Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31109

Federal Aviation Administration,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA

90712–4137; Telephone (562) 627–5246,

Fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to AlliedSignal Inc.

Model TPE331–8, –10, –11 and –12

series turboprop engines with fuel

manifold, Part Number (P/N) 3102469–

1 or –2, repaired by Hoses Unlimited,

Inc. prior to November 11, 1995, was

published in the Federal Register on

January 21, 1998 (63 FR 3056). That

action proposed to require removal of

suspect fuel manifold assemblies and

replacement with serviceable

assemblies.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposal or the FAA’s determination of

the cost to the public. The FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 70 engines of

the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 50 engines

installed on aircraft of U.S. registry will

be affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 5 work hours per engine

to accomplish the required actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required parts will cost

approximately $1,800 per engine. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to

be $105,000.

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–12–09 AlliedSignal Inc.: Amendment

39–10565. Docket 97–ANE–47–AD.

Applicability: AlliedSignal Inc. (formerly

Allied-Signal Aerospace Company, Garrett

Engine Division and Garrett Turbine Engine

Co.) Model TPE331–8, –10, –11 and –12

series turboprop engines with fuel manifold,

Part Number (P/N) 3102469–1 or –2, repaired

by Hoses Unlimited, Inc. prior to November

20, 1995. These engines are installed on but

not limited to Ayres S2R–G10; Cessna Model

441; Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.

(CASA) C–212 series; Dornier 228 series;

Fairchild SA226 and SA227 series; Jetstream

3101 and 3201 series; Mitsubishi MU–2B

series (MU–2 series); and Twin Commander

Aircraft Corp. Models 695 and 695A aircraft.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each engine identified in the

preceding applicability provision, regardless

of whether it has been modified, altered, or

repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For engines that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (d)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe

condition has not been eliminated, the

request should include specific proposed

actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fuel leakage of the fuel

manifold, resulting in fuel spraying on hot

turbine components, which could result in

an engine fire, accomplish the following:

(a) Check all fuel manifold identification

bands for P/Ns 3102469–1 or –2 and the

Hoses Unlimited, Inc. name, or review engine

and aircraft maintenance records and

purchase receipts to establish the origin and

repairs on all fuel manifolds. If records

indicate that fuel manifolds, P/Ns 3102469–

1 or –2, are not installed in an engine or that

Hoses Unlimited, Inc. has not been used as

a repair facility, no further AD action is

required.

(b) Remove from service all fuel manifolds

with the Hoses Unlimited, Inc. name and P/

Ns 3102469–1 or –2 and replace with a

serviceable fuel manifold in accordance with

the applicable AlliedSignal engine

maintenance manual, at first access to the

fuel manifold assembly, at the next engine

hot section inspection, or 3 years after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first.

(c) For the purposes of this AD, first access

to the fuel manifold is defined as any repair,

modification, removal, or testing of the fuel

manifold assembly or components of the fuel

manifold assembly.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

August 7, 1998.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

May 29, 1998.

Jay J. Pardee,

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15089 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 916

[SPATS No. KS–015–FOR]

Kansas Abandoned Mine Land

Reclamation Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.
31110 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Kansas abandoned

mine land reclamation plan (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Kansas plan’’) under

the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

Kansas proposed revisions and

additions to its plan pertaining to

project ranking and selection

procedures and purchasing and

procurement systems. The amendment

is intended to revise the Kansas plan to

be consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell W. Frum, Office of Surface

Mining, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center, Alton Federal

Building, 501 Belle Street, Alton,

Illinois 62002. Telephone: (618) 463–

6460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Kansas Plan

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 Kansas Plan

On February 1, 1982, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Kansas plan. Background information

on the Kansas plan, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval can be found in the February

1, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 4513).

Information on the removal of the

conditions of approval can be found in

the June 3, 1983, Federal Register (48

FR 24874). Subsequent actions

concerning amendments to the plan can

be found at 30 CFR 916.25.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated March 17, 1998

(Administrative Record No. AML–KS–

171), Kansas submitted a proposed

amendment to its plan pursuant to

SMCRA. Kansas submitted the proposed

amendment in response to a September

24, 1994, letter (Administrative Record

No. AML–KS–169) that OSM sent to

Kansas in accordance with 30 CFR

884.15(d).

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the April 6,

1998, Federal Register (63 FR 16728),

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

May 6, 1998.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to

project selection. OSM notified Kansas

of these concerns by telephone on April

10, 1998 (Administrative Record No.

AML–KS–171.2). By letter dated April

10, 1998 (Administrative Record No.

AML–KS–171.3), Kansas responded to

OSM’s concerns by submitting revisions

to its proposed plan amendment. Kansas

proposed additional revisions to State

Reclamation Plan Section 884.13(c)(2)

Step 3, Project Selection. Because the

additional information merely clarified

certain provisions of Kansas’ proposed

amendment, 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

884.14 and 884.15, are the Director’s

findings concerning the proposed

amendment.

Revisions not specifically discussed

below concern nonsubstantive wording

changes, or revised cross-references and

paragraph notations to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.

A. State Reclamation Plan Section

884.13(c)(2), Projection Ranking and

Selection Procedures

1. Kansas proposed to replace the

reference to the ‘‘Kansas Mined Land

Conservation and Reclamation Board’’

with the ‘‘Kansas Department of Health

and Environment, Surface Mining

Section,’’ throughout this section. The

Director is approving this amendment

because it only updates the agency

name.

2. In its discussion of considerations

during the project selection process,

Kansas proposed to replace the

reference to ‘‘30 CFR 874.14’’ with a

reference to OSM’s AML Program

Guidelines published on December 30,

1996, entitled, ‘‘Office of Surface

Mining, Abandoned Mine Land

Reclamation Program Guidelines.’’ The

Director is approving the update of this

reference.

3. Kansas proposed to revise the

process for selecting sites for

reclamation from four steps to three

steps. The Director is approving this

change because it is not inconsistent

with the Federal regulation at 30 CFR

884.13(c)(2). Kansas also proposed to

change the language to focus ranking of

potential projects on ‘‘AML Inventory

Problem Areas’’ instead of ‘‘sites.’’ The

term ‘‘sites’’ is undefined in State or

OSM policies, whereas, the term ‘‘AML

Problem Area’’ is defined in OSM

directive AML–1. Problem areas have

distinct geographic boundaries and are

recognized in the national inventory.

The Director is approving this change

because it is consistent with section

403(c) of SMCRA and the Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 884.13(c)(2).

4. Project Selection, Step 1-

Identification and Establishment of

Reclamation Priority Problem Areas.

Kansas revised this step to reference the

five priorities for expenditure of AML

funds as described in section 403(a) of

SMCRA. The introductory paragraph of

Step 1 which references a State process

independent of the National AML

Inventory is deleted. A new

introductory paragraph is added and

reads as follows:

The State program will classify problem

areas into five OSM approved priority

categories listed in the Office of Surface

Mining Abandoned Mine Land Inventory

Manual. Site conditions will be utilized by

the AML Program Staff in identifying

problem areas which fit within these priority

categories. The problem areas will be

evaluated based on site hazards and

conditions. The results of the evaluations of

all site hazards and site conditions on a

parameter will be numerically scored

according to its degree of impact and the

score will then be adjusted by a standard

weighting factor which reflects the

parameter’s significance relative to the total

problem. The resultant total score for each

site will be used to rank problem areas

within each priority category. A master list

will be maintained by the AML Program staff

for use by the SMS in selecting projects for

funding. Preference among problem areas

competing for available resources will be

given to projects meeting higher priority

objectives and scoring higher on the Problem

Area Ranking Matrix.

The Director is approving this

amendment because it is consistent with

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

884.13(c) and section 403(a) of SMCRA.

5. Project Selection, Step 2-Eligibility

Determination. Kansas proposed to

changed the title of this step from

‘‘Elimination of Selected Problem Sites’’

to ‘‘Eligibility Determinations’’ to more

accurately reflect the purpose of this

step. Item 3 of Step 2 is removed

because it is redundant with the state

regulations at K.A.R. 47–16–1. The

Director is approving these amendments

because they add clarifying language

and remove redundant language from

the Kansas plan.

