Virginia Regulatory Program, 36595-36598 [E7-12979]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36595
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
requests for records under the Freedom
of Information Act, and requests for
correction or amendment under the
Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C.(d)(3).
Because notice and opportunity for
comment are not required pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the
analytical requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required and has not been prepared.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 4
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For the reasons above, amend 15 CFR
Part 4 as follows:
I
PART 4—DISCLOSURE OF
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for Part 4
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5
U.S.C. 552a; 5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 3717; 44
U.S.C. 3101; Reorganization Plan No. 5 of
1950.
Appendix B to Part 4—[Amended]
2. In Appendix B to part 4, under the
heading ECONOMICS AND
STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION,
delete ‘‘Bureau of the Census: Manager,
Freedom of Information Act’’ and
replace with ‘‘Bureau of the Census:
Freedom of Information Act Officer’’.
I
Dated: June 28, 2007.
Brenda Dolan,
Departmental Freedom of Information and
Privacy Act Officer.
[FR Doc. E7–13001 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV–100), Food and Drug
Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–6967, email: david.newkirk@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mylan
Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 12720
Dairy Ashford, Sugar Land, TX 77478,
has informed FDA that it has changed
its name to UDL Laboratories, Inc., and
is using a new drug labeler code.
Accordingly, the agency is amending
the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to
reflect these changes. A conforming
change is being made in 21 CFR
524.2620 for this sponsor’s sole product.
This rule does not meet the definition
of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because
it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’
Therefore, it is not subject to the
congressional review requirements in 5
U.S.C. 801–808.
Firm name and address
UDL Laboratories, Inc.,
12720 Dairy Ashford,
Sugar Land, TX 77478.
*
*
*
Drug labeler
code
051079
*
*
(2) * * *
Drug labeler
code
*
051079
*
*
*
Firm name and address
*
*
*
UDL Laboratories, Inc.,
12720 Dairy Ashford,
Sugar Land, TX 77478
*
*
*
PART 524—OPHTHALMIC AND
TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW
ANIMAL DRUGS
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 524 continues to read as follows:
I
List of Subjects
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
21 CFR Part 510
§ 524.2620
Administrative practice and
procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
I
[Amended]
4. In paragraph (a)(2) of § 524.2620,
remove ‘‘062794’’ and add in its place
‘‘051079’’.
21 CFR Part 524
Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to
the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
CFR parts 510 and 524 are amended as
follows:
I
Dated: June 21, 2007.
Bernadette Dunham,
Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. E7–13010 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 510 continues to read as follows:
Food and Drug Administration
New Animal Drugs; Change of
Sponsor’s Name; Liquid Crystalline
Trypsin, Peru Balsam, Castor Oil
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Final rule; technical
amendment.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending the
animal drug regulations to reflect a
change of sponsor’s name from Mylan
Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to UDL
Laboratories, Inc.
DATES: This rule is effective July 5,
2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
[VA–123–FOR]
2. In § 510.600, in the table in
paragraph (c)(1), remove the entry for
‘‘Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’’
and alphabetically add a new entry for
‘‘UDL Laboratories, Inc.’’; and in the
table in paragraph (c)(2) remove the
entry for ‘‘062749’’ and numerically add
a new entry for ‘‘051079’’ to read as
follows:
I
21 CFR Parts 510 and 524
AGENCY:
30 CFR Part 946
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 360b, 371, 379e.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
I
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug
labeler codes of sponsors of approved
applications.
*
PO 00000
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
Firm name and address
Drug labeler
code
*
*
*
Frm 00007
*
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
Virginia Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are approving an
amendment to the Virginia regulatory
program under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). Virginia is revising
its remining regulations to make three of
those provisions permanent by deleting
a termination date of September 30,
2004, from the regulations. The
amendment is intended to render the
State regulations consistent with recent
amendments to SMCRA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007.
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
36596
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Mr.
Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville Field
Office; Telephone: (276) 523–4303.
Internet: tdieringer@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Background on the Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
I. Background on the Virginia Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its program
includes, among other things, ‘‘* * *a
State law which provides for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations in accordance
with the requirements of the Act * * *;
and rules and regulations consistent
with regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to the Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Virginia
program on December 15, 1981. You can
find background information on the
Virginia program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval
of the Virginia program in the December
15, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR
61088). You can also find later actions
concerning Virginia’s program and
program amendments at 30 CFR 946.12,
946.13, and 946.15.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated February 13, 2007
(Administrative Record Number VA–
1058), the Virginia Department of
Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME)
submitted an amendment to the Virginia
program. In its letter, the DMME stated
that the program amendment revises the
Virginia Coal Surface Mining
Reclamation Regulations to reflect the
deletion from SMCRA, at section 510(e),
of the termination date of section 510(e)
of September 30, 2004.
Section 510 of SMCRA concerns
permit approval or denial. Subsection
510(e) provides an exception to the
prohibition of subsection (c), which
prohibits the issuance of a permit where
any surface coal mining operation
owned or controlled by an applicant is
currently in violation of SMCRA or such
other laws referenced at subsection
510(c). Prior to being amended by the
Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,
subsection 510(e) provided as follows:
(e) After the date of enactment of this
subsection, the prohibition of subsection (c)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
shall not apply to a permit application due
to any violation resulting from an
unanticipated event or condition at a surface
coal mining operation on lands eligible for
remining under a permit held by the person
making such application. As used in this
subsection, the term ‘‘violation’’ has the same
meaning as such term has under subsection
(c). The authority of this subsection and
section 515(b)(20)(B) shall terminate on
September 30, 2004.
The effect of the deletion of the
termination date in the SMCRA
provision quoted above (the entire last
sentence was deleted) is twofold: (1) It
makes permanent the authority at
subsection 510(e) of SMCRA to approve
a permit application for surface coal
mining operations on lands eligible for
remining notwithstanding the existence
of a violation resulting from an
unanticipated event or condition at the
site, and (2) it makes permanent the
two-year revegetation responsibility
period for lands eligible for remining at
subsection 515(b)(20)(B) of SMCRA.
In its amendment, Virginia is deleting
the termination date of September 30,
2004, from three of its program
regulations concerning remining.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the April 9,
2007, Federal Register (72 FR 17449). 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
May 4, 2007. No comments were
received.
III. OSM’s Findings
1. 4 VAC 25–130–785.25. Lands
eligible for remining.
This provision is amended by deleting
subsection (c) in its entirety. Currently,
4 VAC 25–130–785.25 provides as
follows:
(a) This section contains permitting
requirements to implement 4 VAC 25–130–
773.15(b)(4). Any person who submits a
permit application to conduct a surface coal
mining operation on lands eligible for
remining must comply with this section.
(b) Any application for a permit under this
section shall be made according to all
requirements of this subchapter applicable to
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations. In addition, the application shall:
(1) To the extent not otherwise addressed
in the permit application, identify potential
environmental and safety problems related to
prior mining activity at the site and that
could be reasonably anticipated to occur.
This identification shall be based on a due
diligence investigation which shall include
visual observations at the site, a record
review of past mining at the site, and
environmental sampling tailored to current
site conditions.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(2) With regard to potential environmental
and safety problems referred in subdivision
(b)(1) of this section, describe the mitigative
measures that will be taken to ensure that the
applicable reclamation requirements of this
chapter can be met.
(c) The requirements of this section shall
not apply after September 30, 2004.
In its submittal letter, the DMME
stated that the deletion of subsection (c)
containing the termination date of
September 30, 2004, is intended to
reflect the deletion of that same
termination date at subsection 510(e) of
SMCRA.
We find that the deletion of the
termination date of September 30, 2004,
renders 4 VAC 25–130–785.25
consistent with and no less stringent
than § 510(e) of SMCRA and can be
approved.
2. 4 VAC 25–130–816.116(c)(2)(ii) and
817.116(c)(2)(ii). Revegetation;
standards for success.
These provisions are amended by
deleting the phrase ‘‘included in
permits issued before September 30,
2004, or any renewals thereof’’ at the
end of the first sentence in subparts
(c)(2)(ii). Currently, 4 VAC 25–130–
816.116(c) and 817.116(c) provide as
follows:
(c) (1) The period of extended
responsibility for successful revegetation
shall begin after the last year of augmented
seeding, fertilizing, irrigation, or other work,
excluding husbandry practices that are
approved by the division in accordance with
subdivision (c)(3) of this section.
(2) The period of responsibility shall
continue for a period of not less than:
(i) Five full years except as provided in
subdivision (c)(2)(ii) of this section. The
vegetation parameters identified in
subsection (b) of this section for grazing land
or pastureland and cropland shall equal or
exceed the approved success standard during
the growing seasons of any two years of the
responsibility period, except the first year.
Areas approved for the other uses identified
in subsection (b) of this section shall equal
or exceed the applicable success standard
during the growing season of the last year of
the responsibility period.
(ii) Two full years for lands eligible for
remining included in permits issued before
September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof.
To the extent that the success standards are
established by subdivision (b)(5) of this
section, the lands shall equal or exceed the
standards during the growing season of the
last year of the responsibility period.
(3) The division may approve selective
husbandry practices, excluding augmented
seeding, fertilization, or irrigation, without
extending the period of responsibility for
revegetation success and bond liability, if
such practices can be expected to continue as
part of the postmining land use or if
discontinuance of the practices after the
liability period expires will not reduce the
probability of permanent revegetation
success. Approved practices shall be normal
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
conservation practices within the region for
unmined lands having land uses similar to
the approved postmining land use of the
disturbed area, including such practices as
disease, pest, and vermin control; and any
pruning, reseeding and/or transplanting
specifically necessitated by such actions.
In its submittal letter, the DMME
stated that the deletion of the September
30, 2004, termination date at subparts
(c)(2)(ii) is intended to reflect the
deletion of that same termination date at
subsection 510(e) of SMCRA.
We find that the deletion of the
termination date of September 30, 2004,
renders 4 VAC 25–130–816.116(c)(2)(ii)
and 817.116(c)(2)(ii) consistent with and
no less stringent than § 510(e) of
SMCRA and can be approved.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment (Administrative Record
Number VA–1068) and no comments
were received.
Federal Agency Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and
section 503(b) of SMCRA, on February
22, 2007, we requested comments on the
amendments from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential
interest in the Virginia program
(Administrative Record Number VA–
1060). The United States Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management responded and stated that
they found no inconsistencies with the
proposed changes and the Federal Laws,
which govern mining. The United States
Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration responded and
stated that there did not seem to be any
conflicts with the changes and deemed
the changes appropriate. The United
States Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service responded and
stated that no impacts to Federally
listed or proposed species or Federally
designated critical habitat will occur
and was in agreement with the changes
made.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we
are required to get a written concurrence
from EPA for those provisions of the
program amendment that relate to air or
water quality standards issued under
the authority of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the
revisions that Virginia proposed to make
in this amendment pertain to air or
water quality standards. Therefore, we
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
did not ask EPA to concur on the
amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(II)(i), we
requested comments on the amendment
from the EPA (Administrative Record
number VA–1060). No comments were
received.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we are
approving the amendment sent to us by
Virginia on February 13, 2007. To
implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR part 946, which codify decisions
concerning the Virginia program. We
find that good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule
effective immediately. Section 503(a) of
SMCRA requires that the State’s
program demonstrate that the State has
the capability of carrying out the
provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this regulation
effective immediately will expedite that
process. SMCRA requires consistency of
State and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630—Takings
The provisions in the rule based on
counterpart Federal regulations do not
have takings implications. This
determination is based on the analysis
performed for the counterpart Federal
regulations. The revisions made at the
initiative of the State that do not have
Federal counterparts have also been
reviewed and a determination made that
they do not have takings implications.
This determination is based on the fact
that the provisions are administrative
and procedural in nature and are not
expected to have a substantive effect on
the regulated industry.
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform
The Department of the Interior has
conducted the reviews required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and
has determined that this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a)
and (b) of that section. However, these
standards are not applicable to the
actual language of State regulatory
programs and program amendments
because each program is drafted and
promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36597
decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the
submittal is consistent with SMCRA and
its implementing Federal regulations
and whether the other requirements of
30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
Executive Order 13132—Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism
implications. SMCRA delineates the
roles of the Federal and State
governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations. One of the
purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a
nationwide program to protect society
and the environment from the adverse
effects of surface coal mining
operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of
SMCRA requires that State laws
regulating surface coal mining and
reclamation operations be ‘‘in
accordance with’’ the requirements of
SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires
that State programs contain rules and
regulations ‘‘consistent with’’
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, we have evaluated the potential
effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have
determined that the rule does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The basis for this determination is that
our decision is on a State regulatory
program and does not involve Federal
regulations involving Indian lands.
Executive Order 13211—Regulations
That Significantly Affect the Supply,
Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 which requires
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for a rule that is (1)
Considered significant under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because
this rule is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866 and is not
expected to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects
is not required.
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
36598
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an
environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory
program provisions do not constitute
major Federal actions within the
meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that a portion of the provisions
in this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) because they are based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that
such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a
substantial number of small entities. In
making the determination as to whether
this rule would have a significant
economic impact, the Department relied
upon the data and assumptions for the
counterpart Federal regulations. The
Department of the Interior also certifies
that the provisions in this rule that are
not based upon counterpart Federal
regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). This determination is based on
the fact that the provisions are
administrative and procedural in nature
and are not expected to have a
substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
tribal governments or the private sector
of $100 million or more in any given
year. This determination is based upon
the fact that a portion of the State
submittal, which is the subject of this
rule, is based upon counterpart Federal
regulations for which an analysis was
prepared and a determination made that
the Federal regulation did not impose
an unfunded mandate. For the portion
of the State provisions that is not based
upon counterpart Federal regulations,
this determination is based upon the
fact that the State provisions are
administrative and procedural in nature
and are not expected to have a
substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule: (a) Does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and (c) Does not
have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. This
determination is based upon the fact
that a portion of the State provisions are
based upon counterpart Federal
regulations for which an analysis was
prepared and a determination made that
the Federal regulation was not
considered a major rule. For the portion
of the State provisions that is not based
upon counterpart Federal regulations,
this determination is based upon the
fact that the State provisions are
administrative and procedural in nature
and are not expected to have a
substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
Dated: May 29, 2007.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Appalachian Region.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
§ 946.15 Approval of Virginia regulatory
program amendments.
Original amendment
submission date
Date of final publication
*
February 13, 2007 ......
*
*
July 5, 2007 ..................................................
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 946
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR Part 946 is amended
as set forth below:
I
PART 946—VIRGINIA
1. The authority citation for part 946
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 946.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
I
*
*
*
*
*
Citation/description
*
4
*
VAC 25–130–785.25(c)(deleted);
817.116(c)(2)(ii).
*
4
VAC
*
25–130–816.116
and
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
ACTION:
Coast Guard
[FR Doc. E7–12979 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce
Special Local Regulations for the Port
Huron to Mackinac Island Race. This
action is necessary to safely control
vessel movements in the vicinity of the
race and provide for the safety of the
general boating public and commercial
shipping. During this period, no person
or vessel may enter the regulated area
without the permission of the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander.
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD09–07–052]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations for Marine
Events; Port Huron to Mackinac Island
Race
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Coast Guard, DHS.
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 128 (Thursday, July 5, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36595-36598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12979]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 946
[VA-123-FOR]
Virginia Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are approving an amendment to the Virginia regulatory
program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). Virginia is revising its remining regulations to
make three of those provisions permanent by deleting a termination date
of September 30, 2004, from the regulations. The amendment is intended
to render the State regulations consistent with recent amendments to
SMCRA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007.
