Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19885

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such

meetings will be open to the public and,

if possible, notices of meetings will be

posted at the locations listed under

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

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 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 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 904

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 96–11022 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 946

[VA–107–FOR]

Virginia 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 Virginia

regulatory program (hereinafter referred

to as the Virginia program) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

proposed amendment consists of

statutory changes contained in Virginia

House Bill 706 and the implementing

regulations, both of which address

sudden release of accumulated water

from underground coal mine voids. The

amendment is intended to improve the

effectiveness of the Virginia program.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., on June 3, 1996.

If requested, a public hearing on the

proposed amendment will be held on

May 28, 1996. Requests to speak at the

hearing must be received by 4:00 p.m.,

on May 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to speak at the hearing should

be mailed or hand delivered to Mr.

Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap

Field Office at the first address listed

below.

Copies of the Virginia program, the

proposed amendment, a listing of any

scheduled public hearings, 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 requestor may receive

one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s Big

Stone Gap Field Office.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, Big Stone Gap Field

Office, P.O. Box 1217, Powell Valley

Square Shopping Center, Room 220,

Route 23, Big Stone Gap, Virginia

24219, Telephone: (703) 523–4303

Virginia Division of Mined Land

Reclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, Big

Stone Gap, Virginia 24219,

Telephone: (703) 523–8100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone

Gap Field Office, Telephone: (703) 523–

4303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Virginia Program

On December 15, 1981, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the Virginia program. Background

information on the Virginia program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the December 15, 1981, Federal Register

(46 FR 61085–61115). Subsequent

actions concerning the conditions of

approval and program amendments can

be found at 30 CFR 946.12, 946.13,

946.15, and 946.16.

II. Discussion of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated April 17, 1996

(Administrative Record No. VA–876),

Virginia submitted amendments to

§ 45.1–243 of the Code of Virginia

contained in Virginia House Bill 706,

and concerning the sudden release of

accumulated water from underground

coal mine voids. Virginia also submitted

the proposed implementing regulations

at § 480–03–19.784.14 concerning

hydrologic information for reclamation

and operations plans, and § 480–03–

19.817.41 concerning performance

standards for hydrologic balance

protection.

The proposed amendments are as

follows:

1. § 45.1–243 of the Code of Virginia

is amended by adding a new subsection

to read as follows:

B. The Director’s regulations shall

require that permit applicants submit

hydrologic reclamation plans that

include measures that will be utilized to

prevent the sudden release of
19886 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

accumulated water from underground

workings.

2. § 480–03–19.784.14(g) of the

Virginia regulations is amended to add

the requirement that the hydrologic

reclamation plan shall also include

identification of the measures to be

taken to prevent the sudden release of

accumulated water from the

underground workings.

3. § 480–03–19.817.41(I) is amended

by adding new subparagraph (3) to read

as follows:

(3) Except where surface entries and

accesses to underground workings are

located pursuant to (i)(1) of this Section,

an unmined barrier of coal shall be left

in place where the coal seam dips

toward the land surface. The unmined

barrier and associated overburden shall

be designed to prevent the sudden

release of water that may accumulate in

the underground workings.

(I) The applicant may demonstrate the

appropriate barrier width and

overburden height by either:

(A) providing a site specific design,

certified by a qualified registered

professional engineer, which considers

the overburden and barrier

characteristics; or

(B) providing the greater barrier width

necessary for a minimum of 100 feet of

vertical overburden or for an unmined

horizontal barrier calculated by the

formula: W=50+H, when W is the

minimum width in feet and H is the

calculated hydrostatic head in feet.

(ii) Exception to the barrier

requirement may be approved provided

the Division finds, based upon the

geologic and hydrologic conditions, an

accumulation of water in the

underground workings cannot

reasonably be expected to occur or other

measures taken by the applicant are

adequate to prevent the accumulation of

water.

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is now seeking

comment on whether the amendments

proposed by Virginia satisfy the

applicable program approval criteria of

30 CFR 732.15. If the amendments are

deemed adequate, they will become part

of the Virginia 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.

Comments received after the time

indicated under ‘‘DATES’’ or at locations

other than the Big Stone Gap Field

Office will not necessarily be

considered in the final rulemaking or

included in the Administrative Record.

Public Hearing

Persons wishing to comment at the

public hearing should contact the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by close of

business on May 20, 1996. If no one

requests an opportunity to comment at

a public hearing, 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 responses

and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on

the specified date until all persons

scheduled to comment have been heard.

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to comment, and who

wish to do so, will be heard following

those scheduled.

The hearing will end after all persons

scheduled to comment and persons

present in the audience who wish to

comment have been heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to comment 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 amendments may

request a meeting at the Big Stone Gap

Field Office 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 part of the

Administrative Record.

