Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 51257 

Judge finds good cause, the case 

proceeds pursuant to the Mine Act and 

the Commission’s Procedural Rules in 

29 CFR part 2700. 

In January 2006, while considering 

changes to its procedural rules, the 

Commission determined that its 

procedures for processing requests for 

relief should be made more efficient 

through informal means rather than 

through the rulemaking process. 71 FR 

553, 554, Jan. 5, 2006. The Commission 

explained that such informal means 

include making available a summary of 

the Commission’s procedural rules 

described in simple terms and placing 

on the Commission’s Web site 

(www.fmshrc.gov) a page of frequently 

asked questions and answers regarding 

Commission procedure. Id. 

The Commission has since employed 

a number of informal means in an effort 

to reduce the number of cases resulting 

in default. For instance, it has worked 

with the Department of Labor’s Mine 

Safety and Health Administration 

(‘‘MSHA’’) to clarify instructions 

provided to parties for the filing of 

various documents, including the filing 

of a contest of a proposed penalty 

assessment. The Commission did so 

believing that if such instructions were 

clearer, parties would be more likely to 

timely file their documents and avoid 

default. 

In addition, the Commission has 

created and made available three guides 

to Commission proceedings intended to 

clarify Commission procedure. The first 

guide, ‘‘How a Case Proceeds before the 

Commission,’’ provides charts and 

summaries of procedural requirements 

for different types of proceedings before 

the Commission. The second guide, 

‘‘Frequently Asked Questions,’’

provides a wide variety of information 

pertaining to Commission procedure in 

question and answer format. It includes 

a section devoted to problems in 

contesting penalties and provides 

parties with information for seeking 

relief from a proposed penalty 

assessment that becomes a final 

Commission order after the party failed 

to file a timely contest of a proposed 

penalty assessment. The third guide, 

‘‘Guide to Commission Proceedings,’’

describes Commission proceedings in 

simple terms. The Commission has 

made these guides available on its Web 

site (http://www.fmshrc.gov/guides/ 

guides.html ). It intends to publish and 

distribute a paper compilation of the 

three guides in the near future. 

Although the Commission has taken 

such actions, it has been receiving an 

increasingly large number of requests 

for relief from operators large and small, 

who have failed to file a timely contest 

of a proposed penalty assessment. As a 

result, the Commission is exploring 

additional means for improving its 

handling of requests for relief and for 

decreasing the number of cases that 

result in default. 

One of the Commission’s key 

considerations is whether it should set 

forth requirements for requesting relief 

from default in a rule, or whether 

further guidance should be provided in 

an informal document. In order to aid 

its consideration, the Commission is 

requesting comment from members of 

the interested public. In considering the 

feasibility of promulgating a rule 

pertaining to requests for relief from 

default, the Commission invites the 

public to consider any or all of the 

following questions. Members of the 

public are not limited to commenting on 

these questions and may offer any 

suggestion related to the subject. 

Scope of Rule: Should a rule be 

limited to requests for relief from 

citations and orders that have become 

final by operation of section 105(a) of 

the Mine Act when a party failed to 

timely file a contest of a proposed 

penalty assessment? Should the rule 

also address requests for relief from a 

default order issued by an 

administrative law judge after a party 

has failed to timely file an answer to the 

Secretary of Labor’s petition for 

assessment of penalty? To what extent 

should the rule be modeled on Rule 

60(b)? 

Time Limitations: When should a 

request for relief be filed? To what 

extent should a rule follow the time 

limitations set forth in Rule 60(b)? How 

should the Commission interpret the 

‘‘reasonable time’’ requirement of Rule 

60(b)? Should the one-year time 

limitation pertaining to Rule 60(b)(1), 

(2), and (3) be applied in certain 

circumstances? When an order becomes 

final by operation of Mine Act section 

105(a), what effect should an operator’s 

receipt of a delinquency notice from 

MSHA have on the time within which 

the operator should file a motion to 

reopen? 

Standard for Relief: What standard 

should apply to entitle a party to relief? 

In determining whether to grant relief, 

how closely should the Commission be 

guided by federal case law interpreting 

Rule 60(b)? Should the Commission 

require a movant to set forth specific 

facts which support the grounds alleged 

under Rule 60(b) and, if so, what level 

of specificity should be required? 

Should the Commission require a 

movant to show a meritorious claim or 

defense as a prerequisite to granting 

relief? Should the Commission also be 

guided by the standard for setting aside 

defaults in Rule 55(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure? Should the 

Commission apply a different standard 

depending upon certain factors relating 

to the movant, such as whether the 

movant is represented by counsel, or the 

size of an operator? 

Documentation: Should a rule require 

that allegations be established by sworn 

written statements by individuals with 

personal knowledge of the facts and/or 

other sufficiently reliable 

documentation? Should a rule require 

that the movant include in its request 

for relief copies of all relevant 

documents in its possession including, 

but not limited to, the proposed penalty 

assessment? Should the signature of an 

attorney on a request for relief be treated 

as a substitute for any required 

documentation? 

Process: Should requests for relief be 

filed directly with the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge or with the 

Review Commission? What service 

requirements should apply? 

Public Review of Comments 

All comments responding to this 

notice will be a matter of public record 

and available for public inspection and 

copying by appointment with Ella 

Waymer, between the hours of 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. on business days at the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, 

NW., 9th Floor, Room 9536, 

Washington, DC 20001; telephone 202–

434–9935. 

Dated: August 27, 2008. 

Michael F. Duffy, 

Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–20235 Filed 8–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6735–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2008–0340; FRL–8700–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Revised Transportation 

Conformity Consultation Process, and 

Approval of Related Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of Utah 

on June 26, 2007 and April 17, 2008. 

The June 26, 2007 revision updates 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
51258 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Section XII of the Utah SIP and Rule 

R307–110–20 of the Utah 

Administrative Code (UAC) to meet the 

federal transportation conformity 

consultation requirements. The 

amended Rule R307–110–20 

incorporates by reference Section XII, 

‘‘Transportation Conformity 

Consultation,’’ of the SIP. The April 17, 

2008 revision makes minor changes to 

UAC sections R307–101–2, 

‘‘Definitions;’’ R307–115–1, 

‘‘Determining Conformity;’’ R307–170–

7, ‘‘Performance Specification Audits;’’

and R307–310–2, ‘‘Definitions;’’ and 

adds R307–101–3, ‘‘Version of CFR 

Incorporated by Reference.’’ In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revisions as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because the 

Agency views these as noncontroversial 

SIP revisions and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. If EPA receives no 

adverse comments, EPA will not take 

further action on this proposed rule. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, EPA 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. EPA will address 

all public comments in a subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. Please note that if 

EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 2, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–

OAR–2008–0340, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: kimes.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, 

Director, Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed instruction 

on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Kimes, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6445, 

kimes.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations Section of 

this Federal Register. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 25, 2008. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, 

Region 8. 

[FR Doc. E8–20142 Filed 8–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0714, FRL–8701–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Antelope Valley Air 

Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we 

are proposing to approve minor 

administrative changes to local rules 

that address permitting requirements. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by October 2, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0714, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannanon, Permits Office (AIR–

3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3534, 

yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the approval of 

AVAQMD Rules 101, 102, 106, 108, 109, 

208, 210, 212, 218, 220, 221, and 226. 

In the Rules and Regulations section of 

this Federal Register, we are approving 

these local rules in a direct final action 

without prior proposal because we 

believe this SIP revision is not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS