10866 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of

February, 2001.

Raymond J. Uhalde,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and

Training Administration.

Thomas M. Markey,

Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour

Division, Employment Standards

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–4244 Filed 2–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 944

[SPATS No. UT–037–FOR]

Utah Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and

extension of public comment period on

proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

announcing receipt of revisions and

additional explanations pertaining to a

previously proposed amendment to the

Utah regulatory program (hereinafter,

the ‘‘Utah program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Utah proposes to revise

its amendment to change proposed rules

concerning pre-subsidence surveys and

the contents of subsidence control

plans. The State also provided

additional explanation of the term

‘‘State-appropriated water,’’ the

proposed definitions of ‘‘Stateappropriated water supply’’ and

‘‘replacement of water supply,’’ and of

the proposed scope of water

replacement. Utah intends to revise its

program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations and

SMCRA.

DATES: We will accept written

comments on this amendment until 4

p.m., mountain standard time, March 7,

2001.

ADDRESSES: You should mail, hand

deliver or e-mail your written comments

to James F. Fulton, Denver Field

Division Chief, at the address listed

below.

You may review copies of the Utah

program, this amendment, and all

written comments received in response

to this document at the addresses listed

below during normal business hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. You may receive one free copy

of the amendment by contacting OSM’s

Denver Field Division.

James F. Fulton, Denver Field Division

Chief, Office of Surface Mining,

Western Regional Coordinating

Center, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320,

Denver, Colorado 80202–5733,

telephone (303) 844–1400, extension

1424.

Lowell P. Braxton, Director, Division of

Oil, Gas and Mining, 1594 West North

Temple, Suite 1210, P.O. Box 145801,

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114–5801,

telephone (801) 538–5370.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. Fulton, Denver Field Division

Chief, telephone (303) 844–1400,

extension 1424; e-mail address:

jfulton@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Utah Program

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

III. Public Comment Procedures

IV. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Utah Program

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Utah program. You can find background

information on the Utah program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval of the Utah

program in the January 21, 1981,

Federal Register (46 FR 5899). You can

also find later actions concerning Utah’s

program and program amendments at 30

CFR 944.15 and 944.30.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated March 20, 1998

(administrative record No. 1103), Utah

sent to us a proposed amendment (UT–

037–FOR) to its program under SMCRA

(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). It sent the

proposed amendment in response to a

June 5, 1996, letter (administrative

record No. UT–1083) that we sent to the

State under 30 CFR 732.17(c) and at its

own initiative.

Changes to the Utah Administrative

Rules (Utah Admin. R.) that the State

originally proposed included: Adding

definitions for ‘‘material damage,’’

‘‘non-commercial building,’’ ‘‘occupied

residential dwelling and structures

related thereto,’’ ‘‘replacement of water

supply,’’ and ‘‘State-appropriated water

supply’’ at Utah Admin. R. 645–100–

200; adding requirements at Utah

Admin. R. 645–301–525.100 through

–525.130 for pre-subsidence surveys;

removing existing requirements for

subsidence control plans at Utah

Admin. R. 645–301–525 through

–525.170; recodifying rules at Utah

Admin. R. 645–301–525.200 through

–525.240 pertaining to protected areas;

removing existing requirements for

subsidence control at Utah Admin. R.

645–301–525.200 through –525.232;

adding requirements at Utah Admin. R.

645–301–525.300 through –525.490 for

subsidence control and subsidence

control plans; adding requirements for

subsidence damage repair at Utah

Admin. R. 645–301–525.500 through

–525.530; adding a rebuttable

presumption of causation by subsidence

at Utah Admin. R. 645–301–525.540

through –525.545; adding provisions at

Utah Admin. R. 645–301–525.550 for

adjusting bond amounts for subsidence

damage; recodifying rules at Utah

Admin. R. 645–301–525.600 and 645–

301–525.700 that require compliance

with approved subsidence control plans

and public notice of proposed mining,

respectively; removing existing

provisions for surveys of renewable

resource lands at Utah Admin. R. 645–

301–724.600; adding a provision at Utah

Admin. R. 645–301–728.350 for finding

whether underground coal mining and

reclamation activities might

contaminate, diminish or interrupt

State-appropriated water; and adding a

requirement at Utah Admin. R. 645–

301–731.530 for replacing Stateappropriated water supplies that are

contaminated, diminished, or

interrupted by underground coal mining

activities.

We announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the April 8,

1998, Federal Register (63 FR 17138;

administrative record No. UT–1108),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting, and invited public

comment on its adequacy. We did not

hold a public hearing or meeting

because nobody requested either one.

The public comment period ended on

May 8, 1998.

During our review of the amendment,

we identified concerns relating to the

provisions for pre-subsidence surveys at

Utah Admin. R. 645–301–525.130 and

for the content of subsistence control

plans at Utah Admin. R. 645–301–

525.490. We also asked Utah to provide

additional clarification on: The scope of

the terms ‘‘State-appropriated water’’

and the proposed definition of ‘‘Stateappropriated water supply’’ as used in

the amendment; the scope of water

replacement with respect to

‘‘developed’’ water supplies; and

clarification of Utah’s proposed

definition of the term ‘‘replacement of

water supply.’’ We notified Utah of our

concerns and the need for additional

clarification by letter dated October 1,

1998 (administrative record No. UT–

1125). Utah responded in a letter dated

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10867

October 31, 2000 (administrative record

No. 1145).

Utah now proposes two specific

changes in its amendment. First, it

proposes to change Utah Admin. R.

645–301–525.130 to cross-reference

Utah Admin. R. R645–301–525.543.

That referenced rule specifically states

that there will be no presumption that

subsidence caused damage to structures

if the owners deny applicants access to

perform pre-subsidence surveys.

Second, at Utah Admin. R. 645–301–

525.490, the State proposes to add

references to Utah Admin. R. 645–301–

525.200, –525.500, and –525.600. Those

rules cover the range of information

Utah requires to be included in

subsidence control plans to demonstrate

that an operation will be conducted in

accordance with all applicable

provisions for subsidence control.

Utah’s response also provided

additional explanation of the scope of

the term ‘‘State-appropriated water’’ and

the definition of ‘‘State-appropriated

water supply,’’ the scope of water

replacement under its proposed rules

with respect to ‘‘developed’’ water

supplies, and its proposed definition of

the term ‘‘replacement of water supply.’’

III. Public Comment Procedures

Written Comments

Send your written comments to OSM

at the address given above. Your written

comments should be specific, pertain

only to the issues proposed in this

rulemaking, and include explanations in

support of your recommendations. In

the final rulemaking, we will not

necessarily consider or include in the

administrative record any comments

received after the time indicated under

DATES or at locations other than the

Denver Field Division.

Electronic Comments

Please submit Internet comments as

an ASCII file and do not use special

characters or any form of encryption.

Please also include ‘‘Attn: SPATS No.

UT–037–FOR’’ and your name and

return address in your Internet message.

If you do not receive a confirmation that

we have received your Internet message,

contact the Denver Field Division at

telephone number (303) 844–1400,

extension 1424.

Availability of Comments

We will make comments, including

names and addresses of respondents,

available for public review during

normal business hours. We will not

consider anonymous comments. If

individual respondents request

confidentiality, we will honor their

request to the extent allowable by law.

Individual respondents who wish to

withhold their name or address from

public review, except for the city or

town, must state this prominently at the

beginning of their comments. We will

make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public review in their entirety.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

determined that, to the extent allowable

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 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.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have Federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

roles of the Federal and State

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that State laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that

State programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

pursuant to SMCRA

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed State regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

Federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)). A determination has been

made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

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

that is the subject of this rule is based

on counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect on 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 where this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million;

(b) will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, geographic

regions, or Federal, State or local

governmental agencies; and (c) does not

have significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or the ability

of U.S. based enterprises to compete

with foreign-based enterprises. This

determination is based on the fact that

10868 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the State submittal which is the subject

of this rule is based on counterpart

Federal regulations for which an

analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the Federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

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 944

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: January 12, 2001.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 01–4113 Filed 2–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

Preparation Changes for Securing

Packages of Mail

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is

proposing to amend the packaging

standards in Domestic Mail Manual

(DMM) M020 to help ensure that

packages maintain their integrity during

transportation and postal processing.

DMM M020 will prescribe general

standards for preparing and securing all

packages and will incorporate standards

that pertain individually to packages on

pallets, packages in sacks, and packages

in trays.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 22, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written

comments to the Manager, Operational

Requirements, United States Postal

Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Room

7301, Washington, DC 20260–7031.

