[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2889-2897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-622]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 147

[FRL-6516-7]


State of Alabama; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 
Revision; Approval of Alabama's Class II UIC Program Revision

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  EPA announces a final rule regarding approval of Alabama's 
Class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Revision to 
regulate as ``underground injection'' hydraulic fracturing of coal beds 
associated with methane gas production. This rule finalizes the 
Agency's decision to approve the revision to Alabama's Class II UIC 
program administered by the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama (the 
Board). This action determines that the State has an effective program 
regulating hydraulic fracturing associated with methane gas production 
as underground injection pursuant to an EPA approved underground 
injection control program. This action also allows EPA to conclude all 
withdrawal proceedings initiated by EPA concerning Alabama's Class II 
UIC program.The Administrator approved the revision to Alabama's Class 
II UIC program administered by the Board to regulate hydraulic 
fracturing of coal beds as underground injection on December 22, 1999.

DATES:  Pursuant to the ``good cause'' provision of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 
this final rule is effective January 19, 2000.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this regulation was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of January 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Copies of the public comments received, EPA responses, and 
all other supporting documents regarding this action are available for 
review and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through 
Friday at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water 
Management Division, Ground Water/Drinking Water Branch, Ground Water & 
UIC Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 
Room 15-T53 Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, PH: (404) 562-9474.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Larry Cole, at (404) 562-9474 or 
at the address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

    I. Background Information
    A. Introduction
    B. Withdrawal Activities
    C. Alabama Class II UIC Program Revision
    II. Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Beds
    III. Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Beds and the UIC Regulatory 
Structure
    A. Safe Drinking Water Act
    B. Well Classification and Regulation
    C. Aquifer Exemptions
    IV. Approval of Program Revision
    A. Approval under SDWA Section 1422 versus Section 1425
    B. SDWA Section 1425 Approval Justification
    C. Response to Comments on Revision Package
    V. Regulatory Impact
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
tribal Governments
    I. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General Pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act

[[Page 2890]]

I. Background Information

A. Introduction

    On August 2, 1982, EPA granted primary enforcement responsibility 
(primacy) for the Class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 
under Section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to the State 
of Alabama. The SDWA allows EPA to delegate primary enforcement 
responsibility to an effective in-place State UIC Program to protect 
Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW) from endangerment that 
could result from the improper injection of fluids associated with, 
among other things, oil and gas production. On May 3, 1994, the Legal 
Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. (LEAF) submitted a petition 
to EPA to withdraw Alabama's UIC Program asserting that the State was 
not regulating activities associated with coal bed methane gas 
production wells. Following the Agency's May 5, 1995, denial of the 
petition, LEAF sought review of this decision by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On August 7, 1997, in LEAF 
v. EPA, 118 F. 3d 1467 (11th Cir. 1997), the Court held as follows: ``* 
* * hydraulic fracturing activities constitute ``underground 
injection'' under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act, id. at 1478; 
all underground injection is required to be regulated (by permit or 
rule), id. at 1474; and hydraulic fracturing associated with coal bed 
methane gas production is not currently regulated under Alabama's UIC 
Program, id. at 1471.'' On February 18, 1999, the Eleventh Circuit 
issued a Writ of Mandamus that directed EPA to enforce the Court's 
August 1997 decision. The writ established a schedule for EPA to follow 
to determine whether, in light of the Court's ruling regarding 
hydraulic fracturing, EPA should withdraw approval of Alabama's UIC 
Program. The writ also stated that once hydraulic fracturing associated 
with methane gas production is regulated as underground injection by 
the State of Alabama and the program revision is approved by EPA, 
withdrawal proceedings could cease. If the State of Alabama's program 
revision correcting the deficiencies was not approved by EPA through 
rulemaking and the withdrawal proceeding were not formally concluded by 
December 22, 1999, the Writ of Mandamus directed EPA to withdraw 
approval of Alabama's UIC Program.

B. Withdrawal Activities

    Section 1425 of the SDWA and subsequently published EPA guidance 
documents do not contain express procedures for the withdrawal of a 
Section 1425 Program. EPA has promulgated procedures in 40 CFR 
145.34(b) for withdrawing a Section 1422 Program. In light of the 
Court's Writ of Mandamus, which essentially tracks the withdrawal 
procedures in 40 CFR 145.34(b), EPA followed these procedures in 
proposing to withdraw Alabama's Section 1425 Program.
    On March 19, 1999, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 4 
notified the Supervisor of the Board of EPA's decision to initiate the 
process to withdraw approval of the Alabama UIC Program. The Regional 
Administrator's notice to the Supervisor of the Board constituted the 
first step in the withdrawal process. According to the procedures 
established in 40 CFR 145.34(b) and the Writ of Mandamus, the State was 
given 30 days after the notice to demonstrate that its UIC Program was 
in compliance with the SDWA and 40 CFR Part 145 (i.e., that hydraulic 
fracturing associated with methane gas production was regulated as 
``underground injection,'' by permit or rule, pursuant to the EPA 
approved Underground Injection Control Program). The Supervisor of the 
Board, in a letter dated April 15, 1999, responded to the Regional 
Administrator's letter indicating that on March 5, 1999, Alabama 
promulgated rules regulating hydraulic fracturing of coal bed methane 
gas wells by rule authorization. These new regulations were added as an 
Emergency Order and sent to the Alabama Legislative Reference Service 
under Section 41-22-5 of the Code of Alabama (1975). The regulations 
became effective on March 11, 1999, for a period of no longer than 120 
days, and indicated that the Board rule would be made permanent prior 
to the expiration of the Emergency Order. The regulations were made 
permanent on November 5, 1999.
    By letter dated May 18, 1999, the Regional Administrator notified 
the Supervisor of the Board that the Board was not yet in compliance 
with the requirements of the SDWA. In order to comply with the Court's 
decision and the SDWA, the regulation of hydraulic fracturing for coal 
bed methane had to become part of an EPA approved UIC program. 
Accordingly, Alabama had to submit a revised UIC program package 
containing new regulations to EPA for review and approval. That action 
constituted the second step in the withdrawal process set out in 40 CFR 
145.34(b) and the Writ of Mandamus.
    On May 21, 1999, Region 4 announced in the Federal Register a 
public hearing in the Tuscaloosa Public Library on July 28, 1999, 
giving the public the opportunity to comment on withdrawal of Alabama's 
Class II Underground Injection Control Program. Region 4 received 
written and oral comments at the hearing, but the hearing was canceled 
prior to its conclusion by the Tuscaloosa City Fire Marshall due to 
overcrowding. In the August 10, 1999, Federal Register, Region 4 
rescheduled the July 28, 1999, public hearing for September 9, 1999, 
and extended the public comment period until September 16, 1999, 
allowing the public the opportunity to make comments concerning 
withdrawal of Alabama's Class II UIC program. At the September 9, 1999, 
public hearing, Region 4 received numerous comments from concerned 
citizens, environmental groups, industry representatives, and State 
agency representatives. Comments obtained at both of these public 
hearings, as well as written comments received by close of business on 
September 16, 1999, were considered by EPA.
    Following conclusion of the public hearing, on September 23, 1999, 
the Regional Administrator of Region 4 notified the Supervisor of the 
Board of the continuing program deficiencies and the need for remedial 
action before the Class II UIC program could be approved by EPA. That 
action constituted the third step in the withdrawal process set out in 
40 CFR 145.34(b) and was necessary because, as of that date, hydraulic 
fracturing associated with methane gas production was still not 
regulated as part of Alabama's EPA-approved UIC program. If the State 
of Alabama's program revision correcting the deficiencies was not 
approved by EPA through rulemaking and the withdrawal proceedings were 
not formally concluded by December 22, 1999, the Writ of Mandamus 
directed EPA to withdraw approval of Alabama's UIC Program. EPA has 
followed the Writ of Mandamus withdrawal schedule. In order to avoid 
withdrawal of its Class II UIC program, the State Oil and Gas Board 
submitted a revised program for approval by EPA. The process for EPA's 
review of the program revision is detailed in the next section.
    EPA has determined that Alabama's Class II UIC program now 
regulates hydraulic fracturing associated with coal bed methane 
production consistent with the requirements of the SDWA and the LEAF 
Court mandate. EPA, therefore is concluding its withdrawal proceedings 
against the State on December 22, 1999.

C. Alabama Class II UIC Program Revision

    The Alabama Oil and Gas Board has held primary enforcement 
authority for

[[Page 2891]]

the Class II UIC program since the program was originally approved by 
EPA on August 2, 1982, pursuant to Section 1425 of the SDWA. Alabama 
has now revised its program to address the deficiencies outlined in the 
Regional Administrator's letter of September 23, 1999. The Board 
submitted an application for program revision on October 6, 1999, 
requesting that EPA approve the program revision for primary 
administrative and enforcement authority for the regulation of 
hydraulic fracturing of coal beds on all lands subject to the State's 
police power and taxing authority and on all lands owned or under the 
jurisdiction of the United States, except those wells located on Indian 
lands as defined in 40 CFR 144.3. The application includes a program 
description, copies of all applicable rules and forms, a statement of 
legal authority and appropriate memoranda of agreement. After a 
comprehensive review of the application package, on October 22, 1999, 
EPA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking, 
a public hearing and a public comment period relative to EPA approval 
of Alabama's Class II UIC program. EPA received comments both at the 
public hearing held on November 22, 1999, and up to November 29, 1999, 
the extended deadline for comments. EPA is approving Alabama's revision 
to its Class II UIC program on December 22, 1999.

II. Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing of Coals Beds

    Many written and oral comments were received by the Agency 
concerning the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing of coal 
beds. Several commentors stated that there was a long history of 
hydraulic fracturing in Alabama with no recorded associated 
environmental or public health problems. Other commentors, however, 
provided information regarding problems with private water supplies 
allegedly impacted by hydraulic fracturing. EPA has responded to these 
and all other comments received in a separate Response to Comments 
document which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. See 
Section IV. C. of this preamble below.
    When considering the regulation of hydraulic fracturing of coals 
beds, or more specifically the approval of Alabama's program revision 
incorporating such regulation, the Safe Drinking Water Act Section 
1421(b) and Section 1425(b) directs EPA to judge any regulatory 
approach on its ability to prevent underground injection which 
endangers drinking water sources. Cases of past endangerment caused by 
hydraulic fracturing of coal beds are hard to substantiate. However, it 
is certainly possible to conclude that underground injection of 
hydraulic fluids might endanger underground drinking water sources if 
conducted without proper safeguards. This is especially so considering 
the proximity of fracturing to USDWs, the volumes of fluids injected, 
and the pressure at which these fluids are injected. Therefore, EPA 
believes that hydraulic fracturing of coals beds is appropriate for 
regulation by Alabama under the SDWA even though a thorough review has 
not been conducted to substantiate the impact of such injection.

III. Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Beds and the UIC Regulatory 
Structure

A. Safe Drinking Water Act

    Section 1421(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act states: 
``Regulations under subsection (a) of this section for State 
underground injection programs shall contain minimum requirements for 
effective programs to prevent underground injection which endangers 
drinking water sources within the meaning of subsection (d)(2) of this 
section.'' Subsection (d)(2), otherwise known as the ``endangerment 
standard,'' states: ``Underground injection endangers drinking water 
sources if such injection may result in the presence in underground 
water which supplies or can reasonably be expected to supply any public 
water system of any contaminant, and if the presence of such 
contaminant may result in such system's not complying with any national 
primary drinking water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the 
health of persons.'' This is the standard by which underground 
injection, including hydraulic fracturing, is generally regulated under 
the SDWA.
    EPA has not promulgated Federal regulations which specifically 
cover hydraulic fracturing activities. However, pursuant to Section 
1422(b), each State is required to have an EPA-approved or EPA-run 
program meeting the requirements of the SDWA, including the 
requirements that underground injection not endanger USDWs. In the LEAF 
case, as discussed above, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held 
that hydraulic fracturing of coal beds in association with methane gas 
production was underground injection for purposes of the SDWA and is 
required to be regulated (by permit or rule). Consistent with that 
decision and the Court's subsequently issued Writ of Mandamus, EPA has 
worked with Alabama to review its Class II UIC program pursuant to the 
SDWA and the Court's decision.
    In reference to underground injection associated with oil and gas 
production, the Act states under Section 1421(b)(2): ``Regulations of 
the Administrator under this section for State underground injection 
control programs may not prescribe requirements which interfere with or 
impede--(A) the underground injection of brine or other fluids which 
are brought to the surface in connection with oil or natural gas 
production or natural gas storage operations, or (B) any underground 
injection for the secondary or tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas, 
unless such requirements are essential to assure that underground 
sources of drinking water will not be endangered by such injection.''
    The specific language of this section allows EPA to impose, through 
regulations, requirements that are essential to assure that underground 
sources of drinking water will not be endangered. In Alabama, hydraulic 
fracturing of coal beds generally occurs by injecting fluids directly 
into underground sources of drinking water. Alabama's rule regulating 
hydraulic fracturing is designed, among other things, to assure that 
USDWs are not endangered. Because EPA believes that the revised Alabama 
UIC program covering hydraulic fracturing does not contain any 
requirements which interfere or impede with oil and gas production 
which are not essential to prevent endangerment of USDWs, EPA believes 
that its approval of the Alabama revision is not in conflict with 
Section 1421(b)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

B. Well Classification and Regulation

    The classification system of underground injection wells was 
established in the original promulgation of UIC regulations in 1979. 
Injection wells are classified as either Class I, II, III, IV, or V. 
(40 CFR 144.6; 146.5) Classes I through IV are each specifically 
defined by EPA regulation, and Class V is defined as any well that is 
not Class I, II, III, or IV.
    40 CFR 144.6(b) defines Class II wells as follows: ``Wells which 
inject fluids: (1) Which are brought to the surface in connection with 
natural gas storage operations, or conventional oil or natural gas 
production and may be commingled with waste waters from gas plants 
which are integral part of production operations, unless those waters 
are classified as a hazardous waste at the time of injection; (2) For 
enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; and (3) For storage of 
hydrocarbons which are liquid at standard

[[Page 2892]]

temperature and pressure.'' Hydraulic fracturing of coal beds is a 
temporary and intermittent process in which fluids are injected 
underground at high pressures to create fractures in the coals seam 
that enhance the recovery of methane gas by creating pathways for the 
gas to flow to the surface.
    When the regulations in 40 CFR parts 144 and 146, including the 
well classifications, were promulgated, it was not EPA's intent to 
regulate hydraulic fracturing of coal beds. Accordingly, the well 
classification systems found in 40 CFR 144.6 and 146.5 do not expressly 
include hydraulic fracturing injection activities. Also, the various 
permitting, construction and other requirements found in Parts 144 and 
146 do not specifically address hydraulic fracturing.
    When the Eleventh Circuit determined that EPA must include 
hydraulic fracturing of coal bed seams as underground injection under 
the SDWA, the Agency reviewed its well classification definition to 
determine how to incorporate hydraulic fracturing within the context of 
its existing regulations. Of the five ``classes'' of injection wells 
defined in 40 CFR 144.6, hydraulic fracturing of coal beds to produce 
methane appeared most closely related to Class II, especially that part 
of the Class II definition covering wells which inject fluids ``for 
enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas.'' (40 CFR 144.6(b)(2)) It is 
certainly possible to view the emplacement of fracturing fluids through 
these methane production wells as designed to enhance the recovery of 
natural gas by creating fractures through which the methane might flow 
to the well and up to the surface. However, since the injection of 
fracture fluids through these wells is often a one-time exercise of 
extremely limited duration (fracture injections generally last no more 
than two hours) ancillary to the well's principal function of producing 
methane, it did not seem entirely appropriate to ascribe Class II 
status to such wells, for all regulatory purposes, merely due to the 
fact that, prior to commencing production, they had been fractured. 
Instead, EPA believes it is reasonable to view hydraulic fracturing of 
these production wells as a Class II--like underground injection 
activity which, by itself, does not turn these methane production wells 
into Class II injection wells for purposes of complying with all of the 
Class II regulatory requirements in Parts 144 and 146. We believe such 
a decision is consistent with the Court's mandate that EPA treat 
hydraulic fracturing of coal beds for methane production as underground 
injection, while at the same time allowing Alabama the flexibility to 
fashion an approvable regulatory program addressing hydraulic 
fracturing which need not mirror all existing requirements in Parts 144 
and 146 for Class II wells.
    Given that there are currently no Federal regulations specifically 
addressing hydraulic fracturing of coal beds, the general requirements 
applicable to all classes of wells provide the minimum Federal 
regulatory requirements for hydraulic fracturing of coal beds. The key 
requirement is the ``endangerment standard'' found at 40 CFR 144.12(a) 
which provides: ``No owner or operator shall construct, operate, 
maintain, convert, plug, abandon, or conduct any other injection 
activity in a manner that allows the movement of fluid containing any 
contaminant into underground sources of drinking water, if the presence 
of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water 
regulation under 40 CFR part 142 or may otherwise adversely affect the 
health of persons.'' As discussed in Part IV below, EPA has determined 
that Alabama's revised Class II program meets the applicable 
requirements of the SDWA and EPA's regulations, including 40 CFR 
144.12(a). This determination does not preclude another State from 
regulating hydraulic fracturing of coal beds in an alternate UIC 
regulatory scheme.