[[Page 36596]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville
Field Office; Telephone: (276) 523-4303. Internet:
tdieringer@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Virginia Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its program includes, among other things, ``* * *a State law which
provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the
Secretary pursuant to the Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Virginia program on December 15, 1981. You
can find background information on the Virginia program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of
approval of the Virginia program in the December 15, 1981, Federal
Register (46 FR 61088). You can also find later actions concerning
Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 946.12, 946.13, and
946.15.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated February 13, 2007 (Administrative Record Number VA-
1058), the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME)
submitted an amendment to the Virginia program. In its letter, the DMME
stated that the program amendment revises the Virginia Coal Surface
Mining Reclamation Regulations to reflect the deletion from SMCRA, at
section 510(e), of the termination date of section 510(e) of September
30, 2004.
Section 510 of SMCRA concerns permit approval or denial. Subsection
510(e) provides an exception to the prohibition of subsection (c),
which prohibits the issuance of a permit where any surface coal mining
operation owned or controlled by an applicant is currently in violation
of SMCRA or such other laws referenced at subsection 510(c). Prior to
being amended by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, subsection
510(e) provided as follows:
(e) After the date of enactment of this subsection, the
prohibition of subsection (c) shall not apply to a permit
application due to any violation resulting from an unanticipated
event or condition at a surface coal mining operation on lands
eligible for remining under a permit held by the person making such
application. As used in this subsection, the term ``violation'' has
the same meaning as such term has under subsection (c). The
authority of this subsection and section 515(b)(20)(B) shall
terminate on September 30, 2004.
The effect of the deletion of the termination date in the SMCRA
provision quoted above (the entire last sentence was deleted) is
twofold: (1) It makes permanent the authority at subsection 510(e) of
SMCRA to approve a permit application for surface coal mining
operations on lands eligible for remining notwithstanding the existence
of a violation resulting from an unanticipated event or condition at
the site, and (2) it makes permanent the two-year revegetation
responsibility period for lands eligible for remining at subsection
515(b)(20)(B) of SMCRA.
In its amendment, Virginia is deleting the termination date of
September 30, 2004, from three of its program regulations concerning
remining.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the April 9,
2007, Federal Register (72 FR 17449). 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 May 4, 2007. No comments were received.
III. OSM's Findings
1. 4 VAC 25-130-785.25. Lands eligible for remining.
This provision is amended by deleting subsection (c) in its
entirety. Currently, 4 VAC 25-130-785.25 provides as follows:
(a) This section contains permitting requirements to implement 4
VAC 25-130-773.15(b)(4). Any person who submits a permit application
to conduct a surface coal mining operation on lands eligible for
remining must comply with this section.
(b) Any application for a permit under this section shall be
made according to all requirements of this subchapter applicable to
surface coal mining and reclamation operations. In addition, the
application shall:
(1) To the extent not otherwise addressed in the permit
application, identify potential environmental and safety problems
related to prior mining activity at the site and that could be
reasonably anticipated to occur. This identification shall be based
on a due diligence investigation which shall include visual
observations at the site, a record review of past mining at the
site, and environmental sampling tailored to current site
conditions.
(2) With regard to potential environmental and safety problems
referred in subdivision (b)(1) of this section, describe the
mitigative measures that will be taken to ensure that the applicable
reclamation requirements of this chapter can be met.
(c) The requirements of this section shall not apply after
September 30, 2004.
In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that the deletion of
subsection (c) containing the termination date of September 30, 2004,
is intended to reflect the deletion of that same termination date at
subsection 510(e) of SMCRA.
We find that the deletion of the termination date of September 30,
2004, renders 4 VAC 25-130-785.25 consistent with and no less stringent
than Sec. 510(e) of SMCRA and can be approved.
2. 4 VAC 25-130-816.116(c)(2)(ii) and 817.116(c)(2)(ii).
Revegetation; standards for success.
These provisions are amended by deleting the phrase ``included in
permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof'' at
the end of the first sentence in subparts (c)(2)(ii). Currently, 4 VAC
25-130-816.116(c) and 817.116(c) provide as follows:
(c) (1) The period of extended responsibility for successful
revegetation shall begin after the last year of augmented seeding,
fertilizing, irrigation, or other work, excluding husbandry
practices that are approved by the division in accordance with
subdivision (c)(3) of this section.
(2) The period of responsibility shall continue for a period of
not less than:
(i) Five full years except as provided in subdivision (c)(2)(ii)
of this section. The vegetation parameters identified in subsection
(b) of this section for grazing land or pastureland and cropland
shall equal or exceed the approved success standard during the
growing seasons of any two years of the responsibility period,
except the first year. Areas approved for the other uses identified
in subsection (b) of this section shall equal or exceed the
applicable success standard during the growing season of the last
year of the responsibility period.
(ii) Two full years for lands eligible for remining included in
permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof.
To the extent that the success standards are established by
subdivision (b)(5) of this section, the lands shall equal or exceed
the standards during the growing season of the last year of the
responsibility period.
(3) The division may approve selective husbandry practices,
excluding augmented seeding, fertilization, or irrigation, without
extending the period of responsibility for revegetation success and
bond liability, if such practices can be expected to continue as
part of the postmining land use or if discontinuance of the
practices after the liability period expires will not reduce the
probability of permanent revegetation success. Approved practices
shall be normal
[[Page 36597]]
conservation practices within the region for unmined lands having
land uses similar to the approved postmining land use of the
disturbed area, including such practices as disease, pest, and
vermin control; and any pruning, reseeding and/or transplanting
specifically necessitated by such actions.
In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that the deletion of the
September 30, 2004, termination date at subparts (c)(2)(ii) is intended
to reflect the deletion of that same termination date at subsection
510(e) of SMCRA.
We find that the deletion of the termination date of September 30,
2004, renders 4 VAC 25-130-816.116(c)(2)(ii) and 817.116(c)(2)(ii)
consistent with and no less stringent than Sec. 510(e) of SMCRA and
can be approved.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative
Record Number VA-1068) and no comments were received.
Federal Agency Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, on
February 22, 2007, we requested comments on the amendments from various
Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Virginia
program (Administrative Record Number VA-1060). The United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management responded and
stated that they found no inconsistencies with the proposed changes and
the Federal Laws, which govern mining. The United States Department of
Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration responded and stated that
there did not seem to be any conflicts with the changes and deemed the
changes appropriate. The United States Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service responded and stated that no impacts to Federally
listed or proposed species or Federally designated critical habitat
will occur and was in agreement with the changes made.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that
relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that Virginia proposed to
make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(II)(i), we requested comments on the
amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record number VA-1060). No
comments were received.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we are approving the amendment sent to
us by Virginia on February 13, 2007. To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 946, which codify
decisions concerning the Virginia program. We find that good cause
exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective
immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program
demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the
provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this regulation
effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires
consistency of State and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the
analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The
revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal
counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they
do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the
fact that the provisions are administrative and procedural in nature
and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated
industry.
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule
meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that
section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual
language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because
each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State
regulatory program and does not involve Federal regulations involving
Indian lands.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) Considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
[[Page 36598]]
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that
agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that a portion of the
provisions in this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because they are based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and
certification made that such regulations would not have a significant
economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making
the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant
economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions
for the counterpart Federal regulations. The Department of the Interior
also certifies that the provisions in this rule that are not based upon
counterpart Federal regulations will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This determination is based on
the fact that the provisions are administrative and procedural in
nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the
regulated industry.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion
of the State provisions are based upon counterpart Federal regulations
for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the
Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. For the portion of
the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal
regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State
provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not
expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of
the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and
a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that is not
based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based
upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and
procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect
on the regulated industry.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 946
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 29, 2007.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Appalachian Region.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Part 946 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 946--VIRGINIA
0
1. The authority citation for part 946 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 946.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 946.15 Approval of Virginia regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission Date of final
date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
February 13, 2007............ July 5, 2007..... 4 VAC 25-130-
785.25(c)(deleted); 4
VAC 25-130-816.116
and
817.116(c)(2)(ii).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-12979 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
