Pennsylvania Regulatory Program, 55210-55214 [2013-22011]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55210
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
identified under § 1.1471–
3(d)(6)(iv)(A)(1) or (2). * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) The name, address, and TIN of
each specified U.S. person identified in
§ 1.1471–3(d)(6)(iv)(A)(1) and (2);
(iii) The total of all withholdable
payments made to the ownerdocumented FFI;
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(iii) The total of all withholdable
payments made to the NFFE; and
*
*
*
*
*
Martin V. Franks,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2013–22004 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 938
[PA–162–FOR; Docket ID: OSM–2012–0022;
S1D1SSS08011000SX066A00067
F134S180110; S2D2SSS08011000
SX066A00033F13XS501520]
Pennsylvania Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (‘‘OSM’’),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
We are announcing the
approval of an amendment to the
Pennsylvania regulatory program (the
‘‘Pennsylvania program’’) under the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (‘‘SMCRA’’ or
the ‘‘Act’’). Pennsylvania proposed to
revise its program at 25 Pa. Code 86.1,
86.3, and 86.17, to reflect the addition
of new definitions and revisions to
Pennsylvania’s regulations on the use of
the Coal Refuse Disposal Control Fund
(‘‘CRDCF’’) and permit and reclamation
fees. OSM is approving the proposed
amendment which was submitted by
Pennsylvania on December 19, 2012.
DATES: Effective Date: September 10,
2013.
SUMMARY:
Mr.
Ben Owens, Chief, Pittsburgh Field
Division, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 3
Parkway Center, 3rd Floor, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15220; Telephone: (412)
937–2827; E-Mail: bowens@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Sep 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
I. Background on the Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania
Program
Section 503(a) of the SMCRA 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.’’ 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the
Pennsylvania program, effective July 30,
1982. You can find background
information on the Pennsylvania
program, including the Secretary’s
findings, the disposition of comments,
and the conditions of approval of the
Pennsylvania program in the July 30,
1982, Federal Register (47 FR 33050).
You can also find later actions
concerning the Pennsylvania program
and program amendments at 30 CFR
938.11, 938.12, 938.13, 938.15, and
938.16.
II. Submission of the Proposed
Amendment
By letter dated December 19, 2012,
(Administrative Record Number, PA
895.00), Pennsylvania sent OSM a
request to approve the amendment of
regulations found at Chapter 86 relating
to surface and underground coal
mining. The submission establishes a
revised schedule of fees for coal mining
activity permit applications.
Specifically, Pennsylvania is requesting
approval of regulations found at 25 Pa.
Code Chapter 86, sections 1, 3, and 17.
These changes were made at
Pennsylvania’s initiative.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the February
26, 2013, Federal Register (78 FR
13002). In the same document, we
opened the public comment period and
provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting.
We did not hold a public hearing or
meeting because one was not requested.
The public comment period ended on
March 28, 2013. We received one
comment from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(Administrative Record Number, PA
895.04). This comment was in response
to OSM’s December 26, 2012, letter
(Administrative Record Number, PA
895.01) soliciting comment. No
comments were received from the
public.
III. OSM’s Findings
30 CFR 732.17(h)(10) requires that
State program amendments meet the
criteria for approval of State programs
set forth in 30 CFR 732.15, including
that the State’s laws and regulations are
in accordance with the provisions of the
Act and consistent with the
requirements of 30 CFR Part 700. In 30
CFR 730.5, OSM defines ‘‘consistent
with’’ and ‘‘in accordance with’’ to
mean: (a) With regard to SMCRA, the
State laws and regulations are no less
stringent than, meet the minimum
requirements of, and include all
applicable provisions of the Act; and (b)
with regard to the Federal regulations,
the State laws and regulations are no
less effective than the Federal
regulations in meeting the requirements
of SMCRA.
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 concern nonsubstantive wording or editorial
changes.
Minor Revisions to Pennsylvania’s
Regulations
Bifurcation of 25 Pa. Code 86.3 for
Clarity Purposes
Pennsylvania proposed minor
wording, editorial, and recodification
changes to the following previouslyapproved regulation at 25 Pa. Code 86.3
(a). This section is amended to add
subsection (b), which necessitates the
lettering of the existing paragraph as
subsection (a). Although Pennsylvania
has always collected permit application
fees, the bifurcation of this section,
resulting in the addition of subsection
(b) provides clarity regarding the use of
the money collected from permit
application fees that are deposited in
the Coal Refuse Disposal Control Fund
(‘‘CRDCF’’); a function within
Pennsylvania’s purview, as the
regulatory authority. Specifically,
subsection (b), will incorporate the
definition of ‘‘Permit application fee,’’
discussed at length herein, and will
read:
Permit application fees required under this
chapter for permit applications submitted
under the Coal Refuse Disposal Control Act
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
will be used by the Department to cover its
costs to review applications.
OSM finds that this provision is
consistent with regulations issued
pursuant to 30 CFR 777.17.
Accordingly, we are approving this
portion of the amendment.
Revisions to Pennsylvania’s Regulations
That Are No Less Effective Than the
Corresponding Provisions of the Federal
Regulations and No Less Stringent Than
SMCRA
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Definition of ‘‘Permit application fee’’ at
25 Pa. Code 86.1
Pennsylvania proposes the addition of
a new term; the definition of ‘‘Permit
application fee.’’ This term will be
found at 25 Pa. Code 86.1. Pennsylvania
has always assessed a fee for permits
consistent with Section 4(a) of the
Pennsylvania Surface Mining
Conservation and Reclamation Act and
in a manner no less stringent than
SMCRA, but did not define this term. In
addition to the term, ‘‘Permit
application fee’’ being introduced in the
‘‘Definitions’’ section, it will be
incorporated in § 86.17, as a sub-section
heading and shall be defined as, ‘‘[a]
nonrefundable filing fee due at the time
of submission of an application. The
permit application fee is required for an
application to be considered complete.’’
While there are no direct Federal
counterpart provisions, section 507(a) of
SMCRA specifically authorizes the
implementation of a fee for permit
applications, providing that a permit
application ‘‘shall be accompanied by a
fee as determined by the regulatory
authority, [which] may be less than but
shall not exceed the actual or
anticipated cost of reviewing,
administering, and enforcing such
permit . . .’’ and that ‘‘[t]he regulatory
authority may develop procedures so as
to enable the cost of the fee to be paid
over the term of the permit.’’ Therefore,
we find Pennsylvania’s introduction of
this definition to be no less stringent
than SMCRA. Accordingly, we are
approving this portion of the
amendment.
Pennsylvania’s Revision to 25 Pa. Code
86.17, Permit and Reclamation Fees,
Creating an Increase in Permit Fees
Pennsylvania has resolved to increase
the permit application fee schedule for
coal mining permit activity applications
in order to pay the costs the Department
of Environmental Protection (‘‘PA DEP’’)
incurs in reviewing permit applications.
Prior to this submission, a permit
application for coal mining activities or
a coal preparation plant was required to
be submitted with an application fee of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Sep 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
$250. Additionally, any permit
application fee for coal refuse disposal
activities required a fee of $500, plus an
additional $10 per acre fee for acreage
in excess of 50 acres. This submission
increases the fees and creates new
categories of permits with differing fees.
Surface mining and coal refuse disposal
permits will be assessed a fee of $3,250;
coal refuse reprocessing permits will be
assessed a fee of $1,900; coal
preparation plants, anthracite
underground mining, and incidental
extraction permits will be assessed a fee
of $1,650; bituminous underground
mining permits will be assessed a fee of
$5,750; and post-mining activity permits
will be assessed a fee of $300. As
discussed above, SMCRA gives the
regulatory authority discretion in
selecting the fee to be imposed, stating
that the fee ‘‘may be less than but shall
not exceed the actual or anticipated cost
of reviewing, administering, and
enforcing such permit. . . .’’ In
establishing the new fees, Pennsylvania
calculated the amounts using a
workload analysis system. This system
assigns a specific number of hours to
each task to be completed, such as
processing a permit application based
on historical data recorded by staff.
Using this historical data, the new fees
were determined.
Under subsection (b)(2) of the
amendment, a new fee for major permit
revisions is imposed. This fee is either
$300 or $1,250, depending upon the
permit type.
Subsection (b)(3) introduces a new fee
of $250 for permit transfers. The
renewal fee, as detailed in subsection
(b)(4), continues to be assessed under
the former rate of $250. Additionally,
new fees for auger safety and bond
liability revisions will be assessed in the
amount of $200 and $100, respectively.
Subsection (c) now describes how the
collected fees will be allocated. Permit
application fees collected for surface
coal mine facilities, coal refuse
reprocessing facilities, and coal mining
activity facilities will be deposited in
the Surface Mining Conservation and
Reclamation Fund. Permit application
fees for bituminous underground mines
will be deposited in the Bituminous
Mine Subsidence and Land Reclamation
Fund. The fees collected for coal refuse
disposal facilities are to be deposited in
the CRDCF.
The amendment also adds a new
component at subsection (d). This
subsection requires the PA DEP to
review the adequacy of the permit
application fees at least once every three
years. The results of this review must be
submitted in writing to Pennsylvania’s
Environmental Quality Board.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55211
Specifically, the proposed report will
identify and reconcile any disparity
between the amount of income
generated by the fees and the cost to
administer these programs as well as
recommend a fee increase, as necessary.
Subsection (e) of the current
regulation will remain unaltered.
Pennsylvania has established that it
has discretion in defining the fees for
permit applications provided
Pennsylvania conforms to section 507 of
SMCRA in performing this analysis. As
demonstrated, Pennsylvania, using the
recommendations of the PA DEP and
the Mining and Reclamation Advisory
Board, reviewed historical data to
determine the costs of reviewing,
processing, and performing these tasks.
We find the proposed Pennsylvania
amendment to be no less stringent than
the applicable SMCRA provisions and
no less effective than the regulations
promulgated thereunder. Therefore, we
are approving this portion of the
amendment as proposed by
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania also proposes the
addition of the term, ‘‘Major Permit
Revisions,’’ to be added to the
Definitions section found at 25 Pa. Code
86.1. This term is also used as a section
header, found at 25 Pa. Code 86.17(b)(2).
OSM considered the use of this term,
taking into consideration EPA’s
reservations regarding the introduction
of this term into the Pennsylvania
program. EPA’s concerns are discussed
at length in the ‘‘Federal Agency
Comments’’ section below.
There is no direct, definitional
Federal counterpart within SMCRA for
the proposed term, ‘‘Major Permit
Revisions’’; however, OSM finds
sufficient support for incorporating this
term into the Pennsylvania program and
has found it to be no less stringent than
SMCRA and no less effective than the
regulations promulgated thereunder.
This, too, is discussed in the ‘‘Federal
Agency Comments’’ section below.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments
(Administrative Record Number PA
895.03) on the amendment when
advertising the existence of the
proposed amendment in the Federal
Register on February 26, 2013. We did
not receive any public comments on the
proposed amendment.
Federal Agency Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and
section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested
comments on the amendment from
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
55212
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
various Federal agencies, including the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
United States Department of
Agriculture, and the Mine Safety and
Health Administration, with an actual
or potential interest in the Pennsylvania
program (Administrative Record
Number PA 895.01). No comments were
received.
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’) Comments
On December 26, 2012,
(Administrative Record Number PA
895.01), we asked for comment from the
EPA. Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and
(ii), we are required to obtain a written
concurrence from the EPA for those
provisions of the program amendment
that relate to air or water quality
standards promulgated 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.). We did not seek
concurrence from the EPA for this
amendment. The purpose of the
amendment is to alter pre-existing
guidelines for permit fees; therefore, this
amendment does not require EPA
concurrence as it does not relate to air
or water quality standards as outlined in
the regulations.
On February 25, 2013, the EPA, as
requested by OSM, provided comments
to the proposed amendments,
expressing concern that the proposed
amendment had the potential for
impacting water quality standards.
Specifically, the EPA expressed concern
that the addition of the term ‘‘Major
Permit Revisions’’ to 25 Pa. Code 86.1,
Definitions, and included as a section
header at § 86.17, as detailed in the
proposed amendment, may undermine
the mandatory process of providing
public notice and opportunity to
comment on any modification to a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (‘‘NPDES’’) permit
issued under the Federal Clean Water
Act (‘‘CWA’’). As noted by the EPA, this
mandatory process is outlined in 40
CFR Part 124 and 40 CFR 123.62,
pertaining to decision making and State
program amendments of the EPA
regulations.
The EPA recommended that the
definition of ‘‘Major Permit Revisions’’
at § 86.1, be clarified to specifically state
that the Federal regulatory requirements
for NPDES permit modifications will
apply and may require, among other
things, public notice and opportunity to
comment.
We gave deference to the EPA’s
comment, as the agency promulgating
the regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 and
40 CFR 123.62. However, OSM notes
that, consistent with section 702 of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Sep 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
SMCRA, nothing in the submission
shall be construed as superseding,
amending, modifying, or repealing the
requirements of the Federal CWA. Upon
review of the Pennsylvania program, we
found direct support for approving the
addition of the term ‘‘Major Permit
Revisions’’ and its use as a header.
Specifically, the approved
Pennsylvania program incorporates by
reference provisions of Chapter 92a of
the Pennsylvania regulations that
govern the implementation of the
NPDES Permitting, Monitoring, and
Compliance. For each of the permit
applications or major permit revisions
referenced in the proposed amendment,
there are applicable Pennsylvania
regulations that incorporate by reference
the requirements of the regulations
promulgated pursuant to the CWA and
the Pennsylvania counterpart, the Clean
Streams Law, 35 P.S. 691.5. For
example, relative to surface coal mining
permits, 25 Pa. Code 87.102(f),
Hydrologic balance: effluent standards,
specifically reads:
In addition to the requirements of
subsections (a)–(e), the discharge of water
from areas disturbed by mining activities
shall comply with this title, including
Chapters 91, 92, 93, 95, 97 (reserved) and
102.
