New Mexico Regulatory Program, 69191-69195 [06-9461]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 230 / Thursday, November 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
is impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to the public interest. This rule
sets the effective date for a rulemaking
that has already been through the public
comment process. Seeking prior public
comments on the effective date is
impracticable, as well as contrary to the
public interest in the orderly
promulgation and implementation of
this rule.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
FAA announces the effective date of 14
CFR part 43, Amendment 43–40,
published July 14, 2005. The
amendments require that the
maintenance, preventive maintenance,
and alterations be performed in
accordance with a Bilateral Aviation
Safety Agreement (BASA) between the
United States and Canada and
associated Maintenance Implementation
Procedures (MIP). The MIP was signed
and entered into force on August 31,
2006; accordingly, the amendments
became effective on that date.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
22, 2006.
John M. Allen,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E6–20254 Filed 11–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25270; Airspace
Docket No. 06–ASO–9]
Establishment of Class D Airspace;
Eastman, GA
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action changes the name
of the Eastman-Dodge County Airport to
Heart of Georgia Regional Airport and
establishes Class D airspace at Eastman,
GA. On October 9, 1995, the EastmanDodge County Airport Authority
adopted a name change for the airport.
A non-Federal contract tower with a
weather reporting system has been
constructed at Heart of Georgia Regional
Airport. Therefore, the airport meets
criteria for Class D airspace. Class D
surface area airspace is required when
the control tower is open to contain
Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs) and other
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations
at the airport. This action establishes
Class D airspace extending upward from
the surface to and including 2,500 feet
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Nov 29, 2006
Jkt 211001
MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of the
airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, January 18,
2000. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by
reference under 1 CFR part 51, subject
to the annual revision of FAA Order
7400.9 and publication of conforming
amendments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark D. Ward, Group Manager, System
Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305–5627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On August 2, 2006, the FAA proposed
to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by
changing the name of the EastmanDodge City Airport and establishing
Class D airspace at Eastman, GA (71 FR
43678). This action provides adequate
Class D airspace for IFR operations at
Heart of Georgia Regional Airport.
Designations for Class D Airspace are
published in FAA Order 7400.9P,
effective September 16, 2006, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
part 71.1. The Class D airspace
designation listed in this document will
be published subsequently in the Order.
Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal
were received.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 71) changes the name of the
Eastman-Dodge County Airport to Heart
of Georgia Regional Airport and
establishes Class D airspace at Eastman,
GA.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69191
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends § 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
I
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS
1. The authority citation for Part 71
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
effective September 16, 2006, is
amended as follows:
I
Paragraph 5000
Class D Airspace.
*
*
*
*
*
ASO GA D Eastman, GA [NEW]
Heart of Georgia Regional Airport, GA
(Lat. 32°12′51″ N, long. 83°07′41″ W)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL
within a 4.1-mile radius of the Heart of
Georgia Regional Airport. This Class D
airspace area is effective during the specific
days and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective days and
times will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October
6, 2006.
Anne Boykin,
Acting Group Manager, System Support,
Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 06–9232 Filed 11–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 931
[NM–044–FOR]
New Mexico Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
69192
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 230 / Thursday, November 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Final rule; approval of
amendment.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) is announcing the approval
of an amendment to the New Mexico
regulatory program (the ‘‘New Mexico
program’’) under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act) and the removal of
the remaining condition of program
approval. New Mexico proposed
addition of rules and revision of a
statute concerning the award of costs
and expenses, including attorney fees,
incurred in connection with the
administrative and judicial appeals
process.
New Mexico revised its program to be
consistent with SMCRA and the
corresponding Federal regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Willis Gainer, Telephone: (505) 248–
5096, e-mail address:
wgainer@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
I. Background on the New Mexico Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Secretary’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Secretary’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the New Mexico
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 conditionally
approved the New Mexico program on
December 31, 1980. You can find
background information on the New
Mexico program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval
in the December 31, 1980, Federal
Register (45 FR 86459). You can also
find later actions concerning New
Mexico’s program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 931.10, 931.11,
931.13, 931.15, 931.16, and 931.30.
II. Submission of the Proposed
Amendment
By letter dated November 18, 2005,
New Mexico sent us an amendment to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Nov 29, 2006
Jkt 211001
its program (Administrative Record No.
874) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et
seq.). New Mexico sent the amendment
in response to a condition of the New
Mexico program approval at 30 CFR
931.11(e), concerning the award of
attorney fees and legal costs.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the February
13, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 7477;
Administrative Record No. NM–882). 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
March 15, 2006. We received one
agency comment from the State Historic
Preservation Officer and one public
comment from the Zuni Tribe.
III. Secretary’s Findings
Following is the finding the Secretary
made concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. The
Secretary is approving the amendment
as described below.
New Mexico Surface Mining Act
(NMSA), Section 69–25A–29.F, and New
Mexico Annotated Code (NMAC),
Section 19.8.12.1204, Award of Legal
Costs and Expenses
The Secretary required, as a condition
of program approval (codified at 30 CFR
931.11(e)), that New Mexico implement
regulations containing provisions which
are the same as or similar to those in 43
CFR 4.1290–4.1296, relating to the
award of costs, including attorney fees,
in administrative proceedings, or
otherwise amend its program to
accomplish the same result.
OSM’s current standard for approval
of State program provisions concerning
assessment of costs in administrative
proceedings is that the State statutory
and regulatory provisions must be in
accordance with section 525(e) of
SMCRA and consistent with 43 CFR
Part 4. ‘‘Same or similar’’ is OSM’s
standard for approval of State program
counterparts to the Federal provisions
in section 518 of SMCRA concerning
penalties, and section 521 of SMCRA
concerning enforcement.
In response to the condition at 30 CFR
931.11(e), New Mexico proposes to (1)
revise its statutory provision at NMSA,
section 69–25A–29.F, concerning
administrative review and the
assessment of costs and expenses,
including attorney fees, for a person’s
participation in administrative
proceedings, including judicial review
of agency actions, and (2) add newly-
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
created rules at NMAC, section
19.8.12.1204, which contain provisions
allowing for the award of appropriate
costs and expenses, including attorney
fees, reasonably incurred as a result of
participation in an administrative
review.
NMSA, Section 69–25A–29.F
New Mexico proposes to revise
NMSA, section 69–25A–29.F,
concerning administrative review and
the assessment of costs and expenses,
including attorney fees, for a person’s
participation in administrative
proceedings, including judicial review
of agency actions, by deleting the
provision stating that no such
assessment shall be imposed upon the
Director of the New Mexico program.
With this revision, the Director of the
New Mexico program has authority to
determine whether expenses (that have
been reasonably incurred for or in
connection with participation in
administrative proceedings, including
any judicial review of agency actions)
may be assessed against any party
which would now include the Director.
Section 525(e) of SMCRA allows for
an award of a sum equal to the aggregate
amount of all costs, expenses, and
attorney fees determined by the
Secretary of the Interior to have been
reasonably incurred by a person for or
in connection with his participation in
administrative proceedings, including
any judicial review of agency actions.
NMAC, Section 19.8.12.1204
New Mexico proposes addition of
rules at NMAC, sections 19.8.12.1204A–
G, which establish procedures,
timeframes and standards for petitions
for award of legal costs and expenses.
New Mexico’s proposed rules are
intended to be consistent with the
corresponding Federal regulations at 43
CFR 4.1290–4.1296, thereby satisfying
the condition of State program approval
at 30 CFR 931.11(e). With the
exceptions discussed below, New
Mexico’s proposed revisions are
substantively the same as the
corresponding Federal regulations at 43
CFR 4.1290–4.1296.
No State Counterpart to 43 CFR
4.1294(a)(2)
New Mexico does not propose a
counterpart regulation to 43 CFR
4.1294(a)(2) concerning the award of
costs and expenses for alleged
discriminatory acts. The regulations
pertaining to the reporting and handling
of such acts are found at 30 CFR Part
830 (now Part 865). These regulations
were promulgated pursuant to section
703 of the Act. Because the provisions
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 230 / Thursday, November 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
for Employee Protection in section 703
of SMCRA are strictly Federal
requirements, State programs are not
required to include counterparts to
these requirements. Therefore, the lack
of a New Mexico program counterpart
provision to the Federal regulation at 43
CFR 4.1294(a)(2) is not inconsistent
with the Act.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
NMAC, Section 19.8.12.1204E(2), and
43 CFR 4.1294(b), Award of Fees to
Those Who Prevail in Whole or
Significant Part and Achieve at Least
Some Degree of Success on the Merits
New Mexico’s proposed rule at
NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204E(2),
provides for awards from the Mining
and Minerals Division (MMD) to a
person other than the permittee who
initiates or participates in a proceeding
under the New Mexico program,
prevails in whole or in significant part
and achieves at least some degree of
success on the merits. The award is
contingent upon a finding that the
person substantially contributed to the
issues’ full and fair determination,
except that the contribution of the
person who did not initiate the
proceeding must be separate and
distinct from the contribution made by
the person initiating the proceeding.
