Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19821

(bbbb) By July 1, 1998, Pennsylvania

shall amend the Pennsylvania program

by adding implementing rules no less

effective than 30 CFR 785.13, and no

less stringent than SMCRA Section 711

and which clarify that experimental

practices are only approved as part of

the normal permit approval process and

only for departures from the

environmental protection performance

standards, and that each experimental

practice receive the approval of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–10632 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 943

[SPATS No. TX–040–FOR]

Texas Regulatory Program and

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

Plan

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 Texas regulatory

program and abandoned mine land

reclamation (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘‘Texas program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The amendment

consists of recodification of the Texas

Coal Mining Regulations into the Texas

Administrative Code at Title 16, Chapter

12. The amendment is intended to

conform the Texas Coal Mining

Regulations to Texas Administrative

Code formatting syntax, to correct

typographical errors, and to allow for

the publication of the rules in the Texas

Administrative Code in full text rather

than by reference.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 5100

East Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74135–6548, Telephone:

(918) 581–6430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Texas 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 Texas Program

On February 16, 1980, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Texas program. Background information

on the Texas program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval can be found in the February

27, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR

12998). Subsequent actions concerning

the conditions of approval and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

943.10, 943.15, and 943.16.

On June 23, 1980, the Secretary of the

Interior approved the Texas plan.

Background information on the Texas

plan, including the Secretary’s findings,

the disposition of comments, and the

approval of the plan can be found in the

June 23, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR

41937). Subsequent actions concerning

the Texas plan and amendments to the

plan can be found at 30 CFR 943.25.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated January 23, 1998

(Administrative Record No. TX–645),

Texas submitted a proposed amendment

to its program pursuant to SMCRA.

Texas submitted the proposed

amendment at its own initiative. Texas

proposed to repeal § 11.221 at Title 16

of the Texas Administrative Code

(TAC), which adopts by reference the

Texas Coal Mining Regulations (TCMR),

and to recodify these regulations into

the Texas Administrative Code at Title

16, Chapter 12 in full text.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the February

13, 1998, Federal Register (63 FR 7356),

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 March 16,

1998. Because no one requested a public

hearing or meeting, none was held.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to

minor wording errors, typographical

errors, and citation reference errors.

OSM notified Texas of these concerns

by fax dated March 5, 1998, and by

letter dated March 10, 1998

(Administrative Record Nos. TX–645.05

and TX–645.07, respectively). By letter

dated March 25, 1998 (Administrative

Record No. TX–645.10), Texas

responded to OSM’s concerns by

submitting revisions to its proposed

program amendment that correct all of

the errors identified. Because the

revisions pertained to the correction of

nonsubstantive editorial-type errors,

OSM did not reopen the public

comment period.

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.

Recodification of Texas’ Regulations.

Texas proposed to codify TCMR Parts

700 through 850, pertaining to surface

coal mining and reclamation operations,

at 16 TAC §§ 12.1 through 12.710. Texas

also proposed to codify TCMR

§§ 051.800 through 051.817, pertaining

to the Texas abandoned mine land

reclamation program, at 16 TAC

§§ 12.800 through 12.817. Texas

proposed the simultaneous repeal of 16

TAC § 11.221 and adoption of the new

sections at 16 TAC Chapter 12 for the

purpose of renumbering the existing

regulations and incorporating the text

into the Texas Administrative Code. No

requirements were proposed to be

added to or deleted from the existing

regulations. Minor changes to the

existing regulations were proposed to

conform them to the Texas

Administrative Code formatting syntax;

to update information on addresses; to

correct grammar, punctuation, and

capitalization errors; and to update

internal references.

The Director finds that the proposed

recodification is nonsubstantive in

nature and Texas’ proposed regulations

at 16 TAC Chapter 12 are no less

effective than the Federal regulations.

Therefore, the Director is approving the

recodification of Texas’ regulations.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

OSM solicited public comments on

the proposed amendment, but none

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 Texas program

(Administrative Record No. TX–645.03).

On February 23, 1998 (Administrative

Record No. TX–645.08), the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers’ commented that the

proposed amendment was satisfactory.

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
19822 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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 Texas proposed to

make in this amendment pertain to air

or water quality standards. Therefore,

OSM did not request the EPA’s

concurrence.

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from the EPA

(Administrative Record No. TX–645.01).

The EPA responded on March 6, 1998

(Administrative Record No. TX–645.09),

with the following comments relating to

impacts to streams and wetlands.

§ 12.134 Soil Resources Information.

EPA commented that when the soils are

delineated and identified, it would be

helpful if they were listed as hydric or

non-hydric.

Texas’ regulations at § 12.134 are

substantively identical to the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 779.21. Therefore,

no changes to Texas’ regulations may be

required by OSM.

§ 12.144 Fish and Wildlife Plan. EPA

commented that this section mentions

wetlands in the requirements for

protection and enhancement of wildlife

habitat and recommended that a

separate section be included specifically

dealing with wetlands and streams. EPA

commented that the separate section

should include a description of how the

operator will avoid and minimize

impacts to wetlands and streams and

steps that will be taken to compensate

for unavoidable impacts to wetlands

and streams, with at least one-to-one

compensation for all lost wetland

functions.