6. Project Selection, Step 3-Project

Selection.

a. At Item 2, Kansas deleted its former

Priority IV objective concerning AML

problems, which present a potential for

research and demonstration projects

related to mine reclamation, and

renumbered former Priority V and VI as

priority IV and V, respectively. Kansas

also deleted Item 3(vii) dealing with

Research and Demonstration. The

Director is approving the revisions
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31111

because they render the Kansas plan

consistent with section 403(a) of

SMCRA.

b. In Item 4, Kansas revised the

wording to clarify the importance of

selecting reclamation project solutions

which minimize maintenance and

achieve self-sustaining reclamation. The

Director is approving this revision

because it more clearly follows the spirit

of the December 30, 1996, revised AML

Reclamation Program Guidelines at Part

B.3.b.(3), and it is consistent with 30

CFR 884.13(c).

c. Item 6 originally addressed the

issue of remaining coal resources on the

reclamation site. Kansas proposed to

revise this item to state that problems,

on sites where remining could

potentially occur, will be addressed

before any remining takes place if the

problems seriously imperil public

health or safety. The Director is

approving this revision because it is not

inconsistent with section 403(a) of

SMCRA.

d. Kansas added a new item, Item 9,

to indicate that reclamation must be cost

effective and consistent with the

intended post mining land use of the

owner. The Director is approving this

revision because it is not inconsistent

with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

884.13.

e. Kansas proposed to delete Step 4—

Selection of Projects and add a new

paragraph to Step 3. The new paragraph

states that the final selection process

will consider ranking score, cost

effectiveness of doing lower priority

work, availability of funding, and

geographic distribution of projects. The

Director is approving these revisions

because they are not inconsistent with

the Federal Regulations at 30 CFR

884.13.

7. Accomomplishment Reporting.

Kansas proposed to add a new section

entitled, ‘‘Accomplishments Reporting,’’

at the end of Section 884.13(c)(2). It

states that upon completion of any AML

project, the Kansas Surface Mining

Section will submit Form OSM–76 or

other appropriate form(s) to report the

accomplishments achieved through the

project. The Director finds that the new

paragraph is substantively the same as

the Federal regulation at 30 CFR

886.23(b).

B. State Reclamation Plan Section

884.13(d)(3), Purchasing and

Procurement Systems

Kansas proposed to add two new

paragraphs under the sub-section,

‘‘Other Contract Provisions,’’ to read as

follows:

All successful Bidders for AML contracts

must be eligible per regulation at the time of

contract award to receive a permit or

conditional permit to conduct surface coal

mining operations. Eligibility will be

confirmed by consulting the Office of Surface

Mining’s automated system for identifying

and tracking ownership and control links

involving permit applicants, permittees, and

persons cited in violation notices. This

provision will also apply to successful

bidders on any non-coal sites eligible for

reclamation.

No monies from the AML fund will be

expended for reclamation on any non-coal

sites designated for remedial action pursuant

to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation

Control Act of 1978, the Comprehensive

Environmental Response Compensation and

Liability Act of 1980, or other such

regulations deemed excludable from funding

by the Office of Surface Mining.

The Director is approving these

additions because they render the

Kansas plan consistent with the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 874.16, 875.16,

and 875.20.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

OSM solicited public comments and

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing on the proposed amendment.

No public 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 884.14(a)(2) and

884.15(a), the Director solicited

comments on the proposed amendment

from various other Federal agencies

with an actual or potential interest in

the Kansas plan. OSM received

comments from the U.S. Department of

Agriculture Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) dated

April 23, 1998 (Administrative Record

No. AML–KS–171.5). The NRCS

suggested that AML problem areas that

are under contract with NRCS for the

Rural Abandoned Mine Program

(RAMP), should not be included in

Kansas’ selection process unless Kansas

coordinates with them. The proposed

change to Kansas’ policy and procedure

at Section 884.13(c)(2), Step 2 identify

certain AML problem areas that will be

eliminated from project selection

consideration. One of the two categories

to be eliminated is projects where there

is ongoing or planned reclamation

which would be totally financed by the

RAMP or other public or private entity.

This provision appears adequate to

satisfy the NRCS’s concern.

