraction

ORC 1513.07 paragraph (D)(2): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to specify that,

for exemption requests for incidental

coal extraction, confidential information

includes and is limited to information

concerning trade secrets or privileged

commercial or financial information

relating to the competitive rights of the

persons intending to conduct the

extraction of minerals. The

corresponding Federal rule at 30 CFR

702.13 requires that the person request,

in writing, that the information be kept

confidential. While Ohio’s proposed

statute change does not include this

requirement, Ohio’s Administrative

Code Section 1501:13–4–16(J)(2)

corresponds with the Federal rule at 30

CFR 702.13(b). Therefore, the proposed

change to the statute in conjunction

with Ohio’s existing Administrative

Code Section is no less effective than

the corresponding Federal Regulations

at 30 CFR 702.13(b).

2. Reclamation Supplemental Forfeiture

Fund

Ohio is revising ORC 1513.08

paragraph (A) and proposing a new

paragraph ORC 1513.18(D) to move the

current language creating the

Reclamation Supplemental Forfeiture
1670 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Fund from that portion of the Ohio law

dealing with performance bonds to that

portion of the law dealing with

reclamation by the Division. Ohio also

proposed adding a new provision which

would allow the Division to use funds

from the Reclamation Supplemental

Forfeiture Fund to reclaim areas which

were affected by non-coal mining under

surface mining permits issued under

ORC Chapter 1514, but which the

operator did not adequately reclaim. In

its March 31, 1995, final version of PA

54R, Ohio is withdrawing the portion of

the proposed language referring to ORC

Chapter 1514 from new paragraph (D).

Ohio is also removing the fund name

from the heading of the section.

ORC 1514.06 paragraph (G): Ohio is

proposing to revise this paragraph in

lieu of the previously proposed revision

discussed above which Ohio is

withdrawing from ORC section 1513.18

paragraph (D). The revision to ORC

section 1514.06 paragraph (G) would

provide that Ohio may expend money

from the Reclamation Supplemental

Forfeiture Fund or from the Surface

Mining Administration Fund to

complete reclamation on land affected

by non-coal surface mining operations

on which an operator has defaulted.

Ohio is also revising ORC Section

1513.18(E) to be consistent with the

move of the aforementioned language to

ORC Section 1513.18(D).

ORC section 1513.18 paragraph (D):

Ohio is adding a statement in this

paragraph concerning the State’s

priority for management of the

Reclamation Supplemental Forfeiture

Fund, including the selection of projects

and the transfer or moneys. That

priority shall be to ensure that sufficient

moneys are available for reclamation of

areas that an operator has affected under

a coal mining and reclamation permit

issued after September 1, 1981, and

which the operator has failed to reclaim.

This statement was added in response to

the director’s concerns that Reclamation

Supplemental Forfeiture Fund

expenditures on non-coal mining sites

could compromise the Fund’s solvency

as an alternative bonding system to be

used for the reclamation of surface coal

mining sites. The Director is now

satisfied that Ohio will continue to use

Fund moneys to reclaim all existing coal

mining sites for which bonds have been

forfeited, prior to using any such

moneys to reclaim non-coal mining

sites.

The proposed changes are found to be

consistent with the corresponding

Federal Regulations at 30 CFR 800.11(e),

pertaining to alternative bonding

systems.

3. Coal Mining Performance Bond Fund

ORC 1513.081: Ohio is repealing this

existing section which created the Coal

Mining Performance Bond Fund.

Language in this section also authorized

the issuance of reclamation performance

bonds by the Chief using money from

the fund, determined premiums and

fees for participation in the fund, and

provided for the release and forfeiture of

reclamation performance bonds

supported by the fund.

Ohio proposed to add ORC section

1513.081 to the Ohio program as part of

the November 16, 1987 submission of

proposed Ohio Program Amendment

Number 32 (Ohio Administrative

Record No. OH–0994). This part of Ohio

Program Amendment Number 32 was

not approved by OSM.

ORC 1513.08 paragraph (B): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to delete a

reference to performance bonds issued

under ORC Section 1513.081 which is to

be repealed.

Because the proposed changes were

never approved by the Director and

therefore never became part of Ohio’s

approved program, their deletion from

the ORC does not render the Ohio

program inconsistent with the

requirements of SMCRA or the Federal

Regulations.

4. Alternative Dispute Resolution

ORC 1513.13 paragraph (A)(3): Ohio

is adding this new paragraph to provide

an alternative mechanism for resolving

disputes over notices, orders, or other

decisions issued by the Chief. Any

person who, under ORC 1513.13, may

appeal such a notice, order, or decision

to the Ohio Reclamation Board of

Review (RBR) may elect to request an

informal review by the Chief of that

notice, order, or decision to the RBR.

The time spent on such an informal

review would not count against the time

available to the person to appeal the

notice, order, or decision to the RBR.

Further, such a review would not stay

the order, notice, or decision. Finally,

such a review would itself be appealable

to the RBR.

Since Ohio already has an informal

review process in its regulations for

Civil Penalty Assessments, citizen

complaints, and bond releases, the

proposed change is not inconsistent

with the requirements of SMCRA and

the Federal regulations insofar as it does

not interfere with or duplicate the

informal review process already

contained in the Ohio program.

Therefore, the Director is approving

ORC 1513.13(A)(3) to the extent that it

does not apply to create additional

opportunities for informal review of

Civil Penalty assessments, citizen

complaints, and bond releases, beyond

those already contained in the Ohio

program.

5. Limitations on Awards of Costs and

Expenses

ORC 1513.13 paragraph (E)(1): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to provide that,

at the request of a prevailing party in the

appeal of an enforcement order or

permit decision, the Ohio RBR and/or

the Chief may award necessary and

reasonably incurred costs and expenses,

including attorney fees, for that party’s

participation in the enforcement

proceedings before the Ohio RBR. Ohio

later revised this section so that it also

applies to awards of costs and expenses

incurred in connection with

proceedings before the RBR, before the

court under ORC section 1513.15

(pertaining to citizen suits), or before

the Chief under ORC section 1513.39

(pertaining to employee discrimination).

Ohio is also adding that fees awarded

under this section may not exceed the

prevailing market rates at the time the

services were rendered. Costs and

expenses may also be awarded for the

preparation, defense and appeal of a

petition for costs and expenses,

provided those costs and expenses are

proportionate to those otherwise

allowed under ORC 1513.13(E).

ORC 1513.13 paragraph (E)(1)(a): Ohio

is revising this paragraph to specify that

an award may be made to a party other

than the permittee or the Ohio Division

of Reclamation (DOR) when the Chief

determines that a party both prevailed

in whole or in part and made a

substantial contribution to the

determination of issues. This

contribution must be separate and

distinct from the contribution made by

any other party.

ORC 1513.13 paragraph (E)(1)(b):

Ohio is revising this paragraph to clarify

that permittees may file petitions for

award of costs and expenses with the

chief against parties who initiated or

participated in an appeal under this

section in bad faith for the purpose of

harassing or embarrassing the permittee.

The Chief may assess those costs and

expenses against the party who initiated

the appeal.

ORC 1513.13 paragraph (E)(1)(c): Ohio

is revising this paragraph to clarify that

the DOR may file a request with the RBR

for an award of costs and expenses

incurred by the DOR in connection with

an appeal initiated under this section.

The RBR may assess those costs and

expenses against those parties who

initiated the appeal in bad faith and for

the purpose of harassing or

embarrassing the DOR.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1671

ORC 1513.13 paragraph (E)(2): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to authorize the

court to award necessary and reasonably

incurred costs and expenses for parties

participating in the judicial review of

any order issued order this section or as

a result of any administrative

proceeding under this chapter.