C. Aquifer Exemptions

    EPA's UIC regulations at 40 CFR 146.4 set forth criteria for 
determining whether an aquifer which meets the definition of a USDW may 
be determined to be an ``exempted aquifer'' pursuant to 40 CFR part 
144. This final rule approving the State program revision does not, in 
any way, alter the aquifer exemption options provided by Federal 
regulations under 40 CFR 144.7 and 146.4. If submitted by the State, 
the Agency would consider any aquifer exemption petition on its own 
merits. However, exempting any aquifers into which hydraulic fracturing 
fluids are injected would not remove the requirement that hydraulic 
fracturing of coal beds generally be regulated by Alabama as 
underground injection. Therefore, the current action approving 
Alabama's program revision is separate from an aquifer exemption 
determination, and, in the future, any such State program revisions 
exempting aquifers would still be required to be approved by EPA to 
ensure that the State program remains effective at preventing 
underground injection that endangers drinking water sources.

IV. Approval of Program Revision

A. Approval Under SDWA Section 1422 Versus Section 1425

    As discussed above, Section 1422(b) of the SDWA sets forth criteria 
for EPA to apply when deciding whether to approve a State's UIC program 
or program revision. Section 1422(b)(1)(A) requires that an approvable 
State application program: (1) Meet the requirements of regulations in 
effect under Section 1421; and (2), keep such records and make such 
reports as the Administrator may require by regulation. Section 1425 
allows an optional demonstration for approving ``that portion of any 
State underground injection control program which relates to--(1) The 
underground injection of brine or other fluids which are brought to the 
surface in connection with oil or natural gas production or natural gas 
storage operations, or (2) any underground injection for the secondary 
or tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas.''
    Although language in Section 1425 of the SDWA does not specifically 
refer to hydraulic fracturing for methane production, it is reasonable 
to assume that Congress would have intended that approval of State 
underground injection programs relating to this type of activity would 
fall within the more flexible approval standards Congress established 
in Section 1425. In creating an alternative demonstration for 
``secondary or tertiary recovery''-related injection under Section 
1425, it is unlikely that Congress meant to leave behind another 
undefined, yet analogous, category of oil- and gas-related injection 
activities, like hydraulic fracturing of coal beds, for approval 
exclusively pursuant to Section 1422. Congress' use of the terms 
``secondary or tertiary recovery'' in Section 1425 is broad enough to 
cover analogous oil- and gas-related injection activities. These 
activities are like those covered by the LEAF decision and Alabama's 
rule whose purpose, like secondary and tertiary recovery, is to enhance 
oil or gas production. To conclude otherwise would require States to 
seek approval for similar parts of their oil- and gas-related UIC 
program under both Section 1425 and 1422. This would be both 
inefficient and inconsistent with Congress' expressed admonition that 
EPA not prescribe unnecessary requirements related to oil- and gas-
related injection (42 U.S.C. 300h(b)(2)). Therefore, EPA interprets 
Section 1425 broadly as establishing an alternative method (in lieu of 
the showing required by Section 1422(b)(1)(A)) for a State to obtain

[[Page 2893]]

primary enforcement responsibility for those portions of its UIC 
program related to hydraulic fracturing of coal bed seams for methane 
production.
    Section 1422 (b)(1)(A) requires the State to demonstrate that it 
``( i) has adopted after reasonable notice and public hearings, and 
will implement, an underground injection control program which meets 
the requirements of regulations in effect under section [1421] of this 
title; and (ii) will keep such records and make such report with 
respect to its activities under its underground injection control 
program as the Administrator may require by regulation.'' As already 
discussed, there are no specific Federal regulations addressing 
hydraulic fracturing of coal beds. Therefore, if EPA were to apply 
Section 1422 to the Alabama program to regulate hydraulic fracturing of 
coal beds, the Federal regulations in effect under Section 1421 would 
be those regulations in Parts 144 and 146, like 40 CFR 144.11, 
144.12(a) and 144.26, which apply to all classes of wells (see Part 
III. B. Well Classification and Regulation of this preamble). Section 
144.11 is satisfied because the Alabama hydraulic fracturing 
regulations prohibit any fracturing activities unless written approval 
of the Supervisor is obtained. [See State Rule 400-4-5-.04(4)] As we 
demonstrate later, the ``endangerment'' standard, 40 CFR 144.12(a), has 
essentially been adopted by the State at 400-4-5-.04(2) for the 
regulation of hydraulic fracturing of coal beds. Moreover, the 
inventory requirements in 40 CFR 144.26 are also met by State Rule 400-
4-5-.04(4).
    Section 1425 provides an alternative standard of approval for State 
UIC programs relating to oil and natural gas. Section 1425 provides 
that for purposes of EPA approval under Section 1422, in lieu of the 
showing required under Section 1422(b)(1)(A), the State may show that 
its program ``meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (D) 
of section [1421(b)(1)] of this title and represents an effective 
program (including adequate recordkeeping and reporting) to prevent 
underground injection which endangers drinking water sources.'' Section 
1425 allows the State to adopt and implement a program that prevents, 
in the judgement of EPA, underground injection which endangers drinking 
water sources, not simply adopt and implement a program that is no less 
stringent than EPA's Section 1421 regulations. Since EPA does not have 
any specific permitting or construction regulations designed to prevent 
hydraulic fracturing of coal beds from endangering drinking water 
sources, a State program revision approved under Section 1422 might not 
have been as preventative in nature as one approved under Section 1425. 
The requirement applicable to all classes of wells under 40 CFR 
144.12(a) is a general prohibition against injection that endangers 
drinking water sources. It does not establish technical criteria or 
standards on operators to demonstrate that their injection will not 
endanger drinking water sources prior to obtaining authorization for 
injection.
    Under Section 1425, however, a State is required to demonstrate 
that its program will be ``effective'' in preventing endangerment of 
drinking water sources. Therefore, in addition to containing a 40 CFR 
144.12(a)-type requirement prohibiting ``endangerment,'' under Section 
1425 the State must demonstrate that its program will be effective in 
preventing such endangerment. Alabama has, as we demonstrate below, 
done that through the regulatory system it has adopted addressing coal 
bed fracturing activities.
    Therefore, it is EPA's determination that: (1) Approval under 
Section 1425 provides for potentially greater protection of underground 
sources of drinking water with respect to the regulation of hydraulic 
fracturing of coal beds than Section 1422 since it requires 
``effective'' preventative measures, and (2) the Alabama program 
revision includes regulations that are more stringent than existing 
Federal regulations for hydraulic fracturing and meets the standards of 
Section 1425.

B. SDWA Section 1425 Approval Justification

    By this notice and final rule, EPA is approving Alabama's UIC 
program revision in which the State is regulating hydraulic fracturing 
of coal beds pursuant to Section 1425 of the SDWA. Section 1425 
provides that EPA may approve that portion of a State's UIC program 
which relates to ``any underground injection for the secondary or 
tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas'' if the program meets certain 
requirements of Section 1421 and ``represents an effective program 
(including adequate recordkeeping and reporting) to prevent underground 
injection which endangers drinking water sources.''
    Pursuant to the State of Alabama's authority under Section 9-17-
6(c)(3) and (13) of the Code of Alabama, and in accordance with the 
Eleventh Circuit's LEAF decision, the Board adopted on August 20, 1999, 
a rule to regulate hydraulic fracturing of coal beds. This rule, and a 
minor definition revision rule, submitted to EPA as part of Alabama's 
Class II UIC program revision package, embodied the State's 
requirements for such fracturing activities. In summary, the new rule 
(Rule 400-4-5-.04) establishes standards and procedures the Board will 
apply when evaluating proposals to hydraulically fracture coal beds. 
Among other things, Rule 400-4-5-.04(1) and (2) of the Board 
Administrative Code specifically provides that coal beds shall be 
hydraulically fractured so as not to endanger any underground source of 
drinking water (USDW). In addition, coal beds shall not be 
hydraulically fractured in a manner that allows the movement of fluid 
containing any contaminant into a USDW if the presence of that 
contaminant may cause a violation of any applicable primary drinking 
water regulation under 40 CFR Part 141 or, otherwise, adversely affect 
the health of persons. It is EPA's interpretation that these 
requirements satisfy the prohibition against endangerment in Part C of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    Section 400-4-5.04(3) of the Alabama rule also establishes 
requirements that, should hydraulic fracturing of coal bed operations 
occur in a USDW, the operator must certify that the injectate does not 
exceed maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) before approval for injection 
can be obtained. Additional requirements pertaining to the depth of the 
hydraulic fracturing operation and geologic confining strata were 
established to prevent impacts on private and public drinking water 
supplies. For example, under Section 400-4-5-.04(5)(B) of the rule, 
hydraulic fracturing of coal beds is prohibited at depths of less than 
300 feet from the surface. Fracturing at lower depths also requires 
additional demonstrations, including delineation of drinking water use 
around the fracturing operation and assurances for the prevention of 
upward movement of fluids. For every proposal to hydraulically fracture 
a coal bed, written approval from the Oil and Gas Supervisor must be 
obtained before the operation can commence.
    SDWA Section 1425 requires a State to demonstrate that its 
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program meets the requirements of 
Section 1421(b)(1)(A) through (D) and ``represents an effective program 
(including adequate recordkeeping and reporting) to prevent underground 
injection which endangers drinking water sources.'' Accordingly, 
Section 1425 requires that a State, in order to receive approval under 
the optional demonstration, make a successful showing that its program 
meets the following five conditions: (1) Section

[[Page 2894]]

1421(b)(1)(A) requires that an approvable State program prohibit any 
underground injection in such State which is not authorized by permit 
or rule. (2) Section 1421(b)(1)(B) requires that an approvable State 
program shall require that: (i) The applicant for a permit ``must 
satisfy the State that the underground injection will not endanger 
drinking water sources;'' and (ii) ``no rule may be promulgated which 
authorizes any underground injection which endangers drinking water 
sources.'' (3) Section 1421(b)(1)(C) requires that an approvable State 
program ``include inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.'' (4) Section 1421(b)(1)(D) requires that an approvable 
State program apply to: (i) ``Underground injections by Federal 
agencies, and (ii) to underground injections by any other person, 
whether or not occurring on property owned or leased by the United 
States.'' (5) Section 1425(a) requires that an approvable State program 
represent an ``effective program * * * to prevent underground injection 
which endangers drinking water sources.''
    EPA has concluded that Rule 400-4-5-.04 (Protection of Underground 
Sources of Drinking Water during the Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal 
Beds), along with the rest of Alabama's revision package, satisfies the 
above five conditions of Section 1425 for approving a State's program. 
The basis for our conclusion for each condition is as follows:
    (1) Rule 400-4-5-.04(4) states: ``Coal beds shall not be 
hydraulically fractured until the written approval of the Supervisor is 
obtained.'' This satisfies the requirement of Section 1421(b)(1)(A). 
The Alabama rule established conditions, including written approval, 
under which hydraulic fracturing may take place. Without the 
Supervisor's written approval signifying that those conditions are met, 
hydraulic fracturing may not occur.
    (2) Section 1421(b)(1)(B)(i) is satisfied because, while the 
Alabama regulation does not establish a permit requirement, Rule 400-4-
5-.04(4) states: ``Coal beds shall not be hydraulically fractured until 
the written approval of the Supervisor is obtained.'' Section 
1421(b)(1)(B)(ii) is also satisfied because Rule 400-4-5-.04(2) states: 
``Coal beds shall not be hydraulically fractured in a manner that 
allows the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into a USDW, if 
the presence of that contaminant may: (a) Cause a violation of any 
applicable primary drinking water regulation under 40 CFR Sec. 141; or 
(b) otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.''
    (3) Section 1421(b)(1)(C) is satisfied because Rule 400-4-5-.04 
includes inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements. The State rule provides adequate inspection of a 
hydraulic fracturing operation in accordance with Section 
1421(b)(1)(C). The last sentence of Rule 400-4-5-.04(4) states that: 
``In accordance with Rule 400-4-3-.01(2), the Supervisor may send a 
duly authorized representative to witness the fracturing operation.'' 
Additionally, Rule 400-4-5-.04(5)(c)(3), which covers coal beds in the 
depth interval of 300 to 749 feet, states that: ``A representative of 
the Board shall conduct a field reconnaissance within a \1/4\-mile 
radius of the coal bed methane gas well to determine the location of 
any additional fresh-water supply wells that may not be identified in 
the previously described documents.''
    The Alabama rule also provides for adequate monitoring of 
fracturing operations. Rule 400-4-5-.04(3) states that: ``The operator 
shall certify in writing to the Supervisor that the proposed fracturing 
operation will not occur in a USDW,'' and provide evidence supporting 
how the determination was made. Otherwise, if the proposed fracturing 
occurs in a USDW, ``the operator shall certify in writing to the 
Supervisor that the mixture of fluids to be used to hydraulically 
fracture the coal beds does not exceed the maximum contaminant levels 
contained in 40 CFR. Sec. 141, Subparts B and G.'' EPA believes these 
requirements of the Alabama rule are adequate in lieu of monitoring 
requirements because they will ensure USDWs are not endangered, thereby 
rendering monitoring requirements unnecessary.
    The rule provides for adequate reporting requirements. In addition 
to Rule 400-4-5-.04(3) mentioned above, Rule 400-4-5-.04(5)(a)(3) 
requires the submittal of Form OGB-7 (Well Record and Completion or 
Recompletion Report), covering casing and cementing specifications. 
``[I]f the coal bed methane gas well is in a state of completion or 
recompletion, and Form OGB-7 is not required to be filed with the Board 
prior to the fracturing operation, then the Supervisor shall require 
the operator to submit a wellbore schematic showing the specifications 
of the casing and cementing program.''
    The rule also provides for adequate recordkeeping. Rule 400-4-
5-.04(7) requires that operators ``maintain all records associated with 
each proposal approved by the Supervisor and implemented by the 
operator to hydraulically fracture coal beds. Such records shall be 
maintained until such time that the coalbed methane gas well has been 
plugged for permanent abandonment, but not less than three (3) years 
following completion of the fracturing operation.''
    (4) Section 1421(b)(1)(D) is satisfied since the State's Rule and 
Alabama's existing UIC Program applies to all relevant entities. The 
Alabama Oil and Gas Board has the authority to regulate operators who 
hydraulically fracture coal beds. Rule 400-1-1.03(32) defines operator 
as ``any person who, duly authorized, is in charge of the development 
of a lease or the operation of a producing well, and, in addition, for 
the purpose of assigning responsibility, may also be the person 
indicated as operator by the most current records of the Board.'' Rule 
400-1-1-.03(34) defines person as ``any natural person, firm, 
corporation, association, partnership, joint venture, receiver, 
trustee, guardian, executor, administrator, fiduciary, representative 
of any kind, or any other group acting as a unit, and the plural as 
well as the singular number.'' Therefore, this program revision applies 
to underground injection by Federal agencies and underground injection 
by any other person, whether or not occurring on property owned or 
leased by the United States.
    (5) Finally, the requirement of section 1425 is met because the 
current revision application package and Rule 400-4-5-.04 represent an 
effective program that prevents underground injection which endangers 
drinking water sources. State Rule 400-4-5-.04(2) states: ``Coal beds 
shall not be hydraulically fractured in a manner that allows the 
movement of fluid containing any contaminant into a USDW, if the 
presence of that contaminant may: (a) Cause a violation of any 
applicable primary drinking water regulation under 40 CFR Sec. 141; or 
(b) otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.'' This statement 
embodies the ``endangerment'' standard in Section 1421(d)(2) of the 
SDWA and provides the basic prohibition against hydraulic fracturing 
which endangers drinking water sources.
    The State has also adopted additional regulatory provisions 
preventing underground injection which endangers drinking water 
sources. State Rule 400-4-5-.04(3) states: ``The operator shall certify 
in writing to the Supervisor that the proposed fracturing operation 
will not occur in a USDW. Evidence that supports how the determination 
was made shall accompany such

[[Page 2895]]

certification and be acceptable to the Supervisor. Otherwise, the 
operator shall certify in writing to the Supervisor that the mixture of 
fluids to be used to hydraulically fracture the coal beds does not 
exceed the maximum contaminant levels contained in 40 CFR Sec. 141 
Subparts B and G.'' This provision requires a certification that 
fracturing fluids will not be injected into a USDW or establishes 
specifications for the quality of the injectate should the injection 
occur into the USDW. Specifically, it states that the injectate must 
meet drinking water standards. Therefore, EPA concludes that adequate 
provisions have been established to prevent endangerment of drinking 
water sources from hydraulic fracturing operations.
    State Rule 400-4-5-.04(5)(a)5 also states: ``A geophysical log, or 
gamma ray log, shall be evaluated to determine the type and thickness 
of strata overlying the uppermost coal bed to be fractured. Impervious 
strata, such as shale, must overlie the uppermost coal bed and be of 
sufficient thickness and consistency to serve as a barrier to the 
upward movement of fluids. Otherwise, a fracturing proposal will be 
denied.'' This provision ensures that underground injection will not 
cause movement of fluids from the fracturing zone, which may be of 
lesser quality, into upper underground sources of drinking water. 
Should injection occur below the USDW where injectate quality is not 
addressed by State Rule 400-4-5-.04(3), this provision prohibits the 
upward movement of injectate and other formation fluids into the USDW. 
The quality of aquifers (measured as total dissolved solids) in the 
formations where hydraulic fracturing of coal beds occurs generally 
decreases as depth of the aquifer increases. In other words, if 
injection does not occur in a USDW, such injection is probably taking 
place below the lowermost USDW. Therefore, injection occurring below 
the USDW is prevented from moving upwards into the USDW, and downward 
movement would not be in the direction of a USDW. EPA concludes that 
adequate provisions have been established to prevent endangerment from 
movement of injection fluids and formation fluids into a USDW.
    Additional protection is afforded because under 400-4-5-.04(5) 
operators will be required to follow the requirements of Rule 400-4-
3-.02 (Casing Requirements), which will be evaluated by the Supervisor 
to ensure compliance. Hydraulic fracturing will not be allowed unless 
the coal bed methane well is constructed in accordance with Rule 400-4-
3-.02. Rule 400-4-3.02 provides requirements to ensure the integrity of 
the surface casing and provides minimum criteria for cased hole and 
open-hole completion of coal beds methane wells. In accordance with 
Rule 400-4-5.04(5), ``[A]ny coalbed methane gas well that is not 
constructed in accordance with Rule 400-4-3.02 shall not be allowed to 
produce and may be required to be immediately plugged and abandoned.'' 
Therefore, EPA concludes that adequate provisions have been established 
to prevent endangerment during hydraulic fracturing caused by well 
integrity failure.
    Additionally, Rule 400-4-5.04(5)(b) requires that a Cement Bond 
Log, if available, shall be evaluated for coal bed proposals in the 
750-1000 feet depth range. Such a log is required in 400-4-5-.04(5)(c) 
for coal bed proposals in the 300-749 feet depth range to ascertain the 
top of cement and degree of bonding above the upper most coal bed to be 
fractured. Rule 400-4-5-.04(5)(c) also requires that ``[R]ecords of 
fresh-water supply wells located within a \1/4\ mile radius of the 
coalbed methane gas well shall be used in delineating the construction 
and completion depth of such supply wells.'' Moreover, ``a field 
reconnaissance within a \1/4\ mile radius * * * to determine the 
location of any additional fresh-water supply wells'' shall be 
conducted by a representative of the Board. Fracturing operations shall 
not be allowed ``if the Supervisor determines that any fresh-water 
supply well located within \1/4\ mile radius of the coal bed methane 
gas well could be adversely impacted in the manner described in section 
(2) of this rule as a result of the fracturing operation.'' All of 
these provisions provide additional assurances that underground 
injection does not endanger drinking water sources.
    Rule 400-1-1.06, referenced in Alabama's revision package, requires 
operators to allow and assist State agents in making any and all 
inspections that may be required by the Board. The agents are to have 
access to all records and shall be permitted to come upon any property 
at all times to make such inspections. This ensures an adequate 
surveillance program is in place to determine compliance with the 
requirements of Rule 400-4-5.04 and State regulations and provides an 
effective means to enforce against violators.
    For all these reasons, EPA concludes that Alabama's UIC revision 
application satisfies Section 1425(a) which requires that an approvable 
State program represents an effective program to prevent underground 
injection which endangers drinking water sources. Pursuant to the 
``good cause'' provision of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), this final rule is 
effective January 19, 2000. EPA has determined that there is good cause 
to make this rule effective January 19, 2000 because that will minimize 
the gap in the enforceability of these regulations that would result 
from a 30-day delay in their effectiveness.

