Texas Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan, 32049-32052 [E7-11193]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Web site addresses, but we are not
responsible for subsequent changes to
the Web site after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.
1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute, Expert Panel Report: Update on
Selected Topics 2002: Guidelines for the
Diagnosis and Management of Asthma, NIH
publication No. 02–5074, June 2003.
2. Tasche, M. J. A. et al., ‘‘Inhaled
Disodium Cromoglycate (DSCG) as
Maintenance Therapy in Children with
Asthma: A Systematic Review,’’ Thorax
55:913–920, 2000; P. J. Helms, ‘‘Inhaled
Disodium Cromoglycate as Maintenance
Therapy for Childhood Asthma: Time to
Consign to History?’’ (editorial), Thorax
55:886, 2000; Letter from A. Edwards et al.,
and reply by Tasche et al., Thorax 56:331–
2, 2001; Letter from G. Laszlo, and separate
replies by Helms and Tasche et al., Thorax
56:502–503, 2001; Letter from M. Silverman,
and reply by Tasche, et al., Thorax 56:585,
2001; Letter from H. K. Reddel and C. R.
Jenkins, Thorax 56:896, 2001; Letter from
Edwards et al. Thorax 57:282, 2002; Letter
from Tasche, et al., Thorax 57:751–752, 2002.
3. National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute, Expert Panel Report 2: Guidelines
for the Diagnosis and Management of
Asthma, NIH publication No. 97–4051, July
1997.
4. Hofstra, W. B. et al., ‘‘Dose-Responses
Over Time to Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate
Treatment of Exercise-and MethacholineInduced Bronchoconstriction in Children
with Asthma,’’ Pediatric Pulmonology,
29:415–423, 2000.
5. Jonasson, G. et al., ‘‘Low-Dose
Budesonide Improves Exercise-Induced
Bronchospasm in Schoolchildren,’’ Pediatric
Allergy and Immunology, 11:120–123, 2000.
6. Blake, K.V., ‘‘Montelukast: Data from
Clinical Trials in the Management of
Asthma,’’ Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 33
(12):1299–314, December 1999 (errata,
34:541, April 2000).
7. de Benedictis, F. M. et al., ‘‘Cromolyn
Versus Nedocromil: Duration of Action in
Exercise-Induced Asthma in Children’’
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,
96:510–4, 1995.
8. Chrischilles, E. et al., ‘‘Delivery of
Ipratropium and Albuterol Combination
Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease: Effectiveness of Two-in-one Inhaler
Versus Separate Inhalers’’ The American
Journal of Managed Care, 8:902–911, 2002.
9. Anthonisen, N. R. et al.,
‘‘Hospitalizations and Mortality in the Lung
Health Study’’ American Journal of
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,
166:333–339, 2002.
10. United Nations Environmental
Programme, Production and Consumption of
Ozone-Depleting Substances: 1986–2004,
2005.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
‘‘The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act:
1990–2010’’ (https://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/
copy99.html) (November 1999).
12. Mannino, D. M. et al., ‘‘Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Surveillance—United States, 1971–2000,’’
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
51(SS06):1–16, August 2, 2002.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:18 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
13. American Lung Association, ‘‘Trends in
Asthma Morbidity and Mortality,’’
Epidemiology & Statistics Unit, Research and
Program Services, July 2006.
14. Mannino, D. M. et al., ‘‘Surveillance for
Asthma—United States, 1980–1999,’’
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
51(SS01):1–13, March 29, 2002.
15. Analysis completed by FDA based on
information provided by IMS Health, IMS
National Sales Perspective (TM), 2005,
extracted March 2006. These data are
available for purchase from IMS Health.
Please send all inquiries to: IMS Health, Attn:
Brian Palumbo, Account Manager, 660 West
Germantown Pike, Plymouth Meeting, PA
19462.
16. Rozek, R. P., and E. R. Bishko,
‘‘Economics Issues Raised in the FDA’s
Proposed Rule on Removing the EssentialUse Designation for Albuterol MDIs,’’
National Economic Research Associates,
August 13, 2004 (FDA Docket No. 2003P–
0029/C25).
17. Goldman, D. P. et al., ‘‘Pharmacy
Benefits and the Use of Drugs by the
Chronically Ill,’’ JAMA: The Journal of the
American Medical Association, 291:2344–
2350, May 19, 2004.