ORC 1513.15 paragraph (F): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to authorize the

Chief to award necessary and reasonably

incurred costs of litigation, including

attorney and expert witness fees, in

connection with civil actions against the

Division. Ohio is also revising this

paragraph to delete previously proposed

revision and is reinstating the court’s

authority to award, to any party, costs

and fees that the court determines to

have been necessary and reasonably

incurred, in any proceeding under ORC

1513.15 (B) (citizen suits) in accordance

with ORC section 1513.13.

ORC 1513.39 paragraph (C): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to incorporate by

reference the proposed limit on

necessary and reasonably incurred costs

and expenses specified in revised ORC

section 1513.13 paragraph (E)(1) and

(E)(2) as also applying to cases of

alleged discrimination against

employees.

Except as noted below, the proposed

changes are found to be consistent with

the requirements of Section 525(e) of

SMCRA, 30 CFR 840.15, and 43 CFR

4.1290 and 4.1294.

a. Ohio is required to amend ORC

1513.13 (E)(1)(a) to make it clear that

such awards may be made in connection

with any administrative review

proceedings concerning an enforcement

action, permit issuance decision or

employee discrimination complaint, not

just those concerning enforcement

actions.

b. Ohio is required to amend ORC

1513.13(E)(1)(b) and (c) to make it clear

that such costs may also be assessed

against persons who participate in bad

faith appeals, not just those persons

who initiate such bad faith appeals.

6. Reclamation Contracts With Surface

Mine Operators

ORC 1513.18 paragraph (C): Under the

current version of this paragraph, the

Chief is authorized to enter into

contracts with mine operators mining

under a current, valid permit to

complete reclamation on defaulted

areas. Ohio is revising this paragraph to

extend the Chief’s authorization to

include contracts with surface mine

operators mining under permits issued

under ORC Chapter 1514, pertaining to

minerals other than coal.

While there is no Federal counterpart,

the Director finds the proposed change

is not inconsistent with SMCRA or the

Federal regulations.

7. Reclamation of Forfeited Areas

Affected Under Mining Permits Issued

After April 10, 1972 But Before

September 1, 1981

ORC 1513.18 paragraph (I): Ohio is

adding this new paragraph to authorize

the Chief to use any unspent funds in

the defaulted areas fund to complete

reclamation of other interim forfeited

areas affected under coal mining and

reclamation permits issued after April

10, 1972 but before September 1, 1981.

While there are no Federal

counterparts, the Director finds that this

propose revision is not inconsistent

with SMCRA or the Federal regulations,

and is consistent with SMCRA’s general

intent that all lands disturbed by surface

coal mining operations be reclaimed.

8. Chief’s Use of Police Powers on StateFunded AML Sites

ORC 1513.27 third paragraph: Ohio is

adding this new paragraph to authorize

the Chief to enter onto property where

the owners are not known, are not

readily available, or are not willing to

give permission in order for the Division

to use State funds to abate adverse

effects of past coal mining practices on

abandoned mined land (AML). Such

entry onto properties shall be construed

as an exercise of police power for the

protection of the public health and

safety and shall not be construed as an

act of condemnation nor trespass.

The proposed change is found to be

substantively identical to the

requirements of section 407 of SMCRA,

except that ORC 1513.27 does not grant

a right of entry to ‘‘any other property’’

in order to have access to the property

affected by past coal mining practices.

However, because Ohio’s program does

provide for right of entry upon ‘‘any

other property’’ for Federally-funded

AML projects at ORC 1513.37 (F)(1), the

proposed change at ORC 1513.27 does

not render the state’s program less

stringent than section 407 of SMCRA.

Therefore, the revision at ORC 1513.27

is approved.

9. AML Liens on Property of Community

Improvement Corporations or Nonprofit

Organizations

ORC 1513.33 third paragraph: Ohio is

revising this paragraph to provide that

AML liens filed by the Division against

property owned by community

improvement corporations or nonprofit

organizations shall have priority as a

lien second only to the lien of real

property taxes imposed upon the land.

This proposed change is substantively

identical to language contained in

SMCRA at section 408(c).

ORC 1513.33 fourth paragraph: Ohio

is revising this paragraph to clarify the

procedure to be used by county

recorders in recording and indexing

AML liens.

ORC 1513.33 fifth paragraph: Ohio is

revising this paragraph to provide that

AML liens shall continue in force so

long as any portion of the lien remains

unpaid.

ORC 1513.33 sixth paragraph: Ohio is

revising this paragraph to delete the

provision that AML liens shall be

foreclosed in the same manner as State

tax liens foreclosed under ORC Chapter

5721.

While there are no direct Federal

counterparts to these proposed changes,

they are found not to be inconsistent

with the requirements of SMCRA at

section 408.

10. Expansion of Sites Eligible for

Federally Funded AML Projects

ORC 1513.37 paragraph (C)(1): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to expand the

eligibility requirements for the sites of

Federally funded AML reclamation

projects. Ohio is adding new paragraph

(C)(1)(b) to make eligible mining

operations which occurred during the

period beginning August 4, 1977 and

ending on or before August 16, 1982 and

for which sufficient reclamation funds

are not available. Ohio is adding new

paragraph (C)(1)(c) to make eligible

mining operations which occurred

during the period beginning August 4,

1977 and ending on or before November

5, 1990, for which sureties became

insolvent, and for which sufficient

reclamation funds are not available.

ORC 1513.37 paragraph (C)(2): Ohio is

adding this new paragraph to provide

that the Chief shall follow the priorities

set forth at ORC 1513.37(B)(1) and (B)(2)

in determining which sites to reclaim

using the new authority granted under

ORC 1513.37(C)(1)(b) and (c). The Chief

shall ensure that priority is given to

those sites which are in the immediate

vicinity of a residential area or which

have an adverse economic impact upon

the local community.

The proposed changes are found to be

substantively identical to the

requirements of SMCRA at section

402(g)(4)(B) and (C).

11. Creation of the State Acid Mine

Drainage Abatement and Treatment

Fund

ORC 1513.37 paragraph (E): Ohio is

adding this new paragraph to create in

the State treasury the Acid Mine

Drainage Abatement and Treatment
1672 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Fund. The fund shall be administered

by the Chief and shall consist of grants

from OSM to be used in consultation

with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service to abate and treat

acid mine drainage. Proposed ORC

1513.37 paragraphs (E)(1) through (7)

would specify activities eligible for

financial support from the fund,

including the identification of affected

hydrologic units, the sources of acid

mine drainage, and the effects of the

drainage; the identification of corrective

measures to ablate or treat the drainage;

calculation of costs; and analysis of

benefits.

The proposed changes are found to be

substantively identical to section

402(g)(7) of SMCRA.

12. AML Liens on Certain Properties

Involved in Federally Funded AML

Reclamation Projects

ORC 1513.37 paragraph (G): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to provide that

the Chief may file in the office of the

county recorder a statement of

reclamation costs spent on certain

properties affected by Federally funded

AML reclamation projects. Such

statements would constitute a lien upon

the land as of the date of the State’s

reclamation expenditures and would

have a priority as a lien second only to

the lien of real property taxes imposed

upon the land. This revision is

substantively identical to language

contained in section 408(c) of SMCRA.

ORC 1513.37 paragraph (G)(3): Ohio is

revising this paragraph to clarify the

procedure to be used by county

recorders in recording and indexing

AML liens relating to Federally funded

reclamation.

ORC 1513.37 paragraph (G)(4): Ohio is

adding this new paragraph to provide

that AML liens relating to Federally

funded reclamation shall continue in

force so long as any portion of the lien

remains unpaid. Conveyance of the land

subject to an AML lien may be set aside

if the lien remains unpaid at the time of

conveyance.

ORC 1513.37 paragraph (G)(5): Ohio is

adding this new paragraph to provide

that AML liens relating to Federally

funded reclamation shall be foreclosed

upon the substantial failure of a

landowner to pay any portion of the

amount of the lien. Before proceeding

with foreclosure, the Chief shall make a

written demand upon the landowner for

payment and shall give the landowner

sixty days to pay the amount.