New Mexico’s proposed rule differs
from the Federal counterpart regulation
at 43 CFR 4.1294(b) in that it requires
that the person prevail in whole or in
significant part where the Federal rule
requires that the person prevail in
whole or in part without the
‘‘significant’’ qualifier. New Mexico’s
proposed rule also distinguishes the
contribution to a proceeding made by a
participating person from the
contribution made by an initiating
party.
For the reasons discussion below, we
believe that New Mexico’s qualifying
language adds reasonable clarification
for administrative and judicial
reviewers and is, therefore, not
inconsistent with the Federal
regulations.
In order to establish procedures
governing petitions for the award of
costs and expenses under section 525(e),
the Secretary promulgated the
regulations which appear at 43 CFR
4.1290–4.1296. The original regulations
were published on August 3, 1978 (43
FR 34376). The 1978 regulations at 43
CFR 4.1294(b) provided that costs and
expenses may be awarded from OSM to
persons other than the permittee, if the
person ‘‘made a substantial contribution
to the full and fair determination of the
issues.’’ They did not contain criteria
with regard to the degree of success on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Nov 29, 2006
Jkt 211001
the merits to be achieved for such
awards.
After the Secretary conditionally
approved the New Mexico Regulatory
program, the 1978 regulations at 43 CFR
4.1294(b) were revised (50 FR 47222;
November 15, 1985). The revision was
prompted by the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Ruckelshaus v.
Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (1983), which
held in a statutory context similar to
section 525(e) of the Act, that an award
of costs and expenses is conditioned
upon a party prevailing in whole or in
part in the underlying proceeding. In
view of the court’s decision in
Ruckelshaus, the Secretary revised
paragraph (b) of 30 CFR 4.1294 to state
explicitly that eligibility to receive an
award is ‘‘subject to the condition that
the person shall have prevailed in
whole or in part, achieving at least some
degree of success on the merits.’’ The
1985 revision retained the requirement
that the ‘‘person made a substantial
contribution to a full and fair
determination of the issues.’’
Subsequent court cases have held that
plaintiffs may be considered ‘‘prevailing
parties’’ for attorney fees purposes if
they succeed on any significant issue in
litigation which achieves some of the
benefit the parties sought.1 The relief
cannot be merely declaratory or
procedural; it must reach the underlying
merits of the claim. The level of success
is relevant to the amount of fees to be
awarded.
In the context of the above discussion,
the Secretary finds that New Mexico’s
proposed NMAC, section
19.8.12.1204E(2), is consistent with and
no less effective than the Act and
counterpart Federal regulation at 43
CFR 4.1294(b).
Removal of Program Condition
Based on the above discussion, the
Secretary (1) finds that New Mexico’s
proposed revision of NMSA, section 69–
25A–29.F, and addition of NMAC,
section 19.8.12.1204, satisfy the
requirements of the program condition
at 30 CFR 931.11(e) and (2) therefore,
removes the condition.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment (Administrative Record No.
NM–876). We received one comment
letter.
By letter dated February 2, 2006
(Administrative Record No. NM–879),
we received comments from the
1 Tex. State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep.
Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789 (1989).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69193
Governor of the Zuni Tribe in Zuni,
New Mexico. Our response to the
Governor’s comments regarding New
Mexico’s proposed rule revisions
NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204,
concerning the award of attorney fees, is
discussed below.
The Governor raised concerns about a
provision at proposed NMAC, section
19.8.12.1204.E(5), that allows attorney
fees to be awarded to the New Mexico
Minerals and Mining Division (MMD)
by the Director of the New Mexico
program. The Director of the New
Mexico program is also the Director of
MMD. The Governor expressed concern
that the allowance for the agency to
collect attorney fees would intimidate
parties from challenging agency actions.
The authority for the Director of the
New Mexico program to award attorney
fees to any party, including MMD, has
existed in New Mexico’s statute at
NMSA, section 69–25A–29.F, since
1979. New Mexico’s proposed rules at
NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204, are
intended to provide counterpart
provisions to the Federal regulations at
43 CFR 4.1290–1296, which restrict the
right of certain parties, including the
agency and the permittee, to collect fees
from other parties.
As discussed in the Secretary’s
finding above, New Mexico’s proposed
rule at NMAC, section
19.8.12.1204.E(5), which allows the
award of attorney fees to MMD is
consistent with New Mexico’s existing
statute at NMSA, section 69–25A–29.F,
and with the counterpart Federal
regulations at 43 CFR 4.1290–1296. Both
New Mexico’s proposed rule and the
Federal regulations limit an agency’s
right to collect attorney fees in either an
administrative or judicial proceeding to
situations where the agency can
demonstrate that another party
participated in the proceeding in bad
faith and for the purpose of harassing or
embarrassing the government.
Furthermore, as discussed above,
without the proposed revision at
NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204.E(5), the
agency could apply, under the existing
statutory provision for attorney fees, on
the same basis as other parties.
For the reasons discussed above, we
are not requiring any revision of New
Mexico’s proposed rules in response to
these comments.
Federal Agency Comments
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 New Mexico
program (Administrative Record No.
NM–876). We received no comments.
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
69194
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 230 / Thursday, November 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and
(ii), we are required to get 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 New
Mexico proposed to make in this
amendment pertains to air or water
quality standards. Under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM requested
comments on the amendment from EPA
(Administrative Record No. NM–876).
EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historic 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 December 20, 2005, we
requested comments on New Mexico’s
amendment (Administrative Record No.
NM–876). The SHPO responded on
February 9, 2006, that it had no
comments because the proposed
amendments do no affect cultural
resources (Administrative Record No.
NM–881). We did not receive a response
from the ACHP.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
V. Secretary’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve New Mexico’s November 18,
2005, proposed amendment, as revised
on March 27, 2006.
We approve New Mexico’s proposed
statutory revisions as they were enacted
by New Mexico (effective on June 17,
2005) and rule revisions as they were
promulgated by New Mexico (effective
on April 28, 2006).
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR part 931, which codify decisions
concerning the New Mexico 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
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Nov 29, 2006
Jkt 211001
based on the analysis performed for the
counterpart Federal regulation.
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
(Regulatory Planning and Review).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
between the Federal government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian Tribes.
The rule does not involve or affect
Indian Tribes in any way.
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. 4321).
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.
3501 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), of the Small Business
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 230 / Thursday, November 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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.
Original amendment submission
date
*
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 655
[Docket No. FTA–2006–24592]
RIN 2132–AA86
Controlled Substances and Alcohol
Misuse Testing
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), United States Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule codifies existing
FTA administrative guidance for safetysensitive employees of ferryboat
operations that are subject to the drug
and alcohol (D&A) testing regulations of
both FTA and the United States Coast
Guard (USCG). This rule will provide
regulatory relief to ferryboat operators
who were previously subject to
duplicative D&A testing regulations, and
improve ferryboat operator compliance
with FTA D&A testing regulations.
Jkt 211001
1. The authority citation for part 931
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
§ 931.11 [Amended]
2. Section 931.11 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (e).
I
3. Section 931.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
I
§ 931.15 Approval of New Mexico regulatory
program amendments
*
*
*
*
*
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 931 is amended
as set forth below:
Citation/description
*
November 30, 2006 .......................
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 931—NEW MEXICO
I
*
BILLING CODE 4310–05–M
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Dated: November 9, 2006.
C. Stephen Allred,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management.
*
[FR Doc. 06–9461 Filed 11–29–06; 8:45 am]
14:39 Nov 29, 2006
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 931
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Date of final
publication
*
November 18, 2005 .......................
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 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.
69195
Availability of the Final Rule
A copy of this rule and comments and
material received from the public, as
well as any documents indicated in the
preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket FTA–2006–
24592, and are available for inspection
or copying at the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room PL–401 on the
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
*
NMSA, sections 69–25A–29.F, concerning award of legal costs and
expenses; and NMAC, sections 19.8.12.1204.A through G, concerning award of legal costs and expenses, including attorney fees.
