Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41423

Approved: July 16, 1998.

Michael P. Dolan,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Donald C. Lubick,

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax

Policy).

[FR Doc. 98–20801 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 917

[SPATS No. KY–191–FOR]

Kentucky Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing approval,

with an exception, of an amendment to

the Kentucky permanent regulatory

program approved pursuant to the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). This

amendment provides that areas

reclaimed following the removal of

temporary structures such as

sedimentation ponds, roads, and small

diversions are not subject to a

revegetation responsibility period and

bond liability period separate from that

of the permit area or increment thereof

served by such facilities. The

amendment is intended to clarify

ambiguities in the State regulations and

to improve operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Kovacic, Director, Lexington

Field Office, Telephone (606) 233–2894.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Kentucky 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 Kentucky

Program

The Secretary of the Interior

conditionally approved the Kentucky

regulatory program effective May 18,

1982. Background information on the

permanent program submission, as well

as the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments and a detailed

explanation of the conditions of

approval can be found in the May 18,

1982, Federal Register (47 FR 21404).

Subsequent actions concerning the

conditions of approval and program

amendments are identified at 30 CFR

917.11, 917.13, 917.15, 917.16 and

917.17.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated June 28, 1991

(Administrative Record No. KY–1059,

Kentucky submitted revisions to section

1(7) of the Kentucky Administrative

Regulations (KAR) at 405 KAR 16:200

and 18:200 as part of a larger

rulemaking. OSM announced receipt of

the proposed amendment in the July 22,

1991, Federal Register (56 FR 33398),

and, in the same notice, opened the

public comment period and provided

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period ended on

August 21, 1991. Since no one requested

an opportunity to testify at a public

hearing, no hearing was held.

By letter dated January 22, 1992

(Administrative Record No. KY–1107),

Kentucky revised the proposed

amendment in response to changes

made during its promulgation process.

OSM announced receipt of the revised

amendment in the April 13, 1992,

Federal Register (57 FR 12775), and, in

the same notice, reopened the public

comment period and again provided an

opportunity for a public hearing. The

public comment period closed on May

13, 1992. As with the previous

submittal, no one requested an

opportunity to testify at a public

hearing; therefore, no hearing was held.

OSM subsequently announced its

decision on most provisions of the

proposed amendment in the June 9,

1993 Federal Register (58 FR 32283).

Like the corresponding Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(1)

and (c)(2), proposed sections 1(7) of 405

KAR 16:200 and 18:200 require that the

revegetation responsibility period begin

after the last augmented seeding,

fertilizing, irrigating or other work and

continue for a minimum of 5 years.

However, proposed subsections 1(7)(b)

would exempt haul roads, areas from

which sedimentation ponds and

associated diversion have been

removed, and disposal areas for

accumulated sediment and

sedimentation pond embarkment

material from the full revegetation

responsibility period, provided

vegetation established on all these areas

has been in place at least 2 years before

final bond release. In its final decision,

OSM stated at 58 FR 32285 that it was

deferring a decision on section 1(7)(b) of

405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200 until

additional opportunity for public

comment was provided in a separate

Federal Register notice. That

commitment was fulfilled by the notice

published on September 15, 1993 (58 FR

48333), which opened the public

comment period until October 15, 1993.

Since no one requested an opportunity

to testify at a public hearing, no hearing

was held. This notice also included

similar proposed revisions to the Illinois

and Ohio regulations as well as a

discussion of OSM’s proposed policy

concerning restart of the revegetation

responsibility period every time a small

portion of the permit area requires

reseeding or replanting. Subsequent to

this notice, on May 29, 1996, OSM

approved similar proposed revisions to

the Colorado regulations (61 FR 26792)

and on October 22, 1997, the Illinois

regulations (62 FR 54765).

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 deferred

revisions at sections 1(7)(b) of 405 KAR

16:200 and 18:200.

