Indiana Regulatory Program, 41680-41685 [2012-17238]

Download as PDF 41680 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and has been transmitted to Congress and the Comptroller General for review. SUBCHAPTER F—FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act PART 2550—RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY 30 CFR Part 914 1. The authority citation for part 2550 continues to read as follows: Indiana Regulatory Program For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), as well as Executive Order 12875, the direct final rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation. 6. Federalism Statement Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999) outlines fundamental principles of federalism, and requires the adherence to specific criteria by Federal agencies in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The direct final rule does not have federalism implications because it has no substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 514 of ERISA provides, with certain exceptions specifically enumerated, that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA supersede any and all laws of the States as they relate to any employee benefit plan covered under ERISA. The requirements implemented in the direct final rule do not alter the fundamental reporting and disclosure requirements of the statute with respect to employee benefit plans, and, as such, have no implications for the States or the relationship or distribution of power between the national government and the States. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2550 Employee benefit plans, Exemptions, Fiduciaries, Investments, Pensions, Prohibited transactions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Securities. ■ Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135 and Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 6–2009, 74 FR § 21524 (May 7, 2009). Sec. 2550.401c–1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1101. Sec. 2550.404a–1 also issued under sec. 657, Pub. L. 107–16, 115 Stat. 38. Sections 2550.404c–1 and 2550.404c–5 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1104. Sec. 2550.408b–1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1108(b)(1) and sec. 102, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1. Sec. 2550.408b–19 also issued under sec. 611, Pub. L. 109–280, 120 Stat. 780, 972, and sec. 102, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1. Sec. 2550.412–1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1112. 2. Section 2550.408b–2 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(ix)(F) to read as follows: ■ § 2550.408b–2 General statutory exemption for services or office space. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (ix) * * * (F) The notice required by paragraph (c)(1)(ix)(C) of this section shall be furnished to the U.S. Department of Labor electronically in accordance with instructions published by the Department; or may be sent to the following address: U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Enforcement, P.O. Box 75296, Washington, DC 20013; and * * * * * Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of July 2012. Phyllis C. Borzi, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. [FR Doc. 2012–17013 Filed 7–13–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–29–P For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends chapter XXV, subchapter F, part 2550 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:23 Jul 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement [SATS No. IN–160–FOR; Docket ID: OSM– 2011–0008] 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 amendments to the Indiana regulatory program (Indiana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Indiana proposed to revise its rules concerning ownership and control provisions, periods of liability, performance bond release, revegetation standards, underground mining explosives, and cessation orders, to be no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations, to clarify ambiguities, and to improve operational efficiency. DATES: Effective Date: July 16, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division. Telephone: (317) 226–6700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Background on the Indiana 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 Indiana Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, ‘‘a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of 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 Indiana program effective July 29, 1982. You can find background information on the Indiana program, including the Secretary’s findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Indiana program in the July 26, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 32071). You can also find later actions concerning the Indiana program and program amendments at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17. II. Submission of the Amendment By letter dated May 25, 2011 (Administrative Record No. IND–1756), Indiana sent us an amendment to its Program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Indiana sent the amendment in response to a September 30, 2009, letter (Administrative Record No. IN–1755) we sent to Indiana in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c) concerning multiple changes to ownership and control requirements. Indiana also made changes to other sections of its regulations at its own initiative. Indiana proposed revisions to its Indiana Surface Mining Regulations found in Article 25, Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations. The specific sections of Article 25 in Indiana’s amendment are discussed in Part III OSM’s Findings. Indiana intends to revise its program to be no less effective than the Federal regulations and to improve operational efficiency. We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the July 11, 2011, Federal Register (76 FR 40649). 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 August 10, 2011. We did not receive any public comments. During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns in section 312 IAC 25–5–7(f) Period of liability. On August 29, 2011, we notified Indiana by phone (Administrative Record No. IND– 1759) of an incorrect reference in subsection 25–5–7(f). On September 6, 2011, we held a conference call to address the discrepancy in this section (Administrative Record No. IND–1760). Indiana officials confirmed that this was an incorrect reference and that they would correct the discrepancy through an errata process. By letter dated September 8, 2011 (Administrative Record No. IND–1761), we received notice from Indiana stating that the errata process was completed and the citation had been corrected. We did not reopen the comment period following the errata process because the change Indiana made was a minor reference correction and was not substantive in nature. Also during our review of the amendment, we identified concerns in section 312 IAC 25–5–16 Performance bond release; requirements. More VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:23 Jul 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 specifically, we had concerns with a portion of subsection (j)(2) relating to the phrase ‘‘an electronic or stenographic record shall be made unless waived by all parties.’’ We notified Indiana of our concern by letter dated December 21, 2011 (Administrative Record No. IND–1762). Indiana responded by letter on January 5, 2012 (Administrative Record No. IND–1763), stating that they would not submit revisions to this subsection at this time and that we should proceed with processing the amendment. Therefore, we are proceeding with the final rule Federal Register document. 