Virginia Regulatory Program, 1488-1494 [06-192]
Download as PDF
1488
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
pieces. This must be demonstrated by
testing to failure.
3. Component Strength. The glass
component must be strong enough to
meet the load requirements for all flight
and landing loads including any of the
applicable emergency landing
conditions in subparts C & D of part 25.
Abuse loading without failure, such as
impact from occupants stumbling into,
leaning against, sitting on, or performing
other intentional or unintentional
forceful contact must also be
demonstrated. This must be
demonstrated by static structural testing
to ultimate load, except that the critical
loading condition must be tested to
failure in the as-installed condition. The
tested glass must have all features that
effect component strength, such as
etched surfaces, cut or engraved
designs, holes, and so forth. Glass pieces
must be non-hazardous.
4. Component Retention. The glass
component, as installed in the airplane,
must not come free of its restraint or
mounting system in the event of an
emergency landing. A test must be
performed to demonstrate that the
occupants would be protected from the
effects of the component failing or
becoming free of restraint under
dynamic loading. The dynamic loading
of § 25.562(b)(2) is considered an
acceptable dynamic event. The
applicant may propose an alternate
pulse, however, the impulse and peak
load may not be less than that of
§ 25.562(b)(2). As an alternative to a
dynamic test, static testing may be used
if the loading is assessed as equivalent
or more critical than a dynamic test,
based upon validated dynamic analysis.
Both the primary directional loading
and rebound conditions need to be
assessed.
5. Instruction for Continued
Airworthiness. The instruction for
continued airworthiness will reflect the
fastening method used and will ensure
the reliability of the methods used (e.g.,
life limit of adhesives, or clamp
connection). Inspection methods and
intervals will be defined based upon
adhesion data from the manufacturer of
the adhesive or actual adhesion test
data, if necessary.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
3, 2006.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06–200 Filed 1–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:38 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
underauthority delegated to the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21
CFR part 803 is amended as follows:
I
21 CFR Part 803
PART 803—MEDICAL DEVICE
REPORTING
Medical Device Reporting
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 803 continues to read as follows:
Final rule; technical
amendment.
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 352, 360, 360i, 360j,
371, 374.
ACTION:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending its
medical device reporting regulations to
reflect a change in address for agency
contacts for reporting a public health
emergency. This action is editorial in
nature and is intended to improve the
accuracy of the agency’s regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective January 10,
2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard A. Press, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Office of
Surveillance and Biometrics (HFZ–530),
1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850,
301–827–2983.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is
amending its regulations in 21 CFR part
803.12(c) to reflect a reorganization
affecting the agency contacts for
reporting public health emergencies.
The current address for reporting a
public health emergency to FDA is the
FDA Emergency Operations Branch
(HFC–162), Office of Regional
Operations, at 301–443–1240, followed
by the submission of a fax to 301–443–
3757. The new contact is the FDA Office
of Emergency Operations (HFA–615),
Office of Crisis Management, Office of
the Commissioner, at 301–443–1240.
This report can be followed by an e-mail
to emergency.operations@fda.hhs.gov or
a fax report sent to 301–827–3333. This
document is published as a final rule
with the effective date given previously.
Because the final rule is an
administrative action, FDA has
determined that it has no substantive
impact on the public. It imposes no
costs, and merely updates contact
information included in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) for the
convenience of the public. FDA,
therefore, for good cause, finds under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d)(3) that notice
and public comment are unnecessary
and that this rule may take effect upon
publication.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 803
Imports, Medical devices, Medical
device reporting, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I
2. Section 803.12 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
I
§ 803.12 Where and how do I submit
reports and additional information?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If an entity is confronted with a
public health emergency, this can be
brought to FDA’s attention by contacting
the FDA Office of Emergency
Operations (HFA–615), Office of Crisis
Management, Office of the
Commissioner, at 301–443–1240,
followed by the submission of an e-mail
to emergency.operations@fda.hhs.gov or
a fax report to 301–827–3333.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 3. 2006.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 06–172 Filed 1–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 946
[VA–122–FOR]
Virginia Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are approving an
amendment to the Virginia regulatory
program under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). The program
amendment revises the Virginia Coal
Surface Mining Reclamation
Regulations. The amendment reflects
changes in the renumbering of Virginia
Code section references to the Virginia
Administrative Process Act; clarification
regarding the filing of requests for
formal hearing and judicial review;
revisions of the Virginia rules to be
consistent with amendments to the
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Federal rules; regulation changes to
implement requirements of Virginia
House Bill (HB) 2573 (enacted as
emergency legislation); and corrections
of typographical errors.
DATES: Effective Date: January 10, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap
Field Office; Telephone: (276) 523–
4303. Internet: rpenn@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Virginia Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its program
includes, among other things, ‘‘* * *
a State law which provides for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations in accordance
with the requirements of the Act * * *;
and rules and regulations consistent
with regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to the Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Virginia
program on December 15, 1981. You can
find background information on the
Virginia program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval
of the Virginia program in the December
15, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR
61088). You can also find later actions
concerning Virginia’s program and
program amendments at 30 CFR 946.12,
946.13, and 946.15.
rmajette on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated May 9, 2005
(Administrative Record Number VA–
1048), the Virginia Department of
Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME)
submitted an amendment to the Virginia
program. In its letter, the DMME stated
that the program amendment revises
Virginia Coal Surface Mining
Reclamation Regulations to reflect the
changes in renumbering of the Virginia
Code section references to the Virginia
Administrative Process Act; clarification
regarding the filing of requests for
formal hearing and judicial review;
revisions of the Virginia rules to be
consistent with amendments to the
Federal rules; revisions to allow
approval of natural stream restoration
channel design; regulation changes to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:38 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
implement requirements of Virginia HB
2573 (enacted as emergency legislation
in Chapter 3 of the 2005 Virginia Acts
of Assembly); and correct typographical
errors.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the June 17,
2005, Federal Register (70 FR 35199). In
the same document, we opened the
public comment period and provided an
opportunity for a public hearing or
meeting on the amendment’s adequacy.
We did not hold a public hearing or
meeting because no one requested one.
The public comment period ended on
July 18, 2005. We received comments
from three Federal agencies.
By letter dated Nov. 14, 2005
(Administrative Record Number VA–
1055), Virginia withdrew its proposed
amendments regarding revisions to
allow approval of natural stream
restoration channel design. Specifically,
Virginia withdrew new Sections 4 VAC
25–130–816.43(d) and 4 VAC 25–130–
817.43(d), concerning diversions. In its
letter, Virginia stated that it is currently
discussing these amendments with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and that
some changes may be necessary.
By electronic mail dated December 1,
2005 (Administrative Record Number
VA–1056), Virginia corrected a
reference error in its amendment to 4
VAC 25–130–784.20(a)(3). Specifically,
Virginia deleted an incorrect reference
to 4 VAC 25–130–817.121(c)(4) and
added in its place a reference to section
45.1–258(D) of the Code of Virginia.
1489
4 VAC 25–130–800.51(c)(1)
Administrative review of performance
bond forfeiture.
4 VAC 25–130–842.15(d) Review of
decision not to inspect or enforce.
4 VAC 25–130–843.12(j) Notices of
violation.
4 VAC 25–130–843.13(b)
Suspension or revocation of permits;
pattern of violations.
4 VAC 25–130–843.15(c) Informal
public hearing.
4 VAC 25–130–845.18(b)(1)
Procedures for assessment conference.
4 VAC 25–130–845.19(c) Request for
hearing.
2. 4 VAC 25–130–775.11
Administrative Review.
New subsection (d) is added to
provide as follows:
(d) All requests for hearing or appeals for
review and reconsideration made under this
section shall be filed with the Director,
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy,
Post Office Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap,
Virginia 24219.
