[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 201 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59005-59009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5144]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 914
[Docket No. IN-156-FOR, Administrative Cause No. 06-046R]
Indiana Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving, with certain exceptions, an amendment to the
Indiana regulatory program (Indiana program) under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation (IDNR,
department, or Indiana) revised its rules concerning the definition of
``government-financed construction''; underground mining reclamation
plans for siltation structures, impoundments, dams, embankments, and
refuse piles; requirements for performance bond release; surface mining
permanent and temporary impoundments; surface mining primary roads; and
inspections of sites. Indiana revised its program to be consistent with
the corresponding Federal regulations, to clarify ambiguities, and to
improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division--Indianapolis Area Office. Telephone: (317) 226-6700. E-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Indiana Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Indiana Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its State program includes, among other things, ``a State law which
provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the
Secretary pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Indiana program effective July 29, 1982. You
can find background information on the Indiana program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions
of approval, in the July 26, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 32071). You
can also find later actions concerning the Indiana program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated December 11, 2006 (Administrative Record No. IND-
1741), Indiana sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to a required program amendment at 30
CFR 914.16(ff) and to include changes made at its own initiative. The
provisions of 312 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 25 that Indiana
proposed to revise were: 312 IAC 25-1-57, definition of ``government-
financed construction''; 25-4-87, underground mining reclamation plans
for siltation structures, impoundments, dams, embankments, and refuse
piles; 25-5-16, requirements for performance bond release; 25-6-20,
surface mining permanent and temporary impoundments; 25-6-66, surface
mining primary roads; and 25-7-1, inspections of sites.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 6,
2007, Federal Register (72 FR 5374). In the same document, we opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a
public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public
comment period ended on March 8, 2007. We received comments from two
Federal agencies.
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns about
requirements for performance bond release. We notified Indiana of these
concerns by letter dated May 9, 2007, (Administrative Record No. IND-
1748). We also met with Indiana staff on June 26, 2007, to discuss the
concerns regarding the amendment and corresponded with the State via
email on June 23, 2007 (Administrative Record No. IND-1752). Indiana
responded by email on July 24, 2007 (Administrative Record No. IND-
1752), that it would not submit revisions to this portion of the
amendment at this time and that we should proceed with processing the
other portions of the amendment. Therefore, we are proceeding with the
final rule Federal Register document.
III. OSM's Findings
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment with exceptions as described below. Any
revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concern
nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes.
A. Minor Revisions to Indiana's Rules
Indiana made minor wording, editorial, punctuation, grammatical,
restructuring, and recodification changes to the following previously-
approved rules:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic State rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underground mining reclamation plans 312 IAC 25-4-87(a)(1)(B) and
for siltation structures, (a)(2)(A) and (C), (c), (e)(1)
impoundments, dams, embankments, and and (e)(4), and (f)(1).
refuse piles.
Requirements for performance bond 312 IAC 25-5-16(b).
release..
[[Page 59006]]
Surface mining permanent and temporary 312 IAC 25-6-20(a)(1),
impoundments. (a)(3)(A), (B), and (C),
(a)(5), (a)(6),
(a)(7)(B)(iii), (a)(9)(A),
(D), (E)(iii), (b)(3),
(b)(8)(B), (c)(1) and (2), (d)
and (e).
Surface mining primary roads........... 312 IAC 25-6-66(2)(A) and (C),
(2)(H), and (4)(B)(i).
Inspections of sites................... 312 IAC 25-7-1(f)(3)(E) and
(F), (g)(2), (h)(1)(D)(ii),
and (h)(3)(A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For example, 312 IAC 25-4-87(a)(2)(A) was restructured from:
(A) Be prepared by, or under the direction of, and certified by
a qualified registered professional engineer with assistance from
experts in related fields such as geology, land surveying, and
landscape architecture.
to:
(A) Be prepared by, or under the direction of, and certified by
a qualified registered professional engineer with assistance from
experts in related fields, such as the following:
(i) Geology.
(ii) Land surveying.
(iii) Landscape architecture.
2. For example, 312 IAC 25-5-16(b) was recodified as 312 IAC 25-5-
16(c).
3. For example, at 312 IAC 25-6-20(a)(3)(C), the phrase ``in lieu
of'' was replaced by the phrase ``instead of''.
Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make
Indiana's previously approved rules less effective than the
corresponding Federal regulations.
B. Revisions to Indiana's Rules That Have the Same Meaning as the
Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations
Indiana's rules listed in the table below contain language that is
the same as or similar to the corresponding Federal regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic State [rule] Federal counterpart [regulation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of ``Government-financed 312 IAC 25-1-57.............. 30 CFR 707.5.
construction''.
Surface Mining Primary Roads......... 312 IAC 25-6-66(2)........... 30 CFR 816.151(b).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the above State rules contain language that is the same as
or similar to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they
are no less effective than the Federal counterpart regulations.
C. 312 IAC 25-4-87 Underground Mining Reclamation Plans for Siltation
Structures, Impoundments, Dams, Embankments, and Refuse Piles
1. At subsection (g)(3), Indiana proposed to remove the following
sentence:
If necessary to protect the health or safety of persons or
property or the environment, even though the volume of water
impounded is less than one hundred (100) acre feet, the director may
require an application to be made.
There is no Federal counterpart to Indiana's rule at subsection
(g)(3). On November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69283), we approved the removal of
a similar requirement at 312 IAC 25-4-49(g)(3) for surface mining
reclamation plans. Therefore, we find the revision made to previously
approved 312 IAC 25-4-87(g)(3) will not make the Indiana rules less
effective than the Federal regulations or SMCRA.
D. 312 IAC 25-5-16 Requirements for Performance Bond Release
1. Indiana proposed to revise its rule at subsection (a) concerning
what a permittee must include in the newspaper advertisement that is
part of the bond release application. Currently, Indiana's rule
requires the permittee to state in the newspaper advertisement that,
``any person with a valid legal interest that might be adversely
affected by release of bond, or the responsible officer or head of any
federal, Indiana, or local governmental agency that has jurisdiction by
law or is authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards
with respect to the operations, may file written comments or objections
or may request a public hearing or informal conference.'' Indiana
proposed to revise this requirement by deleting the words ``informal
conference.''
The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(a)(2) specifies
that the advertisement must contain the name and address of the
regulatory authority to which written comments, objections, or requests
for public hearings and informal conferences on the specific bond
release may be submitted pursuant to 30 CFR 800.40(f) and (h). The
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(f) provides that certain persons
may file written objections and request a ``public hearing'' regarding
the proposed bond release. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(h)
provides that ``without prejudice to the right of an objector or the
applicant, the regulatory authority may hold an informal conference * *
* to resolve such written objections.''
We find that Indiana's proposed revision is no less effective than
the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(a)(2) because this Federal
regulation does not require the newspaper advertisement to contain
information on who may request a public hearing or informal conference.
Instead, it requires the advertisement to contain information on where
requests for public hearings or informal conferences may be submitted.
Therefore, we are approving Indiana's revision.
2. Indiana proposed to add a new rule at subsection (b) that allows
the director of IDNR to initiate an application for the release of
bond. If a bond release application is initiated by the director of
IDNR, the department will have to perform the notification and
certification requirements otherwise imposed on the permittee. While
the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(a) allows a
permittee to file an application for bond release, the Federal
regulations are silent as to whether a regulatory authority may
initiate bond release proceedings. However, a similar provision was
approved for the Kentucky program on December 31, 1990 (55 FR 53490)
and the Illinois program on April 7, 2000 (65 FR 18239). Also, on
September 14, 2004, we approved a similar change for Indiana's statute
at IC 14-34-6-7 (69 FR 55348). We approved the statutory change with
the understanding that Indiana would revise its implementing rule at
312 IAC 25-5-16. Indiana's revision at 312 IAC 25-5-16(b) meets this
requirement.
Under Indiana's proposal, bond release proceedings initiated by the
director of IDNR must conform to the same procedural steps as a bond
release initiated by the permittee. Thus, the
[[Page 59007]]
public participation and notification requirements of section 519 of
SMCRA and the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40 would still apply
when the director of IDNR initiates a bond release in Indiana. For the
above reasons, we find that allowing the director of IDNR to initiate
bond release does not make Indiana's performance bond release
requirements at 312 IAC 25-5-16(b) less effective than the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(a). Therefore, we are approving the new
provision.
3. Indiana proposed to redesignate existing subsections (c) through
(f) as new subsections (d) through (g) and to revise new subsection
(d). Indiana also proposed to delete existing subsections (g) and (i)
and to add new subsection (h). In addition, Indiana proposed to revise
existing subsection (h) and redesignate it as new subsection (i).
Finally, Indiana proposed to add new subsection (j).
In a letter dated May 9, 2007 (Administrative Record No. IND-1748),
we notified Indiana that we completed our review of the State's
proposed amendment and identified some provisions that appeared to be
less effective than the Federal regulations. We also met with Indiana
staff on June 26, 2007, to discuss our concerns regarding the
amendment.
We advised Indiana that 312 IAC 25-5-16, starting at new subsection
(d), contains deficiencies that include inappropriate reference
citations and the removal and/or absence of required program
provisions, thus making the Indiana rules less effective than the
Federal regulations. During our discussions and in an email dated July
24, 2007 (Administrative Record No. IND-1752), Indiana advised us that
it would submit revisions to the amendment to address these concerns at
a later date and that we should proceed with processing the amendment.
Therefore, we cannot approve Indiana's proposed revisions at 312 IAC
25-5-16 new subsections (d) through (j).
E. 312 IAC 25-6-20 Surface Mining Permanent and Temporary Impoundments
1. At subsection (a)(3)(B) regarding criteria for stability of
impoundments, Indiana proposed to remove the language ``and located
where failure would not be expected to cause loss of life or serious
property damage.''
The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(4)(ii) does
not contain the deleted language. Therefore, we find that the removal
of the language will not make Indiana's rule at 312 IAC 25-6-
20(a)(3)(B) less effective than the counterpart Federal regulation.
