[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67776-67780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-29756]



[[Page 67775]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement



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



30 CFR Part 732



Revisions to the State Program Amendment Process; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 67776]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 732

RIN 1029-AC06


Revisions to the State Program Amendment Process

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSM), propose to revise our regulations governing the processing of 
State program amendments submitted by a State for approval under the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. When a State with 
an approved program fails to amend its program as directed, our 
existing regulations require us to begin proceedings to either enforce 
that part of the State program that should have been amended, or 
withdraw approval in whole or in part and implement a Federal program. 
This rule would provide us with the discretion to consider the entire 
performance of the State in effectively implementing its program before 
determining that proceedings leading to Federal enforcement are 
warranted.

DATES: Written comments: We will accept written comments on the 
proposed rule until 5 p.m., Eastern Time, on February 2, 2004.
    Public hearings: Upon request, we will hold a public hearing on the 
proposed rule at a date, time, and location to be announced in the 
Federal Register before the hearing. We will accept requests for a 
public hearing until 5 p.m., Eastern Time, on December 24, 2003.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments on this 
proposed rule by any one of three methods. You may mail or hand carry 
comments to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 
Administrative Record, Room 101, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20240. You may also submit your comment via the Internet 
to OSM's Administrative Record at: [email protected].
    You may submit a request for a public hearing orally or in writing 
to the person specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will 
announce the address, date, and time for any public hearing before the 
hearing. Any disabled individual who requires special accommodation to 
attend a public hearing should also contact the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy DeVito, Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 
Constitution Avenue NW., MS-210-SIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: 
(202) 208-2701. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why Are We Revising Our Regulations?
II. How Do I Submit Comments on the Proposed Rule?
III. What are the Procedural Matters and Required Determinations for 
this Rule?

I. Why Are We Revising Our Regulations?

    We propose to revise our regulations governing the processing of 
State program amendments submitted by a State for approval under the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) in order to 
provide OSM with more discretion in resolving issues affecting approved 
State programs and the State program amendment process.

What Is an Approved State Program?

    In SMCRA, section 503 of Title V grants each State in which there 
are or may be surface coal mining operations conducted on non-Federal 
lands the right to assume exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of 
surface coal mining and reclamation operations. To do so, the State 
must submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, a State 
program that demonstrates that the State has the capability of carrying 
out the provisions of SMCRA. Since its enactment in 1977, 24 States 
have chosen to exercise such responsibility and have programs approved 
by us. The implementing regulations at 30 CFR part 732 provide the 
criteria and procedures for decisions to approve or disapprove 
submissions of State programs.

What Is a State Program Amendment?

    Although not expressly provided for in SMCRA, OSM also, by 
regulation at 30 CFR 732.17, provides criteria and processes for 
amending State programs in anticipation of a need to modify or update 
them as conditions or national rules change. Occasionally, for various 
reasons such as legislative changes to the provisions of SMCRA or 
litigation resulting in adverse court decisions, we revise our 
regulations. As a result, all 24 States with approved programs may be 
required to amend their approved State programs in order to be ``no 
less effective'' than the OSM regulatory program. Also, States may 
decide to amend their programs on their own initiative.
    If we determine that a State program amendment is required, we 
notify the State regulatory authority of the need to amend its approved 
program. Within 60 days after notification, the State must submit (1) a 
proposed written amendment, or (2) a description of an amendment to be 
proposed that meets the requirements of SMCRA and OSM's implementing 
regulations, and a timetable for enactment that is consistent with 
established administrative or legislative procedures in the State. If 
the State regulatory authority does not submit the proposed amendment 
or a description and timetable within 60 days from the receipt of the 
notice, or does not subsequently comply with the submitted timetable, 
or if the amendment is not approved, then pursuant to 30 CFR 
732.17(f)(2), the Director of OSM (Director) must begin proceedings 
under 30 CFR part 733.

What Is a 733 Proceeding?