While this provision has no Federal
counterpart, its addition does not render
the Virginia program inconsistent with
SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
Therefore, it is approved.
3. 4 VAC 25–130–775.13 Judicial
Review.
New subsection (c) is added to
provide as follows:
III. OSM’s Findings
(c) All notices of appeal for judicial review
of a Hearing Officer’s final decision, or the
final decision on review and reconsideration,
shall be filed with the Director, Department
of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Post Office
Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
Following are the findings we made
concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment.
1. The amendment revises several
subsections of the Virginia Coal Surface
Mining Reclamation Regulations (VAC)
by changing existing citations of
Virginia Code sections to reflect the
changes in the renumbering of the
Virginia Code section references to the
Virginia Administrative Process Act. We
are approving the citation changes in
the provisions listed below because
those amendments reflect codification
changes and do not render the program
inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal
regulations:
4 VAC 25–130–700.12(e) Petitions to
initiate rule making.
4 VAC 25–130–773.21(c)
Improvidently issued permits;
Rescission procedures.
4 VAC 25–130–775.11(b)(1)
Administrative Review.
While this provision has no Federal
counterpart, its addition does not render
the Virginia program inconsistent with
SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
Therefore, it is approved.
4. 4 VAC 25–130–784.20 Subsidence
Control Plan.
Subsection (a)(3) is amended by
deleting language concerning presubsidence survey requirements. The
DMME stated that the provision was
amended to delete those requirements
that are counterpart to Federal
regulations that were suspended
effective December 22, 1999 (64 FR
71652). The following language is being
deleted: ‘‘Condition of all
noncommercial buildings or occupied
residential dwellings and structures
related thereto, that may be materially
damaged or for which the reasonably
foreseeable use may be diminished by
subsidence, within the area
encompassed by the applicable angle of
draw; as well as a survey of the.’’ In
addition, the following language is
being deleted: ‘‘Premining condition or
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1490
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
value of such noncommercial buildings
or occupied residential dwellings and
structures related thereto and the.’’ As
revised, subsection (a)(3) provides as
follows:
will have, as described in 4 VAC 25–130–
817.121(c)(4).
As amended, this sentence now states
that:
rmajette on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
(3) A survey of the quantity and quality of
all drinking, domestic and residential water
supplies within the permit area and adjacent
area that could be contaminated, diminished,
or interrupted by subsidence. If the applicant
cannot make this survey because the owner
will not allow access to the site, the applicant
will notify the owner in writing of the effect
that denial of access will have as described
in 4 VAC25–130–817.121(c)(4). The
applicant must pay for any technical
assessment or engineering evaluation used to
determine the quantity and quality of
drinking, domestic, or residential water
supplies. The applicant must provide copies
of the survey and any technical assessment
or engineering evaluation to the property
owner and the division.
If the applicant cannot make this survey
because the owner will not allow access to
the site, the applicant will notify the owner
in writing of the effect that denial of access
will have pursuant to section 45.1–258(D) of
the Code of Virginia, as amended.
On December 22, 1999, OSM
suspended a portion of the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3). In
the December 22, 1999, Federal Register
(64 FR 71652) notice that suspended
those provisions, OSM explained why
the regulations were suspended. On
April 27, 1999, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued a decision vacating
certain portions of the regulatory
provisions of the Federal subsidence
regulations including language at 30
CFR 784.20(a)(3). National Mining
Association v. Babbitt, 173 F.3d 906 (DC
Cir. 1999). In compliance with the Court
of Appeals’ decision, OSM suspended
that portion of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3)
which required a specific structural
condition survey of all Energy Policy
Act (EPAct; enacted October 24, 1992,
Public Law 102–486 Stat. 2776 (1992))
protected structures.
While a portion of 30 CFR
784.20(a)(3) was suspended, the
remainder of that provision continues in
force to the extent that it applies to the
EPAct protected water supplies survey
and any technical assessments or
engineering evaluations necessarily
related thereto. With one exception, we
find that as amended, 4 VAC 25–130–
784.20(a)(3) is consistent with and no
less effective than the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) as
affected by the suspension of December
22, 1999, and can be approved. The one
exception can also be approved, but for
a different reason. One sentence of this
subsection was amended in a
subsequent submission dated December
1, 2005. Prior to the latter submission,
the sentence stated as follows:
D. If the Director has ordered replacement
under subsection B of this section and the
operator subject to the order has failed to
provide the map or maps in accordance with
subsection C of this section, then the
Director’s order shall not be overturned
absent clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary. Upon conclusion of an
investigation, if the Director does not order
replacement under the provisions of
subsection B of this section and reasonable
access for a pre-mining survey was denied,
the Director’s determination shall not be
overturned absent clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary.
If the applicant cannot make this survey
because the owner will not allow access to
the site, the applicant will notify the owner
in writing of the effect that denial of access
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:38 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
The sentence was changed to correct
the erroneous reference to 4 VAC 25–
130–817.121(c)(4), which pertains to
subsidence damage to structures, rather
than water supplies, and which is
proposed for deletion, in relevant part,
in this amendment package. The Code
of Virginia subsection now referenced
pertains to water replacement, and
states as follows:
When OSM approved this statutory
provision on September 24, 1993, it
noted that the provision has no Federal
counterpart, but ‘‘will not render
Virginia’s program inconsistent with
any requirements of SMCRA or the
Federal regulations.’’ 58 FR 49928–9.
Likewise, the newly revised sentence in
4 VAC 25–130–784.20(a)(3), requiring
that landowners be notified of the effect
of denial of access to conduct a
premining water survey, has no Federal
counterpart, but also will not render
Virginia’s program inconsistent with
any requirements of SMCRA or the
Federal regulations.
5. 4 VAC 25–130–800.51
Administrative review of performance
bond forfeiture. Subsection (e) is
amended by clarifying that the
‘‘Division of Mined Land Reclamation’’
is now the ‘‘Department of Mines,
Minerals and Energy.’’ As amended,
subsection (e) provides as follows:
(e) All requests for hearing, or appeals for
review and reconsideration made under this
section; and all notices of appeal for judicial
review of a Hearing Officer’s final decision,
or the final decision on review and
reconsideration shall be filed with the
Director, Department of Mines, Minerals and
Energy, Post Office Drawer 900, Big Stone
Gap, Virginia 24219.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
We find that the revision of
subsection (e) is a nonsubstantive
change and can be approved.
6. 4 VAC 25–130–816.11 Signs and
markers.
New subsection (a)(4) is added and
existing (a)(4) is re-designated as (a)(5).
As amended, subsection (a) provides as
follows:
(a) Specifications. Signs and markers
required under this Part shall:
(1) Be posted, maintained, and removed by
the person who conducts the surface mining
activities;
(2) Be of a uniform design throughout the
operation that can be easily seen and read;
(3) Be made of durable material;
(4) For permit boundary markers on areas
that are located on steep slopes above private
dwellings or other occupied buildings, be
made of or marked with fluorescent or
reflective paint or material; and
(5) Conform to local ordinances and codes.
This provision is apparently intended
to accommodate the steep slope
conditions found in some areas of
Virginia. While there is no direct
Federal counterpart to the provision, we
find that the amendment is not
inconsistent with the Federal
regulations concerning signs and
markers at 30 CFR 816.11(a) and can be
approved.
7. 4 VAC 25–130–816.64 Use of
explosives; blasting schedule.
New subsection (a)(4) concerning
seismic monitoring is added and
provides as follows:
(4) Seismic monitoring shall be conducted
when blasting operations on coal surface
mining operations are conducted within
1,000 feet of a private dwelling or other
occupied building.
