Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40237

provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)

of this section:

(1) In the case of a previous contract

terminated by an event described in

section 15(a)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C.

80a–15(a)(3)), by the failure to renew the

previous contract, or by an assignment

(other than an assignment by an

investment adviser or a controlling

person of the investment adviser in

connection with which assignment the

investment adviser or a controlling

person directly or indirectly receives

money or other benefit):

(i) The compensation to be received

under the interim contract is no greater

than the compensation the adviser

would have received under the previous

contract; and

(ii) The fund’s board of directors,

including a majority of the directors

who are not interested persons of the

fund, has approved the interim contract

within seven calendar days after the

termination, at a meeting in which

directors may participate by any means

of communication that allows all

directors participating to hear each

other simultaneously during the

meeting.

(2) In the case of a previous contract

terminated by an assignment by an

investment adviser or a controlling

person of the investment adviser in

connection with which assignment the

investment adviser or a controlling

person directly or indirectly receives

money or other benefit:

(i) The compensation to be received

under the interim contract is no greater

than the compensation the adviser

would have received under the previous

contract;

(ii) The board of directors, including

a majority of the directors who are not

interested persons of the fund, has voted

in person to approve the interim

contract before the previous contract is

terminated;

(iii) The board of directors, including

a majority of the directors who are not

interested persons of the fund,

determines that the scope and quality of

services to be provided to the fund

under the interim contract will be at

least equivalent to the scope and quality

of services provided under the previous

contract;

(iv) The interim contract provides that

the fund’s board of directors or a

majority of the fund’s outstanding

voting securities may terminate the

contract at any time, without the

payment of any penalty, on not more

than 10 calendar days’ written notice to

the investment adviser;

(v) The interim contract contains the

same terms and conditions as the

previous contract, with the exception of

its effective and termination dates,

provisions governed by paragraphs

(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(iv), and (b)(2)(vi) of this

section, and any other differences in

terms and conditions that the board of

directors, including a majority of the

directors who are not interested persons

of the fund, finds to be immaterial; and

(vi) The interim contract contains the

following provisions:

(A) The compensation earned under

the contract will be held in an interestbearing escrow account with the fund’s

custodian or a bank.

(B) If a majority of the fund’s

outstanding voting securities approve a

contract with the investment adviser by

the end of the 150–day period, the

amount in the escrow account

(including interest earned) will be paid

to the investment adviser.

(C) If a majority of the fund’s

outstanding voting securities do not

approve a contract with the investment

adviser, the investment adviser will be

paid, out of the escrow account, the

lesser of:

(1) Any costs incurred in performing

the interim contract (plus interest

earned on that amount while in escrow);

or

(2) The total amount in the escrow

account (plus interest earned).

Dated: July 22, 1998.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–20088 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 938

[PA–121–FOR]

Pennsylvania Abandoned Mine Land

Reclamation Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: OSM is reopening the public

comment period on a proposed

amendment to the Pennsylvania

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

(AMLR) Plan (hereinafter referred to as

the Pennsylvania Program) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30

U.S.C. 1201 et seq., as amended. The

proposed amendment adds a new

section ‘‘F’’ entitled Government

Financed Construction Contracts

(GFCC) to authorize the incidental

removal of coal at AML sites that would

not otherwise be mined and reclaimed

under the Title V program. The

proposed amendment also includes the

Program Requirements and Monitoring

Requirements related to the use of GFCC

for that purpose. The proposed

amendment is intended to improve the

efficiency of the Pennsylvania program

by allowing the Government-financed

construction exemption in Section 528

of SMCRA to be applied in cases

involving less than 50% government

financing only in the limited situation

where the construction constitutes a

government approved and administered

abandoned mine land reclamation

project under Title IV of SMCRA.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., [E.D.T.] August

12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or hand delivered to Robert

Biggi, Field Office Director, at the

address listed below. Copies of the

Pennsylvania program, the proposed

amendment, and all written comments

received in response to this document

will be available for public review at the

addresses listed below during normal

business hours, Monday through Friday,

excluding holidays. Each requester may

receive one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s

Harrisburg Field Office: Mr. Robert J.

Biggi, Director, Harrisburg Field Office,

Third Floor, Suite 3C, Harrisburg

Transportation Center (Amtrack), 415

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

17101. Telephone: (717) 782–4036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert J. Biggi, Director, Harrisburg

Field Office, Third Floor, Suite 3C,

Harrisburg Transportation Center

(Amtrack) 415 Market Street,

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101.

Telephone: (717) 782–4036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Pennsylvania

Program

On July 30, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Pennsylvania program. Background on

the Pennsylvania program, including

the Secretary’s findings and the

disposition of comments, can be found

in the July 30, 1982 Federal Register (47

FR 33079). Subsequent actions

concerning the AMLR program

amendments are identified at 30 CFR

938.20 and 938.25.
40238 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated November 21, 1997

(Administrative Record No. PA–855.00),

the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection (PADEP)

submitted proposed Program

Amendment No. 2 to the Pennsylvania

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan. In

addition, PADEP also submitted the

following documents: Basis of Authority

for the Proposed Amendment, AML

Amendment Conformance with 30 CFR

Section 884.13, Assistant Counsel’s

Opinion of Authority for GFCC, PADEP

Organization Chart and the Office of

Mineral Resources Management

Organization Chart. The proposed

amendment is intended to improve the

efficiency of the Pennsylvania program

by allowing the Government-financed

construction exemption in Section 528

of SMCRA to be applied in certain cases

involving less than 50% government

financing. The inspection forms and

related instructions to be utilized to

monitor the GFCC program are part of

the amendment. Pennsylvania

submitted the proposed amendment at

its own initiative.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the December

29, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR

67590) 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 January 28, 1998.

However, OSM’s review determined

that several items contained in the

proposed amendments required

clarification. As a result, a letter

requesting clarification on three items

was sent to Pennsylvania dated June 5,

1998 (Administrative Record No. PA–

855.08). Pennsylvania initially

responded in its letter dated June 17,

1998, (Administrative Record No. PA

855.09), that it would require additional

time to respond to OSM’s request, and

that it expected to provide a response by

July 15. A response was received from

Pennsylvania in its letter dated July 7,

1998 (Administrative Record No. PA–

855.10). Therefore, OSM is reopening

the public comment period regarding

the following clarifications to

Pennsylvanians proposed amendments:

Pennsylvania was asked to clarify

how it would fund projects in cases

where the operator defaults on the

contract or otherwise fails to perform

the necessary reclamation. OSM noted

that the proposed amendment at page 15

requires that a performance bond shall

be submitted for the GFCC where

required, but it does not state the

authority for requiring a bond, nor does

it state the conditions under which a

bond would be required. Pennsylvania

responded that it has developed a bond

rate schedule to be used to establish the

bond amount for each GFCC. The bond

rate schedule is based on acreage

involved and PADEP’s experience in

reclaiming abandoned mine lands.

Should a contractor default on a GFCC

or otherwise fail to perform the required

reclamation, PADEP will make a

demand upon the surety to fulfill its

performance bond obligations to either

complete the reclamation required by

the GFCC or to pay that amount of bond

money necessary for PADEP to hire

another contractor to complete the

remaining contract reclamation work. A

consent order and agreement, in

conjunction with a permit condition,

will be used to ensure AML sites which

receive excess spoil from a Title V site

are fully reclaimed. The permit

condition will provide that the operator

will use no more than that amount of

excess spoil than is necessary to reclaim

the AML site, and that the operator’s

failure to complete the required

reclamation of the AML site prohibits

release of the bond on the Title V

permit. An operator’s failure to

complete reclamation of the AML site

would be a violation of its permit,

exposing the operator to civil penalties

and/or bond forfeiture. Additionally, the

consent order and agreement will make

it possible for the PADEP to have a court

enforce the consent order and agreement

and require the operator to complete the

reclamation. Pennsylvania also

responded that the authority for

requiring a bond is contained in the

statutes cited in the legal opinion

attached to the proposed program

amendment initially submitted.

Pennsylvania revised pages 15 and 16 of

its proposed amendment to include

these clarifications.

Pennsylvania was also asked to clarify

which requirements in the approved

program will apply to the placement of

excess spoil on abandoned mine lands

as referenced in the proposed

amendment at page 7 where it is stated

that the placement of excess spoil on

adjacent AML lands would be approved

AML reclamation projects and would

therefore encompass the same timetested administrative, financial,

contractual and environmental

safeguards as any other approved AML

projects in the Commonwealth. OSM

requested that Pennsylvania either

require that these projects be handled in

the same manner as Federally-funded

AML projects, or otherwise identify the

administrative, financial, contractual

and environmental safeguards that will

be applied to these ‘‘no-cost’’ GFCC’s,

and show how these safeguards will

ensure the same level of environmental

protection as that which is provided by

Federally-funded AML projects.