    Under 30 CFR part 733, which is based on sections 504(b)-(d) and 
521(b) of SMCRA, if the Director has reason to believe that a State is 
not effectively implementing, administering, maintaining, or enforcing 
any part of its approved State program, then the Director must promptly 
notify the State regulatory authority in writing. The notification must 
provide sufficient information to allow the State to determine what 
portions of the program the Director believes are not being effectively 
implemented, administered, maintained, or enforced; provide the reasons 
for such belief; and specify the time period for the State to 
accomplish any necessary remedial actions. If, after certain hearing 
procedures, the Director finds that (1) the State has failed to 
implement, administer, maintain, or effectively enforce all or part of 
its approved State program, and (2) that the State has not demonstrated 
its capability and intent to administer the State program, then the 
Director must take one of the following actions. The Director must 
either (1) initiate direct Federal enforcement of all or part of the 
State program; or (2) recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that 
he or she withdraw approval of the State program, in whole or in part, 
and establish a Federal program for the State.

What Are the Consequences of a 733 Action?

    The substitution of Federal enforcement under 30 CFR 733.12 for all 
or part of an approved State program results in substantial disruption 
to the

[[Page 67777]]

State, the Federal government, and the coal industry. OSM has initiated 
a 733 action nine times in its history. We initiated action under part 
733 in Oklahoma (1981, 1983, and 1993), Kansas (1983), Tennessee 
(1983), Montana (1993), Utah (1995), West Virginia (2001), and Missouri 
(2003). In Montana, Utah, Kansas, West Virginia, and the Oklahoma 
actions in 1981 and 1993, the issues were resolved without Federal 
takeover of any part of the State program. In three cases, OSM did take 
over partial enforcement of a State program--Oklahoma (1984), Tennessee 
(1984), and Missouri (2003). In Oklahoma, the State took action to 
address the deficiencies, and full authority was later returned to the 
State. In Tennessee, the State chose instead to terminate its approved 
program and repealed the Tennessee Coal Surface Mining Act and its 
implementing regulations. OSM promulgated a Federal program for that 
State in 1984. After implementing the Federal program, we were required 
under section 504(d) of SMCRA to review all the permits issued by the 
State of Tennessee under the standards of the new Federal program. The 
substitution of Federal enforcement in Tennessee resulted in delays in 
processing and issuing new coal permits in the State. While the 
Tennessee situation was an extreme example, disruption always occurs 
when there is a substitution of Federal enforcement for all or part of 
an approved State program.
    The most recent 733 action in Missouri is still unresolved. On July 
21, 2003, the Governor of Missouri notified us that the State of 
Missouri is experiencing difficult budget and revenue shortfalls. As a 
result of the situation, the Governor requested assistance with permit 
reviews, inspection activities, and general oversight of the active 
coal mining operations in the State. The Governor indicated that he was 
hopeful his request would be temporary and that he would continue to 
work with the legislature in an attempt to assure adequate funding for 
all responsibilities.
    On August 4, 2003, we notified the Governor that we were obligated, 
in accordance with 30 CFR 733.12(e), to substitute Federal enforcement 
for those portions of the Missouri program that were not fully funded 
and staffed. We cited problems with the State's implementation of the 
Missouri program in several areas including inspection, enforcement, 
permitting, and bonding activities. As a result of substituting Federal 
enforcement, we became responsible for, among other things, 
approximately 40 permitting actions, 24 inspectable units, and an 
unsuitability petition filed on October 20, 2003. For more details on 
the Missouri 733 action, see 68 FR 50944, August 22, 2003.

Why Are We Revising Our Regulations?