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 with one exception as described below. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes can be found in the full text of the program amendment available at www.regulations.gov. A. Definitions: 312 IAC 25–1–10.5 Applicant/Violator System; 312 IAC 25– 1–32.5 Control or Controller; 312 IAC 25–1–51.5 Federal Office of Surface Mining Applicant/Violator System Office; 312 IAC 25–1–75.1 Knowing or Knowingly; and 312 IAC 25–1–48 Excess Spoil Indiana proposed new definitions at sections 312 IAC 25–1–10.5, 312 IAC 25–1–32.5, 312 IAC 25–1–51.5, and 312 IAC 25–1–75.1; and revised its definition at section 312 IAC 25–1–48. We find that the new definitions at 25– 1–10.5, 25–1–32.5, and 25–1–75.1, along with the revised definition at 25–1–48, are substantively the same as counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5. Additionally, we find that there is no Federal counterpart to the new definition proposed in section 25– 1–51.5 for the Federal Office of Surface Mining Applicant/Violator System Office. This new definition accurately represents the organizational structure of OSM’s Applicant/Violator System Office and makes Indiana’s regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve these changes. B. 312 IAC 25–4–18 Surface Mining Permit Applications, Compliance Information; and 312 IAC 25–4–59 Underground Mining Permit Applications, Compliance Information Indiana proposed to amend these sections to require a review of PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 41681 compliance history reports from the applicant/violator system for both surface and underground mining no more than (5) five days prior to permit issuance. The changes to both sections also specify that the Director will rely upon the violation information supplied by the applicant, a report from the applicant/violator system, and any other available information to review compliance history. Indiana’s revisions are counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.11, 773.12(c), and 778.14. We find that these revisions allow Indiana to meet the Federal requirement that a permit review includes a review of compliance history, thereby making Indiana’s regulations no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve these changes. C. 312 IAC 25–4–23 Surface Mining Permit Applications, Identification of Other Safety and Environmental Licenses and Permits; and 312 IAC 25– 4–64 Underground Mining Permit Application; Legal and Financial Information, Identification of Other Licenses and Permits Indiana is repealing sections 25–4–23 and 25–4–64 to match the repeals made to 30 CFR 778.19 and 782.19 on September 28, 1983, Federal Register (48 FR 44390). We find that since OSM repealed these Federal regulations, Indiana’s deletion of these sections are not inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA or the Federal regulations and Indiana’s regulations will remain no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving their removal. D. 312 IAC 25–4–115.1 Post Permit Issuance Information Requirements Indiana proposed a new subsection 25–4–115.1 requiring the permittee to notify and provide information to Indiana within 60 days of any changes regarding owners or controllers. We find that Indiana’s new subsection 25–4– 115.1 is substantively the same as the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.12(c). Therefore, we approve these changes. E. 312 IAC 25–4–122.1 Review of Director’s Ownership or Control Listing or Finding; 312 IAC 25–4–122.2 Burden of Proof for Ownership or Control Challenges; and 312 IAC 25–4–122.3 Written Agency Decision on Challenges to Ownership or Control Indiana proposed new subsections 25–4–122.1, 25–4–122.2, and 25–4– 122.3 to add provisions for challenging an ownership or control determination; outline evidence necessary for the E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 41682 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations permittee to submit during ownership or control challenges; and outline duties of the department regarding written decisions as a result of an ownership or control challenge. Indiana’s new subsection 25–4–122.1 provides measures regarding the challenge of ownership and control listing or findings that are comparable to the Federal regulations by providing the same opportunities and procedures for challenges. We find that these changes make Indiana’s regulations no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.25 and 773.26. We also find that Indiana’s new subsections 25–4–122.2 and 25–4–122.3 are substantively the same as their counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.27 and 773.28. Therefore, we approve Indiana’s changes to these three subsections. F. 312 IAC 25–4–127 Permit Reviews, Revisions, Renewals, and Transfer, Sale, or Assignment of Rights Granted Under Permits, Permit Revisions Indiana proposed to revise section 25–4–127 to clarify various requirements for permit revisions including adding definitions and requirements for significant revisions, nonsignificant revisions, and minor field revisions. These changes allow Indiana’s regulations to fully meet the requirements of the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.13 and 774.15 for permit renewals and revisions while adding clarity. We find that these changes make Indiana’s regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations; therefore, we approve them. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES G. 312 IAC 25–5–7 Period of Liability Indiana proposed new paragraph 312 IAC 25–5–7(f) to clarify the bond liability period for alternative postmine land uses beyond the control of the permittee. We find that Indiana’s paragraph 25–5–7(f), after correction through the errata process described in Part II Submission of the Amendment, is substantively the same as the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.13(d)(2). Therefore, we approve this new paragraph. H. 312 IAC 25–5–16 Performance Bond Release; Requirements 1. Indiana previously submitted an amendment regarding section 312 IAC 25–5–16 on December 11, 2006. In a letter dated May 9, 2007 (Administrative Record No. IND–1748), we notified Indiana that paragraphs (d) through (j) contained deficiencies, inappropriate reference citations, and the removal and/or absence of required program provisions that made Indiana’s rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:23 Jul 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 less effective than the Federal regulations. In the Federal Register (72 FR 59005) we announced that we did not approve Indiana’s proposed revisions at section 312 IAC 25–5–16 new paragraphs (d) through (j). This non-approval was inadvertently not codified in that Federal Register notice. As such, we are including this historical information and are codifying it in 30 CFR 914.17. Indiana has now submitted new changes to this section. 2. In this current amendment, Indiana proposed new language in paragraph (d) adding additional provisions clarifying that Indiana will notify interested parties of its decisions regarding performance bond releases within 60 days when no public hearing or informal conference is held, or within 30 days after a public hearing or informal conference is held. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(b)(2) does not include a reference to informal conferences. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(h) allow the regulatory authority to hold an informal conference to resolve written objections raised in § 800.40. Indiana’s addition in 312 IAC 25–5–16(d) provides recognition that the time limitations apply regardless of whether a formal hearing or informal conference is held. We find that these additions make Indiana’s regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve the changes in this paragraph. 3. Indiana proposed new language in paragraph (i) that allows written objections or requests for public hearings to be resolved through an informal conference at the discretion of the Director and that informal conferences must be conducted within 30 days after the close of the comment period; allows for a waiver from the requirement for verbatim records of an informal conference if it is agreed upon by all parties involved in the conference; and requires that all parties involved in an informal conference be provided written findings of the conference stating the reasons for the findings. We find that Indiana’s paragraph (i) contains all of the required portions of the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(h) and further clarifies the informal conference process. We also find that Indiana’s changes make its regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve the changes. 4. Indiana proposed to add a new paragraph (j) that contains five subparagraphs (j)(1)–(5). These require Indiana to hold a public hearing if written objections and requests for public hearings are not resolved through PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 an informal conference or if an informal conference is not held. These also include provisions regarding public notification, who will conduct the hearing, what information may be accepted, record collection, hearing location, findings, timeframe to hold a hearing, and conditions in which hearings may be cancelled. We find that paragraphs (j)(1), (3), (4), and (5) include all the required provisions of the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(f); further clarify the public hearing process; and make Indiana’s regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve these portions of (j). Indiana’s proposed subparagraph 312 IAC 25–5–16(j)(2) contains an unapprovable provision that makes this portion of Indiana’s rules less effective than the Federal regulations. By letter dated December 21, 2011 (Administrative Record No. IND–1762), we contacted Indiana regarding the phrase, ‘‘an electronic or stenographic record shall be made unless waived by all parties.’’ The addition of the phrase ‘‘unless waived by all parties’’ would make Indiana’s regulations less effective than the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(g), which does not allow the waiver of any records in a public hearing. We suggested that Indiana remove this phrase to make this portion of its regulations no less effective than the Federal requirements. By letter dated January 5, 2012 (Administrative Record No. IND–1763), Indiana advised us that it would submit revisions to address these concerns at a later date and that we should proceed with processing the amendment. Therefore, we are approving subparagraph (j)(2) with the exception of the phrase ‘‘unless waived by all parties’’ related to public hearing records, which we are not approving. 5. Indiana proposed new paragraph (k) clarifying the department’s authority in public hearings regarding bond releases and the requirement for a verbatim record of the hearing. We find that Indiana’s new paragraph (k) is substantively the same as counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(g). Therefore, we approve this paragraph. 6. Indiana proposed new paragraph (l) stating that the Director’s decisions regarding bond releases are subject to administrative review under IC 4–21.5 and 312 IAC 3–1. We find that the new paragraph highlights and clarifies Indiana’s existing review procedures and makes its regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving it. E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations I. 312 IAC 25–6–59 Surface Mining, Revegetation, Standards for Success for Nonprime Farmland Indiana revised language in section 25–6–59 at paragraph (c)(4)(A) regarding alternative stocking rates and species for specific forest reclamation approaches. We find that Indiana’s revised language allows more flexibility in its regulations regarding reforestation by allowing more site specific variations in species and stocking rates. We also find that these changes allow Indiana’s regulations to meet the standards of, and be no less effective than, the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3) which require stocking and planting rates to be based on local and regional conditions. Therefore, we approve the changes. J. 312 IAC 25–6–93 Underground Mining, Explosives, General Requirements; 312 IAC 25–6–94 Underground Mining, Explosives, Preblasting Survey; and 312 IAC 25–6– 95 Underground Mining, Explosives, Publication of Blasting Schedule wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Indiana added new language to 312 IAC 25–6–93 to clarify that this section’s blasting regulations for slopes and shafts are not applicable for detonations at depths below 50 feet from the surface. This is counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.61(a) that deal with surface blasting activities incident to underground coal mining. Indiana has clarified that 50 feet is the maximum depth below the surface in which surface blasting regulations would apply. Indiana also removed the requirement to submit a blast design for operations within 1,000 feet of a pipeline. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 817.61(d)(1) does not contain this requirement. Indiana made some minor changes to 312 IAC 25–6–94 clarifying preblasting survey requirements and revised 312 IAC 25– 6–95 regarding publication and distribution of blasting schedules. We find that Indiana’s changes to these sections meet all the requirements of the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.61, 817.62, and 817.64 and make Indiana’s regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve these changes. K. 312 IAC 25–7–5 State Enforcement; Cessation Orders 1. Indiana added new language in paragraph (k) clarifying that the timeframe for updating ownership and control listings following the issuance of a cessation order does not apply if a stay has been granted by an administrative law judge or a court of competent VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:23 Jul 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 jurisdiction and it remains in effect. We find that this language meets the requirements of the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.12(b) and makes Indiana’s program no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving the new language. 2. Indiana added new paragraph (m) requiring that any determinations made regarding a cessation order be in writing and contain a right of appeal. We find that the new language meets the requirements of 30 CFR 774.11(f) and (h) regarding notification and appeal rights for the entry of ownership and control information into the AVS system. Therefore, we find the addition of this new paragraph makes Indiana’s regulation no less effective than the Federal regulations and we are approving it. IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive any. Federal Agency Comments By letter dated June 14, 2011, 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 Indiana’s program (Administrative Record No. IN–1757). By letter dated July 13, 2011, we received a comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Administrative Record No. IN–1758), recommending that Indiana provide a definition or discussion regarding how the threshold of ‘‘adverse impact’’ is determined. The Federal regulations require no such definition for ‘‘adverse impact.’’ The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.13(b)(2) require Indiana to establish guidelines related to the scale or extent of revisions for which certain permit application materials must be submitted. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.15(j) require that the applicant demonstrate and the regulatory authority find in writing that the operation would not affect the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats, as determined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. By letter dated August 4, 2011, Indiana responded (Administrative Record No. IN–1761) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s comments, stating that Indiana has an embedded PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 41683 Wildlife Biologist employed by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division, whose sole duties include the review of all surface and underground coal mine submissions relating to fish and wildlife and related environmental value resources. Indiana also stated that the intent of this part of the rule is to disallow a request for a nonsignificant permit revision if a change is proposed to a mine permit that could adversely affect these values in a way not contemplated beneath the currently approved permit. Indiana concluded by stating that the methodology it will employ regarding this topic will be the same that has been used since the inception of its corresponding statue, Indiana Code 14–34–5–8–1, which was passed in 1998 and approved by OSM in 1999. We find that although Indiana has not defined the term ‘‘adverse impact’’ as the Fish and Wildlife Service suggested for the purposes of determining if a permit revision is ‘‘nonsignificant,’’ Indiana considers ‘‘adverse impact’’ as something not previously contemplated in the currently approved permit that could have an adverse effect. Indiana’s implementation of the rules and regulations relating to fish and wildlife will not be conducted any differently than it has been since 1998. Indiana’s intent of this section is consistent with that of the Federal regulations. 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 Indiana 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, by letter dated June 14, 2011, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record No. IN– 1757). 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. By letter dated June 14, 2011, we requested comments on the E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 41684 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations amendment (Administrative Record No. IN–1757); but neither responded to our request. and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. V. OSM’s Decision Based on our discussions in the above OSM’s Findings, we are approving significant parts of Indiana’s amendment sent to us on May 25, 2011. We do not approve the phrase ‘‘unless waived by all parties’’ contained in Indiana’s proposed amendment to 312 IAC 25–5–16(j)(2). For those rules we approve, Indiana must fully promulgate them in identical form to the rules submitted to, and reviewed by, OSM and the public. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 914, which codify decisions concerning the Indiana 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. 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. 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. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:23 Jul 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 Indiana program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 914 Dated: May 2, 2012. William L. Joseph, Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 914 is amended as set forth below: PART 914—INDIANA Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. 41685 Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 2. Section 914.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by ‘‘Date of final publication’’ to read as follows: ■ § 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory program amendments. * * * * * 1. The authority citation for Part 914 continues to read as follows: ■ Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description * May 25, 2011 ......... * July 16, 2012 ......... * * * * * Sections: 312 IAC 25–1–10.5, 25–1–32.5, 25–1–48, 25–1–51.5, 25–1–75.1, 25–4–18, 25–4–23, 25– 4–59, 25–4–64, 25–4–115.1, 25–4–122.1, 25–4–122.2, 25–4–122.3, 25–4–127, 25–5–7; 25–5– 16, 25–6–59, 25–6–93, 25–6–94, 25–6–95, and 25–7–5. 3. Section 914.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (ee), to read as follows: ■ § 914.16 Required program amendments. * * * * * (a)–(ee) [Reserved] ■ 4. Section 914.17 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: § 914.17 State regulatory program and proposed program amendment provisions not approved. * * * * * (d) The amendment at 312 IAC 25–5– 16 new subsections (d) through (j) submitted on December 6, 2006, concerning requirements for performance bond releases is not approved effective October 18, 2007. (e) The phrase ‘‘unless waived by all parties’’ contained in paragraph 312 IAC 25–5–16(j)(2) submitted on May 25, 2011, concerning performance bond releases, is not approved effective July 16, 2012. [FR Doc. 2012–17238 Filed 7–13–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG–2012–0627] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. AGENCY: ACTION: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:23 Jul 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Hawthorne Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 13.1, at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate Portland’s Big Float event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position to allow safe movement of event participants. DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:30 p.m. on July 29, 2012 through 1:30 p.m. July 29, 2012. ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG–2012– 0627 and are available online by going to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG–2012–0627 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are also available for inspection or copying at 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 206–220–7282 email randall.d.overton@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 9826. SUMMARY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Multnomah County has requested that the Hawthorne lift bridge remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants of the Big Float event. The Hawthorne Bridge crosses the PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 Willamette River at mile 13.1 and provides 49 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this closure period. Under normal conditions this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897 which allows for the bridge to remain closed between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. This deviation period is from 12:30 p.m. on July 29, 2012 through 1:30 p.m. July 29, 2012. The deviation allows the Hawthorne Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 13.1, to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 12:30 p.m. through 1:30 p.m. July 29, 2012. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridge’s operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The draw span will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge 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. Dated: June 28, 2012. Randall D. Overton, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. 2012–17222 Filed 7–13–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41680-41685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17238]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 914

[SATS No. IN-160-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2011-0008]


Indiana 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 amendments to the Indiana regulatory program 
(Indiana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Indiana proposed to revise its rules 
concerning ownership and control provisions, periods of liability, 
performance bond release, revegetation standards, underground mining 
explosives, and cessation orders, to be no less effective than the 
corresponding Federal regulations, to clarify ambiguities, and to 
improve operational efficiency.

DATES: Effective Date: July 16, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 
Division. Telephone: (317) 226-6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Indiana 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 Indiana Program

    Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the 
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that 
its program includes, among other things, ``a State law which provides 
for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in 
accordance with the requirements of 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 Indiana program effective July 29, 1982. You 
can find background information on the Indiana program, including the 
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions 
of approval of the Indiana program in the July 26, 1982, Federal 
Register (47 FR

[[Page 41681]]

32071). You can also find later actions concerning the Indiana program 
and program amendments at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17.

II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated May 25, 2011 (Administrative Record No. IND-1756), 
Indiana sent us an amendment to its Program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 
et seq.). Indiana sent the amendment in response to a September 30, 
2009, letter (Administrative Record No. IN-1755) we sent to Indiana in 
accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c) concerning multiple changes to 
ownership and control requirements. Indiana also made changes to other 
sections of its regulations at its own initiative. Indiana proposed 
revisions to its Indiana Surface Mining Regulations found in Article 
25, Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations. The specific sections of 
Article 25 in Indiana's amendment are discussed in Part III OSM's 
Findings. Indiana intends to revise its program to be no less effective 
than the Federal regulations and to improve operational efficiency.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the July 11, 
2011, Federal Register (76 FR 40649). 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 August 10, 2011. We did not receive any public 
comments.
    During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns in 
section 312 IAC 25-5-7(f) Period of liability. On August 29, 2011, we 
notified Indiana by phone (Administrative Record No. IND-1759) of an 
incorrect reference in subsection 25-5-7(f). On September 6, 2011, we 
held a conference call to address the discrepancy in this section 
(Administrative Record No. IND-1760). Indiana officials confirmed that 
this was an incorrect reference and that they would correct the 
discrepancy through an errata process. By letter dated September 8, 
2011 (Administrative Record No. IND-1761), we received notice from 
Indiana stating that the errata process was completed and the citation 
had been corrected. We did not reopen the comment period following the 
errata process because the change Indiana made was a minor reference 
correction and was not substantive in nature.
    Also during our review of the amendment, we identified concerns in 
section 312 IAC 25-5-16 Performance bond release; requirements. More 
specifically, we had concerns with a portion of subsection (j)(2) 
relating to the phrase ``an electronic or stenographic record shall be 
made unless waived by all parties.'' We notified Indiana of our concern 
by letter dated December 21, 2011 (Administrative Record No. IND-1762). 
Indiana responded by letter on January 5, 2012 (Administrative Record 
No. IND-1763), stating that they would not submit revisions to this 
subsection at this time and that we should proceed with processing the 
amendment. Therefore, we are proceeding with the final rule Federal 
Register document.

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 with one exception as described below. Any 
revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning 
nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes can be found in the full 
text of the program amendment available at www.regulations.gov.

A. Definitions: 312 IAC 25-1-10.5 Applicant/Violator System; 312 IAC 
25-1-32.5 Control or Controller; 312 IAC 25-1-51.5 Federal Office of 
Surface Mining Applicant/Violator System Office; 312 IAC 25-1-75.1 
Knowing or Knowingly; and 312 IAC 25-1-48 Excess Spoil

    Indiana proposed new definitions at sections 312 IAC 25-1-10.5, 312 
IAC 25-1-32.5, 312 IAC 25-1-51.5, and 312 IAC 25-1-75.1; and revised 
its definition at section 312 IAC 25-1-48. We find that the new 
definitions at 25-1-10.5, 25-1-32.5, and 25-1-75.1, along with the 
revised definition at 25-1-48, are substantively the same as 
counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5. Additionally, we find 
that there is no Federal counterpart to the new definition proposed in 
section 25-1-51.5 for the Federal Office of Surface Mining Applicant/
Violator System Office. This new definition accurately represents the 
organizational structure of OSM's Applicant/Violator System Office and 
makes Indiana's regulations no less effective than the Federal 
regulations. Therefore, we approve these changes.

B. 312 IAC 25-4-18 Surface Mining Permit Applications, Compliance 
Information; and 312 IAC 25-4-59 Underground Mining Permit 
Applications, Compliance Information

    Indiana proposed to amend these sections to require a review of 
compliance history reports from the applicant/violator system for both 
surface and underground mining no more than (5) five days prior to 
permit issuance. The changes to both sections also specify that the 
Director will rely upon the violation information supplied by the 
applicant, a report from the applicant/violator system, and any other 
available information to review compliance history. Indiana's revisions 
are counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.11, 773.12(c), 
and 778.14. We find that these revisions allow Indiana to meet the 
Federal requirement that a permit review includes a review of 
compliance history, thereby making Indiana's regulations no less 
effective than the counterpart Federal regulations. Therefore, we 
approve these changes.

C. 312 IAC 25-4-23 Surface Mining Permit Applications, Identification 
of Other Safety and Environmental Licenses and Permits; and 312 IAC 25-
4-64 Underground Mining Permit Application; Legal and Financial 
Information, Identification of Other Licenses and Permits

    Indiana is repealing sections 25-4-23 and 25-4-64 to match the 
repeals made to 30 CFR 778.19 and 782.19 on September 28, 1983, Federal 
Register (48 FR 44390). We find that since OSM repealed these Federal 
regulations, Indiana's deletion of these sections are not inconsistent 
with the requirements of SMCRA or the Federal regulations and Indiana's 
regulations will remain no less effective than the Federal regulations. 
Therefore, we are approving their removal.

D. 312 IAC 25-4-115.1 Post Permit Issuance Information Requirements

    Indiana proposed a new subsection 25-4-115.1 requiring the 
permittee to notify and provide information to Indiana within 60 days 
of any changes regarding owners or controllers. We find that Indiana's 
new subsection 25-4-115.1 is substantively the same as the counterpart 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.12(c). Therefore, we approve these 
changes.

E. 312 IAC 25-4-122.1 Review of Director's Ownership or Control Listing 
or Finding; 312 IAC 25-4-122.2 Burden of Proof for Ownership or Control 
Challenges; and 312 IAC 25-4-122.3 Written Agency Decision on 
Challenges to Ownership or Control

    Indiana proposed new subsections 25-4-122.1, 25-4-122.2, and 25-4-
122.3 to add provisions for challenging an ownership or control 
determination; outline evidence necessary for the

[[Page 41682]]

permittee to submit during ownership or control challenges; and outline 
duties of the department regarding written decisions as a result of an 
ownership or control challenge. Indiana's new subsection 25-4-122.1 
provides measures regarding the challenge of ownership and control 
listing or findings that are comparable to the Federal regulations by 
providing the same opportunities and procedures for challenges. We find 
that these changes make Indiana's regulations no less effective than 
the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.25 and 773.26. We 
also find that Indiana's new subsections 25-4-122.2 and 25-4-122.3 are 
substantively the same as their counterpart Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 773.27 and 773.28. Therefore, we approve Indiana's changes to these 
three subsections.

F. 312 IAC 25-4-127 Permit Reviews, Revisions, Renewals, and Transfer, 
Sale, or Assignment of Rights Granted Under Permits, Permit Revisions

    Indiana proposed to revise section 25-4-127 to clarify various 
requirements for permit revisions including adding definitions and 
requirements for significant revisions, nonsignificant revisions, and 
minor field revisions. These changes allow Indiana's regulations to 
fully meet the requirements of the counterpart Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 774.13 and 774.15 for permit renewals and revisions while adding 
clarity. We find that these changes make Indiana's regulations no less 
effective than the Federal regulations; therefore, we approve them.

G. 312 IAC 25-5-7 Period of Liability

    Indiana proposed new paragraph 312 IAC 25-5-7(f) to clarify the 
bond liability period for alternative postmine land uses beyond the 
control of the permittee. We find that Indiana's paragraph 25-5-7(f), 
after correction through the errata process described in Part II 
Submission of the Amendment, is substantively the same as the 
counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.13(d)(2). Therefore, we 
approve this new paragraph.