18. DeNavas-Walt, C., B.D. Proctor, and C.
H. Lee, U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Reports, P60–229, Income,
Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2004, p. 18, 2005.
19. Hurd, S., ‘‘The Impact of COPD on Lung
Health Worldwide: Epidemiology and
Incidence,’’ Chest, 117:2 (supplement):1S–4S,
February 2000.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and
procedure, Cosmetics, Drugs, Foods.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Clean
Air Act and under authority delegated
to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
after consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, it is proposed that
21 CFR part 2 be amended as follows:
PART 2—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
RULINGS AND DECISIONS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 402, 409; 21 U.S.C.
321, 331, 335, 342, 343, 346a, 348, 351, 352,
355, 360b, 361, 362, 371, 372, 374; 42 U.S.C.
7671 et seq.
§ 2.125
[Amended]
2. Section 2.125 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs
(e)(1)(iii), (e)(1)(v), (e)(2)(iii), (e)(2)(iv),
(e)(4)(iv), (e)(4)(vii), and (e)(4)(viii).
Dated: June 4, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 07–2883 Filed 6–6–07; 1:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32049
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 943
[Docket No. TX–057–FOR]
Texas Regulatory Program and
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation
Plan
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and
extension of public comment period on
proposed amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are announcing receipt of
revisions to a previously proposed
amendment to the Texas regulatory
program (Texas program) and the Texas
abandoned mine land plan (Texas plan)
under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the
Act). The revisions concern
‘‘determination of amount of penalty’’ in
the Texas regulations and
‘‘administrative penalties for violation of
permit conditions’’ in the Texas statute.
Texas intends to improve operational
efficiency.
This document gives the times and
locations that the Texas program and
Texas plan and proposed amendments
to that program and plan are available
for your inspection and the comment
period during which you may submit
written comments on the revisions to
the amendment.
DATES: We will accept written
comments until 4 p.m., c.t., June 26,
2007.
You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. TX–057–FOR,
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail: athomas@osmre.gov.
Include ‘‘Docket No. TX–057–FOR’’ in
the subject line of the message.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: A. Dwight
Thomas, Acting Director, Tulsa Field
Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645
South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128.
• Fax: (918) 581–6419.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading
ADDRESSES:
E:\ERIC\11JNP1.SGM
11JNP1
32050
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
review copies of the Texas program and
Texas plan, this amendment, a listing of
any scheduled public hearings, and all
written comments received in response
to this document, you must go to the
address listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays. You may receive
one free copy of the amendment by
contacting OSM’s Tulsa Field Office: A.
Dwight Thomas, Acting Director, Tulsa
Field Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645
South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128, Telephone:
(918) 581–6430, E-mail:
athomas@osmre.gov.
In addition, you may review a copy of
the amendment during regular business
hours at the following location: Surface
Mining and Reclamation Division,
Railroad Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas
78711–2967, Telephone: (512) 463–
6900.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.
Dwight Thomas, Acting Director, Tulsa
Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581–
6430. E-mail: athomas@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
I. Background on the Texas Program and
Texas Plan
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
III. Public Comment Procedures
IV. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Texas Program
and Texas Plan
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
requirements of 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 of the Texas program in the
February 27, 1980, Federal Register (45
FR 12998). You can also find later
actions concerning the Texas program
and program amendments at 30 CFR
943.10, 943.15 and 943.16.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:18 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
The Abandoned Mine Land
Reclamation Program was established
by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq.) in response to concerns over
extensive environmental damage caused
by past coal mining activities. The
program is funded by a reclamation fee
collected on each ton of coal that is
produced. The money collected is used
to finance the reclamation of abandoned
coal mines and for other authorized
activities. Section 405 of the Act allows
States and Indian Tribes to assume
exclusive responsibility for reclamation
activity within the State or on Indian
lands if they develop and submit to the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for
approval, a program (often referred to as
a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned
coal mines. On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary approved the
Texas plan on June 23, 1980. You can
find background information on the
Texas plan, including the Secretary’s
findings, the disposition of comments,
and the approval of the plan in the June
23, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR
41937). You can find later actions
concerning the Texas plan and
amendments to the plan at 30 CFR
943.25.
II. Description of the Proposed
Amendment
By letter dated February 14, 2007
(Administrative Record No. TX–662),
and at its own initiative, Texas sent us
an amendment to its program and plan
under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
We announced receipt of the proposed
amendment in the April 30, 2007,
Federal Register (72 FR 21185) and
invited public comment on its
adequacy. The public comment period
ended May 30, 2007.
During our review of the amendment,
the Railroad Commission of Texas
notified us that the Texas legislation
that would raise the State’s
administrative penalty for violations
had been capped at $10,000 instead of
the $13,000 as proposed in the
amendment to the Texas program
submitted to us on February 14, 2007
(Administrative Record No. TX–662).
On May 7, 2007, Texas sent us a
revision to its amendment that pertains
to its regulatory program
(Administrative Record No. TX–662.03).
Texas submitted additional revisions
for the following provisions of the
amendment:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Revisions to Texas’ Regulations, Title
16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC)
Section 12.688 Determination of
Amount of Penalty
Texas’ penalty schedule currently
begins with a minimum penalty of $20
and increases to a maximum penalty of
$5,000. Texas proposes to change the
penalty schedule so that it begins with
a minimum penalty of $550 and
increases to a maximum penalty of
$10,000. Texas proposes to increase the
penalties to reflect the decreased value
in the dollar since the penalty schedule
was promulgated in 1979.
B. Revisions to Texas’ Statute, Chapter
134 Texas Natural Resources Code
Section 134.174 Administrative
Penalty for Violation of Permit
Condition of this Chapter
Texas proposes to revise subsection
(b) to read as follows:
(b) The penalty may not exceed $10,000 for
each violation. Each day a violation
continues may be considered a separate
violation for purposes of penalty
assessments.
III. Public Comment Procedures
We are reopening the comment period
on the proposed Texas program and
Texas plan amendment to provide the
public an opportunity to reconsider the
adequacy of the proposed amendment
in light of the additional materials
submitted. Under the provisions of 30
CFR 732.17(h) and 30 CFR 884.15(a), we
are seeking comments on whether the
proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program and plan approval
criteria of 30 CFR 732.15 and 30 CFR
884.14, respectively. If we approve the
amendment, it will become part of the
Texas program and Texas plan, as
appropriate.
Written Comments
Send your written or electronic
comments to OSM at the address given
above. Your written comments should
be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and
include explanations in support of your
recommendations. We will not consider
or respond to your comments when
developing the final rule if they are
received after the close of the comment
period (see DATES). We will make every
attempt to log all comments into the
administrative record, but comments
delivered to an address other than the
Tulsa Field Office may not be logged in.
Electronic Comments
Please submit Internet comments as
an ASCII or Word file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of
E:\ERIC\11JNP1.SGM
11JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn:
Docket No. TX–057–FOR’’ and your
name and return address in your
Internet message. If you do not receive
a confirmation that we have received
your Internet message, contact the Tulsa
Field Office at (918) 581–6430.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
IV. 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.
rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:18 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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)).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32051
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
regulation did not impose an unfunded
mandate.
E:\ERIC\11JNP1.SGM
11JNP1
32052
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 25, 2007.
Ervin J. Barchenger,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent
Region.
[FR Doc. E7–11193 Filed 6–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Christopher Rogers (ph. 301–713–9090,
fax 301–713–9106, e-mail
christopher.rogers@noaa.gov).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
50 CFR Part 300
Background
[Docket No. 070514119–7120–01; I.D.
042307D]
RIN 0648–AV51
Certification of Nations Whose Fishing
Vessels Are Engaged in Illegal,
Unreported, or Unregulated Fishing or
Bycatch of Protected Living Marine
Resources
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking; request for comments.
rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking to
announce that it is developing
certification procedures to address
illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU)
fishing activities and bycatch of
protected living marine resources
pursuant to the High Seas Driftnet
Fishing Moratorium Protection Act
(Moratorium Protection Act). NMFS is
seeking advance public comment on the
development of these procedures and on
the sources and types of information to
be considered in the process. NMFS
plans to arrange for one or more
opportunities to obtain public input on
the certification procedures. Dates and
locations of any such opportunities will
be published in the Federal Register at
a later date.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by July 26, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
action and requests for background
information should be addressed to
Christopher Rogers, Trade and Marine
Stewardship Division, Office of
International Affairs, NMFS. Comments
and requests may be submitted by any
of the following methods:
• Email: 0648–AV51@noaa.gov.
Including ‘‘0648–AV51’’ in the subject
line of the e-mail comment. Comments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:18 Mar 07, 2011
sent via e-mail, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 10
megabyte file size.
• Federal e-Rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Christopher Rogers, Trade and
Marine Stewardship Division, Office of
International Affairs, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
Jkt 223001
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law
109–479), which was signed into law in
January 2007, amends the Moratorium
Protection Act (Public Law 104–43) to
require actions be taken by the United
States to strengthen international fishery
management organizations and address
IUU fishing and bycatch of protected
living marine resources. Specifically,
the Moratorium Protection Act requires
the Secretary of Commerce to identify in
a biennial report to Congress those
foreign nations whose vessels are
engaged in IUU fishing or fishing that
results in bycatch of protected living
marine resources. The Moratorium
Protection Act also requires the
establishment of procedures to certify
whether nations identified in the
biennial report are taking appropriate
corrective actions to address IUU fishing
or bycatch of protected living marine
resources by fishing vessels of that
nation. Based upon the outcome of the
certification procedures developed in
this rulemaking, nations could be
subject to import prohibitions and other
measures under the authority provided
in the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries
Enforcement Act at 16 U.S.C. 1826a
(Enforcement Act) if they are not
positively certified by the Secretary of
Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce
has delegated authority under this Act
and the Moratorium Protection Act to
NMFS. In addition to the Moratorium
Protection and Enforcement Acts, NMFS
notes that there are identification and/
or certification procedures in other
statutes, including the Pelly
Amendment to the Fishermen’s
Protective Act at 22 U.S.C. 1978. This
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
solicits public input on the new
Moratorium Protection Act provisions
and applicable Enforcement Act
provisions, as well as general
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
identification and certification
considerations.
Definitions under the Moratorium
Protection Act
For purposes of the Moratorium
Protection Act, ‘‘IUU fishing’’ is defined
as fishing activities that violate
conservation and management measures
required under an international fishery
management agreement to which the
United States is a party, including catch
limits or quotas, capacity restrictions,
and bycatch reduction requirements;
overfishing of fish stocks shared by the
United States, for which there are no
applicable international conservation or
management measures or in areas with
no applicable international fishery
management organization or agreement,
that has adverse impacts on such stocks;
and fishing activity that has an adverse
impact on seamounts, hydrothermal
vents, and cold water corals located
beyond national jurisdiction, for which
there are no applicable conservation or
management measures or in areas with
no applicable international fishery
management organization or agreement.
See 16 U.S.C. 1826j. This definition of
IUU fishing was published in the
Federal Register on April 12, 2007 (72
FR 18404) and is codified at 50 CFR part
300.
‘‘Protected living marine resources’’ is
defined in the Moratorium Protection
Act as non-target fish, sea turtles, or
marine mammals that are protected
under United States law or international
agreement, including the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act, the Shark Finning
Prohibition Act, and the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna; but
they do not include species, except
sharks, that are managed under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, or any
international fishery management
organization. See 16 U.S.C. 1826k.
Biennial Report to Congress on
International Compliance
The Moratorium Protection Act (see
16 U.S.C. 1826h) requires that the
Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, provide Congress (by
no later than January 12, 2009, and
every two years thereafter), a report that
includes:
1. the state of knowledge on the status
of international living marine resources
shared by the United States or subject to
treaties or agreements to which the
United States is a party, including a list
of all such fish stocks classified as
overfished, overexploited, depleted,
E:\ERIC\11JNP1.SGM
11JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 111 (Monday, June 11, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32049-32052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11193]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 943
[Docket No. TX-057-FOR]
Texas Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and extension of public comment period
on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are announcing receipt of revisions to a previously proposed
amendment to the Texas regulatory program (Texas program) and the Texas
abandoned mine land plan (Texas plan) under the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The revisions concern
``determination of amount of penalty'' in the Texas regulations and
``administrative penalties for violation of permit conditions'' in the
Texas statute. Texas intends to improve operational efficiency.
This document gives the times and locations that the Texas program
and Texas plan and proposed amendments to that program and plan are
available for your inspection and the comment period during which you
may submit written comments on the revisions to the amendment.
DATES: We will accept written comments until 4 p.m., c.t., June 26,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. TX-057-
FOR, by any of the following methods:
E-mail: athomas@osmre.gov. Include ``Docket No. TX-057-
FOR'' in the subject line of the message.
Mail/Hand Delivery: A. Dwight Thomas, Acting Director,
Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma
74128.
Fax: (918) 581-6419.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the ``Public Comment Procedures'' heading
[[Page 32050]]
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to review copies of the Texas
program and Texas plan, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled
public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this
document, you must go to the address listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may
receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Tulsa Field
Office: A. Dwight Thomas, Acting Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East
Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128, Telephone: (918) 581-6430, E-
mail: athomas@osmre.gov.
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular
business hours at the following location: Surface Mining and
Reclamation Division, Railroad Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress
Avenue, Austin, Texas 78711-2967, Telephone: (512) 463-6900.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Dwight Thomas, Acting Director,
Tulsa Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. E-mail:
athomas@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Texas Program and Texas Plan
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
III. Public Comment Procedures
IV. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Texas Program and Texas Plan
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its program includes, among other things, ``a State law which provides
for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in
accordance with the requirements of 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 of the
Texas program in the February 27, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 12998).
You can also find later actions concerning the Texas program and
program amendments at 30 CFR 943.10, 943.15 and 943.16.
The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program was established by
Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to concerns
over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining
activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on
each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to
finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other
authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian
Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity
within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for approval, a program (often
referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary approved the Texas plan on
June 23, 1980. You can find background information on the Texas plan,
including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and
the approval of the plan in the June 23, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR
41937). You can find later actions concerning the Texas plan and
amendments to the plan at 30 CFR 943.25.
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated February 14, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-
662), and at its own initiative, Texas sent us an amendment to its
program and plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). We announced
receipt of the proposed amendment in the April 30, 2007, Federal
Register (72 FR 21185) and invited public comment on its adequacy. The
public comment period ended May 30, 2007.
During our review of the amendment, the Railroad Commission of
Texas notified us that the Texas legislation that would raise the
State's administrative penalty for violations had been capped at
$10,000 instead of the $13,000 as proposed in the amendment to the
Texas program submitted to us on February 14, 2007 (Administrative
Record No. TX-662). On May 7, 2007, Texas sent us a revision to its
amendment that pertains to its regulatory program (Administrative
Record No. TX-662.03).
Texas submitted additional revisions for the following provisions
of the amendment:
A. Revisions to Texas' Regulations, Title 16 Texas Administrative Code
(TAC)
Section 12.688 Determination of Amount of Penalty
Texas' penalty schedule currently begins with a minimum penalty of
$20 and increases to a maximum penalty of $5,000. Texas proposes to
change the penalty schedule so that it begins with a minimum penalty of
$550 and increases to a maximum penalty of $10,000. Texas proposes to
increase the penalties to reflect the decreased value in the dollar
since the penalty schedule was promulgated in 1979.
B. Revisions to Texas' Statute, Chapter 134 Texas Natural Resources
Code
Section 134.174 Administrative Penalty for Violation of Permit
Condition of this Chapter
Texas proposes to revise subsection (b) to read as follows:
(b) The penalty may not exceed $10,000 for each violation. Each
day a violation continues may be considered a separate violation for
purposes of penalty assessments.
III. Public Comment Procedures
We are reopening the comment period on the proposed Texas program
and Texas plan amendment to provide the public an opportunity to
reconsider the adequacy of the proposed amendment in light of the
additional materials submitted. Under the provisions of 30 CFR
732.17(h) and 30 CFR 884.15(a), we are seeking comments on whether the
proposed amendment satisfies the applicable program and plan approval
criteria of 30 CFR 732.15 and 30 CFR 884.14, respectively. If we
approve the amendment, it will become part of the Texas program and
Texas plan, as appropriate.
Written Comments
Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address
given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to
the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in
support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to
your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after
the close of the comment period (see DATES). We will make every attempt
to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments
delivered to an address other than the Tulsa Field Office may not be
logged in.
Electronic Comments
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or Word file avoiding
the use of special characters and any form of
[[Page 32051]]
encryption. Please also include ``Attn: Docket No. TX-057-FOR'' and
your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not
receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message,
contact the Tulsa Field Office at (918) 581-6430.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
IV. 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.
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.
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 regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
[[Page 32052]]
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 25, 2007.
Ervin J. Barchenger,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
[FR Doc. E7-11193 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P