    As previously mentioned, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(f)(2) 
require us to begin proceedings against a State under 30 CFR part 733 
when the State fails to submit and obtain approval of a required 
program amendment within the time allowed. While there may be 
circumstances in which the substance of a required State program 
amendment is such that the State's failure or inability to submit it to 
OSM and obtain approval warrants action under part 733, in most 
instances this is not the case. There are far more amendments being 
processed than originally anticipated when the State program provisions 
were enacted in 1977, and they typically involve a single issue and/or 
pertain to minor program revisions. Usually, the substance of the 
required State program amendment is such that the State's failure or 
inability to submit it to OSM and obtain approval does not jeopardize 
the overall effectiveness of the approved State program.
    For example, in 1999, we required the State of Iowa to submit 
certain program amendments pertaining to revegetation success standards 
by May 25, 2000. See 64 FR 66385; November 26, 1999. The State 
submitted the required amendment on August 17, 2001--fifteen months 
after it was due--and we approved it on December 27, 2001. See 66 FR 
66743; December 27, 2001. The delay in submitting the program amendment 
did not jeopardize the overall effectiveness of the approved State 
program and it did not result in harm to the environment. Iowa had not 
produced a single ton of coal during the three years prior to receiving 
our notice of the required amendment. Nevertheless, even in such 
situations, our existing regulations automatically require us to begin 
proceedings under part 733--proceedings that are costly and disruptive 
to both OSM and the affected State, and sometimes completely 
unnecessary. Because of limited staff and resources, and due to the 
need to direct our efforts to higher priorities, Iowa was able to 
complete the amendment process before we could initiate proceedings 
under part 733.

What Revisions Are We Making?

    This proposed rule would provide discretion to the Director by 
allowing consideration of the State's overall effectiveness in 
implementing, administering, maintaining, or enforcing its approved 
program before determining that proceedings under part 733 are 
warranted because of a delinquent State program amendment. This is the 
standard currently found in 30 CFR 733.12(b) which applies in most 
situations. However, the provisions in 30 CFR 732.17(f)(2) by-pass 
those in 30 CFR 733.12(b) by automatically assuming that the failure to 
submit or obtain approval of a State program amendment is an indication 
that the State is not effectively implementing, administering, 
maintaining, or enforcing its approved program. A State's failure to 
submit an amendment and obtain approval by OSM may be the result of 
other factors such as the failure of the State legislature to enact 
required legislation, reluctance to submit an amendment ``no less 
effective'' than an OSM regulation that is currently being litigated, 
or timely submission of an amendment that the State thought was ``no 
less effective'' than the Secretary's regulations, but OSM found to be 
deficient.
    We believe that, in situations where the State has not submitted 
and obtained approval of a required amendment, a less disruptive and 
more effective way to obtain the required amendment is to work with the 
State at the staff level to discuss problems and resolve issues rather 
than automatically begin formal proceedings under part 733. To 
automatically begin proceedings under part 733, as currently required 
by 30 CFR 732.17(f)(2), damages the working relationship we have with a 
State that has voluntarily agreed to work in partnership with OSM to 
implement and administer the provisions of Title V of SMCRA. For these 
reasons, we are proposing the following revisions.
30 CFR 732.17(f)(2)
    Under the existing regulation in 30 CFR 732.17(f)(2), the Director 
is required to begin proceedings to either enforce that part of the 
State program affected or withdraw approval, in whole or in part, and 
implement a Federal program under the following situations. The 
Director is required to begin proceedings if the State regulatory 
authority does not (1) submit a proposed amendment or a description of 
an amendment and the timetable for enactment within 60 days from the 
receipt of the notice from OSM, or (2) does not subsequently comply 
with the submitted timetable, or if the amendment is not approved by 
OSM.
    We propose to revise this requirement by inserting the words ``if 
the Director finds that such action is warranted because the State is 
not effectively implementing, administering,

[[Page 67778]]