A. OSM’s policy concerning the term of

liability for reclamation of roads and

Temporary Sediment Control Structures

The following discussion of the rules

in 30 CFR Part 816, which applies to

surface mining activitities, also pertains

to similarly or identically constructed

sections in 30 CFR Part 817, which

applies to underground mining

activities.

Section 515(b)(20) of SMCRA

provides that the revegetation

responsibility period shall commence

‘‘after the last year of augmented

seeding, fertilizing, irrigation, or other

work’’ needed to assure revegetation

success. In the absence of any indication

of Congressional intent in the legislative

history, OSM interprets this

requirement as applying to the

increment or permit area as a whole, not

individually to those lands within the

permit area upon which revegetation is

delayed solely because of their use in

support of the reclamation effort on the

planted area. As implied in the

preamble discussion in 30 CFR

816.46(b)(5), which prohibits the

removal of ponds or other siltation

structures until two years after the last

augmented seeding, planting of the sites

from which such structures are removed

need not itself be considered an

augmented seeding necessitating an

extended or separate liability period (48

FR 44038–44039, September 26, 1983).

Such areas would include sediment

control structures and associated

structures and facilities such as

diversion ditches, disposal and storage
41424 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

areas for accumulated sediments and

sediment pond embankment material,

and ancillary roads used to access such

areas.

The purose of the revegetation

responsibility period is to ensure that

the mined area has been reclaimed to a

condition capable of supporting the

desired permanent vegetation.

Achievement of this purpose will not be

adversely affected by this interpretation

of section 515(b)(20) of SMCRA since (1)

the lands involved are relatively small

in size and either widely dispersed or

narrowly linear in distribution and (2)

the delay in establishing revegetation on

these sites is due not to reclamation

deficiencies or the facilitation of

mining, but rather to the regulatory

requirement that ponds and diversions

be retained and maintained to control

runoff from the planted area until the

revegetation is sufficiently established

to render such structures unnecessary

for the protection of water quality.

In addition, the areas affected likely

would be no larger than those which

could be reseeded (without restarting

the revegetation period) in the course of

performing normal husbandry practices,

as that term is defined in 30 CFR

816.116(c)(4) and explained in the

preamble to that rule (53 FR 34636,

34641; September 7, 1988; 52 FR 28012,

28016; July 27, 1987). Areas this small

would have a negligible impact on any

evaluation of the permit area as a whole.

Most importantly, this interpretation is

unlikely to adversely affect the

regulatory authority’s ability to make a

statistically valid determination as to

whether a diverse, effective permanent

vegetative cover has been successfully

established in accordance with the

appropriate revegetation success

standards.

However, nothing in this

interpretation of section 515(b)(20) of

SMCRA should be construed as

exempting such lands from meeting the

revegetation requirements of section

515(b)(19) of SMCRA prior to final bond

release. As required by 30 CFR

816.46(b)(6) and 816.150(f)(6), when

siltation structures and roads are

removed, the land on which they were

located must be regraded and

revegetated in accordance with the

reclamation plan and the requirements

of 30 CFR 816.111 through 816.116,

with the exception of 30 CFR

816.116(c), which requires a period of

extended responsibility for successful

revegetation on reclaimed areas

(September 15, 1993, 58 FR 48335).

B. Comparison of Kentucky’s Proposed

Regulations at 405 KAR 16:200 and

18:200 Sections 1(7)(b) With OSM’s

Policy Clarification

Kentucky’s proposed provisions

would exempt haul roads, areas from

which sedimentation ponds and

associated diversions have been

removed, and disposal areas for

accumulated sediment and

sedimentation pond embankment

material from the full revegetation

responsibility period, provided

vegetation established on all these areas

has been in place at least two years

before final bond release.