2. At subsection (a)(9)(E)(ii) regarding inspection of
impoundments, Indiana proposed to add the following type of impoundment
to its list of those non-hazardous impoundments that are exempt from
its quarterly examination requirements:
(ii) Impoundments that are entirely contained within an incised
structure such that the incised structure would completely contain
the waters of the impoundment should failure occur and failure would
not create a potential threat to public health and safety or
threaten significant environmental harm.
The impoundments listed in subsection (a)(9)(E) are among those
that do not meet the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) or do
not meet the Class B or C criteria for dams in the NRCS publication,
Technical Release No. 60.
There is no Federal counterpart to the added provision. The Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(12) requires quarterly inspections of
impoundments for appearance of structural weakness and other hazardous
conditions. Because incised structures do not have dams, there is no
probability of impoundment failure. Therefore, we find that 312 IAC 25-
6-20(a)(9)(E)(ii) is no less effective than the counterpart Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(12), and we are approving it.
F. 312 IAC 25-7-1 Inspections of Sites
At subsection (h)(1)(D)(i) regarding the definition of ``abandoned
site,'' Indiana proposed to remove the language ``or permit revocation
proceedings have been initiated and are being pursued diligently.''
On November 29, 2004, we required Indiana to revise its regulation
at 312 IAC 25-7-1(h)(1)(D)(i) to allow a site to be classified as
abandoned only in cases where a permit has expired or been revoked (69
FR 69287). We codified this requirement at 30 CFR 914.16(ff). Indiana's
removal of the above quoted language meets this requirement. Therefore,
we find that 312 IAC 25-7-1(h)(1)(D)(i) is no less effective than 30
CFR 840.11(g)(4)(i), and we approve it. We are also removing the
required amendment at 30 CFR 914.16(ff).
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
On January 4, 2007, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section
503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various
Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Indiana
program (Administrative Record No. IND-1744). We received comments from
two agencies. The U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service responded on January 22, 2007 (Administrative Record No. IND-
1745), that it had no specific comments on the proposed amendment. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service)
responded on February 9, 2007 (Administrative Record No. IND-1746), by
recommending that Indiana retain, instead of deleting, the provision at
312 IAC 25-4-87(g)(3) that requires a permit application and prior
approval from the director of IDNR before the construction of
structures that impound less than 100 acre-feet of water. The Forest
Service also recommended that Indiana add one or more criteria to 312
IAC 25-6-66(4) that encourages design parameters that foster the
passage of aquatic organisms instead of having only criteria that
approaches the design of water crossing structures strictly from an
engineering standpoint. Because the Federal regulations do not contain
requirements related to the Forest Service's above two recommendations,
Indiana is not required to have them in the State's approved regulatory
program. However, we sent a copy of the Forest Service's comments to
Indiana for consideration.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that
relate to air or water quality standards issued 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 Indiana proposed to
make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
On January 4, 2007, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested
comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. IND-
1744). EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. On January 4, 2007, we requested comments on Indiana's
amendment (Administrative Record No.
[[Page 59008]]
IND-1744), but neither responded to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on our discussions in OSM's Findings III.A. through D.2., and
E. and F. above, we approve those revisions to Indiana's rules sent to
us on December 11, 2006. We do not approve Indiana's newly redesignated
subsections (d) through (g) and (i) and new subsections (h) and (j) at
312 IAC 25-5-16 as discussed in OSM's Findings III.D.3. For those rules
we approve, Indiana must fully promulgate them in identical form to the
rules submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the public.
To implement our decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 914, which codify decisions concerning the Indiana
program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to
make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA
requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that
process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
Effect of OSM's Decision
Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the
Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any change to an
approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program
amendment. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit any
changes to approved State programs that are not approved by OSM. In the
oversight of the Indiana program, we will recognize only the statutes,
rules and other materials we have approved, together with any
consistent implementing policies, directives and other materials. We
will require Indiana to enforce only approved provisions.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the
analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The
revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal
counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the
fact that this rulemaking has no takings implications.
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 has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 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 because
each 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, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This determination is based on the fact that the Indiana program does
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana program has no
effect on federally-recognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because 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 certifies that a portion of the
provisions in 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.) because they are 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. In making
the determination as to whether this part of the rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. The Department of
the Interior also certifies that the provisions in this rule that are
not based upon counterpart Federal regulations will not have a
significant economic impact on
[[Page 59009]]
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This determination is based upon the fact
that the provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are
not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
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, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; 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 upon the fact that a portion
of the State provisions are based upon counterpart Federal regulations
for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the
Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. For the portion of
the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal
regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State
provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not
expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of
the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and
a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that is not
based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based
upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and
procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect
on the regulated industry.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: September 27, 2007.
William Joseph,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Office.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 914 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 914--INDIANA
0
1. The authority citation for part 914 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 914.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
October 18, 2007..................... 312 IAC 25-1-57; 25-4-87; 25-5-
16(a), (b) [new], and (c)
[formerly (b)]; 25-6-20; 25-6-
66; and 25-7-1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 914.16 [Amended]
0
3. Section 914.16 is amended by removing paragraph (ff) and removing
reserved paragraphs (gg) through (mm).
[FR Doc. 07-5144 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P