Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26451

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date.

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the

effective date of a direct final rule which

revises Class E airspace at Idabel, OK.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule

published at 63 FR 12620 is effective

0901 UTC, June 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air

Traffic Division, Southwest Region,

Federal Aviation Administration, Fort

Worth, TX 76193–0520, telephone: 817–

222–5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

published this direct final rule with a

request for comments in the Federal

Register on March 16, 1998 (63 FR

12620). The FAA uses the direct final

rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA

believes that there will be no adverse

public comment. This direct final rule

advised the public that no adverse

comments were anticipated, and that

unless a written adverse comment, or a

written notice of intent to submit such

an adverse comment, were received

within the comment period, the

regulation would become effective on

June 18, 1998. No adverse comments

were received, and thus this action

confirms that this direct final rule will

be effective on that date.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 5, 1998.

Albert L. Viselli,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 98–12744 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98–ASW–10]

Revision of Class E Airspace;

McAlester, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date.

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the

effective date of a direct final rule which

revises Class E airspace at McAlester,

OK.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule

published at 63 FR 12623 is effective

0901 UTC, June 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air

Traffic Division, Southwest Region,

Federal Aviation Administration, Fort

Worth, TX 76193–0520, telephone: 817–

222–5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

published this direct final rule with a

request for comments in the Federal

Register on March 16, 1998 (63 FR

12623). The FAA uses the direct final

rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA

believes that there will be no adverse

public comment. This direct final rule

advised the public that no adverse

comments were anticipated, and that

unless a written adverse comment, or a

written notice of intent to submit such

an adverse comment, were received

within the comment period, the

regulation would become effective on

June 18, 1998. No adverse comments

were received, and thus this action

confirms that this direct final rule will

be effective on that date.

Issued in Forth Worth, TX, on May 5, 1998.

Albert L. Viselli,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 98–12745 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98–ASW–11]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Miami, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date.

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the

effective date of a direct final rule which

establishes Class E airspace at Miami,

OK.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule

published at 63 FR 12619 is effective

0901 UTC, June 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air

Traffic Division, Southwest Region,

Federal Aviation Administration, Fort

Worth, TX 76193–0520, telephone: 817–

222–5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

published this direct final rule with a

request for comments in the Federal

Register on March 16, 1998 (63 FR

12619). The FAA uses the direct final

rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA

believes that there will be no adverse

public comment. This direct final rule

advised the public that no adverse

comments were anticipated, and that

unless a written adverse comment, or a

written notice of intent to submit such

an adverse comment, were received

within the comment period, the

regulation would become effective on

June 18, 1998. No adverse comments

were received, and thus this action

confirms that this direct final rule will

be effective on that date.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 5, 1998.

Albert L. Viselli,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 98–12746 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 920

[MR–041–FOR]

Maryland 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 Maryland regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Maryland program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Maryland proposed

revisions to its regulations pertaining to

bonding. The amendment is intended to

revise the Maryland program to be

consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations and SMCRA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Rieger, Program Manager, OSM,

Appalachian Regional Coordinating

Center, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh,

PA 15220. Telephone: (412) 937–2153.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Maryland 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 Maryland

Program

On December 1, 1980, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Maryland program. Background

information on the Maryland program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the
26452 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

conditions of approval can be found in

the December 1, 1980, Federal Register

(45 FR 79449). Subsequent actions

concerning conditions of approval and

program amendments can be found at

30 CFR 920.12, 920.15, and 920.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated March 6, 1997

(Administrative Record No, MD–

552.18), Maryland submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA in response to required

amendments at 30 CFR 920.16 (h), (i),

(j), and (n). Maryland is revising the

Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)

at section 26.20.14.01B—Performance

Bonds. Specifically, Maryland proposes

to require that a performance bond be

conditioned upon the permittee

faithfully performing every requirement

of Subtitle 5 of the Annotated Code of

Maryland, the Regulatory Program, the

permit, and the reclamation plan.

Maryland is also formally submitting an

actuarial study which reviews the

adequacy of its alternative bonding

system.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the March 25,

1997, Federal Register (62 FR 14079),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period closed on

April 24, 1997. OSM reopened the

public comment period on April 6, 1998

(63 FR 16730) and clarified that

Maryland’s alternative bonding system

was originally submitted with the

understanding that it would cover acid

mine drainage. Further, Maryland

submitted additional changes to its

program at COMAR 26.20.14.03 and

26.20.14.04 which pertain to

performance bond requirements. In

1991, OSM approved changes to former

COMAR 08.13.09.15C (now 26.20.14.03)

and COMAR 08.13.09.15D (now

26.20.14.04) [56 FR 63649, December 5,

1991]. However, Maryland subsequently

chose not to promulgate these approved

changes. Instead, it now proposes to

readopt the language at these sections.

