Alabama Regulatory Program, 9642-9646 [2011-3907]

Download as PDF 9642 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Annual Update of Filing Fees in Part 381; Annual Update of Filing Fees The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing this Final Rule to update filing fees that the Commission assesses for specific services and benefits provided to identifiable beneficiaries. Pursuant to 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission is establishing updated fees on the basis of the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2010 costs. The adjusted fees announced in this notice are effective March 24, 2011. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this Final Rule is not a major rule within the meaning of section 251 of Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission is submitting this Final Rule to both houses of the United States Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The new fee schedule is as follows: FEES APPLICABLE TO THE NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT 1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR 284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 381.403) ................................ 4. Written legal interpretations by the Office of General Counsel. (18 CFR 381.305(a)) $6,750. FEES APPLICABLE TO NATURAL GAS PIPELINES BILLING CODE 6717–01–P $1,000.* DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR * This fee has not been changed. FEES APPLICABLE TO COGENERATORS AND SMALL POWER PRODUCERS [SATS No. AL–075–FOR; Docket No. OSM– 2010–0009] $20,240. 22,920. List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381 Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Charles H. Schneider, Executive Director. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 381, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. 1. The authority citation for Part 381 continues to read as follows: ■ $23,540. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w; 16 U.S.C. 791–828c, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1–85. § 381.302 2. Review of a Department of Energy remedial order: AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY $0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) $10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) ............................ $10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) ............................ $30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a)) ............................ 600 34,370 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES 16:03 Feb 18, 2011 [Amended] ■ § 381.304 [Amended] 4. In 381.304, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ‘‘$17,710’’ and adding ‘‘$18,020’’ in its place. ■ § 381.305 [Amended] 5. In 381.305, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ‘‘$6,640’’ and adding ‘‘$6,750’’ in its place. ■ AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY VerDate Mar<15>2010 2. In 381.302, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ‘‘$23,140’’ and adding ‘‘$23,540’’ in its place. 3. In 381.303, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ‘‘$33,780’’ and 600 adding ‘‘$34,370’’ in its place. 3. Review of a Department of Energy denial of adjustment: $0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) $10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) ............................ $30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a)) ............................ [Amended] ■ § 381.303 $100 $100 § 381.403 600 [Amended] 6. Section 381.403 is amended by 18,020 removing ‘‘$11,520’’ and adding ‘‘$11,720’’ in its place. Jkt 223001 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 901 1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power production facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ............................ 2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ............. PART 381—FEES 1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except under Part I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR 381.302(a)) .... [Amended] 7. In 381.505, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ‘‘$19,900’’ and adding ‘‘$20,240’’ in its place and by removing ‘‘$22,530’’ and adding ‘‘$22,920’’ in its place. ■ [FR Doc. 2011–3811 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR 284.224. (18 CFR 381.207(b)) ............................ $11,720. FEES APPLICABLE TO GENERAL ACTIVITIES § 381.505 ■ PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Alabama Regulatory Program Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment. AGENCY: 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). Alabama proposed revisions to its regulations regarding their Surface Mining Commission, who is eligible to apply for and obtain a mining license, Hearing Officers, license fees, and several minor editorial changes throughout the document such as changing ‘‘him’’ to ‘‘him or her’’ and ‘‘chairman’’ to ‘‘chair.’’ Alabama revised its program to improve operational efficiency. DATES: Effective Date: February 22, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290– 7280. E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: 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 program includes, among other things, ‘‘a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the E:\FR\FM\22FER1.SGM 22FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 Alabama program effective 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 of the Alabama program in the May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 22030). You can also find later actions concerning the Alabama program and program amendments at 30 CFR 901.10, 901.15, and 901.16. II. Submission of the Amendment By letter dated May 12, 2010 (Administrative Record No. AL–661), and revised on July 14, 2010 (Administrative Record No. AL–661– 006), Alabama sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Alabama sent the amendment at its own initiative. We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September 30, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 60371). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on November 1, 2010. mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES III. OSM’s Findings The following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment as described below. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes. A. Alabama Code § 9–16–73 Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–73(a) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–73(b). This change adds the requirements that members of the seven member Commission reflect the racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural and economic diversity of the state. This seven member board appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:03 Feb 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 the Alabama State Senate is, pursuant to the approved state program, vested with the power and authority to implement the state Title V program acting through its director and staff. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–73(c) through (f) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–73(g). This change authorizes the Commission to meet once every month rather than once every 30 days as previously required. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–73(h) through (j) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. B. Alabama Code § 9–16–74 Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–74(1) through (3) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–74(4). This addition allows the Commission to promulgate rules and regulations charging reasonable fees for administration of these blasting rules, regulations, and standards including, but not limited to, fees for certifications, renewals, and continuing education for certified blaster applicants. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 9643 program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–74(5) through (22) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. C. Alabama Code § 9–16–77 Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–77(a) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–77(b). This change amends existing provisions for the hiring or contracting with Hearing Officers to preside over administrative appeals of agency actions, continues the existing requirements that Hearing Officers be members in good standing with the Alabama State Bar and have no direct or indirect interests in a surface or underground coal mine operation, and adds a prohibition against hearing officers having been employed by or having represented a coal mine operator within the previous 24 months. This section corresponds to 30 CFR 705.1. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record. We find the amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. D. Alabama Code § 9–16–78 Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–78(a) through (c) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–78(d). This change deletes an existing provision of law that Hearing Officer facilities be located in a facility apart from Commission offices. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal E:\FR\FM\22FER1.SGM 22FER1 9644 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES E. Alabama Code § 9–16–81 Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–81(a) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–81(b). This change amends the existing license statute to require that only citizens of the United States or persons legally present in the United States with appropriate documentation from the Federal government and that possess a mining license may engage in surface coal mining operations within Alabama. Additionally, several minor editorial changes were made. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–81(c) and (d) with several minor editorial changes. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–81(f). This change modifies existing law to remove a fixed $1,000 fee and allow the Commission to establish by rule the initial fee for a mining license and annual license update fees. Such fees must be reasonable in amount. Additionally, several minor editorial changes were made. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record. There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama’s program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. F. Alabama Code § 9–16–93 Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–93(b). This change deletes a requirement of existing law that cessation orders alleging imminent harm or danger include a citation for an expeditious hearing before an administrative hearing officer. The amendment conforms the Alabama Statute to the requirements of the corresponding Federal SMCRA VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:03 Feb 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 provisions. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record. We find that the changes to this section make Alabama’s program no less effective than its Federal counterparts at 30 CFR 840.13(b). Therefore, we are approving them. Alabama revised its code at Section 9–16–93(c) through (f) with several minor editorial changes. We find that the changes in Alabama’s program are no less stringent than its Federal counterparts at 30 U.S.C. 1271 (a)(2). Therefore, we are approving them. IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments We asked for public comments on the amendment and received one concerning the proposed changes to Alabama Code § 9–16–73 with respect to the Alabama program requiring that members of the seven member Alabama Surface Mining Commission reflect the racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural and economic diversity of the state. The commenter objected to using gender and race as a basis for the selection by the Alabama governor of future members of the Commission. That commenter asserted ‘‘[t]here is no justification for discrimination in this particular context.’’ The commenter opined, ‘‘the best qualified individuals should be selected, without regard to race, ethnicity, or sex,’’ and requested that the words ‘‘racial’’ and ‘‘gender’’ be deleted from the proposed change to the Alabama program.. The commenter cited three decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court [Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995); Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982); Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)] and one Federal statute [Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.] in support of his objection and request. However, the cases relied upon by the commenter do not make it unconstitutional for the Governor of Alabama to appoint people to the Commission who reflect the racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural and economic diversity of the state. In fact, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena specifically holds, ‘‘government is not disqualified from acting in response to the persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in the United States.’’ Rather than outlawing affirmative action as the commenter suggests, the Supreme Court PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 requires that provisions like the one Alabama is proposing be narrowly tailored to further compelling government interests. The State of Alabama has decided that it has a compelling government interest in having the Alabama Surface Mining Commission reflect the racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural and economic diversity of the state. In reviewing proposed amendments to the approved Alabama regulatory program, OSM does not second-guess the State’s determinations about its compelling government interests. OSM’s task is to determine whether the proposed regulatory changes render the Alabama program less effective than the Federal standards established by Congress. We have determined the proposed changes will not make the Alabama program less effective and we are therefore approving them. Federal Agency Comments On July 28, 2010, 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–661.07). 