This rule does not adopt the proposed
rule with respect to certain motor carrier
operators who are subject to the D&A
testing regulations of both FTA and the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). FTA will
retain its current guidance and
interpretation with respect to these
motor carrier operators.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective
January 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
program issues, Gerald Powers, Office of
Safety and Security, (617) 494–2395
(telephone); (202) 366–7951 (fax); or
Gerald.Powers@dot.gov (e-mail). For
legal issues, Shauna Coleman, Office of
the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–4011
(telephone); (202) 366–3809 (fax); or
Shauna.Coleman@dot.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
*
Sfmt 4700
plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An electronic copy of this rule and
comments are available online through
the Document Management System
(DMS) at: https://dms.dot.gov. Enter
docket number 24592 in the search
field. The DMS is available 24 hours
each day, 365 days each year. Electronic
submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help
section of the Web site.
Internet users may also download an
electronic copy of this document by
using a computer, modem and suitable
communications software from the
Government Printing Office’s Electronic
Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512–
1661. Additionally, internet users may
reach the Office of the Federal Register’s
home page at: https://www.nara.gov/
fedreg and the Government Printing
Office’s Web page at: https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
I. Background
In 2001, FMCSA issued a rule that
eliminated duplicative D&A testing
regulations for holders of Commercial
Drivers Licenses (CDLs) who provide
public transportation services. This rule
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 230 (Thursday, November 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69191-69195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9461]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 931
[NM-044-FOR]
New Mexico Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
[[Page 69192]]
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is announcing the
approval of an amendment to the New Mexico regulatory program (the
``New Mexico program'') under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act) and the removal of the
remaining condition of program approval. New Mexico proposed addition
of rules and revision of a statute concerning the award of costs and
expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in connection with the
administrative and judicial appeals process.
New Mexico revised its program to be consistent with SMCRA and the
corresponding Federal regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Willis Gainer, Telephone: (505) 248-
5096, e-mail address: wgainer@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the New Mexico Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Secretary's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Secretary's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the New Mexico 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 conditionally approved the
New Mexico program on December 31, 1980. You can find background
information on the New Mexico program, including the Secretary's
findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in
the December 31, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 86459). You can also
find later actions concerning New Mexico's program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 931.10, 931.11, 931.13, 931.15, 931.16, and
931.30.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated November 18, 2005, New Mexico sent us an amendment
to its program (Administrative Record No. 874) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C.
1201 et seq.). New Mexico sent the amendment in response to a condition
of the New Mexico program approval at 30 CFR 931.11(e), concerning the
award of attorney fees and legal costs.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 13,
2006, Federal Register (71 FR 7477; Administrative Record No. NM-882).
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 March 15, 2006. We
received one agency comment from the State Historic Preservation
Officer and one public comment from the Zuni Tribe.
III. Secretary's Findings
Following is the finding the Secretary made concerning the
amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and
732.17. The Secretary is approving the amendment as described below.
New Mexico Surface Mining Act (NMSA), Section 69-25A-29.F, and New
Mexico Annotated Code (NMAC), Section 19.8.12.1204, Award of Legal
Costs and Expenses
The Secretary required, as a condition of program approval
(codified at 30 CFR 931.11(e)), that New Mexico implement regulations
containing provisions which are the same as or similar to those in 43
CFR 4.1290-4.1296, relating to the award of costs, including attorney
fees, in administrative proceedings, or otherwise amend its program to
accomplish the same result.
OSM's current standard for approval of State program provisions
concerning assessment of costs in administrative proceedings is that
the State statutory and regulatory provisions must be in accordance
with section 525(e) of SMCRA and consistent with 43 CFR Part 4. ``Same
or similar'' is OSM's standard for approval of State program
counterparts to the Federal provisions in section 518 of SMCRA
concerning penalties, and section 521 of SMCRA concerning enforcement.
In response to the condition at 30 CFR 931.11(e), New Mexico
proposes to (1) revise its statutory provision at NMSA, section 69-25A-
29.F, concerning administrative review and the assessment of costs and
expenses, including attorney fees, for a person's participation in
administrative proceedings, including judicial review of agency
actions, and (2) add newly-created rules at NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204,
which contain provisions allowing for the award of appropriate costs
and expenses, including attorney fees, reasonably incurred as a result
of participation in an administrative review.
NMSA, Section 69-25A-29.F
New Mexico proposes to revise NMSA, section 69-25A-29.F, concerning
administrative review and the assessment of costs and expenses,
including attorney fees, for a person's participation in administrative
proceedings, including judicial review of agency actions, by deleting
the provision stating that no such assessment shall be imposed upon the
Director of the New Mexico program. With this revision, the Director of
the New Mexico program has authority to determine whether expenses
(that have been reasonably incurred for or in connection with
participation in administrative proceedings, including any judicial
review of agency actions) may be assessed against any party which would
now include the Director.