The Federal blasting regulations at 30
CFR 816.67(d)(6) concern seismic
monitoring of blasting operations. The
Federal provision provides that the
regulatory authority may require an
operator to conduct seismic monitoring
of any or all blasts or may specify the
location at which the measurements are
taken and the degree of detail necessary
in the measurement. We find that the
new seismic monitoring requirement is
consistent with the Federal seismic
monitoring requirements at 30 CFR
816.67(d)(6) and can be approved.
8. 4 VAC 25–130–816.105
Backfilling and grading; thick
overburden. This change is intended to
revise Virginia’s rule to be consistent
with the counterpart Federal regulations
at 30 CFR 816.105 concerning
backfilling and grading, thick
overburden. The Federal regulations
concerning thin overburden are located
at 30 CFR 816.104. In the Virginia
provisions, thin overburden is
addressed at 4 VAC 25–130–816.104.
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Virginia’s 4 VAC 25–130–816.105 is
amended as follows: The term ‘‘Thin’’ is
deleted and replaced by the term
‘‘Thick’’ in subsection (a); the term
‘‘insufficient’’ is deleted and replaced
by ‘‘more than sufficient’’ in subsection
(a); the term ‘‘less’’ is deleted and
replaced by the term ‘‘more’’ in
subsection (a); and the term ‘‘thin’’ is
deleted and replaced by the term
‘‘thick’’ in subsection (b). As amended
this provision provides as follows:
(a) Thick overburden exists when spoil and
other waste materials available from the
entire permit area is more than sufficient to
restore the disturbed area to its approximate
original contour. More than sufficient spoil
and other waste materials occur where the
overburden thickness times the swell factor,
plus the thickness of other available waste
materials, is more than the combined
thickness of the overburden and coal bed
prior to removing the coal, so that after
backfill and grading the surface configuration
of the reclaimed area would not:
(1) Closely resemble the surface
configuration of the land prior to mining; or
(2) Blend into and complement the
drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain.
(b) Where thick overburden occurs within
the permit area, the permittee at a minimum
shall:
(1) Restore the approximate original
contour and then use the remaining spoil and
other waste materials to attain the lowest
practicable grade, but not more than the
angle of repose;
(2) Meet the requirements of 4 VAC25–
130–816.102(a)(2) through (j); and
(3) Dispose of any excess spoil in
accordance with 4 VAC25–130–816.71
through 4 VAC25–130–816.75.
We find that that as amended, VAC
25–130–816.105 is substantively
identical to and no less effective than
the Federal regulations concerning thick
overburden at 30 CFR 816.105 and can
be approved.
9. 4 VAC 25–130–817.11 Signs and
markers.
New subsection (a)(4) is added and
existing subsection (a)(4) is redesignated as (a)(5). New subsection
(a)(4) provides as follows:
rmajette on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
(4) For permit boundary markers on areas
that are located on steep slopes above private
dwellings or other occupied dwellings, be
made of or marked with fluorescent or
reflective paint or material; and
This provision is apparently intended
to accommodate the steep slope
conditions found in some areas of
Virginia. While there is no direct
Federal counterpart to the provision, we
find that the amendment is not
inconsistent with the Federal
regulations concerning signs and
markers at 30 CFR 817.11(a) and can be
approved.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:38 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
10. 4 VAC 25–130–817.64 Use of
explosives; general performance
standards.
New subsection (d) is added and
provides as follows:
(d) Seismic monitoring shall be conducted
when blasting operations on coal surface
mining operations are conducted within
1,000 feet of a private dwelling or other
occupied building.
The Federal blasting regulations at 30
CFR 817.67(d)(6) concern seismic
monitoring of blasting operations. The
Federal provision provides that the
regulatory authority may require an
operator to conduct seismic monitoring
of any or all blasts and may specify the
location at which the measurements are
taken and the degree of detail necessary
in the measurement. We find that the
new seismic monitoring requirement at
4 VAC 25–130–817.64(d) is consistent
with the Federal seismic monitoring
requirements at 30 CFR 817.67(d)(6) and
can be approved.
11. 4 VAC 25–130–817.121
Subsidence control.
This provision is amended by deleting
subsections (c)(4)(i)–(iv) and redesignating subsection (c)(4)(v) as
subsection (c)(4). The DMME stated that
this provision was amended to delete
those requirements that are counterpart
to Federal regulations that were
suspended effective as of December 22,
1999 (64 FR 71652). The deleted
provision had created a rebuttable
presumption that underground mining
caused subsidence where the
subsidence damage occurred within the
angle of draw. As amended, subsection
(c)(4) provides as follows:
(4) Information to be considered in
determination of causation. In a
determination whether damage to protected
structures was caused by subsidence from
underground mining, all relevant and
reasonably available information will be
considered by the division.
On December 22, 1999, OSM
suspended the Federal regulations at 30
CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i)–(iv). In the
December 22, 1999, Federal Register
notice (64 FR 71652–3) that suspended
those provisions, OSM explained why
the regulations were suspended. On
April 27, 1999, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued a decision vacating
certain portions of the regulatory
provisions of the Federal subsidence
regulations including those at 30 CFR
817.121(c)(4)(i)–(iv). National Mining
Association v. Babbitt, supra. OSM
subsequently suspended those
provisions. Paragraph (v) within 30 CFR
817.121(c)(4) applies generally to the
types of information that must be
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1491
considered in determining the cause of
damage to an EPAct protected structure
and is not limited to or expanded by the
area defined by the angle of draw.
Therefore, paragraph (v) was not
suspended and remains in force. We
find that as amended, 4 VAC 25–130–
817.121(c)(4) is no less effective than
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
817.121(c)(4) as affected by the
suspension of December 22, 1999, and
can be approved.
12. 4 VAC 25–130–843.13
Suspension or revocation of permits;
pattern of violations.
Subsection (e) is amended by
clarifying that the ‘‘Division of Mined
Land Reclamation’’ is now the
‘‘Department of Mines, Minerals, and
Energy.’’ As amended, subsection (e)
provides as follows:
(e) All requests for hearing, or appeals for
review and reconsideration made under this
section; and all notices of appeal for judicial
review of a Hearing Officer’s final decision,
or the final decision on review and
reconsideration shall be filed with the
Director, Department of Mines, Minerals and
Energy, Post Office Drawer 900, Big Stone
Gap, Virginia 24219.
We find that the revision of
subsection (e) is a nonsubstantive
change and can be approved.
13. 4 VAC 25–130–843.16 Formal
review of citations.
Subsection (e) is amended by
clarifying that the ‘‘Division of Mined
Land Reclamation’’ is now the
‘‘Department of Mines, Minerals, and
Energy.’’ As amended, subsection (e)
provides as follows:
(e) All requests for hearing before a Hearing
Officer, or appeals for review and
reconsideration, made under this section,
and all notices of appeal for judicial review
of a Hearing Officer’s final decision or a final
decision on review and reconsideration, shall
be filed with the Director, Department of
Mines, Minerals and Energy, Post Office
Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
We find that the revision of
subsection (e) is a nonsubstantive
change and can be approved.
14. 4 VAC 25–130–845.13 Point
System.
Subsections (c)(1) and (d) are
amended to correct typographical errors.
At subsection (c)(1), the phrase ‘‘(a)
and’’ is added immediately before ‘‘(b),’’
and the phrase ‘‘and (c)’’ is deleted. As
amended, subsection (c)(1) provides as
follows:
(c) Credit for good faith in attempting to
achieve compliance.
(1) The division shall deduct from the total
points assigned under subsections (a) and (b)
points based on the demonstrated good faith
of the permittee in attempting to achieve
rapid compliance after notification of the
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1492
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
violation. Points shall be deducted as
follows.
In the Virginia program, point
assignments are located at 4 VAC 25–
130–845.13(a) and (b). We find that the
revisions to subsections (c)(1)
appropriately correct the inadvertent
reference to subsection (c). Therefore,
we are approving these revisions.
Subsection (d) is amended by adding
‘‘(a),’’ immediately before ‘‘(b);’’ adding
‘‘and’’ immediately following ‘‘(b),’’ and
deleting ‘‘and (d)’’ immediately
following (c). As amended, the language
of subsection (d) provides as follows:
(d) Determination of base penalty.
The division shall determine the base
amount of any civil penalty by converting the
total number of points calculated under
subsections (a), (b), and (c), of this section to
a dollar amount, according to the following
schedule.
In the Virginia program, point
calculations are determined under 4
VAC 25–130–845.13(a), (b), and (c). We
find that the revisions to subsection (d)
appropriately correct the inadvertent
reference to subsection (d) and can be
approved.
Subsection (e), concerning credit and
additional penalties for previous history
is amended at (e)(1) by adding the
words ‘‘[e]xcept for a violation that
resulted in personal injury or fatality to
any person.’’ As amended, subsection
(e)(1) provides as follows:
rmajette on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
(1) Except for a violation that resulted in
personal injury or fatality to any person, the
division shall reduce the base penalty
determined under subsection (d) by 10% if
the permittee has had no violations cited by
the division within the preceding 12-month
period.
each cessation order or notice of violation
shall be $5,000, except that if the violation
resulted in a personal injury or fatality to any
person, then the civil penalty determined
under subsection (d) shall be multiplied by
a factor of twenty (20), not to exceed $70,000.
As provided in 4 VAC25–130–845.15, each
day of continuing violation may be deemed
a separate violation for the purpose of
assessing penalties.
The State has amended the existing
provision concerning the maximum
civil penalty that may be assessed, by
adding an exception to the maximum
penalty limit based on whether the
violation resulted in a personal injury or
fatality to any person. This provision is
more stringent than the Federal
regulations. However, SMCRA section
505(b) provides that any provision of
State law or regulation which provides
for more stringent land use and
environmental controls and regulations
than do SMCRA or the implementing
regulations shall not be construed as
inconsistent with SMCRA. Therefore,
we are approving this revision.
15. 4 VAC 25–130–845.15
Assessment of separate violations for
each day.
Subsection (a) is amended in the last
sentence by adding the words ‘‘or more’’
immediately following the words ‘‘a
penalty of $5,000.’’ As amended,
subsection (a) provides as follows:
(a) The division may assess separately a
civil penalty for each day from the date of
issuance of the notice of violation or
cessation order to the date set for abatement
of the violation. In determining whether to
make such an assessment, the division shall
consider the factors listed in 4 VAC 25–130–
845.13 and may consider the extent to which
the person to whom the notice or order was
issued gained any economic benefit as a
result of a failure to comply. For any
violation which continues for two or more
days and which has been assigned a penalty
of $5,000 or more under 4 VAC25–130–
845.13, the division shall assess a penalty for
a minimum of two separate days.
The State has amended this existing
provision concerning reduction of the
base penalty if the permittee has no
violations cited within the preceding
12-month period by adding an
exception to the penalty reduction.
While there is no direct counterpart to
the language, we find that the
amendment does not render 4 VAC 25–
130–845.13(e) inconsistent with the
Federal regulations pertaining to civil
penalties at 30 CFR part 845 and can be
approved.
Subsection (f), concerning maximum
penalty which the division may assess,
is amended by adding the words
‘‘except that if the violation resulted in
a personal injury or fatality to any
person, then the civil penalty
determined under subsection (d) shall
be multiplied by a factor of twenty (20),
not to exceed $70,000.’’ As amended,
subsection (f) provides as follows:
We find that as amended, 4 VAC 25–
130–845.15(a) does not render the
Virginia program inconsistent with the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 845.15(a)
concerning the assessment of separate
violations for each day and can be
approved.
16. 4 VAC 25–130–845.19 Request
for hearing.
New subsection (d) is added to
provide as follows:
(f) The maximum penalty which the
division may assess under this section for
We find that the amendment is
consistent with the counterpart Federal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
All requests for hearing or appeals for
review and reconsideration made under this
section shall be filed with the Director,
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy,
Post Office Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap,
Virginia 24219.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regulations at 30 CFR 845.19 concerning
request for a hearing and can be
approved.
17. 4 VAC 25–130–846.14 Amount
of the individual civil penalty.
Subsection (b) is amended in the first
sentence by adding new language
concerning an exception to the
maximum penalty. As amended,
subsection (b) provides as follows:
(b) The penalty shall not exceed $5,000 for
each violation, except that if the violation
resulted in a personal injury or fatality to any
person, then the civil penalty determined
under 4 VAC25–130–845.13(d) shall be
multiplied by a factor of twenty (20), not to
exceed $70,000. Each day of a continuing
violation may be deemed a separate violation
and the division may assess a separate
individual civil penalty for each day the
violation, failure or refusal continues, from
the date of service of the underlying notice
of violation, cessation order or other order
incorporated in a final decision issued by the
Director, until abatement or compliance is
achieved.
This provision is more stringent than
the Federal regulations. However,
SMCRA section 505(b) provides that any
provision of State law or regulation
which provides for more stringent land
use and environmental controls and
regulations than do SMCRA or the
implementing regulations shall not be
construed as inconsistent with SMCRA.
Therefore, we are approving this
revision.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment (Administrative Record
Number VA–1053), but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and
section 503(b) of SMCRA, on May 12,
2005, we requested comments on the
amendments from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential
interest in the Virginia program
(Administrative Record Number VA–
1049). By letter dated May 27, 2005, the
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA)
responded and stated that it found no
conflict with MSHA rules and
regulations (Administrative Record
Number VA–1050). By letter dated June
6, 2005, the United States Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management responded and stated that
the amendment meets their
requirements under 43 CFR 3400 and
SMCRA Sec. 522 (Administrative
Record Number VA–1051).
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we
are required to get a written concurrence
from EPA for those provisions of the
program amendment that relate to air or
water quality standards issued under
the authority of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the
revisions that Virginia proposed to make
in this amendment pertain to air or
water quality standards. Therefore, we
did not ask EPA to concur on the
amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we
requested comments on the amendment
from EPA (Administrative Record
Number WV–1049). The EPA responded
by letter dated June 20, 2005
(Administrative Record Number VA–
1052), and stated that there are no
apparent inconsistencies with the Clean
Water Act or other statutes or
regulations under EPA’s jurisdiction.
EPA offered no other comments.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we are
approving the amendment sent to us by
Virginia on May 9, 2005, and as
amended on November 14, 2005, and
December 1, 2005. To implement this
decision, we are amending the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR part 946, which
codify decisions concerning the Virginia
program. We find that good cause exists
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this
final rule effective immediately. Section
503(a) of SMCRA requires that the
State’s program demonstrate that the
State has the capability of carrying out
the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this regulation
effective immediately will expedite that
process. SMCRA requires consistency of
State and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
rmajette on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Executive Order 12630—Takings
The provisions in the rule based on
counterpart Federal regulations do not
have takings implications. This
determination is based on the analysis
performed for the counterpart Federal
regulations. The revisions made at the
initiative of the State that do not have
Federal counterparts have also been
reviewed and a determination made that
they do not have takings implications.
This determination is based on the fact
that the provisions are administrative
and procedural in nature and are not
expected to have a substantive effect on
the regulated industry.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:38 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
1493
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
under Executive Order 12866.