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. However, on July 28, 2010, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments from the EPA on the amendment (Administrative Record No. AL–661.07). The EPA did not respond to our request. State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On July 28, 2010, we requested comments on Alabama’s amendment (Administrative Record No. AL–661.07), but neither responded to our request. E:\FR\FM\22FER1.SGM 22FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations V. OSM’s Decision Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Alabama sent us on May 12, 2010 and revised on July 14, 2010. 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. 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. mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:03 Feb 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 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. 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.). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 9645 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. E:\FR\FM\22FER1.SGM 22FER1 9646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Dated: December 23, 2010. Ervin J. Barchenger, Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. ■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Part 901 is amended as set forth below: ■ Original amendment submission date chronological order by ‘‘Date of final publication’’ to read as follows: PART 901—ALABAMA 1. The authority citation for Part 901 continues to read as follows: § 901.15 Approval of Alabama regulatory program amendments. Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. * 2. Section 901.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in Date of final publication 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900–AN65 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Copayments for Medications After June 30, 2010 Coast Guard Department of Veterans Affairs. Final rule. AGENCY: 33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165 ACTION: [USCG–2010–0399] SUMMARY: Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of expired temporary rules issued; correction. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard published a document in the Federal Register of February 9, 2011, concerning the expiration of temporary rules. The document contained an incorrect docket number. DATES: Effective February 22, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice contact Yeoman First Class Denise Johnson, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372–3862. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES Correction In the Federal Register of February 9, 2011, in FR Vol. 76, No. 27, on page 7107, in the second column, correct the docket number [USCG–2011–0399] to read [USCG–2010–0399]. Dated: February 10, 2011. K.A. Sinniger, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law. [FR Doc. 2011–3867 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:03 Feb 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 This document affirms as final an interim final rule that froze until January 1, 2012, the copayment required for certain medications. Under those amendments, the copayment amount for veterans in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, enrollment priority categories 2 through 6, will remain at $8 and the copayment amount for veterans in enrollment priority categories 7 and 8 will remain at $9. The maximum annual copayment amount will also not increase. On January 1, 2012, the copayment amounts will increase based on the prescription drug component of the Medical Consumer Price Index (CPI– P). When the copayment increases, the maximum annual copayment amount automatically increases in turn. DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on February 22, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roscoe Butler, Acting Director, Business Policy, Chief Business Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, Washington, DC 20420, 202–461–1586. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 U.S.C. 1722A(a), VA must require veterans to pay a $2 copayment for each 30-day supply of medication furnished on an outpatient basis for the treatment of a nonservice-connected disability or condition. Under 38 U.S.C. 1722A(b), VA may, by regulation, increase that copayment and establish a maximum annual copayment (a ‘‘cap’’). We interpret section 1722A(b) to mean that PO 00000 * * * * * * ASMCRA sections 9–16–73; 9–16–74; 9–16–77; 9–16–78; 9–16–81(a) through (d) and (f); and 9–16–93(b) through (f). DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BILLING CODE 4310–05–P * Citation/description * * * January 5, 2010 ................... February 22, 2011 .............. [FR Doc. 2011–3907 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] * Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 VA has discretion to determine the appropriate copayment amount and annual cap amount for medication furnished on an outpatient basis for covered treatment, provided that any decision by VA to increase the copayment amount or annual cap amount is the subject of a rulemaking proceeding. We have implemented this statute in 38 CFR 17.110. On June 9, 2010, we published a final rule that affirmed as final an interim final rule that amended § 17.110 to ‘‘freeze’’ at $8 the copayment required for prescription medications through June 30, 2010. 75 FR 32668. Also on June 9, 2010, we published an interim final rule amending § 17.110 such that the copayment amounts are fixed at $8 for veterans in enrollment priority categories 2 through 6 of VA’s health care system, and at $9 for veterans in priority categories 7 and 8 through December 31, 2011. 75 FR 32670. Any changes to these copayment amounts that would take effect after December 31, 2011, would be based on changes to the CPI–P, as described in § 17.110(b)(1)(iv). In addition, § 17.110(b)(2) includes a cap on the total amount of copayments in a calendar year for a veteran enrolled in one of VA’s health care enrollment system priority categories 2 through 6. The amount of the cap for the period from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2011 is fixed at $960. Also under paragraph (b)(2), the ‘‘cap of $960 shall be increased by $120 for each $1 increase in the copayment amount.’’ In the June 9, 2010, interim final rule, we cited the previous interim final rule published on December 31, 2009 (adopted without change as a final rule on June 9, 2010 (75 FR 32668)), in which we stated that we had concerns about increasing copayments under the methodology in current 38 CFR 17.110(b)(1)(iv). 75 FR 32670. We stated that we needed ‘‘time to determine whether an increase [in copayments] E:\FR\FM\22FER1.SGM 22FER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9642-9646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3907]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 901