Copies of all written comments

(available for $0.15 per copy per page)

will be available for inspection and

photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

following address: Library, United

States Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza

SW, Room 11800, Washington, DC

20260–1540. Copies of comments may

also be requested via fax or e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cheryl Beller, 202–268–5166,

cbeller1@e-mail.usps.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Many

packages of Periodicals and Standard

Mail tendered to the Postal Service on

pallets or in sacks do not maintain their

integrity during transportation to postal

facilities and during postal processing.

The Postal Service must redirect the

resulting loose packages or broken

packages (individual pieces) to highercost operations. If packages lose their

integrity while being processed on small

parcel and bundle sorters (SPBSs), the

result can be machine slowdowns and

stoppages as well as postal employees

manually processing these packages.

The increased costs of labor to process

loose or broken packages is reflected in

higher rates paid by mailers. In addition

to rate implications, package breakage

also damages mailpieces and has a

negative impact on service, results that

the mailing industry and the Postal

Service would like to avoid.

Data collected by the Mailers’

Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC)

Package Integrity Work Group,

comprising Postal Service and mailing

industry representatives, revealed that,

during the first handling, packages of

Periodicals and Standard Mail in sacks

break at a much greater rate than

packages on pallets. This data also

disclosed that packages of pieces with

glossy (coated) cover stock break at

higher rates than packages of pieces

with covers of uncoated stock. An

analysis of the data indicates that

additional standards are necessary to

improve the integrity of Periodicals and

Standard Mail packages prepared in

sacks and that some current standards

for packages in sacks and on pallets also

require clarification to improve

packaging in general. Currently, with

the exception of Standard Mail and

Package Services Mail placed on bulk

mail center (BMC) pallets, DMM M020

does not differentiate between

packaging standards for mail placed on

pallets and mail placed in sacks. Unlike

palletized packages, which have

maximum weight limits prescribed in

DMM M045, there are no existing

standards for Periodicals and Standard

Mail that limit the size or weight of

packages in sacks. Consequently,

mailers of Periodicals and Standard

Mail may prepare packages that weigh

more than 20 pounds and are, as a

result, incompatible with processing on

SPBSs. Heavier packages are also

subject to more breakage if not properly

secured. This is particularly true of

sacked mail due to the additional

handling it receives compared with

palletized mail. Under the proposed

rules, DMM M020 prescribes general

standards for preparing and securing

packages of all classes of mail and

revises and incorporates standards that

pertain individually to packages on

pallets and packages in sacks.

Proposed new standards limit the

weight of sacked packages of Periodicals

and Standard Mail to a maximum of 20

pounds and the height of these packages

to a maximum of 8 inches for pieces of

uncoated stock and to maximums

ranging from 3 inches to 6 inches,

depending on the securing method, for

pieces with coated cover stock. As

information, new mail preparation

standards for Bound Printed Matter flats

implemented January 7, 2001, limit the

weight of packages in sacks and on

pallets to 20 pounds, except that

packages placed in 5-digit sacks or on 5-

digit/scheme pallets may weigh up to 40

pounds. It is also proposed that the

standards for all classes be amended to

clarify when pieces should be counterstacked to create packages of uniform

thickness and to provide more emphasis

on the standard that requires packages

over 1 inch high to be secured with at

least two bands or shrinkwrap.

It is also proposed that the current

requirement to secure double-banded

packages of all classes of mail first

around the length and then around the

girth be revised to eliminate a required

banding sequence. Automated

production lines in large printing plants

are not designed to secure packages

around the length first, and exceptions

to the current standard must continually

be granted to address this issue.

Magazines and flyers are typically

bound with stitches or glue and then

stacked for packaging in accordance

with the applicable presort, generally in

groups ranging from 6 to 100 pieces.

The stack is ejected and travels directly

into a bander that secures the girth first,

and then the length if a second band is

required. If the first band was placed

around the length of the stack, the stack

would not be held securely enough to

allow the second band to go around the

girth because the backbone or spine is

thicker than the face or side cut (length).

This thickness variation would cause

the bundle to fall apart, also affecting

transport into another securing

operation such as shrinkwrapping.

Data Collection To Determine Package

Breakage Rates for Live Mail

The Postal Service and the mailing

industry have been working together to

better understand the implications of

package breakage and to identify

opportunities to quantify and improve

the current situation. In October and

November 1999, the MTAC Package

Integrity Work Group collected and

analyzed data regarding the condition of

packages of nonletter-size Periodicals

and Standard Mail flats at the locations