Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16509

the Department of the Interior (516 DM

6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon 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

established by SMCRA or 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 in the analyses for

the corresponding Federal regulations.

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or private

sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944

Abandoned mine reclamation

programs, Intergovernmental relations,

Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: April 26, 1997.

Richard J. Seibel,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–8790 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 946

[VA–106–FOR]

Virginia Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: OSM is reopening the

comment period on information

submitted by Virginia concerning parts

of a proposed amendment to the

Virginia regulatory program (hereinafter

referred to as the Virginia program)

under the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

information submitted by Virginia for

which the comment period is being

reopened includes Virginia’s technical

justification for the proposed use of a

28-degree angle of draw with the

rebuttable presumption of causation by

subsidence provision. Virginia’s

proposed amendment is intended to

revise the State program to be consistent

with the Federal regulations as amended

on March 31, 1995 (60 FR 16772).

DATES: Comments must be received by

4:00 p.m., on April 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or hand delivered to Mr.

Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap

Field Office at the first address listed

below.

Copies of the Virginia program, the

proposed amendment, the technical

justification for the 28-degree angle of

draw, other information submitted by

Virginia, and all written comments

received in response to this amendment

will be available for public review at the

addresses listed below during normal

business hours, Monday through Friday,

excluding holidays. Each requestor may

receive one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s Big

Stone Gap Field Office.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, Big Stone Gap Field

Office, 1941 Neeley Road, Suite 201,

Compartment 116, Big Stone Gap,

Virginia 24219, Telephone: (703) 523–

4303

Virginia Division of Mined Land

Reclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, Big

Stone Gap, Virginia 24219,

Telephone: (703) 523–8100

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap

Field Office, Telephone: (703) 523–

4303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Virginia Program

On December 15, 1981, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the Virginia program. Background

information on the Virginia program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the December 15, 1981, Federal Register

(46 FR 61085–61115). Subsequent

actions concerning the conditions of

approval and program amendments can

be found at 30 CFR 946.12, 946.13,

946.15, and 946.16.

II. Discussion of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated May 21, 1996

(Administrative Record No. VA–882),

Virginia submitted amendments to the

Virginia program concerning subsidence

damage. The amendments are intended

to make the Virginia program consistent

with the Federal regulations as amended

on March 31, 1995 (60 FR 16722).

Virginia stated that the proposed

amendments implement the standards

of the Federal Energy Policy Act of

1992, and sections 45.1–243 and 45.1–

258 of the Code of Virginia.

The proposed amendment was

published in the June 11, 1996, Federal

Register (61 FR 29506), and in the same

notice, OSM opened the public

comment period and provided

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The comment period closed on July 11,

1996. The public comment period was

reopened on July 24, 1996 (61 FR

38422), to accept additional comments

on the proposed use of a 28-degree angle

of draw with the rebuttable presumption

of causation by subsidence provision.

That comment period ended on August

8, 1996. On September 12, 1996 (61 FR

48110), OSM announced a scheduled

public hearing on the proposed

amendments. The hearing was held on

September 18, 1996 (Administrative

Record Number VA–896).

By letter dated July 11, 1996

(Administrative Record Number VA–

894), OSM requested that Virginia

provide additional information on the

proposed amendments, including

technical justification for the use of the

28-degree angle of draw. Virginia

responded to that request for additional

information by letter dated January 3,

1997 (Administrative Record Number

VA–902). OSM is reopening the public

comment period on the additional

information submitted by Virginia,

including the technical justification of

the use of a 28-degree angle of draw.

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is seeking

comment on whether the additional

information submitted by Virginia

satisfies the applicable program

approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the

amendments are deemed adequate, they

will become part of the Virginia

program.

Written Comments

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed in
16510 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

this rulemaking, and include

explanations in support of the

commenter’s recommendations.

Comments received after the time

indicated under DATES or at locations

other than the Big Stone Gap Field

Office will not necessarily be

considered in the final rulemaking or

included in the Administrative Record.

IV. 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 counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 946

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 26, 1997.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–8789 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 199

Civilian Health and Medical Program of

the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS);

TRICARE Program; Nonavailability

Statement Requirements

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises

certain requirements and procedures for

the TRICARE Program, the purpose of

which is to implement a comprehensive

managed health care delivery system

composed of military medical treatment

facilities and CHAMPUS. Issues

addressed in this proposed rule include

priority for access to care in military

treatment facilities and requirements for

payment of enrollment fees. This

proposed rule also includes provisions

revising the requirement that certain

beneficiaries obtain a non-availability

statement from a military treatment

facility commander prior to receiving

certain health care services from civilian

providers.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Forward comments to

Office of the Civilian Health and

Medical Program of the Uniformed

Services (OCHAMPUS), Program

Development Branch, Aurora, CO

80045–6900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Lillie, Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs),

telephone (703) 695–3350.

Questions regarding payment of

specific claims under the CHAMPUS

allowable charge method should be

addressed to the appropriate CHAMPUS

contractor.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Background

A. Congressional Action

Section 712 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996

revised 10 U.S.C. 1097(c), regarding the

role of military medical treatment

facilities in managed care initiatives,

including TRICARE. Prior to the

revision, section 1097(c) read in part,

‘‘However, the Secretary may, as an

incentive for enrollment, establish

reasonable preferences for services in

facilities of the uniformed services for

covered beneficiaries enrolled in any

program established under, or operating

in connection with, any contract under

this section.’’ The Authorization Act

provision replaced ‘‘may’’ with ‘‘shall’’,

which has the effect of directing priority

access for TRICARE Prime enrollees

over persons not enrolled.

Another statutory provision relating

to access priority is 10 U.S.C. 1076(a),

which establishes a special priority for

survivors of sponsors who died on

active duty: they are given the same

priority as family members of active

duty members. This special access

priority is not time-limited, as is the

special one-year cost sharing protection

given to this category under 10 U.S.C.

1079.

The National Defense Authorization

Act for FY 1997, section 734 amended

10 U.S.C. 1080 to establish certain

exceptions to requirements for

nonavailability statements in

connection with payment of claims for

civilian health care services. First, the

Act eliminates authority for

nonavailability statements for outpatient

services; NASs have been required for a

limited number of outpatient

procedures over the past several years.

Second, the Act eliminates authority for

NAS requirements for enrollees in

managed care plans, which has the

effect of eliminating NAS requirements

for TRICARE Prime enrollees. Finally,

the Act gives the Secretary authority to

waive NAS requirements based on an