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The basis for this determination is that
our decision is on a State regulatory
program and does not involve Federal
regulations involving Indian lands.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform
The Department of the Interior has
conducted the reviews required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and
has determined that this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a)
and (b) of that section. However, these
standards are not applicable to the
actual language of State regulatory
programs and program amendments
because each program is drafted and
promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the
submittal is consistent with SMCRA and
its implementing Federal regulations
and whether the other requirements of
30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
Executive Order 13211—Regulations
That Significantly Affect the Supply,
Distribution, Or Use Of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 which requires
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for a rule that is (1)
considered significant under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because
this rule is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866 and is not
expected to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects
is not required.
Executive Order 13132—Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism
implications. SMCRA delineates the
roles of the Federal and State
governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations. One of the
purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a
nationwide program to protect society
and the environment from the adverse
effects of surface coal mining
operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of
SMCRA requires that State laws
regulating surface coal mining and
reclamation operations be ‘‘in
accordance with’’ the requirements of
SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires
that State programs contain rules and
regulations ‘‘consistent with’’
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, we have evaluated the potential
effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have
determined that the rule does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an
environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory
program provisions do not constitute
major Federal actions within the
meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that a portion of the provisions
in this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) because they are based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that
such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a
substantial number of small entities. In
making the determination as to whether
this rule would have a significant
economic impact, the Department relied
upon the data and assumptions for the
counterpart Federal regulations. The
Department of the Interior also certifies
that the provisions in this rule that are
not based upon counterpart Federal
regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1494
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
et seq.). This determination is based on
the fact that the provisions are
administrative and procedural in nature
and are not expected to have a
substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule: (a) Does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and (c) Does not
have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. This
determination is based upon the fact
that a portion of the State provisions are
based upon counterpart Federal
regulations for which an analysis was
prepared and a determination made that
Original amendment
submission date
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01–05–102]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations:
Housatonic River, CT
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
rmajette on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has
temporarily changed the drawbridge
operation regulations that govern the
U.S. 1 Bridge, mile 3.5, across the
Housatonic River, at Stratford,
Connecticut. This temporary final rule
allows the bridge owner to open only
14:38 Jan 09, 2006
and are not expected to have a
substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: December 19, 2005.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Appalachian Region.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 946 is amended
as set forth below:
I
PART 946—VIRGINIA
1. The authority citation for part 946
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 946.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
I
§ 946.15 Approval of Virginia regulatory
program amendments.
*
*
*
*
*
Citation/description
*
*
*
*
*
January 10, 2006 ........................... 4 VAC 25–130–700.12(e); 773.21(c); 775.11(b)(1) and (d); 775.13(c);
784.20(a)(3); 800.51(c)(1); 800.51(e); 816.11(a)(4) and (a)(5);
816.64(a)(4); 816.105(a) and (b); 817.11(a)(4); 817.64(d);
817.121(c)(4); 842.15(d); 843.12(j); 843.13(b); 843.13(e); 843.15(c);
843.16(e); 845.13(c)(1), (d), (e)(1), and (f); 845.15(a); 845.18(b)(1);
845.19(c); 845.19(d); and 846.14(b).
[FR Doc. 06–192 Filed 1–9–06; 8:45 am]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of $100 million or more in any given
year. This determination is based upon
the fact that a portion of the State
submittal, which is the subject of this
rule, is based upon counterpart Federal
regulations for which an analysis was
prepared and a determination made that
the Federal regulation did not impose
an unfunded mandate. For the portion
of the State provisions that is not based
upon counterpart Federal regulations,
this determination is based upon the
fact that the State provisions are
administrative and procedural in nature
Date of final publication
*
*
May 9, 2005, and as amended on
November 14, 2005, and December 1, 2005.
ACTION:
the Federal regulation was not
considered a major rule. For the portion
of the State provisions that is not based
upon counterpart Federal regulations,
this determination is based upon the
fact that the State provisions are
administrative and procedural in nature
and are not expected to have a
substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
Jkt 208001
one of the two moveable spans for
bridge openings at various times from
January 9, 2006 through September 1,
2006, to facilitate bridge rehabilitation
construction. Full bridge openings will
be available at various times during the
above time period after a seven-day
notice is given by calling the number
posted at the bridge.
DATES: This rule is effective from
January 9, 2006 through September 1,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket (CGD01–05–102) and are
available for inspection or copying at
the First Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, between
7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, (212) 668–7195.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On December 8, 2005, we published
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation
Regulations’’; Housatonic River,
Connecticut, in the Federal Register (70
FR 72967). We received no comments in
response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking. No public hearing was
requested and none was held.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register.
The bridge repairs scheduled to begin
on January 9, 2006, are vital necessary
repairs that must be performed with all
due speed to assure the safe operation
of the bridge. Any delay in making this
rule effective would not be in the best
interest of public safety and the marine
interests that use the Housatonic River
because failure to start the rehabilitation
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1488-1494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-192]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 946
[VA-122-FOR]
Virginia Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are approving an amendment to the Virginia regulatory
program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). The program amendment revises the Virginia Coal
Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations. The amendment reflects changes
in the renumbering of Virginia Code section references to the Virginia
Administrative Process Act; clarification regarding the filing of
requests for formal hearing and judicial review; revisions of the
Virginia rules to be consistent with amendments to the
[[Page 1489]]
Federal rules; regulation changes to implement requirements of Virginia
House Bill (HB) 2573 (enacted as emergency legislation); and
corrections of typographical errors.
DATES: Effective Date: January 10, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big
Stone Gap Field Office; Telephone: (276) 523-4303. Internet:
rpenn@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Virginia Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its program includes, among other things, ``* * * a State law which
provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the
Secretary pursuant to the Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Virginia program on December 15, 1981. You
can find background information on the Virginia program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of
approval of the Virginia program in the December 15, 1981, Federal
Register (46 FR 61088). You can also find later actions concerning
Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 946.12, 946.13, and
946.15.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated May 9, 2005 (Administrative Record Number VA-1048),
the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) submitted
an amendment to the Virginia program. In its letter, the DMME stated
that the program amendment revises Virginia Coal Surface Mining
Reclamation Regulations to reflect the changes in renumbering of the
Virginia Code section references to the Virginia Administrative Process
Act; clarification regarding the filing of requests for formal hearing
and judicial review; revisions of the Virginia rules to be consistent
with amendments to the Federal rules; revisions to allow approval of
natural stream restoration channel design; regulation changes to
implement requirements of Virginia HB 2573 (enacted as emergency
legislation in Chapter 3 of the 2005 Virginia Acts of Assembly); and
correct typographical errors.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the June 17,
2005, Federal Register (70 FR 35199). In the same document, we opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy. We did not hold a
public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public
comment period ended on July 18, 2005. We received comments from three
Federal agencies.
By letter dated Nov. 14, 2005 (Administrative Record Number VA-
1055), Virginia withdrew its proposed amendments regarding revisions to
allow approval of natural stream restoration channel design.
Specifically, Virginia withdrew new Sections 4 VAC 25-130-816.43(d) and
4 VAC 25-130-817.43(d), concerning diversions. In its letter, Virginia
stated that it is currently discussing these amendments with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and that some changes may be necessary.
By electronic mail dated December 1, 2005 (Administrative Record
Number VA-1056), Virginia corrected a reference error in its amendment
to 4 VAC 25-130-784.20(a)(3). Specifically, Virginia deleted an
incorrect reference to 4 VAC 25-130-817.121(c)(4) and added in its
place a reference to section 45.1-258(D) of the Code of Virginia.
III. OSM's Findings
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment.