maintaining or enforcing its approved State program.'' This language is 
taken in part from 30 CFR 733.12(b) and will provide the discretion 
necessary to consider the State's overall performance rather than 
automatically require proceedings under part 733. Our regulations at 30 
CFR 733.12(e) provide the standards for substitution of Federal 
enforcement. The standards are a determination by the Director that: 
(1) The State has failed to effectively implement, administer, maintain 
or enforce all or part of its approved State program; and (2) the State 
has not demonstrated its capability and intent to administer its 
approved State program.
30 CFR 732.17(h)(1)
    Paragraph (h)(1) currently requires that we publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of receipt of a State program amendment within 10 
days after receiving it from the State. We propose increasing the time 
period from 10 days to 30 days because we have found it difficult to 
meet the 10-day time period. When the regulations were originally 
written, State program amendments were received and processed at OSM's 
headquarters office in Washington, DC. The approval of State program 
amendments has since been decentralized and receipt and approval now 
takes place in our three regional offices. They in turn transmit the 
amendments to the OSM headquarters office in Washington, DC for final 
clearance. After they are cleared for publication, they are sent to the 
Office of the Federal Register which usually publishes them on the 
third day after receipt. This can no longer be done in 10 days and so 
we propose increasing the time from 10 to 30 days.
30 CFR 732.17(h)(2)(v)
    Paragraph (h)(2)(v) currently requires that we publish a schedule 
for review and action on a State program amendment. Experience has 
shown that schedules usually change because of extensions of the 
comment period and delays in obtaining comments from other government 
agencies. Because these schedules are variable and unreliable, we 
propose removing the requirement that we publish a schedule for review 
and action on a State program amendment.
30 CFR 732.17(h)(8)
    Paragraph (h)(8) currently allows the State regulatory authority 30 
days to resubmit a revised amendment for consideration if its original 
submission is not approved. Experience has shown that the 30 days is 
insufficient for the State to accomplish the submission. We propose to 
increase the time frame from 30 days to either 60 days or a time frame 
consistent with the established administrative or legislative 
procedures in the State, whichever is later. This will provide the 
State with a more realistic time frame within which to act.
30 CFR 732.17(h)(9)
    Paragraph (h)(9) would be shortened and simplified by cross 
referencing the processing provisions in paragraph (h) rather than 
specifying the same procedures in paragraph (h)(9).
30 CFR 732.17(h)(12)
    Paragraph (h)(12) currently requires that within 10 days after 
approving or not approving a State program amendment, the decision must 
be published in the Federal Register. We propose increasing the time 
period from 10 days to 30 days for the same reasons as discussed for 
the revisions of paragraph (h)(1) above.
30 CFR 732.17(h)(13)
    We propose to revise paragraph (h)(13) by deleting the cross 
reference to the schedule in paragraph (h)(2)(v) because, as previously 
discussed, we propose to delete that paragraph. We also propose to 
revise the time frame for our final decision on a State program 
amendment by increasing the time allowed from six months to seven 
months to allow for the increase in time from 10 to 30 days to publish 
documents in the Federal Register.

II. How Do I Submit Comments on the Proposed Rule?

    Written Comments: If you submit written comments on the proposed 
rule during the 60-day comment period, they should be specific, should 
be confined to issues pertinent to the notice, and should explain the 
reason for any recommended change(s). Where practicable, you should 
submit three copies of your comments. We will not give consideration to 
anonymous comments. Although every effort will be made to consider all 
other comments submitted, OSM cannot assure that comments sent to an 
address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES) will be included 
in the Administrative Record and available for our review.
    Availability of Comments: Our practice is to make comments, 
including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public 
review during regular business hours at the OSM Administrative Record 
Room (see ADDRESSES). Individual respondents may request that we 
withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will 
honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances 
in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's 
identity, to the extent allowed by law. If you wish us to withhold your 
name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning 
of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or 
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as 
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available 
for public inspection in their entirety.
    Public hearings: We will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule 
upon request only. The time, date, and address for any hearing will be 
announced in the Federal Register at least 7 days prior to the hearing.
    Any person interested in participating in a hearing should inform 
Andy DeVito (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), either orally or in 
writing by 5 p.m., Eastern time, on December 24, 2003. If no one has 
contacted Mr. DeVito to express an interest in participating in a 
hearing by that date, a hearing will not be held. If only one person 
expresses an interest, a public meeting rather than a hearing may be 
held, with the results included in the Administrative Record.
    The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all 
persons scheduled to speak have been heard. If you are in the audience 
and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be 
allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the 
hearing after all persons scheduled to speak and persons present in the 
audience who wish to speak have been heard. To assist the transcriber 
and ensure an accurate record, we request that, if possible, each 
person who testifies at a public hearing provide us with a written copy 
of his or her testimony.

