32632 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on

November 14, 1997 of the corrections to

the proposed regulations, (62 FR 61057)

is further corrected as follows:

§ 11.100(a) [Corrected]

On page 61057 and 61058, §11.100 (a)

is corrected to read as follows:

§ 11.100 Where are Courts of Indian

Offenses established?

(a) Unless indicated otherwise in this

part, the regulations in this part apply

to the Indian country (as defined in 18

U.S.C. 1151) occupied by the following

tribes:

(1) Red Lake Band of Chippewa

Indians (Minnesota).

(2) Te-Moak Band of Western

Shoshone Indians (Nevada).

(3) Kootenai Tribe (Idaho).

(4) Shoalwater Bay Tribe

(Washington).

(5) Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

(North Carolina).

(6) Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

(Colorado).

(7) Hoopa Valley Tribe, Yurok Tribe

and Coast Indian Community of

California (California jurisdiction

limited to special fishing regulations).

(8) Louisiana Area (includes

Coushatta and other tribes located in the

State of Louisiana which occupy Indian

country and which accept the

application of this part); Provided that

this part shall not apply to any

Louisiana tribe other than the Coushatta

Tribe until notice of such application

has been published in the Federal

Register.

(9) For the following tribes located in

the former Oklahoma Territory

(Oklahoma):

(i) Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.

(ii) Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma.

(iii) Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma

(Except Comanche Children’s Court).

(iv) Delaware Tribe of Western

Oklahoma.

(v) Fort Sill Apache Tribe of

Oklahoma.

(vi) Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma.

(vii) Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma.

(viii) Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma.

(ix) Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of

Oklahoma.

(10) For the following tribes located in

the former Indian Territory (Oklahoma):

(i) Chickasaw Nation.

(ii) Choctaw Nation.

(iii) Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

(iv) Seminole Nation.

(v) Eastern Shawnee Tribe.

(vi) Miami Tribe.

(vii) Modoc Tribe.

(viii) Ottawa Tribe.

(ix) Peoria Tribe.

(x) Quapaw Tribe.

(xi) Wyandotte Tribe.

(xii) Seneca-Cayuga Tribe.

(xiii) Osage Tribe.

* * * * *

Dated: June 4, 1998.

Kevin Gover,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 98–15833 Filed 6–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 914

[SPATS No. IN–128–FOR; Amendment No.

95–6]

Indiana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal of

proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the

withdrawal of a proposed amendment to

the Indiana regulatory program

(hereinafter the ‘‘Indiana program’’)

under the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

amendment concerned revisions to the

Indiana rules pertaining to

identification of interests, compliance

information, and permit conditions.

Indiana is withdrawing the amendment

at its own initiative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew R. Gilmore, Director,

Indianapolis Field Office, Telephone:

(317) 226–6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter

dated February 18, 1997 (Administrative

Record No. IND–1555), the Indiana

Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)

submitted a proposed amendment to its

program pursuant to SMCRA. Indiana

submitted the proposed amendment in

response to a letter dated May 11, 1989

(Administrative Record No. IND–0644),

that OSM sent to Indiana in accordance

with 30 CFR 732.17(c), and at its own

initiative. Indiana proposed to amend

the provisions of the Indiana

Administrative Code (IAC) concerning

identification of interests, compliance

information, and permit conditions for

surface and underground coal mining.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the March 13,

1997, Federal Register (62 IAC 11807)

and invited public comment on its

adequacy. The public comment period

ended April 14, 1997.

By letter dated June 24, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1576),

OSM notified Indiana that the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the district of

Columbia Circuit invalidated the

language of the Federal regulations

upon which the proposed revisions

were based. On May 21, 1998

(Administrative Record No. IND–1610),

Indiana requested that the proposed

amendment be withdrawn. Indiana will

submit a revised version of the

amendment after OSM completes its

revisions to the Federal regulations

pertaining to ownership and control.

Therefore, the proposed amendment

announced in the March 13, 1997,

Federal Register is withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: June 5, 1998.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 98–15763 Filed 6–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 948

[WV–080–FOR]

West Virginia Permanent Regulatory

Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of

a proposed amendment to the West

Virginia permanent regulatory program

(hereinafter referred to as the West

Virginia program) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). The amendment

consists of the revisions to the West

Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation

Regulations. The amendments are

intended to improve the operational

efficiency of the West Virginia program.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before 4:00 p.m. July 15,

1998. If requested, a public hearing on

the proposed amendments will be held

at 1:00 p.m. on July 10, 1998. Requests

to present oral testimony at the hearing

must be received on or before 4:00 p.m.

on June 30, 1998.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32633

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to speak at the hearing should

be mailed or hand delivered to Mr.

Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston

Field Office at the address listed below.