H. 312 IAC 25-5-16 Performance Bond Release; Requirements

    1. Indiana previously submitted an amendment regarding section 312 
IAC 25-5-16 on December 11, 2006. In a letter dated May 9, 2007 
(Administrative Record No. IND-1748), we notified Indiana that 
paragraphs (d) through (j) contained deficiencies, inappropriate 
reference citations, and the removal and/or absence of required program 
provisions that made Indiana's rules less effective than the Federal 
regulations. In the Federal Register (72 FR 59005) we announced that we 
did not approve Indiana's proposed revisions at section 312 IAC 25-5-16 
new paragraphs (d) through (j). This non-approval was inadvertently not 
codified in that Federal Register notice. As such, we are including 
this historical information and are codifying it in 30 CFR 914.17. 
Indiana has now submitted new changes to this section.
    2. In this current amendment, Indiana proposed new language in 
paragraph (d) adding additional provisions clarifying that Indiana will 
notify interested parties of its decisions regarding performance bond 
releases within 60 days when no public hearing or informal conference 
is held, or within 30 days after a public hearing or informal 
conference is held. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
800.40(b)(2) does not include a reference to informal conferences. The 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(h) allow the regulatory authority 
to hold an informal conference to resolve written objections raised in 
Sec.  800.40. Indiana's addition in 312 IAC 25-5-16(d) provides 
recognition that the time limitations apply regardless of whether a 
formal hearing or informal conference is held. We find that these 
additions make Indiana's regulations no less effective than the Federal 
regulations. Therefore, we approve the changes in this paragraph.
    3. Indiana proposed new language in paragraph (i) that allows 
written objections or requests for public hearings to be resolved 
through an informal conference at the discretion of the Director and 
that informal conferences must be conducted within 30 days after the 
close of the comment period; allows for a waiver from the requirement 
for verbatim records of an informal conference if it is agreed upon by 
all parties involved in the conference; and requires that all parties 
involved in an informal conference be provided written findings of the 
conference stating the reasons for the findings. We find that Indiana's 
paragraph (i) contains all of the required portions of the counterpart 
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(h) and further clarifies the 
informal conference process. We also find that Indiana's changes make 
its regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. 
Therefore, we approve the changes.
    4. Indiana proposed to add a new paragraph (j) that contains five 
subparagraphs (j)(1)-(5). These require Indiana to hold a public 
hearing if written objections and requests for public hearings are not 
resolved through an informal conference or if an informal conference is 
not held. These also include provisions regarding public notification, 
who will conduct the hearing, what information may be accepted, record 
collection, hearing location, findings, timeframe to hold a hearing, 
and conditions in which hearings may be cancelled. We find that 
paragraphs (j)(1), (3), (4), and (5) include all the required 
provisions of the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(f); 
further clarify the public hearing process; and make Indiana's 
regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, 
we approve these portions of (j).
    Indiana's proposed subparagraph 312 IAC 25-5-16(j)(2) contains an 
unapprovable provision that makes this portion of Indiana's rules less 
effective than the Federal regulations. By letter dated December 21, 
2011 (Administrative Record No. IND-1762), we contacted Indiana 
regarding the phrase, ``an electronic or stenographic record shall be 
made unless waived by all parties.'' The addition of the phrase 
``unless waived by all parties'' would make Indiana's regulations less 
effective than the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(g), 
which does not allow the waiver of any records in a public hearing. We 
suggested that Indiana remove this phrase to make this portion of its 
regulations no less effective than the Federal requirements. By letter 
dated January 5, 2012 (Administrative Record No. IND-1763), Indiana 
advised us that it would submit revisions to address these concerns at 
a later date and that we should proceed with processing the amendment. 
Therefore, we are approving subparagraph (j)(2) with the exception of 
the phrase ``unless waived by all parties'' related to public hearing 
records, which we are not approving.
    5. Indiana proposed new paragraph (k) clarifying the department's 
authority in public hearings regarding bond releases and the 
requirement for a verbatim record of the hearing. We find that 
Indiana's new paragraph (k) is substantively the same as counterpart 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(g). Therefore, we approve this 
paragraph.
    6. Indiana proposed new paragraph (l) stating that the Director's 
decisions regarding bond releases are subject to administrative review 
under IC 4-21.5 and 312 IAC 3-1. We find that the new paragraph 
highlights and clarifies Indiana's existing review procedures and makes 
its regulations no less effective than the Federal regulations. 
Therefore, we are approving it.

[[Page 41683]]

I. 312 IAC 25-6-59 Surface Mining, Revegetation, Standards for Success 
for Nonprime Farmland

    Indiana revised language in section 25-6-59 at paragraph (c)(4)(A) 
regarding alternative stocking rates and species for specific forest 
reclamation approaches. We find that Indiana's revised language allows 
more flexibility in its regulations regarding reforestation by allowing 
more site specific variations in species and stocking rates. We also 
find that these changes allow Indiana's regulations to meet the 
standards of, and be no less effective than, the counterpart Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3) which require stocking and planting 
rates to be based on local and regional conditions. Therefore, we 
approve the changes.

J. 312 IAC 25-6-93 Underground Mining, Explosives, General 
Requirements; 312 IAC 25-6-94 Underground Mining, Explosives, 
Preblasting Survey; and 312 IAC 25-6-95 Underground Mining, Explosives, 
Publication of Blasting Schedule

    Indiana added new language to 312 IAC 25-6-93 to clarify that this 
section's blasting regulations for slopes and shafts are not applicable 
for detonations at depths below 50 feet from the surface. This is 
counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.61(a) that deal 
with surface blasting activities incident to underground coal mining. 
Indiana has clarified that 50 feet is the maximum depth below the 
surface in which surface blasting regulations would apply. Indiana also 
removed the requirement to submit a blast design for operations within 
1,000 feet of a pipeline. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
817.61(d)(1) does not contain this requirement. Indiana made some minor 
changes to 312 IAC 25-6-94 clarifying preblasting survey requirements 
and revised 312 IAC 25-6-95 regarding publication and distribution of 
blasting schedules. We find that Indiana's changes to these sections 
meet all the requirements of the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 817.61, 817.62, and 817.64 and make Indiana's regulations no less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve these 
changes.