In addition, Kansas’ existing policy

and procedure at Section 884.13(c)(3)

outline the coordination of activities

between Kansas and the RAMP. The

policy and procedure state that the

Kansas AML Program will work closely

with the NRCS District Conservationist

in each county in identifying problem

AML sites and selecting reclamation

methods. Furthermore, ‘‘To avoid

duplication, all information in a given

county pertaining to AML inventories,

site evaluation, and proposed and active

reclamation projects will be shared with

each District Conservationist.’’ The

Director concludes that the concerns of

the NRCS regarding RAMP projects are

addressed in both the proposed

revisions and in other unchanged

portions of the Kansas AML

Reclamation Plan.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves the proposed plan

amendment as submitted by Kansas on

March 17, 1998, and as revised on April

10, 1998.

The Director approves the plan as

proposed by Kansas with the provision

that it be fully promulgated in identical

form to the plan submitted to and

reviewed by OSM and the public.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 916, codifying decisions concerning

the Kansas plan, are being amended to

implement this decision. This final rule

is being made effective immediately to

expedite the State plan amendment

process and to encourage States to bring

their plans 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 and Tribal abandoned mine

land reclamation plans and revisions

thereof since each such plan is drafted

and promulgated by a specific State or

Tribe, not by OSM. Decisions on

proposed abandoned mine land

reclamation plans and revisions thereof

submitted by a State of Tribe are based

on a determination of whether the

submittal meets the requirements of
31112 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–

1243) and 30 CFR Part 884.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since agency

decisions on proposed State and Tribal

abandoned mine land reclamation 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)).

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 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. 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.

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 916

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 26, 1998.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 916 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 916—KANSAS

1. The authority citation for part 916

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 916.25 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 916.25 Approval of Kansas abandoned

mine land reclamation plan amendments.

* * * * *

Original

amendment submission

date

Date of

final publicationCitation/description

* * * * *

March 17,

1998.

June 8,

1998.

Section 884.13(c)(2)

and (d)(3).

[FR Doc. 98–15137 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 931

[NM–038–FOR]

New Mexico 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

New Mexico regulatory program

(hereinafter, the ‘‘New Mexico

program’’) under the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). New Mexico proposed to

recodify the New Mexico Surface Coal

Mining Regulations. The amendment

revised the State program to improve

operational efficiency and ensure that

the New Mexico Surface Coal Mining

Regulations were codified according to

the New Mexico administrative rules.

EFFECTIVE DATES: June 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Willis L. Gainer, Telephone: (505) 248–

5096, Internet address:

WGAINER@OSMRE.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the New Mexico

Program

On December 31, 1980, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the New Mexico Program. General

background information on the New

Mexico program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval of the New Mexico program

can be found in the December 31, 1980,

Federal Register (45 FR 86459).

Subsequent actions concerning New

Mexico’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

931.11, 931.15, 931.16, and 931.30.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated January 6, 1998, New

Mexico submitted a proposed

amendment to its program

(administrative record No. NM–795)

pursuant to SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et

seq.). New Mexico submitted the

proposed amendment at its own

initiative. New Mexico proposed to

recodify the New Mexico Surface Coal

Mining Regulations.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the February

24, 1998, Federal Register (63 FR 9165),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (administrative record

No. NM–798). Because no one requested

a public hearing or meeting, none was

held. The public comment period ended

on March 26, 1998.

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 New Mexico on January 6,

1998, is no less effective than the

corresponding Federal regulations and

no less stringent than SMCRA.

Accordingly, the Director approves the

proposed amendment.

1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to New

Mexico’s Rules

New Mexico proposed revisions to the

previously-approved New Mexico

Surface Coal Mining Regulations that

are nonsubstantive in nature and consist

of minor editorial, punctuation,

grammatical, and recodification

changes. Specifically, New Mexico

proposed to recodify its regulations

from Coal Surface Mining Code Rule

80–1 (CSMC Rule 80–1), sections 1

through 15 and sections 19 through 34,

to Title 19 (Natural Resources and

Wildlife, Chapter 8, (Coal Mining), Part

2 (Coal Surface Mining) of the New

Mexico Administrative Code (19 NMAC

8.2), Subparts 1 through 34. No

substantive changes to the text of the

regulations were proposed.

Because the proposed revisions to

these previously-approved rules are