Copies of the West Virginia program,

the program amendment decision that is

the subject of this notice, and the

administrative record on the West

Virginia program are available for public

review and copying at the addresses

below, during normal business hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Each requester may receive

one free copy of the proposed changes

by contacting the OSM Charleston Field

Office.

Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director,

Charleston Field Office, Office of

Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, 1027 Virginia Street,

East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301

Telephone: (304) 347–7158.

West Virginia Division of

Environmental Protection, 10

McJunkin Road, Nitro, West Virginia

25143, Telephone: (304) 759–0515

In addition, copies of the amendments

that are the subject of this notice are

available for inspection during regular

business hours at the following

locations:

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, Morgantown Area

Office, 75 High Street, Room 229, P.O.

Box 886, Morgantown, West Virginia

26507, Telephone: (304) 291–4004

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, Beckley Area

Office, 323 Harper Park Drive, Suite 3,

Beckley, West Virginia 25801,

Telephone: (304) 255–5265.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston

Field Office; Telephone: (304) 347–

7158.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the West Virginia

Program

On January 21,1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

West Virginia program. Background

information on the West Virginia

program, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

and the conditions of the approval can

be found in the January 21, 1981,

Federal Register (46 FR 5915–5956).

Subsequent actions concerning the West

Virginia program and previous

amendments are codified at 30 CFR

948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and

948.16.

II. Discussion of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated May 11, 1998

(Administrative Record Number WV

1086), the West Virginia Division of

Environmental Protection (WVDEP)

submitted an amendment to its

approved permanent regulatory program

pursuant to the Federal regulations at 30

CFR 732.17(b). The recent West Virginia

Legislative session amended CSR 38–2

of the State’s Surface Mining

Reclamation Regulations, and the West

Virginia Governor signed the

amendments on April 12, 1998.

The proposed amendments are

identified below.

1. CSR 38–2–2 Definitions

Subsection 2.25 The definition of

‘‘Coal Remining Operation’’ is amended

to mean a coal mining operation on

lands which would be eligible for

expenditures under section four, article

two of chapter twenty-two.

Subsection 2.102 The definition of

‘‘Remined Area’’ is amended to mean

only that area of any coal remining

operation.

The WVDEP explained that these

changes were done to correspond with

the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public

Law 102–846. the WVDEP stated that

the changes are consistent with changes

to Chapter 22, Article 3 of the Code of

West Virginia, which were made during

the last legislative session.

2. CSR 38–2–3.14 Removal of

Abandoned Coal Refuse Disposal Piles

Subsection 3.14.a is amended by

deleting the terms ‘‘special permit’’ and

in their place adding the term

‘‘reclamation contract.’’ Also, the words

‘‘permit application’’ are deleted and

replaced by the word ‘‘request.’’

Subsection 3.14.b is amended by

deleting the phrase ‘‘an application for

a special permit,’’ and adding in its

place the phrase ‘‘a request for a

reclamation contract.’’

Subsection 3.14.b.1 is amended by

excluding subsections 3.1.c., d., k., n.,

and o. from the requirement that all

information required by subsection 3.1

should be included in a request for a

reclamation contract under subsection

3.14.b. Subsection 3.14.b.2 is amended

by reducing the comment period from

30 days to 10 days.

Subsection 3.14.b.3 is amended by

deleting the phrase ‘‘and where

applicable subsection 3.3 of the

regulations.’’

Subsection 3.14.b.4.E is amended by

deleting the existing language and

adding in its place the words, ‘‘Permits

or approvals as necessary from the

appropriate environmental agencies or

other agencies.’’

Subsection 3.14.b.7 is deleted.

Subsections 3.14.b.8 through

3.14.b.15 have been renumbered as

3.14.b.7 through 3.14.b.14.

Subsection 3.14.d is amended by

deleting the existing language and

adding in its place the words,

‘‘Insurance and filing fee in accordance

with subsection b. Of Section 28 of the

Act.’’

Subsection 3.14.e is amended to read,

‘‘Removal operations permitted under

this subsection shall be subject to

paragraph 1., subsection 22.5 of this rule

and all other applicable performance

standards of the Act and the reclamation

contract.’’ Subsection 3.14.f is added to

read as follows: ‘‘All persons

conducting removal of abandoned coal

disposal piles under a reclamation

contract shall have on site, a copy of the

written approval for such activities

issued by the Director.’’

In its submittal, the WVDEP stated

that changes to Section 3 will allow the

reclamation of coal refuse sites by a

reclamation contract that normally does

not require any state expenditure. The

WVDEP stated that it believes that

totally removing a refuse pile

constitutes reclamation. Further the

WVDEP stated that the amendments are

consistent with the change to Chapter

22, Article 3 Section 28 of the Code of

West Virginia which occurred in the last

legislative session.