Although there are no direct Federal

counterparts to the proposed changes,

the Director finds that they are not

inconsistent with the requirements of

SMCRA at section 408(c).

13. Lands Eligible for Remining

ORC section 1513.01 paragraph (F):

Ohio is adding this paragraph to define

the term ‘‘lands eligible for remining’’ to

mean those lands that otherwise would

be eligible for expenditure of AML

reclamation funds under paragraph

(C)(1) of ORC section 1513.37.

ORC section 1513.07 paragraph

(E)(3)(b): Ohio is adding this new

paragraph to provide that, until October

1, 2004, any violation resulting from an

unanticipated event or condition at a

surface coal mining operation on lands

eligible for remining shall not prevent

issuance of a coal mining permit to the

person holding the remining permit. An

unanticipated event or condition is one

that was not contemplated by the

applicable permit.

ORC section 1513.16 paragraph

(A)(19)(b): Ohio is adding this new

paragraph to provide that coal mining

permits on lands eligible for remining

shall require the operator to assume the

responsibility for successful

revegetation of the remined area for two

full years after the last augmented

seeding, fertilizing, or irrigation.

ORC section 1513.37 paragraph (C)(3):

Ohio is adding this new paragraph to

provide that surface coal mining

operations on lands eligible for

remining shall not affect the eligibility

of those lands for AML reclamation

funding under this section of the ORC

after the release of the mining

operation’s performance bond. If the

performance bond for the remining

operation is forfeited and is not

sufficient for adequate reclamation of

the site, Ohio may use AML reclamation

funding under this section to augment

the bond.

The proposed changes are found to be

substantively identical to SMCRA at

sections 701(33) and (34), 515(b)(20)(B),

and 404 to the extent that

1513.07(E)(3)(b) applies up to, but not

including 10/1/2004.

14. Average Wage Rates

ORC section 1513.02 paragraph (J):

Ohio is revising this paragraph to

provide that the State will use

information from non-coal as well as

coal mining and reclamation operations

in calculating average wage rates. The

newly calculated average wage rates

shall apply to reclamation performed for

Ohio on both coal and non-coal mining

sites. While there are no Federal

counterparts to this revision, the

Director finds that is not inconsistent

with SMCRA or its corresponding

Federal regulations.

15. Deletion of Obsolete Language

ORC section 1513.07 paragraph (A)(1):

Ohio is deleting obsolete language from

this paragraph concerning payment of

permit fees for areas covered by a permit

in effect on August 16, 1982, as well as

language concerning interim

continuance of underground coal mine

operations which were in effect prior to

September 1, 1981.

The director finds that deletion of this

obsolete language does not render the

Ohio program less stringent than

SMCRA or less effective than the

corresponding federal regulations.

16. Activities Eligible for the Small

Operator’s Assistance Program (SOAP)

ORC section 1513.07 paragraph (B)(4)

(a) and (b): Ohio is revising these

paragraphs to expand the types of

activities related to permit applications

which qualified laboratories can

perform for permit applicants under

contracts funded by Ohio’s SOAP.

Qualifying activities include

determination of probable hydrologic

consequences, development of crosssection maps and plans, geologic

drilling and reporting, collection and

reporting of archaeological information,

performing pre-blast surveys, and

collection of information on protection

of fish and wildlife habitats. The coal

mine operator shall reimburse the State

for the costs of SOAP-assisted services

if the operator’s actual and attributed

coal production for all locations exceeds

300,000 tons during the 12 months

immediately following the date of

issuance of the mining permit.

The proposed changes are found to be

substantively identical to, and therefore

no less stringent than, sections 507(C)(1)

and (h) of SMCRA, except Ohio is

required to amend ORC

1513.07(B)(4)(a)(i) or otherwise clarify

that probable hydrologic consequences

determinations include the engineering

analyses and designs necessary for those

determinations.