C. Response to Comments on Revision Package

    Numerous comments were received on EPA's proposals to approve and 
withdraw Alabama's UIC program to cover hydraulic fracturing associated 
with coal bed methane production. EPA has considered all comments 
received on both actions. A written response to each individual comment 
received is included in the Response to Comments Document, located at 
the EPA Regional Office, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Room 15-T53, Atlanta, 
GA 30303-8960. This Response to Comment Document is included as part of 
the administrative record for this approval action. If you would like a 
copy of the Response to Comment Document, contact Larry Cole in Region 
4, at (404) 562-9474 at the address provided in the Addresses section 
of this preamble.

V. Regulatory Impact

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    a. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    b. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    c. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    d. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order

[[Page 2896]]

12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
``economically significant'' as defined in Executive Order 12866. This 
rule merely approves regulations adopted by the State of Alabama and 
effective as a matter of State law.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    EPA has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq., does not apply to this final rule since no information 
collection requirements are established by this rule. This rule does 
not create any new requirements but merely approves regulations adopted 
by the State of Alabama and effective as a matter of State law.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule 
will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule does not 
create any new requirements for anyone but merely approves regulations 
adopted by the State of Alabama and effective as a matter of State law. 
Accordingly, the rule imposes no additional requirements on small 
entities beyond those already imposed under Alabama law and, therefore, 
would have no economic impact on such entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has Federalism implication, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless 
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's rule would not create a 
mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule would not 
impose any enforceable duties on these entities. The rule would merely 
approve regulations adopted by the State of Alabama to ensure that 
hydraulic fracturing of coal bed seams in connection with methane gas 
production will not endanger underground sources of drinking water. 
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 do not 
apply to this rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of UMRA) for 
State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector. Today's 
rule would merely approve requirements already in place in the State of 
Alabama. The rule would impose no additional enforceable duty on any 
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's 
rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA. EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
Section 203 of UMRA.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), directs EPA to

[[Page 2897]]

use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and procurement 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted 
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an 
explanation when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards. This final rule does not involve 
technical standards. It merely approves regulations adopted by the 
State of Alabama. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any 
voluntary consensus standards.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified Section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's final rule would not significantly or uniquely affect 
Alabama's communities of Indian tribal governments, since the rule does 
not apply to them. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 3(b) of 
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

I. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804 (2). This rule will be effective January 19, 2000.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Water supply.

    Dated: December 22, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 147 is amended 
as follows:

PART 147--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 300h; and 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

Subpart B--Alabama

    2. Section 147.52 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:


Sec. 147.52  State-administered program--Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal 
Beds.

    The UIC program for hydraulic fracturing of coal beds in the State 
of Alabama, except those on Indian lands, is the program administered 
by the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, approved by EPA pursuant to 
Section 1425 of the SDWA on December 22, 1999 and effective on January 
19, 2000. The Alabama program consists of the following elements, as 
submitted to EPA in the State's program application:
    (a) Incorporation by reference. The requirements set forth in State 
Oil and Gas Board of Alabama Rule 400-4-1-.02, Definitions, and Rule 
400-4-5-.04, Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water during 
the Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Beds, are hereby incorporated by 
reference and made a part of the applicable UIC program under the SDWA 
for the State of Alabama. This incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register on January 19, 2000 in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies may be 
obtained at the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, 420 Hackberry Lane, 
Tuscaloosa, AL 35489-9780. Copies may be inspected at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Management Division, Ground Water/
Drinking Water Branch, Ground Water & UIC Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta 
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Room15-T53, Atlanta, GA 30303-
8960, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol Street 
NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (b) Addendum One, Underground Injection Control Program, Memorandum 
of Agreement Between the State of Alabama and the USEPA Region 4, 
signed by the Supervisor, Alabama State Oil and Gas Board on December 
10, 1999, and the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Region 4, on December 13, 1999.
    (c) Statement of Legal Authority. ``I hereby certify, pursuant to 
my authority as Attorney General for the State of Alabama and for 
reasons set forth in this statement, that in my opinion, the laws of 
the State of Alabama provide the State Oil and Gas Board (hereinafter 
referred to as ``the Board'') adequate authority to carry out an 
Underground Injection Program for the control of underground injection 
activity related to the hydraulic fracturing of coal beds.'' Opinion by 
Alabama's Attorney General Office, extracted from Letter from R. Craig 
Kneisel, Chief, Environmental Division, Office of the Attorney General, 
dated October 8, 1999, to Dr. Donald F. Oltz, Supervisor, State Oil and 
Gas Board of Alabama, Subject: Attorney General's Statement for Final 
Authorization of Alabama Class II Underground injection Control 
Program.
    (d) The Program Description for the Regulation of Hydraulic 
Fracturing of Coal Beds As required by 40 CFR 145.23--State Oil and Gas 
Board of Alabama, including Appendices A through F.

[FR Doc. 00-622 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P