K. 312 IAC 25-7-5 State Enforcement; Cessation Orders

    1. Indiana added new language in paragraph (k) clarifying that the 
timeframe for updating ownership and control listings following the 
issuance of a cessation order does not apply if a stay has been granted 
by an administrative law judge or a court of competent jurisdiction and 
it remains in effect. We find that this language meets the requirements 
of the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.12(b) and makes 
Indiana's program no less effective than the Federal regulations. 
Therefore, we are approving the new language.
    2. Indiana added new paragraph (m) requiring that any 
determinations made regarding a cessation order be in writing and 
contain a right of appeal. We find that the new language meets the 
requirements of 30 CFR 774.11(f) and (h) regarding notification and 
appeal rights for the entry of ownership and control information into 
the AVS system. Therefore, we find the addition of this new paragraph 
makes Indiana's regulation no less effective than the Federal 
regulations and we are approving it.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive 
any.

Federal Agency Comments

    By letter dated June 14, 2011, 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 
Indiana's program (Administrative Record No. IN-1757). By letter dated 
July 13, 2011, we received a comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Administrative Record No. IN-1758), recommending that Indiana 
provide a definition or discussion regarding how the threshold of 
``adverse impact'' is determined.
    The Federal regulations require no such definition for ``adverse 
impact.'' The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.13(b)(2) require 
Indiana to establish guidelines related to the scale or extent of 
revisions for which certain permit application materials must be 
submitted. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.15(j) require that the 
applicant demonstrate and the regulatory authority find in writing that 
the operation would not affect the continued existence of endangered or 
threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of 
their critical habitats, as determined under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973.
    By letter dated August 4, 2011, Indiana responded (Administrative 
Record No. IN-1761) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's comments, 
stating that Indiana has an embedded Wildlife Biologist employed by the 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division, 
whose sole duties include the review of all surface and underground 
coal mine submissions relating to fish and wildlife and related 
environmental value resources. Indiana also stated that the intent of 
this part of the rule is to disallow a request for a nonsignificant 
permit revision if a change is proposed to a mine permit that could 
adversely affect these values in a way not contemplated beneath the 
currently approved permit. Indiana concluded by stating that the 
methodology it will employ regarding this topic will be the same that 
has been used since the inception of its corresponding statue, Indiana 
Code 14-34-5-8-1, which was passed in 1998 and approved by OSM in 1999.
    We find that although Indiana has not defined the term ``adverse 
impact'' as the Fish and Wildlife Service suggested for the purposes of 
determining if a permit revision is ``nonsignificant,'' Indiana 
considers ``adverse impact'' as something not previously contemplated 
in the currently approved permit that could have an adverse effect. 
Indiana's implementation of the rules and regulations relating to fish 
and wildlife will not be conducted any differently than it has been 
since 1998. Indiana's intent of this section is consistent with that of 
the Federal regulations.

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 Indiana 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, by 
letter dated June 14, 2011, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested 
comments on the amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record No. IN-
1757). 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. By letter dated June 14, 2011, we requested comments on the

[[Page 41684]]

amendment (Administrative Record No. IN-1757); but neither responded to 
our request.

V. OSM's Decision

    Based on our discussions in the above OSM's Findings, we are 
approving significant parts of Indiana's amendment sent to us on May 
25, 2011. We do not approve the phrase ``unless waived by all parties'' 
contained in Indiana's proposed amendment to 312 IAC 25-5-16(j)(2). For 
those rules we approve, Indiana must fully promulgate them in identical 
form to the rules submitted to, and reviewed by, OSM and the public.
    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR part 914, which codify decisions concerning the Indiana 
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. 
This determination is based on the fact that the Indiana program does 
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation 
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana 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

[[Page 41685]]

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 914

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: May 2, 2012.
William L. Joseph,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 914 is amended 
as set forth below:

PART 914--INDIANA

0
1. The authority citation for Part 914 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.


0
2. Section 914.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  914.15  Approval of Indiana regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Original amendment           Date of final
     submission date             publication        Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
May 25, 2011............  July 16, 2012...........  Sections: 312 IAC 25-
                                                     1-10.5, 25-1-32.5,
                                                     25-1-48, 25-1-51.5,
                                                     25-1-75.1, 25-4-18,
                                                     25-4-23, 25-4-59,
                                                     25-4-64, 25-4-
                                                     115.1, 25-4-122.1,
                                                     25-4-122.2, 25-4-
                                                     122.3, 25-4-127, 25-
                                                     5-7; 25-5-16, 25-6-
                                                     59, 25-6-93, 25-6-
                                                     94, 25-6-95, and 25-
                                                     7-5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Section 914.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (ee), 
to read as follows:


Sec.  914.16  Required program amendments.

* * * * *
    (a)-(ee) [Reserved]

0
4. Section 914.17 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  914.17  State regulatory program and proposed program amendment 
provisions not approved.

* * * * *
    (d) The amendment at 312 IAC 25-5-16 new subsections (d) through 
(j) submitted on December 6, 2006, concerning requirements for 
performance bond releases is not approved effective October 18, 2007.
    (e) The phrase ``unless waived by all parties'' contained in 
paragraph 312 IAC 25-5-16(j)(2) submitted on May 25, 2011, concerning 
performance bond releases, is not approved effective July 16, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2012-17238 Filed 7-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.