[SATS No. AL-075-FOR; Docket No. OSM-2010-0009]


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). Alabama proposed revisions to its 
regulations regarding their Surface Mining Commission, who is eligible 
to apply for and obtain a mining license, Hearing Officers, license 
fees, and several minor editorial changes throughout the document such 
as changing ``him'' to ``him or her'' and ``chairman'' to ``chair.'' 
Alabama revised its program to improve operational efficiency.

DATES: Effective Date: February 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham 
Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290-7280. 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 program includes, among other things, ``a State law which provides 
for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in 
accordance with the

[[Page 9643]]

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 Alabama program 
effective 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 of the Alabama program in the 
May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 22030). You can also find later 
actions concerning the Alabama program and program amendments at 30 CFR 
901.10, 901.15, and 901.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated May 12, 2010 (Administrative Record No. AL-661), 
and revised on July 14, 2010 (Administrative Record No. AL-661-006), 
Alabama sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 
et seq.). Alabama sent the amendment at its own initiative.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September 30, 
2010, Federal Register (75 FR 60371). In the same document, we opened 
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public 
hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a 
public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public 
comment period ended on November 1, 2010.

III. OSM's Findings

    The following are the findings we made concerning the amendment 
under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We 
are approving the amendment as described below. Any revisions that we 
do not specifically discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or 
editorial changes.

A. Alabama Code Sec.  9-16-73

    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-73(a) with several minor 
editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-73(b). This change adds 
the requirements that members of the seven member Commission reflect 
the racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural and economic diversity of 
the state. This seven member board appointed by the Governor with the 
advice and consent of the Alabama State Senate is, pursuant to the 
approved state program, vested with the power and authority to 
implement the state Title V program acting through its director and 
staff. The full text of the changes is available in the Administrative 
Record.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-73(c) through (f) with 
several minor editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-73(g). This change 
authorizes the Commission to meet once every month rather than once 
every 30 days as previously required. The full text of the changes is 
available in the Administrative Record.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-73(h) through (j) with 
several minor editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.

B. Alabama Code Sec.  9-16-74

    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-74(1) through (3) with 
several minor editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-74(4). This addition 
allows the Commission to promulgate rules and regulations charging 
reasonable fees for administration of these blasting rules, 
regulations, and standards including, but not limited to, fees for 
certifications, renewals, and continuing education for certified 
blaster applicants. The full text of the changes is available in the 
Administrative Record. There is no Federal counterpart to this section 
and we find the amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's 
program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are 
approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-74(5) through (22) with 
several minor editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.

C. Alabama Code Sec.  9-16-77

    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-77(a) with several minor 
editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-77(b). This change amends 
existing provisions for the hiring or contracting with Hearing Officers 
to preside over administrative appeals of agency actions, continues the 
existing requirements that Hearing Officers be members in good standing 
with the Alabama State Bar and have no direct or indirect interests in 
a surface or underground coal mine operation, and adds a prohibition 
against hearing officers having been employed by or having represented 
a coal mine operator within the previous 24 months. This section 
corresponds to 30 CFR 705.1. The full text of the changes is available 
in the Administrative Record.
    We find the amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama's 
program less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are 
approving it.

D. Alabama Code Sec.  9-16-78

    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-78(a) through (c) with 
several minor editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-78(d). This change deletes 
an existing provision of law that Hearing Officer facilities be located 
in a facility apart from Commission offices. The full text of the 
changes is available in the Administrative Record.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal

[[Page 9644]]

regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.