Except for the reference to haul roads,

the Kentucky provision is consistent

with the OSM policy stated above. As

interpreted in the policy statement

above, the removal of sediment ponds

and related structures such as diversion

ditches, disposal and storage areas for

accumulated sediments and sediment

pond embankment material, and

ancillary roads used to access such

areas, is a nonaugmentative practice that

does not restart the five-year

responsibility period. However,

Kentucky’s reference to haul roads

renders the proposed provisions less

effective than the Federal regulations as

interpreted in the OSM policy statement

above. As stated above, the purposes of

SMCRA at section 515(b)(20) concerning

the five-year revegetation responsibility

period would not be adversely affected

by this interpretation of SMCRA if: (1)

The lands involved are relatively small

in size and either widely dispersed or

narrowly linear in distribution and (2)

the delay in establishing revegetation on

these sites is due not to reclamation

deficiencies or the facilitation of

mining, but rather to the regulatory

requirement that ponds and diversions

be retained and maintained to control

runoff from the planted area until the

revegetation is sufficiently established

to render such structures unnecessary

for the protection of water quality. Haul

roads do not meet these requirements.

Haul roads facilitate mining and can

encompass a significant amount of the

permit area. And, haul roads are not

retained and maintained for their use in

support of the reclamation effort of a

planted area. Haul roads are ‘‘used for

transporting coal or spoil’’ and are

considered primary roads. 48 FR 22110,

22113 (May 16, 1983). Primary roads

have a greater potential for

environmental harm than ancillary

roads. 53 FR 45190–45198 (November 8,

1988). In addition to meeting the

performance requirements of 30 CFR

816/817.150, primary roads must meet

the requirements of 816/817.151. In

Illinois, OSM only approved those roads

necessary for the maintenance of

sediment ponds, diversions and

reclamation areas. 62 FR 54765 (October

22, 1997). OSM and Illinois agreed that

the amendment did not include haul

roads or other primary roads.

Kentucky’s proposal to require that

vegetation be established on areas where

sediment control structures and

associated structures and facilities have

been removed for two years before bond

release does not render the Kentucky

program less effective. As discussed

above, the Federal regulations and

Kentucky’s regulations (405 KAR 16:070

Section 1(1)(b) and 16:090 Section 5(17)

provide that sediment ponds be retained

and maintained to control runoff from

the planted area until the revegetation is

sufficiently established to render such

structures unnecessary for the

protection of water quality. Therefore,

when the sediment control structures

are removed, the surrounding drainage

area has already been effectively

revegetated. Following this, the entire

revegetated area (or increment thereof),

including the reclaimed area where the

sediment control structure was located,

is subject to the full Kentucky program

requirements concerning final

inspection for bond release. Any

inadequate revegetation on the

reclaimed sediment control structure

and related facilities will be detected

during the inspection for bond release.

That is, the proposed two-year criterion

in no way reduces or eliminates any of

Kentucky’s standards for reclamation

success for bond release. The Director

finds that the two-year criterion is

sufficient to establish a permanent and

diverse vegetative cover as is required

by SMCRA section 515(b)(19),

especially since the lands typically

involved will be small in size, widely

dispersed, and surrounded by

revegetated lands.

Therefore, and except for the

proposed reference to haul roads, the

Director finds that Kentucky’s proposed

provision is consistent with and no less

effective than the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 816/817.46(b) (5) and (6), 30

CFR 816/817.116(c) and sections 515(b)

(19) and (20) of SMCRA, as clarified by

OSM in the September 15, 1993,

Federal Register (58 FR 48333). In

addition, the Director is requiring that

Kentucky further amend the Kentucky

program to delete the term ‘‘haul roads’’

at sections 1(7)(b) of 405 KAR 16:200

and 18:200.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41425

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on Kentucky’s

proposed regulations and OSM’s

proposed policy. Because no one

requested an opportunity to speak at a

public hearing, no hearing was held.

Comments were received from the

Illinois Department of Mines and

Minerals (now the Illinois Department

of Natural Resources—Office of Mines

and Minerals), the Western Kentucky

Coal Association, the Kentucky Coal

Association, the Lignite Energy Council,

the National Coal Association, the Ohio

Mining and Reclamation Association,

the North Dakota Public Service

Commission, and the Kentucky

Resources Council. Except for the

Kentucky Resources Council, all of the

commenters were in favor of the policy.

