13040 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 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, 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.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Richard J. Seibel,

Acting Assistant Director, Eastern Support

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 914—INDIANA

1. The authority citation for part 914

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 914.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (fff) to read as follows:

§ 914.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(fff) The following amendment

(Program Amendment Number 94–6)

submitted to OSM on December 7, 1994,

is approved effective March 10, 1995.

310 IAC 12–8–4.1 concerning

application for blaster certification and

310 IAC 12–8–8.1 concerning renewal of

blaster certification.

[FR Doc. 95–5920 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 936

Oklahoma Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule, approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Oklahoma regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Oklahoma program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201

et seq.). (SMCRA). The proposed

amendment consists of revisions to

Oklahoma’s coal mining rules

concerning its Small Operator

Assistance Program (SOAP). The

amendment revises the Oklahoma

program to be consistent with SMCRA

and the corresponding Federal

regulation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James H. Moncrief, Telephone: (918)

581–6430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Oklahoma

Program

On January 19, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Oklahoma program. General background

information on the Oklahoma program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval of the Oklahoma

program can be found in the January 19,

1981, Federal Register (46 FR 4902).

Subsequent actions concerning

Oklahoma’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

936.15, 936.16, and 936.30.

II. Submission of Amendment

By letter dated September 14, 1994,

Oklahoma submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA (administrative record No. OK–

964). Oklahoma submitted the proposed

amendment at its own initiative with

the intent of revising the Oklahoma

program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations.

Oklahoma proposed to revise its

SOAP rules at Oklahoma Administrative

Code (OAC) sections 460:20–35–3,

eligibility for assistance; 460:20–35–6,

program services and data requirements;

and 460:20–35–7, applicant liability.

Here and herein after, OSM refers to

these revised rules by their new codified

numbers because Oklahoma proposed in

a different amendment recodification of

its coal mining rules in accordance with

the standards set forth by the Oklahoma

State Legislature and the Office of

Administrative Code (See proposed rule

Federal Register notice, 59 FR 49223,

September 27, 1994).

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the September

27, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR

49225), provided an opportunity for a

public hearing or meeting on its

substantive adequacy, and invited

public comment on its adequacy

(administrative record No. OK–964.03).

Because no one requested a public

hearing or meeting, none was held. The

public comment period ended on

October 27, 1994.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to the

provisions of Oklahoma’s rules at OAC

460:20–35–3(a)(2), percentage of

ownership and control of the SOAP
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13041

applicant; OAC 460:20–35–6 (a) and (b),

extension of SOAP funding to other

program services and requirements for

collection of specific kinds of data; and

OAC 460:20–35–7, liability periods.

OSM notified Oklahoma of the concerns

by letter dated November 22, 1994

(administrative record No. OK–964.09).

Oklahoma responded in a letter dated

December 20, 1994, by submitting

additional explanatory information and

revisions to these rules (administrative

record No. OK–964.11). In addition,

Oklahoma proposed revisions to OAC

460:20–35–1, definitions.

Based upon the revisions to and

additional explanatory information for

the proposed program amendment

submitted by Oklahoma, OSM reopened

the public comment period in the

December 30, 1994, Federal Register (59

FR 67693, administrative record No.

OK–964.12). The public comment

period ended on January 17, 1995.

III. Director’s Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in

accordance with SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, finds that the

proposed program amendment

submitted by Oklahoma on September

14, 1994, and as revised by it on

December 20, 1994, is no less effective

than the corresponding Federal

regulations. Accordingly, the Director

approves the proposed amendment.

1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to

Oklahoma’s Rules

Oklahoma proposed revisions to the

following previously-approved rules

that are nonsubstantive in nature (the

corresponding Federal regulation

provisions are listed in parentheses):

OAC 460:20–35–3 (a)(2)(D) and (b), (30

CFR 795.6 (a)(2)(iv) and (b)),

eligibility for assistance;

OAC 460:20–35–6(d), (30 CFR 795.9(d)),

program services and data

requirements; and

OAC 460:20–35–7(a), (30 CFR

795.12(a)), applicant liability.

Because Oklahoma’s proposed

revisions of these previously-approved

rules are nonsubstantive in nature, the

Director finds that the proposed rules

are no less effective than the Federal

regulations and is approving them.

2. Substantive Revisions to Oklahoma’s

Rules That Are Substantively Identical

to the Corresponding Provisions of the

Federal Regulations

Oklahoma proposed revisions to the

following rules that are substantive in

nature and contain language that is

substantively identical to the

requirements of the corresponding

Federal regulation provisions (listed in

parentheses).

OAC 460:20–35–1, (30 CFR 795.3),

definitions;

OAC 460:20–35–3(a)(2), (a)(2) (A), and

(B), (30 CFR 765.6(a)(2), (i) and (ii)),

eligibility for assistance;

OAC 460:20–35–6 (a) and (b) (1) through

(6), (30 CFR 795.9 (a) and (b) (1)

through (6)), program services and

data requirements; and

OAC 460:20–35–7(a) (2) and (3), (30

CFR 795.12(a) (2) and (3)), applicant

liability.

