31114 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

January 6, 1998 ................................................ June 8, 1998 ..................................................... 19 NMAC 8.2, Subparts 1 through 34 (recodification).

[FR Doc. 98–15242 Filed 6–5–98; 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–035–FOR]

Texas 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 Texas regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Texas program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The amendment

consists of revisions to Texas’

regulations pertaining to definitions,

prime farmland, small operator

assistance, release of performance bond,

and backfilling and grading. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Texas program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 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.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated December 1, 1997

(Administrative Record No. TX–644),

Texas submitted and amendment to its

program pursuant to SMCRA. Texas

submitted the amendment in response

to a June 17, 1997, letter (Administrative

Record No. 640) and OSM sent to Texas

in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c).

Texas amended its regulations at

Chapter 12 of the Texas Administrative

Code (TAC) pertaining to definitions,

prime farmland, small operator

assistance, release of performance bond,

and backfilling and grading.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the December

29, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR

67598) 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 amendment. The public comment

period closed on January 28, 1998.

Because no one requested a public

hearing or meeting, none was held.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to

release of performance bond and

backfilling and grading. OSM notified

Texas of the concerns by letter dated

February 12, 1998 (Administrative

Record No. TX–644.06). Texas

responded in a letter dated March 6,

1998 (Administrative Record No. TX–

644.07, by submitting revisions to its

amendment. Based upon the revisions

to the proposed program amendment

submitted by Texas, OSM reopened the

public comment period in the April 29,

1998, Federal Register (63 FR 23407).

The public comment period closed on

May 14, 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.

Revisons not specifically discussed

below concern nonsubstantive wording

changes, or revised cross-references and

paragraph nota6tions to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.

A. Revisions to Texas’ Regulations That

Are Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal

Regulations

The State regulations listed in the

table below contain language that is the

same as or similar to the corresponding

sections of the Federal regulations.

Differences between the State

regulations and the Federal regulations

are nonsubstantive.

Topic State regulation Federal counterpart regulation

Definition of Previously Mined Area ............................................................................... 16 TAC 12.3 ....................... 30 CFR 701.5

Definition of Qualified Laboratory .................................................................................. 16 TAC 12.3 ....................... 30 CFR 701.5

Definition of Thick Overburden ...................................................................................... 16 TAC 12.3 ....................... 30 CFR 816.105(a)

Definition of Thin Overburden ........................................................................................ 16 TAC 12.3 ....................... 30 CFR 816.104(a)

Prime Farmland .............................................................................................................. 16 TAC 12.201(d)(5) .......... 30 CFR 785.17(e)(5)

Terms and Conditions of the Bond ................................................................................ 16 TAC 12.309(1) .............. 30 CFR 800.21(f)

Release of Performance Bond—Application ................................................................. 16 TAC 12.312 (a)(1),

(a)(2), (a)(3).

30 CFR 800.40 (a)(1),

(a)(2), (a)(3)

Release of Performance Bond—Inspection ................................................................... 16 TAC 12.312 (b)(1),

(b)(2).

30 CFR 800.40 (b)(1),

(b)(2)

Release of Performance Bond—Criteria and Schedule ................................................ 16 TAC 12.313 (a), (a)(1),

(a)(2), (a)(3), (b), (d), (f).

30 CFR 800.40 (c), (c)(1),

(c)(2), (c)(3), (d), (f), (g)

Backfilling and Grading: Thin Overburden ..................................................................... 16 TAC 12.387 ................... 30 CFR 816.104(b)
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31115

Topic State regulation Federal counterpart regulation

Backfilling and Grading: Thick Overburden ................................................................... 16 TAC 12.388 ................... 30 CFR 816.105(b)

Because the above proposed revisions

are identical in meaning to the

corresponding Federal regulations, the

Director finds that Texas’ proposed

regulations are no less effective than the

Federal regulations.

B. Small Operator Assistance Program

(SOAP)

1. 16 TAC 12.237 Eligibility for

Assistance

At section 12.237(2), Texas amended

the eligibility requirements for

participation in its small operator

assistance program by increasing the

amount of the probable total actual and

attributed production allowed for

applicants from 100,000 to 300,000 tons.