In its comments, the Illinois

Department of Natural Resources

supported the inclusion of the

reclamation of roads along with the

reclamation of sediment control

structures that would not restart the

revegetation responsibility period. On

October 22, 1997 (62 FR 54765), OSM

approved Illinois regulations concerning

reseeding that is considered to be

nonaugmentative of areas from which

temporary features such as

sedimentation ponds, roads, and

diversions have been removed after

vegetation has been established on the

surrounding area. In its review of those

regulations, OSM reviewed and

commented on an accompanying policy

document that explains how the State

intends to implement these regulations.

Illinois’ reference to roads in its policy

document was interpreted by OSM to

mean those roads necessary for

maintenance of sediment ponds,

diversions, and reclamation areas.

Ancillary roads used for maintenance

do not include haul roads or other

primary roads which should either have

been removed upon completion of

mining or approved to be retained for an

approved postmining land use. On April

11, 1997 (Administrative Record

Number IL–1243) OSM discussed the

above interpretation of roads with

Illinois. Illinois agreed with OSM’s

interpretation of the meaning of the

term ‘‘roads’’ as used in its policy

document.

In response to the Directors’ proposed

clarification of OSM policy, the

Kentucky Resources Council initiates its

comments with the premise that OSM

has proposed to treat the initial seeding

and restoration of areas disturbed by

diversions, roads and sedimentation

ponds as ‘‘normal husbandry practices.’’

It then argues that the initial seeding of

such areas is not normal husbandry

practice, and any revegetation other

than ‘‘husbandry practices’’ as defined

by 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) constitutes

‘‘augmented seeding’’ and would

therefore require extension of the full

liability period for the establishment of

permanent vegetation. First, the Director

did not base not restarting the liability

period on the contention that

revegetation of such areas is a normal

husbandry practice. Second, the

Director does not agree that any

revegetation other than ‘‘normal

husbandry practices’’ constitutes

‘‘augmented seeding.’’ The legislative

history of the Act reveals no specific

Congressional intent in the use of the

term ‘‘augmented seeding.’’

Accordingly, OSM’s interpretation of

augmented seeding is given deference so

long as it has a rational basis. OSM

would not consider the seeding of small

areas, such as ponds and their

associated diversions and roads, as

augmented seeding. However, only the

reclamation and reseeding of ancillary

roads and not haul roads would be

considered nonaugmentative. For

further discussion of such rationale, see

the Director’s Finding above. Areas

reclaimed following removal of

temporary sediment control, and

associated structures such as diversions,

disposal and storage areas for

accumulated sediments and sediment

pond embankment material, and

ancillary roads used to access such areas

would not be subject to a separate or

extended bond liability period apart

from the applicable permit area served

by such structures. The seeding of

sedimentation ponds and their

associated diversions and roads is not

the result of reclamation failure, but

because 30 CFR 816.46(b)(5) prohibits

the removal of temporary sedimentation

ponds until two years after the last

augmented seeding.

The Kentucky Resources Council

overlooks the fact that for the vast

majority of the reclaimed area the

revegetation responsibility period will

be at least five years. Neither

Congressional history nor the language

of the statute distinguishes between

initial overall reclamation of a mined

area and the subsequent restoration of

temporary structures like sedimentation

ponds and their associated areas. In the

absence of such distinction, the

Secretary is delegated discretion to

determine whether a proposed state

amendment is no less effective than the

Act and consistent with the counterpart

Federal regulation. The Director’s stated

interpretation of Section 515(b)(20) is

that the period of revegetation

responsibility applies ‘‘to the increment

or permit area as a whole, not

individually to those lands within that

area upon which revegetation is delayed

solely because of their use in support of

the reclamation effort of the planted

area.’’ See 58 FR 48333–48335,

September 15, 1993.

