Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15115

VI. Procedural Determinations

1. 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).

2. 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 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 or Indian tribe

AMLR plans and revisions thereof since

each such plan is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State or

Indian tribe, not by OSM. Decisions on

proposed State or Indian tribe AMLR

plans and revisions thereof submitted

by a State or Indian tribe are based on

a determination of whether the

submittal meets the requirements of

Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–

1243) and the applicable Federal

regulations at 30 CFR parts 884 and 888.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since agency

decisions on proposed State or Indian

tribe AMLR plans and revisions thereof

are categorically excluded from

compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332) by the Manual of 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 or Indian

tribe 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

or Indian tribe. 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 756

Abandoned mine reclamation

programs, Indian lands, Surface mining,

Underground mining.

Dated: March 13, 1997.

James F. Fulton,

Acting Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter E of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 756—INDIAN TRIBE

ABANDONED MINE LAND

RECLAMATION PROGRAMS

1. The authority citation for part 756

continues to read as follows:

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

L. 100–71.

2. Section 756.17 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 756.17 Approval of Hopi Tribe

abandoned mine land reclamation plan

amendments.

* * * * *

(c) Revisions to, additions of, or

deletions of the following plan

provisions, as submitted to OSM on

September 23, 1996, are approved

effective March 31, 1997:

Preface to Amended Reclamation Plan—

Introductory paragraph and Eligible

Projects;

Section I, A—Purpose of Hopi plan;

Section II, A(1)—Certification of Completion

of Coal Sites;

Section II, A(1)(a)—Eligible Coal Lands and

Water;

Section II, A, (1)(g)—Contractor

Responsibility (for coal reclamation);

Section II, (A)(1)(i)—Limited Liability (for

coal reclamation);

Sections II, (B)(1)(d) and (d)(ii)—Noncoal

Reclamation After Certification;

Sections II, (B)(1)(h), (i), and (j)—Limited

Liability, Contractor Responsibility, and

Reports (for noncoal reclamation);

Deletion of sections II, E, F, and G—Limited

Liability, Contractor Responsibility, and

Reports (for noncoal reclamation);

Section II, E—Description of Needs, Proposed

Construction and Activities;

Sections IV, (A)(1) and (B)(1)—Acquisition

and Management of Acquired Lands;

Sections VI, A(1) (a) through (c) and B(1)—

Consent to Entry and Public Notice;

Section VII, B(8)—Public Participation;

Section VIII—Organization of the Hopi Tribe;

Section XII—Description of Aesthetic,

Cultural and Recreational Conditions of the

Hopi Reservation; and

Section XIV—Flora and Fauna.

§ 756.18 [Amended]

3. Section 756.18 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs (a)

through (b) and removing paragraphs (c)

through (h).

[FR Doc. 97–8103 Filed 3–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 902

[AK–005–FOR, Amendment No. V]

Alaska Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

approving a proposed amendment to the

Alaska regulatory program (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Alaska program’’)

under the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

Alaska proposed revisions to and

additions of rules pertaining to selfbonding. The amendment revised the

Alaska program to be consistent with

the corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATES: March 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. Fulton, Telephone: (303) 844–

1424.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Alaska Program

On March 23, 1983, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Alaska program. General background

information on the Alaska program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and

conditions of approval of the Alaska

program can be found in the March 23,

1983, Federal Register (48 FR 12274).

Subsequent actions concerning Alaska’s

program and program amendments can

be found at 30 CFR 902.15 and 902.16.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated December 12, 1996,

Alaska submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA (amendment No. V,

administrative record No. AK–F–1, 30

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Alaska submitted

the proposed amendment in response to

the required program amendment at 30
15116 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

CFR 902.16(b)(1) (61 FR 48835, 48843;

September 17, 1996). The provisions of

the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC)

that Alaska proposed to revise were: 11

AAC 90.207(f)(3), conditions for

accepting a self-bond. The provisions of

the Alaska Administrative Code that

Alaska proposed to add were: 11 AAC

90.207(f)(8), definitions of self-bonding

terms.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the January 8,

1997, Federal Register (62 FR 1074),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (administrative record

No. AK–F–2). Because no one requested

a public hearing or meeting, none was

held. The public comment period ended

on February 9, 1997.

III. Director’s Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in

accordance with SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, finds that the

proposed program amendment

submitted by Alaska on December 12,

1996, is no less effective than the

corresponding Federal regulations.

Accordingly, the Director approves the

proposed amendment.

11 AAC 90.207(f) (3) and (8), Selfbonding

On September 17, 1996, OSM at 30

CFR 902.16(b)(1) (finding No. 6, 61 FR

48835, 48837) required Alaska to revise

11 AAC 90.207(f)(3) to require the

applicant for a self-bond that is

guaranteed by a corporate guarantor to

retain his or her own agent for service

in Alaska and to further revise 11 AAC

90.207(f) to add definitions for the term

‘‘self-bond’’ and other financial terms

used to describe self bonds. In response

to the required amendment, Alaska

revised 11 AAC 90.207(f)(3) by

referencing as a condition for

acceptance by the Commissioner of the

Department of Natural Resources the

requirement that the applicant for a selfbond that is guaranteed by a corporate

guarantor retain an agent for service in

Alaska. The proposed revision is

consistent with the counterpart Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 800.23(c)(2), which

provides the specific criteria for

approval of a self-bond guaranteed by a

corporate guarantor.