Texas’ regulations at § 12.144 are

substantively identical to the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 780.16(b).

Therefore, no changes to Texas’

regulations may be required by OSM.

General. EPA commented that

discharge of dredged or fill material into

waters of the U.S. (including most

streams and wetlands) require

authorization from the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers under § 404 of the Clean

Water Act. The operators should be

required to contact the nearest Corps

office before beginning operations to

obtain the necessary authorization.

The Texas program includes

substantively identical counterparts to

the Federal regulations relating to

protection of the hydrologic balance and

sediment control measures. This

includes counterparts to the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.42 and 817.42

that require discharges of water from

areas disturbed by surface mining

activities shall be made in compliance

with all applicable State and Federal

water quality laws and regulations.

Therefore, no changes to Texas’

regulations may be required by OSM.

Texas proposed only to renumber and

add its regulations to the Texas

Administrative Code in this

amendment. No substantive changes to

the previously approved regulations

were proposed. However, EPA’s

comments were forwarded to Texas for

consideration in a future rulemaking.

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. TX–645.02).

Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded

to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves the proposed

amendment as submitted by Texas on

January 23, 1998, and as revised on

March 25, 1998.

The Director approves the regulations

as proposed by Texas with the provision

that they be fully promulgated in

identical form to the regulations

submitted to and reviewed by OSM and

the public.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 943, codifying decisions concerning

the Texas 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19823

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: April 10, 1998.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 943 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 943—TEXAS

1. The authority citation for Part 943

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 943.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original

amendment

submission

date

Date of final

publication

Citation/description

* * * * *

January 23,

1998.

April 22,

1998.

Recodification; 16

TAC 12.1

through

12.710.

3. Section 943.25 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 943.25 Approval of Texas abandoned

mine land reclamation plan amendments.

* * * * *

Original

amendment

submission

date

Date of final

publication

Citation/description

* * * * *

January 23,

1998.

April 22,

1998.

Recodification; 16

TAC

12.800

through

12.817.

[FR Doc. 98–10633 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 042–1042(a); FRL–5979–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving

revisions submitted by the state of

Missouri on March 20, 1997, which are

designed to consolidate applicable

requirements contained in its State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions will simplify compliance for

Part 70 installations and many other

Missouri sources.

DATES: This action is effective June 22,

1998 unless by May 22, 1998 relevant

adverse comments are received. Should

the agency receive such comment, it

will publish notification withdrawing

this rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

to Joshua Tapp at EPA, Air Branch, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the: Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development

Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101; and the EPA Air &

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joshua A. Tapp at (913) 551–7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With the

advent of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

operating permit program, the EPA, the

Missouri Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR), the City of St.

Louis’—Division of Air Pollution

Control, the St. Louis County

Department of Health, the Kansas City

Health Department’—Air Pollution

Control Program, and the City of

Springfield’—Air Pollution Control

Program have coordinated the review of

the local agency codes and ordinances

contained in the current Federally

approved SIP. Consistency between

these codes and ordinances and the

state regulations contained in the SIP

has always been important, but the

operating permit program has brought

this issue to the forefront. The basic

concept of the operating permit program

is to combine all air requirements to

which one particular source is subject

into one cohesive document so that the

public, the source, and the regulatory

agencies can clearly understand the

compliance obligations. However, when

the SIP contains outdated, overlapping,

and sometimes conflicting applicable

requirements, combining all

requirements into one document may

not achieve this goal.

This coordinated review revealed

numerous discrepancies between

Federally approved local ordinances

and Federally approved state rules. The

review also uncovered the fact that

some local agencies have long since

revised their regulations and, in many

cases, the current version of the local

agency regulations is very different from

the Federally approved version.

In response to this review, MDNR and

its local agencies developed

recommendations for SIP action to

correct these issues. This request is for

the retention of some sections, the

removal of some sections, and the

addition of other sections. Five criteria

were used to determine which sections

should be recommended for removal

from the SIP: (1) The sections are

administrative only, (2) the sections

apply to no known sources, (3) the

requirements of the sections are covered

by equivalent or more stringent

Federally approved state rules, (4) the

sections have no bearing on attainment

or maintenance of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards, or (5) the

sections are being concurrently replaced

by current local ordinance, code, or

permit requirements. Sections not

meeting these criteria were

recommended for retention. MDNR and

its local agencies also requested that

certain sections located in new or

revised ordinances be added to replace

outdated versions of Federally approved

sections.

The following are examples of local

ordinance provisions which are being

retained in the SIP. MDNR and the City

of Springfield Air Pollution Control

Department have requested that Air

Pollution Control Standard No. 1890,

Chapter 2A, section 35 entitled

‘‘Maximum Emission Limitations from

Incinerators’’ and related sections be

retained in the SIP. These sections were

retained because the state does not have

an equally stringent rule in place which

addresses incinerator emissions.

The following are examples of local

ordinance provisions which are being

removed from the SIP. MDNR and the

city of St. Louis have requested that St.

Louis Ordinance 50163 be completely

removed from the SIP. Sections such as

section 4 entitled ‘‘Division of Air

Pollution Control Created’’ and section

19 entitled ‘‘Labels to be Affixed to

Approved Installations’’ are