1. The amendment revises several subsections of the Virginia Coal
Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations (VAC) by changing existing
citations of Virginia Code sections to reflect the changes in the
renumbering of the Virginia Code section references to the Virginia
Administrative Process Act. We are approving the citation changes in
the provisions listed below because those amendments reflect
codification changes and do not render the program inconsistent with
SMCRA or the Federal regulations:
4 VAC 25-130-700.12(e) Petitions to initiate rule making.
4 VAC 25-130-773.21(c) Improvidently issued permits; Rescission
procedures.
4 VAC 25-130-775.11(b)(1) Administrative Review.
4 VAC 25-130-800.51(c)(1) Administrative review of performance bond
forfeiture.
4 VAC 25-130-842.15(d) Review of decision not to inspect or
enforce.
4 VAC 25-130-843.12(j) Notices of violation.
4 VAC 25-130-843.13(b) Suspension or revocation of permits; pattern
of violations.
4 VAC 25-130-843.15(c) Informal public hearing.
4 VAC 25-130-845.18(b)(1) Procedures for assessment conference.
4 VAC 25-130-845.19(c) Request for hearing.
2. 4 VAC 25-130-775.11 Administrative Review.
New subsection (d) is added to provide as follows:
(d) All requests for hearing or appeals for review and
reconsideration made under this section shall be filed with the
Director, Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Post Office
Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
While this provision has no Federal counterpart, its addition does
not render the Virginia program inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal
regulations. Therefore, it is approved.
3. 4 VAC 25-130-775.13 Judicial Review.
New subsection (c) is added to provide as follows:
(c) All notices of appeal for judicial review of a Hearing
Officer's final decision, or the final decision on review and
reconsideration, shall be filed with the Director, Department of
Mines, Minerals and Energy, Post Office Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap,
Virginia 24219.
While this provision has no Federal counterpart, its addition does
not render the Virginia program inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal
regulations. Therefore, it is approved.
4. 4 VAC 25-130-784.20 Subsidence Control Plan.
Subsection (a)(3) is amended by deleting language concerning pre-
subsidence survey requirements. The DMME stated that the provision was
amended to delete those requirements that are counterpart to Federal
regulations that were suspended effective December 22, 1999 (64 FR
71652). The following language is being deleted: ``Condition of all
noncommercial buildings or occupied residential dwellings and
structures related thereto, that may be materially damaged or for which
the reasonably foreseeable use may be diminished by subsidence, within
the area encompassed by the applicable angle of draw; as well as a
survey of the.'' In addition, the following language is being deleted:
``Premining condition or
[[Page 1490]]
value of such noncommercial buildings or occupied residential dwellings
and structures related thereto and the.'' As revised, subsection (a)(3)
provides as follows:
(3) A survey of the quantity and quality of all drinking,
domestic and residential water supplies within the permit area and
adjacent area that could be contaminated, diminished, or interrupted
by subsidence. If the applicant cannot make this survey because the
owner will not allow access to the site, the applicant will notify
the owner in writing of the effect that denial of access will have
as described in 4 VAC25-130-817.121(c)(4). The applicant must pay
for any technical assessment or engineering evaluation used to
determine the quantity and quality of drinking, domestic, or
residential water supplies. The applicant must provide copies of the
survey and any technical assessment or engineering evaluation to the
property owner and the division.
On December 22, 1999, OSM suspended a portion of the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3). In the December 22, 1999, Federal
Register (64 FR 71652) notice that suspended those provisions, OSM
explained why the regulations were suspended. On April 27, 1999, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued a decision vacating certain portions of the regulatory
provisions of the Federal subsidence regulations including language at
30 CFR 784.20(a)(3). National Mining Association v. Babbitt, 173 F.3d
906 (DC Cir. 1999). In compliance with the Court of Appeals' decision,
OSM suspended that portion of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) which required a
specific structural condition survey of all Energy Policy Act (EPAct;
enacted October 24, 1992, Public Law 102-486 Stat. 2776 (1992))
protected structures.
While a portion of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) was suspended, the remainder
of that provision continues in force to the extent that it applies to
the EPAct protected water supplies survey and any technical assessments
or engineering evaluations necessarily related thereto. With one
exception, we find that as amended, 4 VAC 25-130-784.20(a)(3) is
consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) as affected by the suspension of December 22, 1999,
and can be approved. The one exception can also be approved, but for a
different reason. One sentence of this subsection was amended in a
subsequent submission dated December 1, 2005. Prior to the latter
submission, the sentence stated as follows:
If the applicant cannot make this survey because the owner will
not allow access to the site, the applicant will notify the owner in
writing of the effect that denial of access will have, as described
in 4 VAC 25-130-817.121(c)(4).
As amended, this sentence now states that:
If the applicant cannot make this survey because the owner will
not allow access to the site, the applicant will notify the owner in
writing of the effect that denial of access will have pursuant to
section 45.1-258(D) of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
The sentence was changed to correct the erroneous reference to 4
VAC 25-130-817.121(c)(4), which pertains to subsidence damage to
structures, rather than water supplies, and which is proposed for
deletion, in relevant part, in this amendment package. The Code of
Virginia subsection now referenced pertains to water replacement, and
states as follows:
D. If the Director has ordered replacement under subsection B of
this section and the operator subject to the order has failed to
provide the map or maps in accordance with subsection C of this
section, then the Director's order shall not be overturned absent
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Upon conclusion of an
investigation, if the Director does not order replacement under the
provisions of subsection B of this section and reasonable access for
a pre-mining survey was denied, the Director's determination shall
not be overturned absent clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary.
When OSM approved this statutory provision on September 24, 1993,
it noted that the provision has no Federal counterpart, but ``will not
render Virginia's program inconsistent with any requirements of SMCRA
or the Federal regulations.'' 58 FR 49928-9. Likewise, the newly
revised sentence in 4 VAC 25-130-784.20(a)(3), requiring that
landowners be notified of the effect of denial of access to conduct a
premining water survey, has no Federal counterpart, but also will not
render Virginia's program inconsistent with any requirements of SMCRA
or the Federal regulations.
5. 4 VAC 25-130-800.51 Administrative review of performance bond
forfeiture. Subsection (e) is amended by clarifying that the ``Division
of Mined Land Reclamation'' is now the ``Department of Mines, Minerals
and Energy.'' As amended, subsection (e) provides as follows:
(e) All requests for hearing, or appeals for review and
reconsideration made under this section; and all notices of appeal
for judicial review of a Hearing Officer's final decision, or the
final decision on review and reconsideration shall be filed with the
Director, Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Post Office
Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
We find that the revision of subsection (e) is a nonsubstantive
change and can be approved.
6. 4 VAC 25-130-816.11 Signs and markers.
New subsection (a)(4) is added and existing (a)(4) is re-designated
as (a)(5). As amended, subsection (a) provides as follows:
(a) Specifications. Signs and markers required under this Part
shall:
(1) Be posted, maintained, and removed by the person who
conducts the surface mining activities;
(2) Be of a uniform design throughout the operation that can be
easily seen and read;
(3) Be made of durable material;
(4) For permit boundary markers on areas that are located on
steep slopes above private dwellings or other occupied buildings, be
made of or marked with fluorescent or reflective paint or material;
and
(5) Conform to local ordinances and codes.
This provision is apparently intended to accommodate the steep
slope conditions found in some areas of Virginia. While there is no
direct Federal counterpart to the provision, we find that the amendment
is not inconsistent with the Federal regulations concerning signs and
markers at 30 CFR 816.11(a) and can be approved.
7. 4 VAC 25-130-816.64 Use of explosives; blasting schedule.
New subsection (a)(4) concerning seismic monitoring is added and
provides as follows:
(4) Seismic monitoring shall be conducted when blasting
operations on coal surface mining operations are conducted within
1,000 feet of a private dwelling or other occupied building.