OSM has taken a consistent position

in approving an amendment to the

Colorado (61 FR 26792, May 29, 1996)

and Illinois (62 FR 54765, October 22,

1997) surface mining programs which

provided that reclaimed temporary

drainage control facilities shall not be

subject to the extended liability period

for revegetative success or the related

bond release criteria. The Director,

therefore, does not agree with the

commenter’s interpretation of Section

515(b)(20) of SMCRA.

The Kentucky Resources Council also

asserts that OSM’s position violates 30

CFR 816.133. Section 816.133 requires

that disturbed areas be restored in a

timely manner to the premining uses of

land or higher or better uses. In

response, the Director notes that the

Kentucky amendment does not

eliminate this requirement.

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 Ohio program.

Comments were received from the U.S.

Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of

Mines, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS). The U.S. Forest

Service commented that it had reviewed

OSM’s proposed rule to clarify its policy

towards revegetation success and agreed

with the proposed rule.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines suggested

that OSM consider the significant

differences in the reclamation of

sediment structures and roads, since

sediment structures generally possess

characteristics necessary for successful

reclamation, while roads generally

require significant initial work to

develop a necessary growth

environment. The Director agrees with

the commenter. OSM’s policy and

regulations require that when haul roads

are removed, the land on which they

were located must be regraded and

revegetated in accordance with

approved plans and the requirements of

30 CFR 816.111 through 816.116, or

State counterparts. Although the

proposed Kentucky regulation would

have included haul roads in the

proposed exclusion to restarting the
41426 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

five-year revegetation period, OSM has

not approved the provision to the extent

that it includes haul roads (see Findings

above). OSM’s policy as stated above,

limits the proposed exemption to small,

lightly traveled roads used to access the

sediment control structures. OSM’s

policy excludes roads posing significant

potential for reclamation problems

(such as haul roads).

The USFWS commented and

recommended that the proposed

provisions remain unamended. The

USFWS stated that requiring only a twoyear revegetation responsibility period

following the removal of sedimentary

structures and associated facilities will

not be sufficient to guarantee adequate

revegetation and prevent erosion. The

Director disagrees. As stated above in

the findings, Kentucky is proposing that

the five-year revegetation responsibility

period not be restarted when small areas

containing the required sedimentary

control structures are reclaimed when

no longer needed. The five-year

revegetation responsibility period will

still be required for the overall permit

area or increment thereof. In addition,

the approved Kentucky program

requirements concerning bond release,

including the revegetation standards,

remain in place. Therefore, Kentucky

will continue to assess whether or not

there has been established within the

permit area (or increment), including

the areas where sediment control

structures were removed, a diverse,

effective permanent vegetative cover in

accordance with the appropriate

revegetation success standards. That is,

not restarting the revegetation

responsibility upon removal of sediment

control structures will not diminish the

requirements to meet the revegetation

standards.

The USFWS also stated that

sedimentary control structures are often

constructed on steep slopes, involve

loose and erosive materials, and are

located within or upslope of

environmentally sensitive areas

associated with streams and wetlands.

Reduction of the vegetation monitoring

from five to two years would

unjustifiably increase the potential to

impair the quality of Kentucky’s waters.

In response, the Director disagrees with

the commenter. The areas from which

the sedimentary structures are removed,

including any in steep slope areas, and

any with nearby environmentally

sensitive areas, are required by

Kentucky regulations to be surrounded

by revegetated lands with vegetation

already sufficiently established as to

render such structures unnecessary for

the protection of water quality and

effluent limitations. Following this, the

entire revegetated area (or increment

thereof), including the reclaimed area

where the sediment control structure

was located, is subject to the full

Kentucky program requirements

concerning final inspection for bond

release. In addition, the Director finds

that the two-year criterion proposed by

Kentucky is sufficient to establish (as is

required by SMCRA section 515(b)(19))

a permanent and diverse vegetative

cover on the reclaimed sediment control

structure areas, especially since the

lands typically involved will be small in

size, widely dispersed, and surrounded

by revegetated lands.

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.). The

proposed Kentucky amendment does

not pertain to air or water quality

standards and, therefore, EPA’s

concurrence is not required.

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from the EPA. The EPA

responded and concurred without

comment on October 18, 1993

(Administrative Record No. KY–1246).

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above finding, the

Director approves, except for the

reference to haul roads, Kentucky’s

regulations at sections 1(7)(b) of 405

KAR 16:200 and 18:200. In addition, the

Director is requiring that Kentucky

further amend the Kentucky program to

detele the term ‘‘haul roads’’ at sections

1(7)(b) of 405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 917, codifying decisions concerning

the Kentucky program, are being

amended to implement this decision.

This final rule is being made effective

immediately to expedite the State

program amendment process and to

encourage States to bring their programs

into conformity with the Federal

standards without undue delay.

Consistency of State and Federal

standards is required by SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon corresponding Federal regulations

for which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

corresponding Federal regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41427

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 913

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: July 20, 1998.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 917 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 917—KENTUCKY

1. The authority citation for Part 917

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 917.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 917.15 Approval of Kentucky regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original

amendment submission

date

Date of

final publicationCitation/description

* * * * *

June 28,

1991.

August 4,

1998.

405 KAR 16:200

§ 1(7)(b) and

18:200 § 1(7)(b).

3. Section 917.16 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (n) to read as

follows:

§ 917.16 Required regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(n) By October 5, 1998, Kentucky

shall amend the Kentucky program, or

provide a written description of an

amendment together with a timetable

for enactment which is consistent with

established administrative or legislative

procedures in the State, to delete the

term ‘‘haul roads’’ at sections 1(7)(b) of

405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200.

[FR Doc. 98–20715 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 20

End of Stay of Interim Rule for Global

Package Link to Germany and France

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: End of stay of interim rule.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is ending

its stay of its recently published interim

rule on Global Package Link which

added a merchandise return service for

customers utilizing the GPL service to

Germany and France.

DATES: The amendment to the

International Mail Manual published in

the Federal Register on July 10, 1998

(63 FR 37251–37254), will become

effective as of 12:01 a.m. on August 4,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Any written comments

should be mailed or delivered to the

International Business Unit, U.S. Postal

Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, room

370–IBU, Washington, DC 20260–6500.

Copies of all written comments will be

available for public inspection and

photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill

Brandt (202) 314–7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a

notice in the Federal Register on July

17, 1998 (63 FR 38478), the Postal

Service stayed an interim rule it had

previously published in the Federal

Register on July 10, 1998 (63 FR 37251–

37254), concerning the establishment of

a GPL return service to Germany and

France. The Postal Service has

completed its further internal review of

the interim rule, and has determined to

make the contemplated service available

immediately.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20

International postal service, Foreign

relations.

The Postal Service hereby makes

effective its amendment of July 10,

1998, to the International Mail Manual,

which is incorporated by reference in

the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39

CFR 20.1.

PART 20—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR

part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401,

404, 407, 408.

1. Subchapter 620 of the International

Mail Manual, Issue 20, sections 626.24

and 626.25, are effective August 4, 1998.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 98–20738 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Region 2 Docket No. NY28–2–180b, FRL–

6134–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities; New

York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is approving the State

Plan submitted by New York to fulfill

the requirements of sections 111(d)/129

of the Clean Air Act for Municipal

Waste Combustors (MWC). The State

Plan addresses the implementation and

enforcement of the Emissions

Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing

large MWC units with individual

capacity to combust more than 250 tons

per day of municipal solid waste. The

State Plan imposes emission limits and

control requirements for the existing

MWC’s in New York which will reduce

the designated pollutants.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on October 5, 1998 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by September 3, 1998. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Ronald J. Borsellino,

Chief, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866.

Copies of the state submittal are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road,

Albany, New York 12233.