In addition, Alaska proposed new

regulations at 11 AAC 90.207(f)(8) (A)

through (H) that provide definitions of

the terms ‘‘self-bond,’’ ‘‘current assets,’’

‘‘current liabilities,’’ ‘‘fixed assets,’’

‘‘liabilities,’’ ‘‘net worth,’’ ‘‘parent

corporation,’’ and ‘‘tangible net worth.’’

The proposed definitions contain

language that is substantively identical

to the requirements of the

corresponding Federal regulations at 30

CFR 800.5 and 800.23(a).

For the above reasons, the Director

finds that the proposed revision at 11

AAC 90.207(f)(3) and the proposed

addition of definitions associated with

self-bonding are no less effective than

the counterpart Federal regulations.

Accordingly, the Director approves the

proposed revision of and additions to

these rules and removes the required

amendment at 30 CFR 902.16(b)(1).

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Following are summaries of all

substantive written comments on the

proposed amendment that were

received by OSM, and OSM’s responses

to them.

1. Public comments

In response to OSM’s invitation of

public comments, an individual

responded on January 26, 1997, that she

supported approval of the amendment

(administrative record No. AK–F–5).

2. Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Alaska program

(administrative record No. AK–F–4).

Minerals Management Service, Alaska

Outer Continental Shelf Region,

responded on February 19, 1997, that it

had no comments on the amendment

(administrative record No. AK–F–6).

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Juneau

Area Office, responded on February 20,

1997, that it had no comments specific

to the amendment (administrative

record No. AK–F–7).

The United States Department of

Energy, Alaska Power Administration,

responded on February 20, 1997, that it

had no comments on the proposed

amendment (administrative record No.

AK–F–8).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

responded on February 13, 1997, that it

had no comments on the amendment

(administrative record No. AK–F–9).

The Bureau of Land Management,

Alaska State Office, responded on

February 28, 1997, that it felt that the

proposed amendment should be

adopted (administrative record No. AK–

F–10).

3. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Concurrence and Comments

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

OSM is required to solicit the written

concurrence of 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 Alaska

proposed to make in its amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards.

Therefore, OSM did not request EPA’s

concurrence.

Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from EPA (administrative

record No. AK–F–3). It did not respond

to OSM’s request.

4. State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from the SHPO and ACHP

(administrative record No. AK–F–3).

Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded

to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above finding, the

Director approves Alaska’s proposed

amendment as submitted on December

12, 1996.

The Director approves 11 AAC

90.207(f)(3), concerning conditions of

acceptance for a self-bond, and 11 AAC

90.207(f)(8), concerning definitions of

self-bonding terms.

The Director approves the rules as

proposed by Alaska with the provision

that they be fully promulgated in

identical form to the rules submitted to

and reviewed by OSM and the public.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 902, codifying decisions concerning

the Alaska 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

1. 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).

2. 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 this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15117

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

the Federal regulations at 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.

3. 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)).

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

that 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.

6. 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 902

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 13, 1997.

James F. Fulton,

Acting Regional Director, Western 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 902—ALASKA

1. The authority citation for part 902

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 902.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 902.15 Approval of Alaska regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

December 12, 1996 ........................................................... [Insert date of publication in the Federal

Register].

11 AAC 90.207(f) (3) and (8).

3. Section 902.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph

(b)(1).

[FR Doc. 97–8104 Filed 3–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 65

[CC Docket No. 96–22; FCC 97–56]

Interstate Rate of Return Prescription

Procedures and Methodologies

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On February 19, 1997, the

Commission adopted a Report and

Order that amends the Commission’s

rules with respect to other

postretirement benefits other than

pensions (OPEBs). This Order also

denies an MCI petition for

reconsideration of the Commission’s

March 7, 1996, Order (Vacate Order),

that rescinded ratemaking instructions

for OPEBs given by the Common Carrier

Bureau in Responsible Accounting

Officer Letter No. 20 (RAO 20). The

intended effect of the rules is to

standardize the Commission’s rate base

rules with respect to similar types of

assets and liabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thaddeus Machcinski, Accounting and

Audits Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, (202) 418–0808.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order adopted February 19, 1997,

and released February 20, 1997. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Public Reference Room (Room

230), 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC.

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Suite 140, 2100 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of Report and Order

1. On March 7, 1996, the Commission

released an Order (Vacate Order), (61

FR 9968, March 12, 1996), rescinding

the rate base instructions issued by the

Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) in

RAO 20. With that Order, we also issued

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) (61 FR 9968, March 12, 1996),

that proposed amendments to Part 65,

Subpart G to address the ratemaking

treatment of OPEBs.

2. On April 8, 1996, MCI filed a

Petition for Reconsideration of the

Vacate Order. MCI requests that the

Commission reconsider its decision to

rescind the rate base instructions for

OPEBs set forth in RAO 20.

3. In this Order, we amend Part 65 of

our rules to include OPEBs in

ratemaking and to remove all items