17. Required Staff Training

ORC section 1513.34: Ohio is revising

this section to delete the requirements

for minimum hourly amounts of initial

and annual follow-up training for

certain staff positions. In lieu of a

minimum of 80 hours of training, Ohio

shall provide adequate training and

education, during their probationary

periods, for all persons appointed as

inspection officers. In lieu of a

minimum of 40 hours of annual

training, Ohio shall provide, on a

regular basis as funding allows,

continuing education and training as

necessary for all inspection officers,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1673

district supervisors, and enforcement

personnel. While there are no direct

Federal counterparts to these Ohio

training requirements, the proposed

changes are found to be not inconsistent

with the requirements of SMCRA at

503(a)(3), which requires that state

regulatory authorities employ sufficient

administrative and technical personnel

to enable the State to regulate surface

coal mining and reclamation operations

in accordance with SMCRA.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the proposed

amendment. Because no one requested

an opportunity to speak at a public

hearing, no hearing was held.

Comments were received from the Ohio

Historic Preservation Office on March

19, 1992 (Administrative Record No.

OH–1671) pertaining to the expansion

of sites eligible for Federally funded

AML projects. The comment stated that

ongoing coordination with the Ohio

Historical Society is necessary to

address preservation concerns, and

requested notification of projects prior

to initiation. The Director notes that all

abandoned mine lands projects are

reviewed by the State Historic

Protection Officer (SHPO). Further, a

statement of concurrence that no

significant cultural or historic properties

will be adversely affected, signed by the

SHPO, is included with the National

Environmental Policy Act documents

submitted prior to construction.

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 Ohio program.

MSHA responded that it had no

comments in its letter dated April 20,

1995. (Administrative Record No. 2113)

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.). EPA

concurred with the amendment in its

letter to OSM dated June 2, 1995.

(Administrative Record No. OH–2129)

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above finding(s), the

Director approves, with certain

additional requirements, the proposed

amendment as submitted by Ohio on

February 7, 1992, as modified on

February 27, 1992, September 2, 1992,

and March 31, 1995.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 935, codifying decisions concerning

the Ohio 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 12778

(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

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: December 13, 1996.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 935—OHIO

1. The authority citation for Part 935

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 935.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (dddd) to read as

follows:

§ 935.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(dddd) With the exceptions noted

below, the amendments submitted to

OSM on February 7, 1992, and revised

on February 27, 1992, April 18, 1992

and March 31, 1995, are approved

effective January 13, 1997.
1674 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ORC 1513.07(D)(2) ................................................................................... Confidential Information.

ORC 1513.08 & ORC 1513.18 (D) & (E), and ORC 1514.06(G) .............. Reclamation Supplemental Forfeiture Fund.

ORC 1513.13 (E)(1), (E)(2), (C) ................................................................ Limitation on Awards.

ORC 1513.15(F), ORC 1513.39(C)

ORC 1513.13(A)(3) ................................................................................... Alternative Dispute Resolution to the extent that it does not duplicate the current informal review process.

ORC 1513.18(C) ........................................................................................ Reclamation Contracts.

ORC 1513.18(I) ......................................................................................... Reclamation of Forfeited Areas.

ORC 1513.27 ............................................................................................ Police Powers.

ORC 1513.33 ............................................................................................ AML Liens.

ORC 1513.37 (C), (C)(1), (C)(1)(b), (C)(1)(c) & (C)(2) .............................. Sites Eligible for AML.

ORC 1513.37(E) ........................................................................................ Acid Mine Fund.

ORC 1513.37(G) ....................................................................................... Liens on Federally-Funded AML Projects.

ORC 1513.07 (B), (B)(4), (B)(4)(a)(b) ....................................................... SOAP.

ORC 1513.34 ............................................................................................ Staff Training.

ORC 1513.01(F), 1513.07(E)(3)(b), 1513.16(A)(19)(b), & 1513.37(C)(3) Remining to the extent that 1513.07(E)(3)(b) applies up to, but does

not include 10/1/2004.

ORC 1513.01(H)(2) ................................................................................... Public Roadways.