Any disabled individual who has

need for a special accommodation to

attend a public hearing should contact

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 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 the 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 the 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.

According, 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 946

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19887

Dated: April 25, 1996.

Michael K. Robinson,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 96–11023 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL–5468–1]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaning Facilities; Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed amendments to rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes

amendments to the national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) for perchloroethylene (PCE)

dry cleaning facilities promulgated in

the Federal Register on September 22,

1993. The NESHAP was promulgated to

minimize emissions of PCE, which has

been listed by EPA as a hazardous air

pollutant (HAP). The Administrator is

proposing to implement a settlement

agreement that the EPA has entered into

regarding a small number of transfer

machines.

DATES: Comments. Comments on the

proposed amendments must be received

by June 17, 1996.

Public Hearing. Persons requesting a

public hearing should contact Mr.

George Smith at (919) 541–1549 by May

15, 1996. If anyone requests a public

hearing by May 15, 1996, a public

hearing will be held in Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

wishing to make oral statements at this

public hearing must contact Mr. Smith

by May 15, 1996 at (919) 541–1549,

Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA,

MD–13, Research Triangle Park, NC

27711. Persons interested in attending

the public hearing should also contact

Mr. Smith for information on the exact

location of the public hearing, if one is

requested.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on

the proposed amendments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

The Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,

attention Docket Number A–95–16.

Docket. Docket Number A–95–16,

containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed

amendments, is available for public

inspection and copying between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except for

government holidays) at The Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

George Smith at (919) 541–1549,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

entities. Entities regulated by this action

are dry cleaning facilities that use

perchloroethylene. Regulated categories

and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated

entities

Perchloroethylene

dry cleaning facilities.

Perchloroethylene dry

cleaning facilities that

installed transfer machines between proposal and promulgation.

The above table is an exhaustive

guide for readers regarding entities to be

regulated by this action.

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background, Summary, and

Rationale for Rule Changes

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

C. Unfunded Mandates Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I. Background, Summary, and

Rationale for Rule Changes

National emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for

perchloroethylene (PCE) dry cleaning

facilities were promulgated on

September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49354), and

amended on December 20, 1993 (58 FR

66287), as 40 CFR Part 63, subpart M.

On December 20, 1993, the International

Fabricare Institute (IFI), a trade

association representing commercial

and industrial dry cleaners nationwide,

submitted a statement of issues to the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit challenging the

NESHAP. The Agency subsequently

entered into a settlement agreement

with IFI, notice of which was published

prior to being lodged with the court (60

FR 52000, October 4, 1995).

International Fabricare Institute raised

the issue of new transfer machines

purchased or installed between proposal

and promulgation. The IFI’s concern

stems from the fact that the Agency did

not propose to ban new transfer

machines, yet at promulgation did ban

such machines. The IFI argued that dry

cleaners who installed new transfer

machines between proposal and

promulgation did so with the

understanding that the Agency had not

proposed any prohibitions against this.

These dry cleaners now have no

recourse but to scrap these new transfer

machines and replace them with new

dry-to-dry machines in order to comply

with the NESHAP. The IFI asserted that

this is unfair, given these dry cleaners

acted in accordance with the law to the

best of their knowledge at the time.

At the time of proposal, the Agency

believed that no new transfer machines

were being sold or installed, and for this

reason did not propose to ban purchase

of new transfer machines. However, due

to new information that the Agency

received after proposal that is explained

in the preamble to the final rule, the

Agency banned the purchase of new

transfer machines. The ban was

considered reasonable because the

Agency’s analysis showed that

emissions from clothing transfer could

be eliminated by requiring dry-to-dry

machines in their place. Emissions from

clothing transfer account for about 25

percent of transfer machine emissions.

The Agency’s analysis also showed that

in the typical case where a new dry-todry machine was installed instead of a

new transfer machine, a net savings of

$300 per ton of emission reductions

would be realized by the dry cleaner.

Hence, the Agency decided at

promulgation to effectively ‘‘ban’’ new

transfer machines from being

introduced subsequent to promulgation,

by making the emission limit for new

transfer machines impossible to achieve.

It was believed this decision would

have no impact on dry cleaners, since

no new transfer machines were being

purchased or installed. It was only after

promulgation that it became apparent

that a few new transfer machines had

been sold and installed between

proposal and promulgation of the

NESHAP.

The Agency agrees with IFI on this

issue. Consequently, the Administrator

proposes to subcategorize new transfer

machines into two types: new transfer

machines installed after promulgation

(i.e., September 22, 1993) and new

transfer machines installed between

proposal (i.e., December 9, 1991) and

promulgation (i.e., September 22, 1993).

The requirements the Administrator is

proposing today for new transfer

machines installed after promulgation