Section 525(e) of SMCRA allows for an award of a sum equal to the
aggregate amount of all costs, expenses, and attorney fees determined
by the Secretary of the Interior to have been reasonably incurred by a
person for or in connection with his participation in administrative
proceedings, including any judicial review of agency actions.
NMAC, Section 19.8.12.1204
New Mexico proposes addition of rules at NMAC, sections
19.8.12.1204A-G, which establish procedures, timeframes and standards
for petitions for award of legal costs and expenses. New Mexico's
proposed rules are intended to be consistent with the corresponding
Federal regulations at 43 CFR 4.1290-4.1296, thereby satisfying the
condition of State program approval at 30 CFR 931.11(e). With the
exceptions discussed below, New Mexico's proposed revisions are
substantively the same as the corresponding Federal regulations at 43
CFR 4.1290-4.1296.
No State Counterpart to 43 CFR 4.1294(a)(2)
New Mexico does not propose a counterpart regulation to 43 CFR
4.1294(a)(2) concerning the award of costs and expenses for alleged
discriminatory acts. The regulations pertaining to the reporting and
handling of such acts are found at 30 CFR Part 830 (now Part 865).
These regulations were promulgated pursuant to section 703 of the Act.
Because the provisions
[[Page 69193]]
for Employee Protection in section 703 of SMCRA are strictly Federal
requirements, State programs are not required to include counterparts
to these requirements. Therefore, the lack of a New Mexico program
counterpart provision to the Federal regulation at 43 CFR 4.1294(a)(2)
is not inconsistent with the Act.
NMAC, Section 19.8.12.1204E(2), and 43 CFR 4.1294(b), Award of Fees to
Those Who Prevail in Whole or Significant Part and Achieve at Least
Some Degree of Success on the Merits
New Mexico's proposed rule at NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204E(2),
provides for awards from the Mining and Minerals Division (MMD) to a
person other than the permittee who initiates or participates in a
proceeding under the New Mexico program, prevails in whole or in
significant part and achieves at least some degree of success on the
merits. The award is contingent upon a finding that the person
substantially contributed to the issues' full and fair determination,
except that the contribution of the person who did not initiate the
proceeding must be separate and distinct from the contribution made by
the person initiating the proceeding. New Mexico's proposed rule
differs from the Federal counterpart regulation at 43 CFR 4.1294(b) in
that it requires that the person prevail in whole or in significant
part where the Federal rule requires that the person prevail in whole
or in part without the ``significant'' qualifier. New Mexico's proposed
rule also distinguishes the contribution to a proceeding made by a
participating person from the contribution made by an initiating party.
For the reasons discussion below, we believe that New Mexico's
qualifying language adds reasonable clarification for administrative
and judicial reviewers and is, therefore, not inconsistent with the
Federal regulations.
In order to establish procedures governing petitions for the award
of costs and expenses under section 525(e), the Secretary promulgated
the regulations which appear at 43 CFR 4.1290-4.1296. The original
regulations were published on August 3, 1978 (43 FR 34376). The 1978
regulations at 43 CFR 4.1294(b) provided that costs and expenses may be
awarded from OSM to persons other than the permittee, if the person
``made a substantial contribution to the full and fair determination of
the issues.'' They did not contain criteria with regard to the degree
of success on the merits to be achieved for such awards.
After the Secretary conditionally approved the New Mexico
Regulatory program, the 1978 regulations at 43 CFR 4.1294(b) were
revised (50 FR 47222; November 15, 1985). The revision was prompted by
the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Ruckelshaus v.
Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (1983), which held in a statutory context
similar to section 525(e) of the Act, that an award of costs and
expenses is conditioned upon a party prevailing in whole or in part in
the underlying proceeding. In view of the court's decision in
Ruckelshaus, the Secretary revised paragraph (b) of 30 CFR 4.1294 to
state explicitly that eligibility to receive an award is ``subject to
the condition that the person shall have prevailed in whole or in part,
achieving at least some degree of success on the merits.'' The 1985
revision retained the requirement that the ``person made a substantial
contribution to a full and fair determination of the issues.''