3. CSR 38–2–3.32 Findings—Permit

Issuance

Subsection 3.32.d.12 is amended by

deleting the reference to subsection

14.16, and adding in its place a

reference to subsection 24. In addition,

the words ‘‘and prior to August 3, 1977’’

are deleted and replaced by the words,

‘‘would be eligible for expenditures

under Section 4, Article 2 of Chapter 22.

Subsection 3.32.g is added to read as

follows. ‘‘The prohibition of subsection

c. shall not apply to a permit

application due to any violation

resulting from an unanticipated event or

condition at a surface mine eligible for

remining held by the applicant.’’

In its submittal, the WVDEP stated

that this change is due to a new Federal

definition of ‘‘remining’’ which

basically states that any site eligible for

abandoned mined lands funding is also

eligible for remining.

4. CSR 18–2–14.14.a.1 Disposal of

Excess Spoil

This subsection is amended by adding

language to allow excess spoil to be

deposited on abandoned mine lands

and/or forfeited mine lands under a
32634 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

reclamation contract pursuant to

Section 28 of the Act and this rule. The

new language further provides that it is

the permittee’s responsibility to obtain

right of entry and any necessary

approvals from the appropriate

environmental agencies or other

agencies.

The WVDEP stated that these changes

will allow the director to issue no-cost

reclamation contracts to a permittee to

reclaim abandoned and forfeited sites.

5. CSR 38–2–14.16 Is Being Moved to

New Section CSR 38–2–24

6. CSR 38–2–14.17 Is Redesignated as

CSR 38–2–14.16

7. CSR 38–2–14–18 Is Redesignated as

CSR 38–2–14.17

8. CSR 38–1–14.19 Is Redesignated as

CSR 38–2–14.18

Old subsection 14.19.d is deleted

because it conflicts with CSR 38–2–8.2.e

that was added during the last

legislative session.

9. CSR 38–2–22.5.1 Removal of

Abandoned Coal Refuse Piles

Subsection 22.51 is amended by

deleting the words ‘‘special permit’’ and

adding in their place the words

‘‘reclamation contract.’’

The WVDEP explained that the

changes to Section 3 will allow the

reclamation of coal refuse sites by a

reclamation contract that normally does

not require any state expenditure.

10. CSR 38–2–23 Special

Authorization for Coal Extraction as an

Incidental Part of Development of Land

for Commercial, Residential, or Civic

Use

This entire section is new language.

This section would allow special

authorization for coal extraction as an

incidental part of development of land

for commercial, residential, industrial,

or civic use. The section contains

provisions for applicant information,

site development and sampling

information; provisions for approval of

Notice of Intent for coal extraction as an

incidental part of development of land

for commercial, residential, or civic use;

performance standards; expiration of a

notice of intent coal extraction as an

incidental part of development; escrow

release; notice on site; and public

records.

The WVDEP explained that the new

language is intended to implement new

code provisions that allow the director

to give special authorization for coal

extraction as an incidental part of

development of land for commercial,

residential, industrial, or civic use.

11. CSR 38–2–24 Performance

Standards Applicable Only to Remining

Operations

This entire section is new. However,

subsection 24.1 was previously 14.16;

subsection 24.2.a was previously

14.16.m; subsection 24.3 was previously

14.16.n; subsection 24.2.b is new

language; and subsection 24.4 is new

language.

Subsection 24.1 provides for

backfilling, remining, and grading of

previously mined areas. Subsection 24.2

provides for revegetation of coal

remining operations. Subsection 24.3

provides for water quality of coal

remining operations. Subsection 24.4

provides the requirements for release of

bonds for coal remining operations.

The WVDEP stated that subsection

24.2.b is due to a new Federal remining

regulation which basically states that

successful revegetation shall be for a

period of not less than two growing

seasons. Subsection 24.4 will allow for

release of the land reclamation bond if

the post-remining water quality

discharging from the site is equal to or

better than pre-remining water quality.

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is now seeking

comments on the proposed amendments

to the West Virginia program that were

submitted on May 11, 1998. Comments

should address whether the proposed

amendments satisfy the applicable

program approval criteria of 30 CFR

732.15. If the amendments are deemed

adequate, they will become part of the

West Virginia program.

Written Comments

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed in

this notice and include explanations in

support of the commenter’s

recommendations. Comments received

after the time indicated under ‘‘DATES’’

or at locations other than the OSM

Charleston Field Office will not

necessarily be considered in the final

rulemaking or included in the

Administrative Record.

Public Hearing

Persons wishing to testify at the

public hearing should contact the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by the close of

business on June 30, 1998. If no one

requests an opportunity to testify at the

public hearing by that date, the hearing

will not be held.

Filing of a written statement at the

time of the hearing is requested as it

will greatly assist the transcriber.

Submission of written statements in

advance of the hearing will allow OSM

officials to prepare adequate remarks

and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on

the specified date until all persons

scheduled to testify have been heard.

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to testify, and who wish

to do so, will be heard following those

scheduled. The hearing will end after all

persons scheduled to testify and persons

present in the audience who wish to

testify have been heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person or group requests

to testify at a hearing, a public meeting,

rather than a public hearing, may be

held. Persons wishing to meet with

OSM representatives to discuss the

proposed clarification, removal of the

required amendment, or change in the

effective dates of the approval may

request a meeting at the OSM

Charleston Field Office listed under

ADDRESSES by contacting the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

All such meetings will be open to the

public and, if possible, notices of

meetings will be posted in advance at

the locations listed under ADDRESSES. A

written summary of each public meeting

will be made a part of the

Administrative Record.

IV. 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 114 / Monday, June 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 32635

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 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.

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 948

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: June 4, 1998.

Tim L. Dieringer,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 98–15761 Filed 6–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period and Notice of Public Hearings

on Proposed Threatened Status for the

Plant Helianthus Paradoxus (Pecos

Sunflower)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public

hearings and reopening of comment

period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) provides notice that

three public hearings will be held on the

proposed determination of threatened

status for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos

sunflower). This plant is dependent on

desert wetlands in New Mexico and

western Texas.

DATES: Public hearings will be held from

7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on July 8, 1998, in Fort

Stockton, Texas; July 9, 1998, in

Roswell, New Mexico; and July 13,

1998, in Grants, New Mexico. The

comment period, which originally

closed on June 1, 1998, is reopened and

now closes on August 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be

held at the large Community Hall in

James Rooney Memorial Park on U.S.

Highway 285 (Sanderson Highway) in

Fort Stockton, Texas; the Roswell Public

Library, 301 North Pennsylvania

Avenue, in Roswell, New Mexico; and

the City Hall Council Chambers, 600

West Santa Fe Avenue, in Grants, New

Mexico. Written comments and

materials should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological

Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 2105 Osuna Road, NE.,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113,

facsimile 505/346–2542. Comments and

materials received will be available for

public inspection during normal

business hours, by appointment, at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charlie McDonald, Endangered Species

Botanist, at the above address or

telephone 505/346–2525, ext. 112;

facsimile 505/346–2542.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pecos sunflower is a wetland plant

that grows in permanently saturated

soils. Areas that maintain these

conditions are mostly desert wetlands

(cienegas) associated with springs, but

they may also include stream margins

and the margins of impoundments.

When Pecos sunflowers are associated

with impoundments, the impoundments

typically have replaced natural cienega

habitats. Pecos sunflower is presently

known from 25 sites that occur in 5

general areas. These areas are Pecos and

Reeves counties, Texas, in the vicinity

of Fort Stockton and Balmorhea; Chaves

County, New Mexico, from Dexter to

just north of Roswell; Guadalupe

County, New Mexico, in the vicinity of

Santa Rosa; Valencia County, New

Mexico, along the lower part of the Rio

San Jose; and Cibola County, New

Mexico, in the vicinity of Grants.

Threats to Pecos sunflower include

drying of wetlands from groundwater

depletion; alteration of wetlands (e.g.

wetland fills, draining, impoundment

construction); competition with

nonnative plant species, particularly

saltcedar; excessive livestock grazing;

mowing; and highway maintenance.

On April 1, 1998, the Service

published a proposed rule to list the

Pecos sunflower as threatened under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended (Act).

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires

that a public hearing be held if it is

requested within 45 days of the

publication of a proposed rule in the

Federal Register. Public hearing

requests were received within the

allotted time period from the New

Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau;

New Mexico County Farm and

Livestock Bureaus in Colfax, CibolaMcKinley, and Santa Fe counties;

Production Credit Association of New

Mexico; Texas and Southwestern Cattle

Raisers Association; and Davis

Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage

Association.

The Service has scheduled hearings

from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Fort Stockton,

Texas, on July 8, 1998, at the large

Community Hall in James Rooney

Memorial Park on U.S. Highway 285

(Sanderson Highway); in Roswell, New

Mexico, on July 9, 1998, at the Roswell

Public Library, 301 North Pennsylvania

Avenue; and in Grants, New Mexico, on

July 13, 1998, at the City Hall Council

Chambers, 600 West Santa Fe Avenue.

Anyone wishing to make an oral

statement for the record is encouraged

to provide a written copy of their

statement to be presented to the Service

at the start of the hearing. In the event

there is a large attendance, the time

allotted for oral statements may have to

be limited. Oral and written statements

receive equal consideration. There are

no limits to the length of written

comments presented at these hearings or