III. What Are the Procedural Matters and Required Determinations for 
This Proposed Rule?

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866.
    a. This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the 
economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. The 
revisions to the provisions governing the processing of State program 
amendments and the time

[[Page 67779]]

frames for their publication will not have an adverse economic impact 
on States. It may in fact reduce administrative expenses for the States 
by allowing for the informal resolution of issues at staff level rather 
than requiring a part 733 action.
    b. This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
    c. This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of 
their recipients.
    d. This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
As previously stated, the revision to the provisions governing the 
processing of State program amendments and the time frames for their 
publication will not have an adverse economic impact. Further, the rule 
produces no adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States enterprises 
to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export 
markets.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    For the reasons previously stated, 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 or 
more.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    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 for 
the reasons stated above.

Unfunded Mandates

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
Tribal, or local governments or the private sector. A statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required.

Executive Order 12630--Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. The revisions being proposed are 
procedural in nature and do not affect private property.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment for the reasons discussed above.

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 proposed revisions pertaining to actions 
under part 733 would not have substantial direct effects 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.

Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not considered a significant energy action under 
Executive Order 13211. The revisions to the provisions governing the 
processing of State program amendments and the time frames for their 
publication will not have a significant effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not require an information collection from 10 or 
more parties, and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act to the 
Office of Management and Budget is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    OSM has reviewed this rule and determined that it is categorically 
excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act process in 
accordance with the Departmental Manual 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10.

How Will This Rule Affect State and Indian Programs?

    Following publication of a final rule, we will evaluate the State 
and Indian programs approved under section 503 of SMCRA to determine 
any changes in those programs that may be necessary. When we determine 
that a particular State program provision should be amended, the 
particular State will be notified in accordance with the provisions of 
30 CFR 732.17. On the basis of the proposed rule, we have made a 
preliminary determination that no program revisions will be required.

Clarity of This Regulation

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule 
clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language 
or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the 
proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be 
easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) 
sections (a ``section'' appears in bold type and is preceded by the 
symbol ``Sec.  '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec.  732.17)? 
(5) Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in understanding the 
proposed rule? (6) What else could we do to make the proposed rule 
easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we 
could make this proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of 
Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to 
this address: [email protected].

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 732

    Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: November 19, 2003.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

    Accordingly, we propose revising 30 CFR part 732 as set forth 
below.

[[Page 67780]]

PART 732--PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF 
STATE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

    1. The authority citation for part 732 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.

    2. Section 732.17 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2), (h)(1), 
(h)(8), (h)(9), (h)(12), and (h)(13); and removing paragraph (h)(2)(v) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  732.17  State program amendments.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) If the State regulatory authority does not submit the 
information required by paragraph (f)(1), or does not subsequently 
comply with the submitted timetable, or if the amendment or submission 
under paragraph (h)(8) is not approved under this section, then the 
Director must begin proceedings under 30 CFR part 733 if the Director 
has reason to believe that such action is warranted because the State 
is not effectively implementing, administering, maintaining or 
enforcing its approved State program.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Within 30 days after receipt of a State program amendment from 
a State regulatory authority, the Director will publish a notice of 
receipt of the amendment in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
    (8) If the Director does not approve the amendment request, the 
State regulatory authority will have 60 days after publication of the 
Director's decision or a time frame consistent with the established 
administrative or legislative procedures in the State, whichever is 
later, to submit a revised amendment request for consideration by the 
Director. If no submission is made, then the Director must follow the 
procedures specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (9) The Director will approve or not approve revised amendment 
submissions in accordance with the provisions under paragraph (h) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (12) All decisions approving or not approving program amendments 
must be published in the Federal Register and be effective upon 
publication unless the notice specifies a different effective date. The 
decision approving or not approving program amendments will be 
published in the Federal Register within 30 days after the date of the 
Director's decision.
    (13) Final action on all amendment requests must be completed 
within seven months after receipt of the proposed amendments from the 
State.

[FR Doc. 03-29756 Filed 12-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P