The comment period closed on April 21,

1998.

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. Revisions not specifically

discussed below concern

nonsubstantive wording changes and

paragraph notations to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.

1. COMAR 26.20.14.01B—

Performance Bonds. Maryland is

proposing to require that performance

bonds be payable to the State, on forms

provided by the Bureau of Mines, and

conditioned on the permittee faithfully

performing every requirement of

Environmental Article, Title 15, Subtitle

5, Annotated Code of Maryland, the

Regulatory Program, the permit, and the

reclamation plan. The Director finds

that the proposed revision is no less

effective than the Federal regulation at

30 CFR 800.11(a) and he is removing the

required amendment at 30 CFR

920.16(h).

2. COMAR 26.20.14.03—Performance

Bonds (formerly 08.13.09.15C).

Maryland is proposing to require that

the amount of the performance bond be

based upon the estimated cost to

perform the reclamation required to

achieve compliance with the regulatory

program and the requirements of the

permit in the event of a forfeiture. In

addition, a separate bond for

revegetation in the amount of $600 per

acre of affected land and a general bond

in the amount of $1500 per acre for the

approved open acre limit is established.

The Director finds that the proposed

revision is no less effective than the

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.14(b).

3. COMAR 26.20.14.04—Performance

Bonds (formerly 08.13.09.15D).

Maryland is proposing to require that

the amount of the performance bond be

adjusted as acreage in the permit area is

revised, methods of mining operation

change, standards of reclamation

change, or when the cost of reclamation

or restoration work changes. The

Director finds that the proposed revision

is no less effective than the Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 800.15(a) and he is

removing the required amendment at 30

CFR 920.16(j).

4. Actuarial Study. Maryland is

formally submitting ‘‘Actuarial Analysis

of the Alternative Bonding System for

Surface Mine Reclamation’’ prepared by

Arthur Andersen LLP (Administrative

Record No. MD–552–12). The analysis

concluded that Maryland’s bonding

system appears to be solvent on a short

term basis. Short term solvency was

defined as ‘‘the ability to pay for all

currently outstanding known

reclamations plus one average cost

reclamation project.’’ The analysis also

concluded that Maryland’s long term

solvency based on its current rate

structure is adequate until 1999, at

which time rates may have to be

adjusted for inflation. Long term

solvency was defined as the ability of

the fund to collect sufficient revenue to

pay for reclamation costs incurred in the

future. Several recommendations were

made concerning fund caps, bond

amounts, contingency reserves, and

catastrophe plans. OSM reviewed the

document and concluded that the study

was comprehensive and closely aligned

with OSM’s bonding guidance

document, ‘‘Alternative Bonding

Systems: An Analytical Approach and

Identified Factors to Consider for

Evaluating Alternative Bonding

Systems.’’ Maryland’s alternative

bonding system was originally

submitted with the understanding that it

would cover acid mine drainage.

Maryland has since adopted a policy

that will limit the liability of the

alternative bonding system by

increasing the permittee’s individual

bond amount where unanticipated acid

mine drainage develops on a site. The

Director is approving Maryland’s

alternative bonding system based on the

results of the actuarial study.

Maryland’s bonding system achieves the

objectives of and is no less effective

than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.11(e). He is removing the required

amendments at 30 CFR 920.16(i) and

(n).

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the proposed

amendment. No comments were

received and because no one requested

an opportunity to speak at a public

hearing, no hearing was held.

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 Maryland

program. The U.S. Department of Labor,

Mine Safety and Health Administration

and the U.S. Department of the Army,

Army Corps of Engineers, concurred

without comment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

OSM is required to obtain the written

concurrence of the EPA with respect to

those provisions of the proposed

program amendment that relate to air or

water quality standards promulgated

under the authority of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None

of the revisions that Maryland proposed

to make in this amendment pertains to

air or water quality standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26453

Therefore, OSM did not request EPA’s

concurrence.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 920, codifying decisions concerning

the Maryland 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.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves Maryland’s proposed

amendment as submitted on March 6,

1997. As discussed in Finding 1, the

Director is removing the required

amendment at 30 CFR 920.16(h). As

discussed in Finding 4, the Director is

removing the required amendments at

30 CFR 920.16 (i) and (n). He is also

removing the required amendment at 30

CFR 920.16(j) because at COMAR

26.20.14.04A, Maryland is required to

adjust the amount of the performance

bond liability as acreage in the permit

area is revised, as discussed in Finding

3.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 920, codifying decisions concerning

the Maryland 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 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

submittal 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 of more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 920

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 1, 1998.