The Federal blasting regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(d)(6) concern
seismic monitoring of blasting operations. The Federal provision
provides that the regulatory authority may require an operator to
conduct seismic monitoring of any or all blasts or may specify the
location at which the measurements are taken and the degree of detail
necessary in the measurement. We find that the new seismic monitoring
requirement is consistent with the Federal seismic monitoring
requirements at 30 CFR 816.67(d)(6) and can be approved.
8. 4 VAC 25-130-816.105 Backfilling and grading; thick overburden.
This change is intended to revise Virginia's rule to be consistent with
the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.105 concerning
backfilling and grading, thick overburden. The Federal regulations
concerning thin overburden are located at 30 CFR 816.104. In the
Virginia provisions, thin overburden is addressed at 4 VAC 25-130-
816.104.
[[Page 1491]]
Virginia's 4 VAC 25-130-816.105 is amended as follows: The term
``Thin'' is deleted and replaced by the term ``Thick'' in subsection
(a); the term ``insufficient'' is deleted and replaced by ``more than
sufficient'' in subsection (a); the term ``less'' is deleted and
replaced by the term ``more'' in subsection (a); and the term ``thin''
is deleted and replaced by the term ``thick'' in subsection (b). As
amended this provision provides as follows:
(a) Thick overburden exists when spoil and other waste materials
available from the entire permit area is more than sufficient to
restore the disturbed area to its approximate original contour. More
than sufficient spoil and other waste materials occur where the
overburden thickness times the swell factor, plus the thickness of
other available waste materials, is more than the combined thickness
of the overburden and coal bed prior to removing the coal, so that
after backfill and grading the surface configuration of the
reclaimed area would not:
(1) Closely resemble the surface configuration of the land prior
to mining; or
(2) Blend into and complement the drainage pattern of the
surrounding terrain.
(b) Where thick overburden occurs within the permit area, the
permittee at a minimum shall:
(1) Restore the approximate original contour and then use the
remaining spoil and other waste materials to attain the lowest
practicable grade, but not more than the angle of repose;
(2) Meet the requirements of 4 VAC25-130-816.102(a)(2) through
(j); and
(3) Dispose of any excess spoil in accordance with 4 VAC25-130-
816.71 through 4 VAC25-130-816.75.
We find that that as amended, VAC 25-130-816.105 is substantively
identical to and no less effective than the Federal regulations
concerning thick overburden at 30 CFR 816.105 and can be approved.
9. 4 VAC 25-130-817.11 Signs and markers.
New subsection (a)(4) is added and existing subsection (a)(4) is
re-designated as (a)(5). New subsection (a)(4) provides as follows:
(4) For permit boundary markers on areas that are located on
steep slopes above private dwellings or other occupied dwellings, be
made of or marked with fluorescent or reflective paint or material;
and
This provision is apparently intended to accommodate the steep
slope conditions found in some areas of Virginia. While there is no
direct Federal counterpart to the provision, we find that the amendment
is not inconsistent with the Federal regulations concerning signs and
markers at 30 CFR 817.11(a) and can be approved.
10. 4 VAC 25-130-817.64 Use of explosives; general performance
standards.
New subsection (d) is added and provides as follows:
(d) Seismic monitoring shall be conducted when blasting
operations on coal surface mining operations are conducted within
1,000 feet of a private dwelling or other occupied building.
The Federal blasting regulations at 30 CFR 817.67(d)(6) concern
seismic monitoring of blasting operations. The Federal provision
provides that the regulatory authority may require an operator to
conduct seismic monitoring of any or all blasts and may specify the
location at which the measurements are taken and the degree of detail
necessary in the measurement. We find that the new seismic monitoring
requirement at 4 VAC 25-130-817.64(d) is consistent with the Federal
seismic monitoring requirements at 30 CFR 817.67(d)(6) and can be
approved.
11. 4 VAC 25-130-817.121 Subsidence control.
This provision is amended by deleting subsections (c)(4)(i)-(iv)
and re-designating subsection (c)(4)(v) as subsection (c)(4). The DMME
stated that this provision was amended to delete those requirements
that are counterpart to Federal regulations that were suspended
effective as of December 22, 1999 (64 FR 71652). The deleted provision
had created a rebuttable presumption that underground mining caused
subsidence where the subsidence damage occurred within the angle of
draw. As amended, subsection (c)(4) provides as follows:
(4) Information to be considered in determination of causation.
In a determination whether damage to protected structures was caused
by subsidence from underground mining, all relevant and reasonably
available information will be considered by the division.
On December 22, 1999, OSM suspended the Federal regulations at 30
CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i)-(iv). In the December 22, 1999, Federal Register
notice (64 FR 71652-3) that suspended those provisions, OSM explained
why the regulations were suspended. On April 27, 1999, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a
decision vacating certain portions of the regulatory provisions of the
Federal subsidence regulations including those at 30 CFR
817.121(c)(4)(i)-(iv). National Mining Association v. Babbitt, supra.
OSM subsequently suspended those provisions. Paragraph (v) within 30
CFR 817.121(c)(4) applies generally to the types of information that
must be considered in determining the cause of damage to an EPAct
protected structure and is not limited to or expanded by the area
defined by the angle of draw. Therefore, paragraph (v) was not
suspended and remains in force. We find that as amended, 4 VAC 25-130-
817.121(c)(4) is no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30
CFR 817.121(c)(4) as affected by the suspension of December 22, 1999,
and can be approved.
12. 4 VAC 25-130-843.13 Suspension or revocation of permits;
pattern of violations.
Subsection (e) is amended by clarifying that the ``Division of
Mined Land Reclamation'' is now the ``Department of Mines, Minerals,
and Energy.'' As amended, subsection (e) provides as follows:
(e) All requests for hearing, or appeals for review and
reconsideration made under this section; and all notices of appeal
for judicial review of a Hearing Officer's final decision, or the
final decision on review and reconsideration shall be filed with the
Director, Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Post Office
Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
We find that the revision of subsection (e) is a nonsubstantive
change and can be approved.
13. 4 VAC 25-130-843.16 Formal review of citations.
Subsection (e) is amended by clarifying that the ``Division of
Mined Land Reclamation'' is now the ``Department of Mines, Minerals,
and Energy.'' As amended, subsection (e) provides as follows:
(e) All requests for hearing before a Hearing Officer, or
appeals for review and reconsideration, made under this section, and
all notices of appeal for judicial review of a Hearing Officer's
final decision or a final decision on review and reconsideration,
shall be filed with the Director, Department of Mines, Minerals and
Energy, Post Office Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
We find that the revision of subsection (e) is a nonsubstantive
change and can be approved.
14. 4 VAC 25-130-845.13 Point System.
Subsections (c)(1) and (d) are amended to correct typographical
errors. At subsection (c)(1), the phrase ``(a) and'' is added
immediately before ``(b),'' and the phrase ``and (c)'' is deleted. As
amended, subsection (c)(1) provides as follows:
(c) Credit for good faith in attempting to achieve compliance.
(1) The division shall deduct from the total points assigned
under subsections (a) and (b) points based on the demonstrated good
faith of the permittee in attempting to achieve rapid compliance
after notification of the
[[Page 1492]]
violation. Points shall be deducted as follows.
In the Virginia program, point assignments are located at 4 VAC 25-
130-845.13(a) and (b). We find that the revisions to subsections (c)(1)
appropriately correct the inadvertent reference to subsection (c).
Therefore, we are approving these revisions.
Subsection (d) is amended by adding ``(a),'' immediately before
``(b);'' adding ``and'' immediately following ``(b),'' and deleting
``and (d)'' immediately following (c). As amended, the language of
subsection (d) provides as follows:
(d) Determination of base penalty.
