Alabama Regulatory Program, 54679-54682 [E8-22171]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
■
2008–19–11 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment
39–15678; Docket No. FAA–2008–0461;
Directorate Identifier 2008–NE–14–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD)
becomes effective October 8, 2008.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A.
Arrius 2B1, 2B1A, 2B2, and 2K1 turboshaft
engines. These engines are installed on, but
not limited to, Eurocopter Deutschland
GmbH EC135, and Agusta S.p.A. A109E
helicopters.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Reason
(d) European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD No. 2008–0018, dated January 24,
2008, states:
A short circuit of some tantalum capacitors
inside certain electronic control (EEC) units
may lead to an in-flight shutdown on one of
the two engines resulting from:
—Direct activation of the overspeed
electronic protection;
—Non-direct activation of the electronic
overspeed protection by lowering the
threshold;
—Spurious activation of the starting
sequence; or
—Loss of power control with no freeze of the
fuel-metering valve.
This AD requires identifying, and replacing
or modifying affected EEC units that have
tantalum capacitors installed that could have
become brittle during their acceptance test.
We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight
engine shutdowns and possible forced
autorotation landing or accident.
Actions and Compliance
(e) Unless already done, within the next
100 flight hours or 2 months, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
do the following actions:
(1) Identify the EEC units as listed in
Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. 319 73 2835, Update No. 1, dated
December 21, 2006; and
(2) For affected EECs, modify or replace the
EEC units using the instructions of
Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. 319 73 2835, Update No. 1, dated
December 21, 2006.
(3) After the effective date of this AD, do
not install an EEC with a serial number listed
in Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. 319 73 2835, Update No. 1,
dated December 21, 2006 on any helicopter,
unless it has been modified using the
instructions of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. 319 73 2835, Update No.
1, dated December 21, 2006.
FAA AD Differences
(f) This AD requires modification or
replacement of both EECs if both EECs are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:35 Sep 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
affected on the same helicopter, whereas
MCAI EASA AD 2008–0018, dated January
24, 2008, requires modification of at least one
EEC, if both EECs are affected, and
modification or replacement of the remaining
EEC, within 300 flight hours or 12 months,
whichever occurs first.
(g) This AD immediately prohibits
installation of any EECs that are affected,
whereas MCAI EASA AD 2008–0018, dated
January 24, 2008, prohibits installation of
those EECs after February 7, 2009.
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Related Information
(i) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2008–0018,
dated January 24, 2008 for related
information.
(j) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov;
telephone (781) 238–7176; fax (781) 238–
7199, for more information about this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(k) You must use Turbomeca S.A.
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 319 73 2835,
Update No. 1, dated December 21, 2006, to
do the actions required by this AD.
(l) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference of
this service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(m) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220
Tarnos, France; telephone 33 05 59 74 40 00,
fax 33 05 59 74 45 15.
(n) You may review copies at the FAA,
New England Region, Office of the Regional
Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go
to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/
cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
September 11, 2008.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–21834 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 901
[SATS No. AL–074–FOR; Docket No. OSM–
2008–0015]
Alabama Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54679
Final rule; approval of
amendment.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to
the Alabama regulatory program
(Alabama program) under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA or the Act). At its own
initiative, Alabama proposed revisions
to its regulations regarding permit fees
and civil penalties to improve
operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective Date: September 23,
2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham
Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290–
7282. E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Alabama 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 Alabama Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its State program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) conditionally approved the
Alabama program on May 20, 1982. You
can find background information on the
Alabama program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of
approval, in the May 20, 1982, Federal
Register (47 FR 22030). You can find
later actions on the Alabama program at
30 CFR 901.10, 901.15, and 901.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated July 18, 2008
(Administrative Record No. AL–0658),
and at its own initiative, Alabama sent
us an amendment to its program under
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The
amendment also included changes to its
regulations regarding permit fees and
civil penalties.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the August 8,
2008, Federal Register (73 FR 46213). In
the same document, we opened the
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
54680
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
public comment period and provided an
opportunity for a public hearing or
meeting on the adequacy of the
amendment. We did not hold a public
hearing or meeting because no one
requested one. The public comment
period ended on September 8, 2008. We
did not receive any comments.
reviewing, administering, and enforcing
the permit.
We find that Alabama’s proposed
permit fees are reasonable and are
consistent with the discretionary
authority provided by the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 777.17. Therefore,
we are approving them.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
III. OSM’s Findings
B. ASMC 880–X–11D–.06.
Determination of Amount of Penalty
To help offset increased costs of
agency operations, Alabama proposed to
increase the dollar amounts of its civil
penalties. The current penalties begin
with $20 and increase to a maximum
penalty of $5,000. The revised penalties
begin with $150 and increase to a
maximum penalty of $5,000.
Section 518(i) of SMCRA requires that
the civil penalty provisions of each
State program contain penalties which
are ‘‘no less stringent than’’ those set
forth in SMCRA. Our regulations at 30
CFR 840.13(a) specify that each State
program shall contain penalties which
are no less stringent than those set forth
in section 518 of the Act and that they
be consistent with 30 CFR part 845.
However, in a 1980 decision on OSM’s
regulations governing civil monetary
penalties (CMPs), the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia held that
because section 518 of SMCRA fails to
enumerate a point system for assessing
civil penalties, the imposition of this
requirement upon the States is
inconsistent with SMCRA. In response
to the Secretary’s request for
clarification, the Court further stated
that it could not uphold requiring the
States to impose penalties as stringent
as those appearing in 30 CFR 845.15.
Instead, section 518(i) of the Act
requires only the incorporation of
penalties and procedures explained in
section 518. The system proposed by the
State must incorporate the four criteria
of section 518(a) of SMCRA: (1) History
of previous violations, (2) seriousness of
the violation, (3) negligence of the
permittee, and (4) good faith of the
permittee in attempting to achieve
compliance. As a result of the litigation,
30 CFR 840.13(a) was suspended in part
on August 4, 1980 (45 FR 51548) by
suspending the requirement that
penalties shall be consistent with 30
CFR part 845. Consequently, we cannot
require that the CMP provisions
contained in a State’s regulatory
program mirror the penalty provisions
of our regulations at 30 CFR 845.14 and
845.15.
We are approving Alabama’s revised
penalties because when determining the
amount of the civil penalty, ASMC 880–
X–11D uses the four criteria specified in
the Federal statute at section 518(a).
On August 12 and 21, 2008, 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 Alabama program
(Administrative Record No. AL–0658–
01). We did not receive any comments.
Following are the findings we made
concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment to the
Alabama Surface Mining Commission
(ASMC) regulations as described below.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
A. ASMC 880–X–8B–.07. Permit Fees
Alabama stated that its permit fees
have remained unchanged for 26 years
while the costs of reviewing,
administering, and enforcing permits
have increased substantially over this
time. As a result, Alabama proposed to
revise its regulations at ASMC 880–X–
8B–.07 by:
(1) Increasing the acreage fee from $25
to $35 per acre for each acre in a permit,
(2) Requiring an acreage fee on all
‘‘bonded’’ acreage covered in a permit
renewal instead of on ‘‘all’’ acreage in a
permit renewal, and
(3) Increasing the basic fees for the
following types of applications:
(a) Permit application—the fee
increases from $2500 to $5000,
(b) Coal exploration application—the
fee increases from $1000 to $2000,
(c) Permit renewal—the fee increases
from $500 to $1000,
(d) Permit transfer—the fee increases
from $100 to $200,
(e) Permit revision involving only an
incidental boundary revision—the fee
increases from $250 to $500,
(f) Permit revision involving an
insignificant alteration to the mining
and reclamation plan—the fee increases
from $750 to $1500, and
(g) Permit revision involving a
significant alteration to the mining and
reclamation plan—the fee increases
from $1500 to $3000.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR
777.17, concerning permit fees, provide
that applications for surface coal mining
permits must be accompanied by a fee
determined by the regulatory authority.
The Federal regulations also provide
that the fees may be less than, but not
more than the actual or anticipated cost
of reviewing, administering, and
enforcing the permit. In its letter dated
July 18, 2008 (Administrative Record
No. AL–0658), Alabama advised us that
the increase in the permit fees will not
exceed the actual or anticipated costs of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:35 Sep 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment, but did not receive any.
Federal Agency Comments
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 Alabama
proposed to make in this amendment
pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur
on the amendment.
On date, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested
comments on the amendment from EPA
(Administrative Record No. AL–0658–
01). EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historical Preservation Officer
(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are
required to request comments from the
SHPO and ACHP on amendments that
may have an effect on historic
properties. On August 12, 2008, we
requested comments on Alabama’s
amendment (Administrative Record No.
AL–0658–01), but neither responded to
our request.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve the amendment Alabama sent
us on July 18, 2008.
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR part 901, which codify decisions
concerning the Alabama program. We
find that good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule
effective immediately. Section 503(a) of
SMCRA requires that the State’s
program demonstrate that the State has
the capability of carrying out the
provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective
immediately will expedite that process.
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:35 Sep 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 Alabama program does not
regulate coal exploration and surface
coal mining and reclamation operations
on Indian lands. Therefore, the Alabama
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)).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54681
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.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 901
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: September 12, 2008.
Alfred E. Whitehouse,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent
Region.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 901 is amended
as set forth below:
■
PART 901—ALABAMA
1. The authority citation for part 901
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 901.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
■
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
54682
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
§ 901.15 Approval of Alabama regulatory
program amendments.
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
Original amendment
submission date
Date of final publication
*
July 18, 2008 .........
*
*
*
September 23, 2008 ...............................................................
Citation/description
*
*
ASMC 880–X–8B–.07 and 880–X–11D–.06.
*
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
rule, call Judy Leung-Yee, Project
Officer, First Coast Guard District, at
(212) 668–7165. If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826.
Coast Guard
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Loop
Parkway Bridge, across Long Creek at
mile 0.7, at Nassau County, New York,
has a vertical clearance in the closed
position of 21 feet at mean high water
and 25 feet at mean low water. The
existing drawbridge operation
regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.799(f).
The waterway has seasonal
recreational vessels and fishing vessels
of various sizes. The facilities were
notified regarding this closure and no
objections were received.
The owner of the bridge, New York
State Department of Transportation,
requested a temporary deviation to
facilitate electrical maintenance at the
bridge.
Under this temporary deviation the
Loop Parkway Bridge at mile 0.7, across
Long Creek, may remain in the closed
position between 8:20 a.m. and 11:20
a.m. on September 22, 2008 and
September 23, 2008. In the event of
inclement weather the alternate rain
dates are September 29, 2008 and
September 30, 2008. Vessels that can
pass under the bridge without a bridge
opening may do so at all times.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the bridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the designated time period. This
deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
[Docket No. USCG–2008–0320]
[FR Doc. E8–22171 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
33 CFR Part 117
[USCG–2008–0896]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to
Shinnecock Canal, Nassau County, NY,
Maintenance
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation
from regulations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast
Guard District, has issued a temporary
deviation from the regulations
governing the operation of the Loop
Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long
Creek, Nassau County, New York. Under
this temporary deviation the bridge may
remain in the closed position for three
hours on two days to facilitate bridge
maintenance.
This deviation is effective from
8:20 a.m. on September 22, 2008
through 11:20 a.m. on September 30,
2008.
DATES:
Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket USCG–2008–
0896 and are available online at
www.regulations.gov. They are also
available for inspection or copying at
two locations: The Docket Management
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays,
and the First Coast Guard District,
Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic
Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110,
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:35 Sep 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Dated: September 11, 2008.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8–22156 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; IJSBA World Finals;
Colorado River, Lake Havasu City, AZ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing a safety zone on the
navigable waters of Lake Havasu on the
lower Colorado River in support of the
IJSBA World Finals. This safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of the
participants, crew, spectators,
participating vessels, and other vessels
and users of the waterway. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through, or anchoring
within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m.
on October 4, 2008, until 6 p.m. on
October 12, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, are part
of docket USCG–2008–0320 and are
available online at https://
www.regulations.gov. This material is
also available for inspection or copying
at two locations: the Docket
Management Facility (M–30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays and the U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, 2710 N.
Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
rule, call Petty Officer Kristen Beer,
USCG, Waterways Management, U.S.
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54679-54682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22171]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 901
[SATS No. AL-074-FOR; Docket No. OSM-2008-0015]
Alabama Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Alabama regulatory program
(Alabama program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). At its own initiative, Alabama proposed
revisions to its regulations regarding permit fees and civil penalties
to improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham
Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290-7282. E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Alabama 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 Alabama Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its State program includes, among other things, ``a State law which
provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the
Secretary pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
conditionally approved the Alabama program on May 20, 1982. You can
find background information on the Alabama program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions
of approval, in the May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 22030). You
can find later actions on the Alabama program at 30 CFR 901.10, 901.15,
and 901.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated July 18, 2008 (Administrative Record No. AL-0658),
and at its own initiative, Alabama sent us an amendment to its program
under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The amendment also included
changes to its regulations regarding permit fees and civil penalties.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the August 8,
2008, Federal Register (73 FR 46213). In the same document, we opened
the
[[Page 54680]]
public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing
or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public
hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment
period ended on September 8, 2008. We did not receive any comments.
III. OSM's Findings
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment to the Alabama Surface Mining Commission (ASMC)
regulations as described below.
A. ASMC 880-X-8B-.07. Permit Fees
Alabama stated that its permit fees have remained unchanged for 26
years while the costs of reviewing, administering, and enforcing
permits have increased substantially over this time. As a result,
Alabama proposed to revise its regulations at ASMC 880-X-8B-.07 by:
(1) Increasing the acreage fee from $25 to $35 per acre for each
acre in a permit, (2) Requiring an acreage fee on all ``bonded''
acreage covered in a permit renewal instead of on ``all'' acreage in a
permit renewal, and
(3) Increasing the basic fees for the following types of
applications:
(a) Permit application--the fee increases from $2500 to $5000,
(b) Coal exploration application--the fee increases from $1000 to
$2000,
(c) Permit renewal--the fee increases from $500 to $1000,
(d) Permit transfer--the fee increases from $100 to $200,
(e) Permit revision involving only an incidental boundary
revision--the fee increases from $250 to $500,
(f) Permit revision involving an insignificant alteration to the
mining and reclamation plan--the fee increases from $750 to $1500, and
(g) Permit revision involving a significant alteration to the
mining and reclamation plan--the fee increases from $1500 to $3000.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 777.17, concerning permit fees,
provide that applications for surface coal mining permits must be
accompanied by a fee determined by the regulatory authority. The
Federal regulations also provide that the fees may be less than, but
not more than the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing,
administering, and enforcing the permit. In its letter dated July 18,
2008 (Administrative Record No. AL-0658), Alabama advised us that the
increase in the permit fees will not exceed the actual or anticipated
costs of reviewing, administering, and enforcing the permit.
We find that Alabama's proposed permit fees are reasonable and are
consistent with the discretionary authority provided by the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 777.17. Therefore, we are approving them.
B. ASMC 880-X-11D-.06. Determination of Amount of Penalty
To help offset increased costs of agency operations, Alabama
proposed to increase the dollar amounts of its civil penalties. The
current penalties begin with $20 and increase to a maximum penalty of
$5,000. The revised penalties begin with $150 and increase to a maximum
penalty of $5,000.
Section 518(i) of SMCRA requires that the civil penalty provisions
of each State program contain penalties which are ``no less stringent
than'' those set forth in SMCRA. Our regulations at 30 CFR 840.13(a)
specify that each State program shall contain penalties which are no
less stringent than those set forth in section 518 of the Act and that
they be consistent with 30 CFR part 845. However, in a 1980 decision on
OSM's regulations governing civil monetary penalties (CMPs), the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia held that because section
518 of SMCRA fails to enumerate a point system for assessing civil
penalties, the imposition of this requirement upon the States is
inconsistent with SMCRA. In response to the Secretary's request for
clarification, the Court further stated that it could not uphold
requiring the States to impose penalties as stringent as those
appearing in 30 CFR 845.15. Instead, section 518(i) of the Act requires
only the incorporation of penalties and procedures explained in section
518. The system proposed by the State must incorporate the four
criteria of section 518(a) of SMCRA: (1) History of previous
violations, (2) seriousness of the violation, (3) negligence of the
permittee, and (4) good faith of the permittee in attempting to achieve
compliance. As a result of the litigation, 30 CFR 840.13(a) was
suspended in part on August 4, 1980 (45 FR 51548) by suspending the
requirement that penalties shall be consistent with 30 CFR part 845.
Consequently, we cannot require that the CMP provisions contained in a
State's regulatory program mirror the penalty provisions of our
regulations at 30 CFR 845.14 and 845.15.
We are approving Alabama's revised penalties because when
determining the amount of the civil penalty, ASMC 880-X-11D uses the
four criteria specified in the Federal statute at section 518(a).
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
On August 12 and 21, 2008, 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
Alabama program (Administrative Record No. AL-0658-01). We did not
receive any comments.
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 Alabama proposed to make in this
amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did
not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
On date, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on
the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. AL-0658-01). EPA did
not respond to our request.
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. On August 12, 2008, we requested comments on Alabama's
amendment (Administrative Record No. AL-0658-01), but neither responded
to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Alabama sent
us on July 18, 2008.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 901, which codify decisions concerning the Alabama
program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to
make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA
requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that
process.
[[Page 54681]]
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.
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 Alabama program does
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Alabama 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.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 901
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: September 12, 2008.
Alfred E. Whitehouse,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 901 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 901--ALABAMA
0
1. The authority citation for part 901 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 901.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
[[Page 54682]]
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 901.15 Approval of Alabama regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission Date of final Citation/
date publication description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
July 18, 2008................ September 23, 2008.. ASMC 880-X-8B-.07
and 880-X-11D-.06.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E8-22171 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