ORC 1513.02(J) ......................................................................................... Average Wage Rates.

ORC 1513.07(A)(1) ................................................................................... Delete interim continuance of mining in effect prior to 9–1–91.

ORC 1513.081 (Repealed and ORC 1513.08(B) ...................................... Coal Mining Performance Bond Fund.

3. Section 935.16 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 935.16 Required regulatory program

amendments.

(a) By June 27, 1997, Ohio shall

submit either a proposed amendment or

a description of an amendment to be

proposed, together with a timetable for

adoption, to address the following:

(1) Amend the Ohio program at ORC

1513.13(E)(1)(a) to make it clear that

such awards may be made in connection

with any administrative review

proceedings concerning an enforcement

action, permit issuance decision or

employee discrimination complaint, not

just those concerning enforcement

actions.

(2) Amend ORC 1513.13(E)(1) (b) and

(c) to make it clear that such costs may

also be assessed against persons who

participate in bad faith appeals, not just

those persons who initiate such bad

faith appeals.

(3) Amend ORC 1513.07(B)(4)(a)(i) or

otherwise clarify that probable

hydrologic consequences

determinations include the engineering

analyses and designs necessary for those

determinations.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 97–709 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 20

Interim Rule for Global Package Link

(GPL) to Canada

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is

amending the rule on Global Package

Link to Canada. New pricing is being

announced, effective January 13, 1997.

The new pricing is a reduction in the

rates previously established. The Postal

Service is also announcing a new

Ground Gateway Global Package Link

service to Canada. In order to support

this new GPL service, Buffalo has been

added as a GPL processing center for

ground service only. The Buffalo GPL

center will open for service on January

21, 1997. The new ground service will

be available to any customer within a

500 mile radius of the two Ground

Gateway centers, Seattle, Washington

and Buffalo, New York and any other

customer that can utilize a direct,

existing Postal Service surface

transportation to one of the two Ground

Gateways. In addition, a merchandise

return service is being announced, along

with prices, for any customer utilizing

the GPL to Canada service.

DATES: The interim regulations take

effect as of 12:01 a.m. on January 13,

1997, except for the new Ground

Gateway service from Buffalo which

will take effect at 12:01 a.m. on January

21, 1997. Comments must be received

on or before February 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or delivered to International

Business Unit, U.S. Postal Service, 475

L’Enfant Plaza SW, 370–IBU,

Washington, DC 20260–6500. Copies of

all written comments will be available

for public inspection and photocopying

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Opiela, (202) 314–7134.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Global Package Link is a service that

assists mail order companies and other

customers that send merchandise to

Japan, Canada, and the U.K. Presently,

the Postal Service has Global Package

Link processing facilities in New York

City, Dallas, Miami, Chicago, San

Francisco, and Seattle.

II. GPL to Canada

Description

GPL to Canada currently offers an Air

Courier and a Ground Courier service.

These services are offered through one

of the six aforementioned processing

facilities. In most cases these facilities

airlift the GPL packages to Canada. A

new Ground Gateway service will

become effective immediately via

Seattle and on January 21, 1997 via

Buffalo. This service will provide

surface transportation from the mailer’s

fulfillment center to one of the two

Ground Gateways; Seattle or Buffalo.

Those mailers within 500 miles of

Buffalo will have their packages

processed for ground entry into Canada

via the Buffalo center, while those

mailers within 500 miles of Seattle will

have their packages processed for

surface entry into Canada via Seattle,

which is also an air exchange office for

all other GPL destination countries.

Buffalo will only be a GPL ground

gateway.

Packages will be transported from the

Ground Gateways via Postal Service

ground transportation to Toronto (from

Buffalo) and to Vancouver (from

Seattle). From this point the GPL

delivery agent will provide expeditious

courier handling to the destination

address.

The Ground Gateway Service to

Canada will include all of the valueadded services currently available with

the Ground Courier service, including

the recently added $100 (Canadian)

insurance indemnity per shipment (Air

Courier continues to be covered by $500