Subsequent court cases have held that plaintiffs may be considered
``prevailing parties'' for attorney fees purposes if they succeed on
any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit
the parties sought.\1\ The relief cannot be merely declaratory or
procedural; it must reach the underlying merits of the claim. The level
of success is relevant to the amount of fees to be awarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489
U.S. 782, 789 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the above discussion, the Secretary finds that
New Mexico's proposed NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204E(2), is consistent
with and no less effective than the Act and counterpart Federal
regulation at 43 CFR 4.1294(b).
Removal of Program Condition
Based on the above discussion, the Secretary (1) finds that New
Mexico's proposed revision of NMSA, section 69-25A-29.F, and addition
of NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204, satisfy the requirements of the program
condition at 30 CFR 931.11(e) and (2) therefore, removes the condition.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative
Record No. NM-876). We received one comment letter.
By letter dated February 2, 2006 (Administrative Record No. NM-
879), we received comments from the Governor of the Zuni Tribe in Zuni,
New Mexico. Our response to the Governor's comments regarding New
Mexico's proposed rule revisions NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204, concerning
the award of attorney fees, is discussed below.
The Governor raised concerns about a provision at proposed NMAC,
section 19.8.12.1204.E(5), that allows attorney fees to be awarded to
the New Mexico Minerals and Mining Division (MMD) by the Director of
the New Mexico program. The Director of the New Mexico program is also
the Director of MMD. The Governor expressed concern that the allowance
for the agency to collect attorney fees would intimidate parties from
challenging agency actions.
The authority for the Director of the New Mexico program to award
attorney fees to any party, including MMD, has existed in New Mexico's
statute at NMSA, section 69-25A-29.F, since 1979. New Mexico's proposed
rules at NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204, are intended to provide
counterpart provisions to the Federal regulations at 43 CFR 4.1290-
1296, which restrict the right of certain parties, including the agency
and the permittee, to collect fees from other parties.
As discussed in the Secretary's finding above, New Mexico's
proposed rule at NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204.E(5), which allows the
award of attorney fees to MMD is consistent with New Mexico's existing
statute at NMSA, section 69-25A-29.F, and with the counterpart Federal
regulations at 43 CFR 4.1290-1296. Both New Mexico's proposed rule and
the Federal regulations limit an agency's right to collect attorney
fees in either an administrative or judicial proceeding to situations
where the agency can demonstrate that another party participated in the
proceeding in bad faith and for the purpose of harassing or
embarrassing the government. Furthermore, as discussed above, without
the proposed revision at NMAC, section 19.8.12.1204.E(5), the agency
could apply, under the existing statutory provision for attorney fees,
on the same basis as other parties.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not requiring any revision
of New Mexico's proposed rules in response to these comments.
Federal Agency Comments
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 New Mexico program
(Administrative Record No. NM-876). We received no comments.
[[Page 69194]]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), we are required to get
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 New Mexico proposed to make in this
amendment pertains to air or water quality standards. Under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM requested comments on the amendment from EPA
(Administrative Record No. NM-876). EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historic 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 December 20, 2005, we requested comments on New Mexico's
amendment (Administrative Record No. NM-876). The SHPO responded on
February 9, 2006, that it had no comments because the proposed
amendments do no affect cultural resources (Administrative Record No.
NM-881). We did not receive a response from the ACHP.
V. Secretary's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve New Mexico's November 18,
2005, proposed amendment, as revised on March 27, 2006.
We approve New Mexico's proposed statutory revisions as they were
enacted by New Mexico (effective on June 17, 2005) and rule revisions
as they were promulgated by New Mexico (effective on April 28, 2006).
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 931, which codify decisions concerning the New Mexico
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
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
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 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
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 rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way.
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. 4321).
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.
3501 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), of the Small
Business
[[Page 69195]]
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.
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 regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 931
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: November 9, 2006.
C. Stephen Allred,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 931 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 931--NEW MEXICO
0
1. The authority citation for part 931 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
Sec. 931.11 [Amended]
0
2. Section 931.11 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (e).
0
3. Section 931.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 931.15 Approval of New Mexico regulatory program amendments
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission Date of final
date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
November 18, 2005............. November 30, 2006 NMSA, sections 69-25A-
29.F, concerning
award of legal costs
and expenses; and
NMAC, sections
19.8.12.1204.A
through G,
concerning award of
legal costs and
expenses, including
attorney fees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 06-9461 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