Because the proposed revisions to

these Oklahoma rules are substantively

identical to the corresponding

provisions of the Federal regulations,

the Director finds that they are no less

effective than the Federal regulations.

The Director approves these proposed

rules.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Following are summaries of all

written comments on the proposed

amendment that were received by OSM,

and OSM’s responses to them.

1. Public Comments

OSM invited public comments on the

proposed amendment, but none were

received.

2. Federal Agency Comments

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Oklahoma program

(administrative record No. OK–964.02).

The Bureau of Mines responded in a

letter dated September 27, 1994, that it

had no comment on Oklahoma’s

proposed revisions (administrative

record No. OK–964.04).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

stated in a letter dated September 30,

1994, that it found the changes to be

satisfactory (administrative record No.

OK–964.05).

The Bureau of Land Management

responded in a letter dated October 12,

1994, that the modification to

Oklahoma’s SOAP provisions seemed

appropriate (administrative record No.

OK–964.06).

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.).

None of the revisions that Oklahoma

proposed to make in its amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards.

Therefore, OSM did not request EPA’s

concurrence.

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from EPA (administrative

record No. OK–964.02). It responded on

October 13, 1994, that it had no

objections to the approval of

Oklahoma’s proposed regulations

(administrative record No. OK–964.07).

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

amendment from the SHPO and the

ACHP (administrative record No. OK–

964.02). Neither the SHPO nor the

ACHP responded to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves Oklahoma’s proposed

amendment as submitted on September

14, 1994, and as revised on December

20, 1994.

The Director approves, as discussed

in: Finding No. 1, OAC 460:20–35–3

(a)(2)(D) and (b), eligibility for

assistance, OAC 460:20–35–6(d),

program services and data requirements,

and OAC 460:20–35–7(a), applicant

liability; and finding No. 2, OAC

460:20–35–1, definitions, OAC 460:20–

35–3(a)(2) (A) and (B), eligibility for

assistance, OAC 460:20–35–6 (a) and (b)

(1) through (6), program services and

data requirements, and OAC 460:20–35–

7(a) (2) and (3), applicant liability.

The Director approves the rules as

proposed by Oklahoma with the

provision that they be fully promulgated

in identical form to the rules submitted

to and reviewed by OSM and the public.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

part 936, codifying decisions concerning

the Oklahoma 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 exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12886

(Regulatory Planning and Review).
13042 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1Control techniques guideline documents have

been prepared by USEPA to assist States in defining

RACT for the control of VOC emissions from

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 (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

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.

VII. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 936

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Assistant Director, Western Support

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 936—OKLAHOMA

1. The authority citation for part 936

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 936.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:

§ 936.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(o) Revisions to the following

provisions of the Oklahoma Coal Rules

and Regulations concerning the small

operator assistance program, as

submitted to OSM on September 14,

1994, and as revised on December 20,

1994, are approved effective March 10,

1995:

Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)

460:20–35–1, definitions;

OAC 460:20–35–3 (a)(2), (a)(2) (A), (B),

and (D), and (b), eligibility for

assistance;

OAC 460:20–35–6 (a), (b) (1) through

(6), and (d), program services and data

requirements; and

OAC 460:20–35–7 (a), (a) (2) and (3),

applicant liability.

[FR Doc. 95–5921 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL 12–36–6669; FRL–5167–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On June 29, 1990, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) promulgated a Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) which

contains stationary source volatile

organic compound (VOC) control

measures representing reasonably

available control technology (RACT) for

emission sources located in six

northeastern Illinois (Chicago area)

counties: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,

McHenry and Will. Included in

USEPA’s rules was a requirement that

major non-Control Technique Guideline

(CTG) sources be subject to 40 CFR

52.741 (s), (u), (v), (w), or (x). The major

non-CTG limits in 40 CFR 52.741(x)

(would, if not for this rule) apply to the

hot and cold aluminum rolling

operations at the Reynolds Metals

Company’s (Reynolds) McCook Sheet &

Plate Plant in McCook, Illinois (in Cook

County). On August 19, 1991, Reynolds

requested that USEPA reconsider the

application of 40 CFR 52.741(x) to its

facility in McCook, Illinois, and on

October 17, 1991, Reynolds requested

that USEPA promulgate site-specific

RACT limits for its hot and cold rolling

mills. USEPA agreed to reconsider the

RACT control requirements for

Reynolds’ aluminum rolling operations

and, on September 22, 1993, proposed

site-specific RACT control requirements

for these operations. In this rule the

USEPA is promulgating these sitespecific RACT limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

April 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action

(Docket No. A–92–67), which contains

the public comments, is located for

public inspection and copying at the

following addresses. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying. We

recommend that you contact Randolph

O. Cano before visiting the Chicago

location and Rachel Romine (202/245–

3639) before visiting the Washington,

D.C. location.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Regulation Development

Branch, 18th Floor, Southwest, 77

West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois

60604.

Office of Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Docket No. A–92–67, Room

M1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street

SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Regulation

Development Branch, USEPA Region 5,

(312) 886–6052, at the Chicago address

indicated above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Part D of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42

U.S.C. 7401 et seq., requires that states

adopt rules for major non-CTG 1 sources.