Pennsylvania responded that these

projects will be handled in the same

manner as Federally-funded AML

projects. Furthermore, projects that

involve the support and involvement of

the District Mining Offices will be

subject to the additional administrative

requirements designed to address the

coordination between the Bureau of

Abandoned Mine Reclamation and the

District Mining Offices. Pennsylvania

revised page 7 of its proposed

amendment to include these

clarifications.

Pennsylvania was requested to

include in its AML Plan provisions to

ensure that excess spoil from Title V

operations will not be placed on

approved AML sites in amounts greater

than necessary to address the AML

impacts and problems. Pennsylvania

responded that it modified its

amendment by adding the following

sentence to the end of the first

paragraph on page 6, C.1; after the

fourth sentence of the first full

paragraph on page 7; after the first

sentence of the last paragraph on page

9; after the first sentence of Part F(2) on

page 13; and after the first sentence of

the third paragraph under Program

Requirements on page 15: ‘‘The amount

of excess spoil from Title V operations

will not exceed that amount necessary

to address the AML impacts and

problems.’’

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 884.15, OSM is now seeking

comment on whether the amendment

proposed by Pennsylvania satisfies the

applicable requirements for the

approval of State AMLR program

amendments. Specifically, OSM is

seeking comments on the clarifications

to the State’s AML Plan that were

submitted on July 7, 1998

(Administrative Record No. PA 855.10).

Comments should address whether the

proposed amendment with these

clarifications satisfies the applicable

program approval criteria of 30 CFR

884.15. If the amendment is deemed

adequate, it will become part of the

Pennsylvania program.

Written Comments

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed in

this rulemaking, and include

explanations in support of the

commenter’s recommendations.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40239

Comments received after the time

indicated under DATES or at locations

other than the Harrisburg Field Office

will not necessarily be considered in the

final rulemaking or included in the

Administrative Record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This proposed 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 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 or Tribe are based on a

determination of whether the submittal

meets the requirements of Title IV of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–1243) and 30

CFR Parts 884 and 888.

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 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 in the analyses for

the corresponding 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 938

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: July 21, 1998.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 98–20163 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300693; FRL–6020–6]

RIN 2070–AC18

Spinosad; Time-Limited Pesticide

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a

time-limited tolerance for residues of

spinosad in or on coffee at 0.02 parts per

million (ppm). This action is being

initiated by EPA under the Federal

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–

170). The United States Department of

Agriculture/Agricultural Research

Service (USDA/ARS) has requested that

EPA establish a time-limited tolerance

on coffee in order for USDA/ARS to

conduct efficacy testing of spinosad to

control the Mediterranean Fruit Fly.

This testing will be conducted on 80

acres in Hawaii under an Experimental

Use Permit (EUP).

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket conrol number [OPP–300693],

must be received by EPA on or before

August 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch, Information

Resources and Services Division

(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In

person, deliver comments to: Rm. 119,

CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Follow the

instructions under Unit VI of this

document. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as CBI.

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

will be included in the public docket by

EPA without prior notice. The public

docket is available for public inspection

in Rm. 119 at the Virginia address given

above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Susan Lewis, Registration Division

[7505C], Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: Crystal Mall #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA,

(703) 305–7448, e-mail:

lewis.susan@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of April 15, 1998 (63

FR 18329)(FRL–5785–7), EPA

established permanent tolerances by

removing the time limitation for the

tolerance for residues of the insecticide

spinosad in or on cottonseed at 0.02

ppm and by establishing tolerances in or

on almonds at 0.02 ppm; almond hulls

at 2.0 ppm; apples at 0.2 ppm; apple

pomace, wet at 0.5 ppm; citrus fruits

group at 0.3 ppm; dried citrus pulp at

0.5 ppm; citrus oil at 3.0 ppm; cotton

gin byproducts at 1.5 ppm; fruiting

vegetables (except cucurbits) group at

0.4 ppm; leafy vegetables (except

Brassica vegetables) group at 8.0 ppm;

Brassica (cole), leafy vegetables, head

and stem subgroup at 2.0 ppm; Brassica

(cole), leafy vegetables, greens subgroup

at 15.0 ppm; fat of cattle, goats, hogs,

horses, and sheep at 0.7 ppm; meat of

cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at

0.04 ppm; meat byproducts of cattle,

goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.2