The division shall determine the base amount of any civil
penalty by converting the total number of points calculated under
subsections (a), (b), and (c), of this section to a dollar amount,
according to the following schedule.
In the Virginia program, point calculations are determined under 4
VAC 25-130-845.13(a), (b), and (c). We find that the revisions to
subsection (d) appropriately correct the inadvertent reference to
subsection (d) and can be approved.
Subsection (e), concerning credit and additional penalties for
previous history is amended at (e)(1) by adding the words ``[e]xcept
for a violation that resulted in personal injury or fatality to any
person.'' As amended, subsection (e)(1) provides as follows:
(1) Except for a violation that resulted in personal injury or
fatality to any person, the division shall reduce the base penalty
determined under subsection (d) by 10% if the permittee has had no
violations cited by the division within the preceding 12-month
period.
The State has amended this existing provision concerning reduction
of the base penalty if the permittee has no violations cited within the
preceding 12-month period by adding an exception to the penalty
reduction. While there is no direct counterpart to the language, we
find that the amendment does not render 4 VAC 25-130-845.13(e)
inconsistent with the Federal regulations pertaining to civil penalties
at 30 CFR part 845 and can be approved.
Subsection (f), concerning maximum penalty which the division may
assess, is amended by adding the words ``except that if the violation
resulted in a personal injury or fatality to any person, then the civil
penalty determined under subsection (d) shall be multiplied by a factor
of twenty (20), not to exceed $70,000.'' As amended, subsection (f)
provides as follows:
(f) The maximum penalty which the division may assess under this
section for each cessation order or notice of violation shall be
$5,000, except that if the violation resulted in a personal injury
or fatality to any person, then the civil penalty determined under
subsection (d) shall be multiplied by a factor of twenty (20), not
to exceed $70,000. As provided in 4 VAC25-130-845.15, each day of
continuing violation may be deemed a separate violation for the
purpose of assessing penalties.
The State has amended the existing provision concerning the maximum
civil penalty that may be assessed, by adding an exception to the
maximum penalty limit based on whether the violation resulted in a
personal injury or fatality to any person. This provision is more
stringent than the Federal regulations. However, SMCRA section 505(b)
provides that any provision of State law or regulation which provides
for more stringent land use and environmental controls and regulations
than do SMCRA or the implementing regulations shall not be construed as
inconsistent with SMCRA. Therefore, we are approving this revision.
15. 4 VAC 25-130-845.15 Assessment of separate violations for each
day.
Subsection (a) is amended in the last sentence by adding the words
``or more'' immediately following the words ``a penalty of $5,000.'' As
amended, subsection (a) provides as follows:
(a) The division may assess separately a civil penalty for each
day from the date of issuance of the notice of violation or
cessation order to the date set for abatement of the violation. In
determining whether to make such an assessment, the division shall
consider the factors listed in 4 VAC 25-130-845.13 and may consider
the extent to which the person to whom the notice or order was
issued gained any economic benefit as a result of a failure to
comply. For any violation which continues for two or more days and
which has been assigned a penalty of $5,000 or more under 4 VAC25-
130-845.13, the division shall assess a penalty for a minimum of two
separate days.
We find that as amended, 4 VAC 25-130-845.15(a) does not render the
Virginia program inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
845.15(a) concerning the assessment of separate violations for each day
and can be approved.
16. 4 VAC 25-130-845.19 Request for hearing.
New subsection (d) is added to provide as follows:
All requests for hearing or appeals for review and
reconsideration made under this section shall be filed with the
Director, Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Post Office
Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
We find that the amendment is consistent with the counterpart
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 845.19 concerning request for a hearing
and can be approved.
17. 4 VAC 25-130-846.14 Amount of the individual civil penalty.
Subsection (b) is amended in the first sentence by adding new
language concerning an exception to the maximum penalty. As amended,
subsection (b) provides as follows:
(b) The penalty shall not exceed $5,000 for each violation,
except that if the violation resulted in a personal injury or
fatality to any person, then the civil penalty determined under 4
VAC25-130-845.13(d) shall be multiplied by a factor of twenty (20),
not to exceed $70,000. Each day of a continuing violation may be
deemed a separate violation and the division may assess a separate
individual civil penalty for each day the violation, failure or
refusal continues, from the date of service of the underlying notice
of violation, cessation order or other order incorporated in a final
decision issued by the Director, until abatement or compliance is
achieved.
This provision is more stringent than the Federal regulations.
However, SMCRA section 505(b) provides that any provision of State law
or regulation which provides for more stringent land use and
environmental controls and regulations than do SMCRA or the
implementing regulations shall not be construed as inconsistent with
SMCRA. Therefore, we are approving this revision.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative
Record Number VA-1053), but did not receive any.
Federal Agency Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, on May
12, 2005, we requested comments on the amendments from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Virginia program
(Administrative Record Number VA-1049). By letter dated May 27, 2005,
the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) responded and stated that it found no conflict with MSHA rules
and regulations (Administrative Record Number VA-1050). By letter dated
June 6, 2005, the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management responded and stated that the amendment meets their
requirements under 43 CFR 3400 and SMCRA Sec. 522 (Administrative
Record Number VA-1051).
[[Page 1493]]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that
relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that Virginia proposed to
make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the
amendment from EPA (Administrative Record Number WV-1049). The EPA
responded by letter dated June 20, 2005 (Administrative Record Number
VA-1052), and stated that there are no apparent inconsistencies with
the Clean Water Act or other statutes or regulations under EPA's
jurisdiction. EPA offered no other comments.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we are approving the amendment sent to
us by Virginia on May 9, 2005, and as amended on November 14, 2005, and
December 1, 2005. To implement this decision, we are amending the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 946, which codify decisions
concerning the Virginia program. We find that good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section
503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the
State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and
meeting its purposes. Making this regulation effective immediately will
expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal
standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the
analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The
revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal
counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the
fact that the provisions are administrative and procedural in nature
and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule
meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that
section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual
language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because
each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State
regulatory program and does not involve Federal regulations involving
Indian lands.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the
Supply, Distribution, Or Use Of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that
agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that a portion of the
provisions in this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because they are based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and
certification made that such regulations would not have a significant
economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making
the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant
economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions
for the counterpart Federal regulations. The Department of the Interior
also certifies that the provisions in this rule that are not based upon
counterpart Federal regulations will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
[[Page 1494]]
et seq.). This determination is based on the fact that the provisions
are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to
have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion
of the State provisions are based upon counterpart Federal regulations
for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the
Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. For the portion of
the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal
regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State
provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not
expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of
the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and
a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that is not
based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based
upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and
procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect
on the regulated industry.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: December 19, 2005.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Appalachian Region.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 946 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 946--VIRGINIA
0
1. The authority citation for part 946 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 946.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 946.15 Approval of Virginia regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission Date of final
date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
May 9, 2005, and as amended on January 10, 2006. 4 VAC 25-130-
November 14, 2005, and 700.12(e);
December 1, 2005. 773.21(c);
775.11(b)(1) and
(d); 775.13(c);
784.20(a)(3);
800.51(c)(1);
800.51(e);
816.11(a)(4) and
(a)(5);
816.64(a)(4);
816.105(a) and (b);
817.11(a)(4);
817.64(d);
817.121(c)(4);
842.15(d);
843.12(j);
843.13(b);
843.13(e);
843.15(c);
843.16(e);
845.13(c)(1), (d),
(e)(1), and (f);
845.15(a);
845.18(b)(1);
845.19(c);
845.19(d); and
846.14(b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 06-192 Filed 1-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P