Ronald C. Recker,

Acting 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 920—MARYLAND

1. The authority citation for part 920

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 920.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 920.15 Approval of Maryland regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submissions

date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

March 6, 1997 ................................ May 13, 1998 ................................. COMAR 26.20.14.01B, 26.20.14.03, 26.20.14.04, Actuarial Study.
26454 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

§ 920.16 [Amended]

3. Section 920.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs (h),

(i), (j), and (n).

[FR Doc. 98–12646 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD07–98–013]

RIN 2115–AE46

Special Local Regulations; River Race

Augusta, Augusta, GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

establishing permanent special local

regulations for the River Race Augusta,

which will be held annually on the

third Friday, Saturday and Sunday of

May, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern

Daylight Time (EDT) each day.

Historically, there have been

approximately sixty participants racing

16 to 18 foot outboard power boats on

the Savannah River at Augusta, GA,

between mile markers 199 and 197.

These regulations are necessary to

provide for the safety of life on

navigable waters during the event, as

the nature of the event and the closure

of the Savannah River creates an extra

or unusual hazard on the navigable

waters.

DATES: These rules become effective

May 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LTJG A.L. Cooper, Coast Guard Group

Charleston at (803) 720–7748.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

The Coast Guard published a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the

Federal Register on March 24, 1998 (63

FR 14057). No comments were received

during the comment period.

Background and Purpose

These regulations are intended to

provide for the safety of life and to

promote safe navigation on the waters

off Augusta on the Savannah River

during the River Race August, by

controlling the traffic entering, exiting

and traveling within these waters. The

concentration of spectator and

participant vessels associated with the

River Race poses safety concerns, which

are addressed in these special local

regulations. These regulations prohibit

the entry of non-participating vessels in

the area downstream from the U.S.

Highway 1 Bridge on the Savannah

River between mile markers 199 and

197, annually from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. each

day, on the third Friday, Saturday and

Sunday of May. These regulations

permit the movement of spectator

vessels and other non-participants after

the termination of the race each day,

and during intervals between scheduled

events.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, good

cause exists for making these

regulations effective in less than 30 days

after Federal Register publication.

Delaying its effective date would be

impracticable, as there was not

sufficient time remaining from the

receipt of the permit request to allow for

a comment period and a full 30 day

effective date period after publication.

Delaying the effective date would also

be contrary to the public interest

because the event would be held with

no regulations in force, creating a safety

hazard.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a significant

regulatory action under Section 3(f) of

the Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) of

that Order. It has been exempted from

review by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this rule

to be so minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary. These regulations

will be in effect three days each year for

only 10 hours each day.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this rule will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include small business,

not-for-profit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their field, and

government jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 606(b) that this rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities as the regulations would only be

in effect for ten hours in a limited area

of the Savannah River for three days

each year.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection of

information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and it has been determined that

the rulemaking does not have sufficient

Federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environmental Assessment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this rule

consistent with Section 2.B.2 of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1C. In

accordance with that section, this action

has been environmentally assessed (EA

completed) and the Coast Guard has

concluded that it will not significantly

affect that quality of the human

environment. An Environmental

Assessment and a Finding of No

Significant Impact has been prepared

and are available in the docket for

inspection or copying.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

Marine safety, Navigation (water),

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Waterways.

Final Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard amends Part 100 of Title

33, Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 100

continues to read as follows:

PART 100—[AMENDED]

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and

33 CFR 100.35.

2. A new § 100.732 is added to read

as follows:

§ 100.732 Annual River Race Augusta;

Savannah River, Augusta GA.

(a) Definitions: (1) Regulated Area.

The regulated area is formed by a line

drawn directly across the Savannah

River at the U.S. Highway 1 Bridge at

mile marker 199 and directly across the

Savannah River at mile marker 197. The

regulated area would encompass the

width of the Savannah River between

these two lines.

(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

The Coast Guard Patrol Commander is

a commissioned, warrant, or petty

officer of the Coast Guard who has been

designated by the Commander, Coast