25850 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

the requirements of 30 CFR as they

pertain to mine safety (administrative

record Nos. CO–633 and CO–645).

3. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Concurrence and Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii),

OSM is required to solicit the written

concurrence of 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.).

On April 6, 1994, OSM solicited

EPA’s concurrence with the proposed

MOU (administrative record No. CO–

605). By letters dated May 9 and July 28,

1994, and February 1, 1995

(administrative record Nos. CO–616,

CO–634, and CO–659), EPA stated that

it believed that the proposed MOU

would have no impact on water quality

standards promulgated under the

authority of the Clean Water Act, as

amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

4. State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

MOU from the SHPO and ACHP

(administrative record No. CO–605).

Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded

to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves Colorado’s proposed

MOU as submitted on March 18, 1994,

and as supplemented with additional

explanatory information on June 23 and

December 7, 1994.

Specifically, the Director approves the

following portions of the MOU, as

discussed in: Finding No. 1, concerning

purpose, understanding, and

understanding between the parties;

finding No. 2, concerning review of

permit applications; finding No. 3,

concerning training; finding No. 4,

concerning inspections, monitoring, and

sample analysis; finding No. 5a,

concerning enforcement of effluent

limitations; finding No. 5b, concerning

pattern-of-violation and show-cause

processes; finding No. 5c, concerning

other enforcement provisions, and

finding No. 6, concerning coordination.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

906, codifying decisions concerning the

Colorado 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

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempt from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that 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

the Federal regulations at 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.

3. 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 of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

4. 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.).

5. 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

that 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.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 906

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 9, 1995.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 906—COLORADO

1. The authority citation for Part 906

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 906.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (r) to read as follows:

§ 906.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(r) The proposed February 9, 1994,

memorandum of understanding (MOU)

between the Division of Minerals and

Geology of the Colorado Department of

Natural Resources and the Water

Quality Control Division of the Colorado

Department of Health for water quality

management at coal mines, as submitted

to OSM on March 18, 1994, and as

supplemented with explanatory

information on June 23 and December 7,

1994, is approved effective May 15,

1995.

[FR Doc. 95–11887 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 20

RIN 2900–AH47

Rules of Practice: Waiver of

Consideration of Evidence by Agency

of Original Jurisdiction

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Rules of Practice of the Board of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 25851

Veterans’ Appeals (Board) with respect

to evidence accepted by the Board after

transfer of the record to the Board to

specify that an appellant’s

representative may waive the right to

have such evidence referred to the

agency of original jurisdiction. This

amendment is necessary because there

has been confusion as to whether such

a waiver may only be made by an

appellant. This amendment is intended

to provide clarification and to be

consistent with general principles

permitting use of representatives by VA

claimants. Also, this amendment will

help expedite the handling of appeals.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven L. Keller, Counsel to the

Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals,

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20420; (202) 233–2978.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board

provides final appellate review within

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

of questions of law and fact relating to

benefit determinations concerning

veterans, their dependents, and their

survivors. This document amends the

Board’s Rules of Practice, which are set

forth at 38 CFR Part 20.

When a case is appealed to the Board

the evidence of record is transferred to

the Board for review. After the record

has been transferred to the Board,

additional evidence may be received

and accepted by the Board under

§ 20.1304 of the Board’s Rules of

Practice and § 19.37(b) of the Board’s

Appeals Regulations (38 CFR Part 19).

With respect to such ‘‘additional

evidence,’’ 38 CFR 20.1304(c),

immediately prior to the effective date

of this document, stated:

(c) Consideration of additional evidence by

agency of original jurisdiction. Any pertinent

evidence submitted by the appellant or

representative which is accepted by the

Board under the provisions of this section, as

well as any such evidence referred to the

Board by the originating agency under

§ 19.37(b) of this chapter, must be referred to

the agency of original jurisdiction for review

and preparation of a Supplemental Statement

of the Case unless this procedural right is

waived by the appellant or unless the Board

determines that the benefit, or benefits, to

which the evidence relates may be allowed

on appeal without such referral. Such waiver

must be in writing or, if a hearing on appeal

is conducted, formally entered on the record

orally at the time of the hearing.

This document amends § 20.1304(c)

to specify that the appellant ‘‘or

representative,’’ and not solely the

appellant, may waive the right to have

the additional evidence referred to the

‘‘agency of original jurisdiction for

review and preparation of a

Supplemental Statement of the Case.’’

This amendment is necessary because

there has been confusion as to whether

such a waiver may only be made by an

appellant. This amendment is intended

to provide clarification and to be

consistent with general principles

permitting use of representatives by VA

claimants. Also, this amendment will

help expedite the handling of appeals.

This final rule concerns agency

procedure or practice and,

consequently, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553

is exempt from notice and comment

requirements.

The Secretary hereby certifies that

this final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities as they are

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This rule will

affect VA beneficiaries and will not

affect small businesses. Therefore,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final

rule is exempt from the initial and final

regulatory flexibility analyses

requirements of sections 603 and 604.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 20

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Lawyers, Legal

services, Veterans.

Approved: May 2, 1995.

Jesse Brown,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 38 CFR Part 20 is amended as

set forth below:

PART 20—BOARD OF VETERANS’

APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE

1. The authority citation for part 20

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a).

§ 20.1304 [Amended]

2. In § 20.1304, the first sentence in

paragraph (c) is amended by adding ‘‘or

representative’’ immediately after

‘‘unless this procedural right is waived

by the appellant’’.

[FR Doc. 95–11888 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 93–224; RM–8291, 8325,

8358, 8360]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Bismark,

Centerville, Farmington, Ironton, MO,

and Herrin, IL

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel

258C3 to Bismarck, Missouri, as that

community’s first local service, in

response to a counterproposal filed by

KREI, Inc. See 58 FR 42522, August 10,

1993. The coordinates for Channel

258C3 are 37–38–43 and 90–32–54.

There is a site restriction 15.3

kilometers (9.5 miles) southeast of the

community. The counterproposal filed

by Wayne E. Tate for Ironton, Missouri,

and Herrin, Illinois, has been dismissed

(RM–8325). The counterproposal filed

by Wayne E. Tate and David E. Smith

Communications, Inc. for Ironton,

Missouri, Herrin, Illinois and

Centerville, Missouri, has been

dismissed (RM-8360). The petition filed

by KREI, Inc. for Farmington, Missouri,

has been dismissed (RM-8291). With

this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

DATES: Effective June 23, 1995. The

window period for filing applications

for Channel 258C3 at Bismarck,

Missouri, will open on June 23, 1995,

and close on July 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 93–224,

adopted May 1, 1995, released May 9,

1995. The full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the Commission’s Reference Center

(Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW,

Washington, D.C. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy

contractors, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW, Suite

140, Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 857–

3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows: