Texas Regulatory Program, 8458-8461 [06-1397]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8458
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
weight gain in suckling beef calves. The
supplemental NADA also adds the
indication for use for increased rate of
weight gain in steers fed in confinement
for slaughter, previously approved at a
lower dose, to the higher approved dose
level. The supplemental NADA is
approved as of January 19, 2006, and the
regulations are amended in 21 CFR
522.841 to reflect the approval. The
basis of approval is discussed in the
freedom of information summary.
In accordance with the freedom of
information provisions of 21 CFR part
20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a
summary of safety and effectiveness
data and information submitted to
support approval of this application
may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.33(c) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
This rule does not meet the definition
of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because
it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’
Therefore, it is not subject to the
congressional review requirements in 5
U.S.C. 801–808.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522
Animal drugs.
I Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to
the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
CFR part 522 is amended as follows:
PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR
INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW
ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 522 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
2. In § 522.841, revise paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
I
§ 522.841
Estradiol benzoate.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Conditions of use. It is used by
subcutaneous injection as follows:
(1) Amount and indications for use—
(i) Suckling beef calves. 10 mg (1 mL of
product described in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section or 0.5 mL of product
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section) for increased rate of weight
gain.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:49 Feb 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
VI. Procedural Determinations
(ii) Cattle fed in confinement for
slaughter. 20 mg (1 mL of product
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section) for increased rate of weight gain
and improved feed efficiency.
(2) Limitations. For subcutaneous
injection in the ear only. Do not use in
calves intended for reproduction or
calves less than 30 days old. A
withdrawal period has not been
established for this product in
preruminating calves. Do not use in
calves to be processed for veal.
Dated: February 8, 2006.
David R. Newkirk,
Acting Director, Office of New Animal Drug
Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 06–1488 Filed 2–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 943
[Docket No. TX–055–FOR]
Texas Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to
the Texas regulatory program (Texas
program) under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). Texas proposed
revisions to the Texas Surface Coal
Mining and Reclamation Act (TSCMRA)
and the Texas Administrative Code
(TAC) regarding the State’s annual fees
that are required from coal mining
permit holders. Texas proposed to
change the requirement for the current
annual fee and to add two new annual
fees. Texas intends to revise its program
to reduce the economic cost to the coal
mining industry as a whole and to
require coal mining permit holders that
have ceased mining to pay annual fees.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa
Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581–
6430. E-mail: mwolfrom@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Texas Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Background on the Texas Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its State program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Texas
program effective February 16, 1980.
You can find background information
on the Texas program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of
approval, in the February 27, 1980,
Federal Register (45 FR 12998). You can
find later actions on the Texas program
at 30 CFR 943.10, 943.15, and 943.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated October 6, 2005
(Administrative Record No. TX–660),
Texas sent us an amendment to its
program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq.). Texas sent the amendment at its
own initiative.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the November
29, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR
71441). In the same document, we
opened the public comment period and
provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on the adequacy of
the amendment. We did not hold a
public hearing or meeting because no
one requested one. The public comment
period ended on December 29, 2005. We
received comments from one industry
group.
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 as described
below. Any revisions that we do not
specifically discuss below concern
nonsubstantive wording or editorial
changes.
A. TSCMRA Section 134.055. Annual
Fee
Section 134.055 of Texas’ statute
currently requires each permit holder to
pay an annual fee for each acre of land
in the permit area on which the permit
holder actually conducted operations
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
for removing coal during the year
(mined acreage fee). Presently, this fee
can not be less than $120.00 per acre.
Texas proposed to revise section
134.055 by changing the section title
from Annual Fee to Annual Fees. Texas
also proposed to eliminate the $120.00
per acre minimum fee for the mined
acreage fee and to allow the Railroad
Commission of Texas (Commission) to
determine the amount of this fee. In
addition, Texas proposed to add two
new annual fees; a fee for mining
permits in effect at the end of a calendar
year (mining permit fee) and a fee for
each acre of land in the bonded permit
area (bond acreage fee). Texas proposed
to allow the Commission to determine
the amount of each of these two new
annual fees. Furthermore, Texas stated
in its letter dated October 6, 2005
(Administrative Record No. TX–660),
that the proposed revised and new
annual fees when coupled with the
permit application fees are not expected
to exceed 50 percent of the anticipated
costs to administer the coal mining
regulatory program for calendar year
2006.
The Federal statute at section 507(a)
of SMCRA provides that each
application for a surface coal mining
and reclamation permit shall be
accompanied by a fee as determined by
the regulatory authority and that such
fee may be less than, but shall not
exceed the actual or anticipated cost of
reviewing, administering, and enforcing
such permit issued pursuant to a State
program. The regulatory authority may
also develop procedures to allow the fee
to be paid over the term of the permit.
We find that Texas’ proposed annual
permit fees, including the current mined
acreage fee and the two new fees
(mining permit fee and bond acreage
fee), are reasonable and consistent with
the discretionary authority provided by
the above Federal statute. Therefore, we
are approving Texas’ above revisions.
B. 16 TAC 12.108. Permit Fees
Texas proposed to revise its
regulations at 16 TAC 12.108, regarding
permit fees, to implement the above
proposed statutory amendment.
Texas proposed to add the title,
‘‘Application Fees,’’ and the title,
‘‘Annual Fees,’’ to paragraph (a) and
paragraph (b), respectively. In paragraph
(b), Texas proposed to require the
annual fees due and payable no later
than March 15th of the year following
the year for which these fees are
applicable. Also, Texas proposed to add
new paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph
reduces the current annual mined
acreage fee from $390.00 to $160.00 per
acre for each acre of land within the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:49 Feb 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
8459
permit area on which coal or lignite was
actually removed during the calendar
year. In addition, Texas proposed to add
new paragraph (b)(2) which adds a new
bond acreage fee and proposed to set
this fee at $3.00 per acre for each acre
of land within a permit area covered by
a reclamation bond on December 31st of
the year. Furthermore, Texas proposed
to add new paragraph (b)(3) which adds
a new mining permit fee and proposed
to set this fee at $3,550.00 for each
permit in effect on December 31st of the
year. Finally, Texas stated in its letter
dated October 6, 2005 (Administrative
Record No. TX–660), that the proposed
revised and new annual fees, when
coupled with the permit application
fees, are not expected to exceed 50
percent of the anticipated costs to
administer the coal mining regulatory
program for calendar year 2006.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
777.17 provides that an application for
a surface coal mining and reclamation
permit shall be accompanied by a fee as
determined by the regulatory authority
and that such fee may be less than, but
shall not exceed the actual or
anticipated cost of reviewing,
administering, and enforcing such
permit issued pursuant to a State
program. The regulatory authority may
also develop procedures to allow the fee
to be paid over the term of the permit.
We find that Texas’ proposed annual
permit fees, including the current mined
acreage fee and the two new fees
(mining permit fee and bond acreage
fee), are reasonable and consistent with
the discretionary authority provided by
the Federal regulation. Therefore, we are
approving the above revisions.
pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur
on the amendment.
On October 26, 2005, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested
comments on the amendment from the
EPA (Administrative Record No. TX–
660.01). The EPA did not respond to our
request.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Executive Order 12630—Takings
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment, and received one from
TXU Power on behalf of TXU Mining
Company LP (Administrative Record
No. TX–660.03). The commenter stated
that TXU strongly supports the
proposed program amendment.
Federal Agency Comments
On October 26, 2005, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of
SMCRA, we requested comments on the
amendment from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential
interest in the Texas program
(Administrative Record No. TX–660.01).
We did not receive any comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Concurrence and Comments
None of the revisions that Texas
proposed to make in this amendment
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
State Historical Preservation Officer
(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are
required to request comments from the
SHPO and ACHP on amendments that
may have an effect on historic
properties. On October 26, 2005, we
requested comments on Texas’
amendment (Administrative Record No.
TX–660.01), but neither responded to
our request.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve the amendment Texas sent us
on October 6, 2005.
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR part 943, which codify decisions
concerning the Texas program. We find
that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) to make this final rule
effective immediately. Section 503(a) of
SMCRA requires that the State’s
program demonstrate that the State has
the capability of carrying out the
provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective
immediately will expedite that process.
SMCRA requires consistency of State
and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform
The Department of the Interior has
conducted the reviews required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and
has determined that this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a)
and (b) of that section. However, these
standards are not applicable to the
actual language of State regulatory
programs and program amendments
because each program is drafted and
promulgated by a specific State, not by
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
8460
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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 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
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This determination is based on the fact
that the Texas program does not regulate
coal exploration and surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on
Indian lands. Therefore, the Texas
program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Original amendment submission
date
*
*
October 6, 2005 .............................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:49 Feb 16, 2006
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 this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal,
which is the subject of this rule, is 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.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Date of final publication
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 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 was not considered a major
rule.
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 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
regulations did not impose an unfunded
mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: January 20, 2006.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 943 is amended
as set forth below:
I
PART 943—TEXAS
1. The authority citation for part 943
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 943.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
I
§ 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory
program amendments.
*
*
*
*
*
Citation/description
*
*
*
*
*
February 17, 2006 ......................... TSCMRA Section 134.055; and 16 TAC 12.108(a) and (b).
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 06–1397 Filed 2–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0055; FRL–8030–7]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is finalizing approval of
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air
SUMMARY:
Pollution Control District portion of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions were proposed in
the Federal Register on August 30, 2005
and concern particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10)
emissions from fugitive dust sources.
We are approving local rules that
regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
(CAA or the Act).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on
March 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0055 for
this action. The index to the docket is
available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
8461
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. Proposed Action
On August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51303),
EPA proposed to approve the following
rules into the California SIP:
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES
Rule No.
8011
8021
8031
8041
8051
8061
8071
8081
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Rule title
General Requirements ..............................................................................................................................
Construction, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving ................................................................
Bulk Materials ...........................................................................................................................................
Carryout and Trackout ..............................................................................................................................
Open Areas ...............................................................................................................................................
Paved and Unpaved Roads ......................................................................................................................
Unpaved Traffic Areas ..............................................................................................................................
Agricultural Sources ..................................................................................................................................
We proposed to approve these rules
because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA
requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules
and our evaluation.
II. Public Comments
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this
period, we received comments
supportive of our approval of the rules
from the following parties:
1. Roger A. Isom, California Cotton
Ginners and Growers Association
(CCGGA); letter dated January 10, 2006.
2. San Joaquin Valley agricultural
groups: California Citrus Mutual;
California Grape and Tree Fruit League;
Fresno County Farm Bureau; Kings
County Farm Bureau; Merced County
Farm Bureau; Nisei Farmers League;
letter dated January 10, 2006.
We received no adverse comments on
our proposed action.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that
change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the
relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Adopted
18:49 Feb 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
Act, EPA is fully approving these rules
into the California SIP.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that these rules
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 these
rules approves pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
08/19/04
08/19/04
08/19/04
08/19/04
08/19/04
08/19/04
09/16/04
09/16/04
Submitted
09/23/04
09/23/04
09/23/04
09/23/04
09/23/04
09/23/04
09/23/04
09/23/04
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
These rules also do not have tribal
implications because they will not have
a substantial direct effect 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,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves state rules implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. These rules also are not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because they are not economically
significant.
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8458-8461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1397]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 943
[Docket No. TX-055-FOR]
Texas Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Texas regulatory program
(Texas program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Texas proposed revisions to the Texas Surface
Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (TSCMRA) and the Texas Administrative
Code (TAC) regarding the State's annual fees that are required from
coal mining permit holders. Texas proposed to change the requirement
for the current annual fee and to add two new annual fees. Texas
intends to revise its program to reduce the economic cost to the coal
mining industry as a whole and to require coal mining permit holders
that have ceased mining to pay annual fees.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa
Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. E-mail: mwolfrom@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Texas 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 Texas Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its State program includes, among other things, ``a State law which
provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the
Secretary pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Texas program effective February 16, 1980.
You can find background information on the Texas program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions
of approval, in the February 27, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 12998).
You can find later actions on the Texas program at 30 CFR 943.10,
943.15, and 943.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated October 6, 2005 (Administrative Record No. TX-660),
Texas sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq.). Texas sent the amendment at its own initiative.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the November 29,
2005, Federal Register (70 FR 71441). In the same document, we opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a
public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public
comment period ended on December 29, 2005. We received comments from
one industry group.
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 as described below. Any revisions that we do
not specifically discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or
editorial changes.
A. TSCMRA Section 134.055. Annual Fee
Section 134.055 of Texas' statute currently requires each permit
holder to pay an annual fee for each acre of land in the permit area on
which the permit holder actually conducted operations
[[Page 8459]]
for removing coal during the year (mined acreage fee). Presently, this
fee can not be less than $120.00 per acre. Texas proposed to revise
section 134.055 by changing the section title from Annual Fee to Annual
Fees. Texas also proposed to eliminate the $120.00 per acre minimum fee
for the mined acreage fee and to allow the Railroad Commission of Texas
(Commission) to determine the amount of this fee. In addition, Texas
proposed to add two new annual fees; a fee for mining permits in effect
at the end of a calendar year (mining permit fee) and a fee for each
acre of land in the bonded permit area (bond acreage fee). Texas
proposed to allow the Commission to determine the amount of each of
these two new annual fees. Furthermore, Texas stated in its letter
dated October 6, 2005 (Administrative Record No. TX-660), that the
proposed revised and new annual fees when coupled with the permit
application fees are not expected to exceed 50 percent of the
anticipated costs to administer the coal mining regulatory program for
calendar year 2006.
The Federal statute at section 507(a) of SMCRA provides that each
application for a surface coal mining and reclamation permit shall be
accompanied by a fee as determined by the regulatory authority and that
such fee may be less than, but shall not exceed the actual or
anticipated cost of reviewing, administering, and enforcing such permit
issued pursuant to a State program. The regulatory authority may also
develop procedures to allow the fee to be paid over the term of the
permit.
We find that Texas' proposed annual permit fees, including the
current mined acreage fee and the two new fees (mining permit fee and
bond acreage fee), are reasonable and consistent with the discretionary
authority provided by the above Federal statute. Therefore, we are
approving Texas' above revisions.
B. 16 TAC 12.108. Permit Fees
Texas proposed to revise its regulations at 16 TAC 12.108,
regarding permit fees, to implement the above proposed statutory
amendment.
Texas proposed to add the title, ``Application Fees,'' and the
title, ``Annual Fees,'' to paragraph (a) and paragraph (b),
respectively. In paragraph (b), Texas proposed to require the annual
fees due and payable no later than March 15th of the year following the
year for which these fees are applicable. Also, Texas proposed to add
new paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph reduces the current annual mined
acreage fee from $390.00 to $160.00 per acre for each acre of land
within the permit area on which coal or lignite was actually removed
during the calendar year. In addition, Texas proposed to add new
paragraph (b)(2) which adds a new bond acreage fee and proposed to set
this fee at $3.00 per acre for each acre of land within a permit area
covered by a reclamation bond on December 31st of the year.
Furthermore, Texas proposed to add new paragraph (b)(3) which adds a
new mining permit fee and proposed to set this fee at $3,550.00 for
each permit in effect on December 31st of the year. Finally, Texas
stated in its letter dated October 6, 2005 (Administrative Record No.
TX-660), that the proposed revised and new annual fees, when coupled
with the permit application fees, are not expected to exceed 50 percent
of the anticipated costs to administer the coal mining regulatory
program for calendar year 2006.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 777.17 provides that an
application for a surface coal mining and reclamation permit shall be
accompanied by a fee as determined by the regulatory authority and that
such fee may be less than, but shall not exceed the actual or
anticipated cost of reviewing, administering, and enforcing such permit
issued pursuant to a State program. The regulatory authority may also
develop procedures to allow the fee to be paid over the term of the
permit.
We find that Texas' proposed annual permit fees, including the
current mined acreage fee and the two new fees (mining permit fee and
bond acreage fee), are reasonable and consistent with the discretionary
authority provided by the Federal regulation. Therefore, we are
approving the above revisions.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, and received one
from TXU Power on behalf of TXU Mining Company LP (Administrative
Record No. TX-660.03). The commenter stated that TXU strongly supports
the proposed program amendment.
Federal Agency Comments
On October 26, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section
503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various
Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Texas
program (Administrative Record No. TX-660.01). We did not receive any
comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
None of the revisions that Texas proposed to make in this amendment
pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask
EPA to concur on the amendment.
On October 26, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested
comments on the amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record No. TX-
660.01). The EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. On October 26, 2005, we requested comments on Texas'
amendment (Administrative Record No. TX-660.01), but neither responded
to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Texas sent us
on October 6, 2005.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 943, which codify decisions concerning the Texas
program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to
make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA
requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that
process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal
regulations.
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
The Department of the Interior 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
[[Page 8460]]
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This determination is based on the fact that the Texas program does not
regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Texas program has no effect
on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that
agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is 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.
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 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 was not considered a
major rule.
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 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 regulations did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: January 20, 2006.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 943 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 943--TEXAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 943 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 943.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission Date of final
date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
October 6, 2005............... February 17, 2006 TSCMRA Section
134.055; and 16 TAC
12.108(a) and (b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8461]]
[FR Doc. 06-1397 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