E. Alabama Code Sec.  9-16-81

    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-81(a) with several minor 
editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-81(b). This change amends 
the existing license statute to require that only citizens of the 
United States or persons legally present in the United States with 
appropriate documentation from the Federal government and that possess 
a mining license may engage in surface coal mining operations within 
Alabama. Additionally, several minor editorial changes were made. The 
full text of the changes is available in the Administrative Record.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. 
Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-81(c) and (d) with several 
minor editorial changes.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of these paragraphs does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-81(f). This change 
modifies existing law to remove a fixed $1,000 fee and allow the 
Commission to establish by rule the initial fee for a mining license 
and annual license update fees. Such fees must be reasonable in amount. 
Additionally, several minor editorial changes were made. The full text 
of the changes is available in the Administrative Record.
    There is no Federal counterpart to this section and we find the 
amendment of this paragraph does not make Alabama's program less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it.

F. Alabama Code Sec.  9-16-93

    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-93(b). This change deletes 
a requirement of existing law that cessation orders alleging imminent 
harm or danger include a citation for an expeditious hearing before an 
administrative hearing officer. The amendment conforms the Alabama 
Statute to the requirements of the corresponding Federal SMCRA 
provisions. The full text of the changes is available in the 
Administrative Record.
    We find that the changes to this section make Alabama's program no 
less effective than its Federal counterparts at 30 CFR 840.13(b). 
Therefore, we are approving them.
    Alabama revised its code at Section 9-16-93(c) through (f) with 
several minor editorial changes.
    We find that the changes in Alabama's program are no less stringent 
than its Federal counterparts at 30 U.S.C. 1271 (a)(2). Therefore, we 
are approving them.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment and received one 
concerning the proposed changes to Alabama Code Sec.  9-16-73 with 
respect to the Alabama program requiring that members of the seven 
member Alabama Surface Mining Commission reflect the racial, gender, 
geographic, urban/rural and economic diversity of the state. The 
commenter objected to using gender and race as a basis for the 
selection by the Alabama governor of future members of the Commission. 
That commenter asserted ``[t]here is no justification for 
discrimination in this particular context.'' The commenter opined, 
``the best qualified individuals should be selected, without regard to 
race, ethnicity, or sex,'' and requested that the words ``racial'' and 
``gender'' be deleted from the proposed change to the Alabama program..
    The commenter cited three decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court 
[Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995); 
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982); 
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)] and 
one Federal statute [Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 
2000e et seq.] in support of his objection and request. However, the 
cases relied upon by the commenter do not make it unconstitutional for 
the Governor of Alabama to appoint people to the Commission who reflect 
the racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural and economic diversity of 
the state.
    In fact, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena specifically holds, 
``government is not disqualified from acting in response to the 
persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial 
discrimination against minority groups in the United States.'' Rather 
than outlawing affirmative action as the commenter suggests, the 
Supreme Court requires that provisions like the one Alabama is 
proposing be narrowly tailored to further compelling government 
interests. The State of Alabama has decided that it has a compelling 
government interest in having the Alabama Surface Mining Commission 
reflect the racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural and economic 
diversity of the state.
    In reviewing proposed amendments to the approved Alabama regulatory 
program, OSM does not second-guess the State's determinations about its 
compelling government interests. OSM's task is to determine whether the 
proposed regulatory changes render the Alabama program less effective 
than the Federal standards established by Congress. We have determined 
the proposed changes will not make the Alabama program less effective 
and we are therefore approving them.

Federal Agency Comments

    On July 28, 2010, 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-661.07). 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. However, on 
July 28, 2010, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments 
from the EPA on the amendment (Administrative Record No. AL-661.07). 
The EPA did not respond to our request.

State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from 
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic 
properties. On July 28, 2010, we requested comments on Alabama's 
amendment (Administrative Record No. AL-661.07), but neither responded 
to our request.

[[Page 9645]]

V. OSM's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Alabama sent 
us on May 12, 2010 and revised on July 14, 2010.
    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. 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. 
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.

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.


[[Page 9646]]


    Dated: December 23, 2010.
Ervin J. Barchenger,
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

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 
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  901.15  Approval of Alabama regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Original amendment  submission date     Date of final  publication             Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
January 5, 2010.........................  February 22, 2011..........  ASMCRA sections 9-16-73; 9-16-74; 9-16-
                                                                        77; 9-16-78; 9-16-81(a) through (d) and
                                                                        (f); and 9-16-93(b) through (f).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-3907 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.