At section 12.237(2) (B) and (C), Texas

increased the baseline percentage above

which ownership will play a role in

determining attributed coal production

from 5 to 10 percent.

The Director finds that the proposed

revisions are consistent with the

requirements of the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 795.6(a)(2), and is approving

them.

2. 16 TAC 12.243 Applicant Liability

Texas revised section 12.243(a) to

require that a coal operator who has

received assistance pursuant to sections

12.236 and 12.240 reimburse the

Commission for the cost of the services

rendered. Texas revised section

12.243(a)(4) to specify that

reimbursement will be required if the

Commission finds that the operator’s

actual and attributed annual production

of coal for all locations exceeds 300,000

tons during the 12 months immediately

following the date on which the

operator is issued the surface coal

mining and reclamation permit. Texas

revised section 12.243(a)(5) to specify

that reimbursement will be required if

the permit is sold, transferred, or

assigned to another person and the

transferee’s total actual and attributed

production exceeds the 300,000-ton

production limit during the 12 months

immediately following the date on

which the permit was originally issued.

The Director finds that the revisions

to section 12.243 make it substantively

identical to the Federal regulation at 30

CFR 795.12, and is approving the

revisions.

3. 16 TAC 12.236 and 12.240

In the June 17, 1997, letter that was

sent to Texas in accordance with 30 CFR

732.17(c), OSM also notified Texas of

changes needed to its small operator

assistance program regulations

pertaining to program services and data

requirements. Texas noted in this

proposed amendment that it will

propose revisions to its regulations at 16

TAC 12.236 (Program Services) and

12.240 (Data Requirements) in a future

amendment following appropriate

statutory changes. Texas also stated that

it currently has no small operator

assistance program and has no current

or potential operations that may qualify

for program assistance. Therefore, it is

the Director’s understanding that Texas

will not implement its small operator

assistance program regulations until

after it amends its regulations at 16 TAC

12.236 and 12.240.

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–644.03).

By letter dated December 24, 1997, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

commented that its review found the

changes to be satisfactory

(Administrative Record No. TX–644.05).

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

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 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 amendment

from the EPA (Administrative Record

No. TX–644.01). The EPA did not

respond to OSM’s request.

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–644.02).

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

December 1, 1997, and as revised on

March 6, 1998.

The Director approves the regulations

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
31116 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 22, 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

* * * * * * *

December 1, 1997 .......................... June 8, 1998 .................................. 16 TAC 12.3; 12.201(d)(5); 12.237(2), (2)(B) and (C); 12.243(a),

(a)(4) and (5); 12.309(1); 12.312(a) and (b); 12.313(a), (b), (d), and

(f); 12.387; 12.388.

[FR Doc. 98–15241 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX NO. PA110–4068a; FRL–6102–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Gasoline Volatility

Requirements for the PittsburghBeaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment

Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. This revision amends the

gasoline volatility requirement for the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment

area. The intended effect of this action

is to approve a summertime gasoline

Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit of 7.8

pounds per square inch (psi) for

gasoline sold in Allegheny, Armstrong,

Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington,

and Westmoreland counties in

Pennsylvania. These seven counties

comprise the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

ozone nonattainment area.

DATES: This final rule will become

effective July 23, 1998 without further

notification unless the Agency receives

relevant adverse comments by July 8,

1998. If adverse comment is received,

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of

the rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David Arnold, Chief, Ozone and Mobile

Source Section, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107;

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcia L. Spink at (215) 566–2104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 3, 1997, the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania submitted a formal

revision to its State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The SIP revision amends the

gasoline volatility requirement for the

seven county Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

ozone nonattainment area (the

Pittsburgh area). On April 17, 1998 the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania revised

its December 3, 1997 SIP revision

request by deleting the provisions

relating to the use of reformulated

gasoline (RFG).

I. Background

In July 1995, EPA determined that the

air quality of the Pittsburgh area met the

national ambient air quality standard