The provisions in Pennsylvania’s
Chapter 92 deal specifically with Public
Participation. This portion of the
Pennsylvania environmental protection
regulation, found at 25 Pa. Code 92a.82,
is incorporated by reference into the
Pennsylvania program. Therefore, the
Pennsylvania program specifically
requires that when dealing with the
discharge of water from areas disturbed
by mining activities, ‘‘a public notice of
every new draft individual permit, or
major amendment to an individual
permit, will be published in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin.’’ (25 Pa. Code
92a.82(b)) With respect to categorizing
revisions and modifications as ‘‘minor’’
or ‘‘major,’’ OSM notes that the
Pennsylvania definition of ‘‘minor
amendment,’’ found at 25 Pa. Code
92a.2, directly mirrors, with a few
insignificant exceptions, the definition
of ‘‘Minor modifications’’ as
promulgated by the EPA at 40 CFR
122.63. The Pennsylvania regulations
also provide for a standard 30-day
public comment period following
publication. (25 Pa. Code 92a.82)
In addition to the provision of the
Pennsylvania program dealing with
surface coal mining permits, there are
similar provisions found at: 25 Pa. Code
89.52(h), applicable to underground
coal mine permits and coal preparation
facilities permits; 25 Pa. Code 90.102(f),
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
applicable to coal refuse disposal
permits, and 25 Pa. Code 88.92(f)
applicable to anthracite coal mine
permits. The presence of these public
notice requirements dispense with the
concern raised by the EPA that
modifications to NPDES permits may
not receive required public notice and
comment periods.
Therefore, while taking the EPA’s
comment into consideration, we
conclude that this aspect of the
amendment may be approved as it is no
less stringent than SMCRA and no less
effective than the implementing
regulations.
State Historic 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 December 26, 2012, we
requested comments on Pennsylvania’s
amendment (Administrative Record PA
895.01), but neither responded to our
request.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve the amendment proposed by
Pennsylvania and sent to OSM on
December 19, 2012.
We approve, as discussed in finding
number 1, 25 Pa. Code 86.3, concerning
the CRDCF fund; finding number 2, 25
Pa. Code 86.1, concerning the definition
of permit application fee; and finding
number 3, 25 Pa. Code 86.17,
concerning the change in amount and
addition of fees.
Moreover, as stated herein, OSM,
while considering the comments
received by the EPA, finds that the
introduction of the definition, ‘‘Major
Permit Revisions’’ found at 25 Pa. Code
86.1, of the Pennsylvania amendment
and the reference thereto at 25 Pa. Code
86.17(2), is no less stringent than
SMCRA and is not construed as
superseding, amending, modifying, or
repealing the Federal regulatory
requirements for NPDES permit
modifications. Specifically, the
Pennsylvania program provides for
public notice and opportunity to
comment for ‘‘every . . . major
amendment to an individual permit.’’
(25 Pa. Code 92a.82(b))
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630—Takings
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the
Federal regulations. Section 507(a) of
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
SMCRA gives the regulatory authority
discretion in selecting the fee to be
imposed. Other changes implemented
through this final rule notice are
administrative in nature and have no
takings implications.
our decision pertains to the
Pennsylvania regulatory program and
does not involve a Federal program
involving Indian lands.
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, to the extent
allowable by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of Subsections (a)
and (b). However, these standards are
not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program
amendments because each plan 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
plans and plan amendments submitted
by the States must be based solely on a
determination of whether the submittal
is consistent with SMCRA and its
implementing regulations and whether
the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 13132—Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the Federal
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The rule merely
approves a program amendment
submitted by the State of Pennsylvania
at its own initiative.
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Government
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Sep 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
Executive Order 13211—Regulations
That Significantly Affect the Supply
Distribution or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 requiring
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for a rule that is (1)
considered significant under Executive
Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), and (2) likely to have
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)). It is further
documented in the DOI Departmental
Manual 516 DM 13.5, that agency
decisions on approval of State
regulatory programs do not constitute
major Federal actions.
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 effect 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 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 data
and assumptions for the Federal
regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55213
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, geographic
regions, or Federal, State, or local
government agencies; 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
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
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 938
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 13, 2013.
Thomas D. Shope,
Regional Director, Appalachian Region.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR Part 938 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 938—PENNSYLVANIA
1. The authority citation for Part 938
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 938.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 938.15 Approval of Pennsylvania
regulatory program amendments.
*
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
*
*
10SER1
*
*
55214
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Original amendment submission
date
*
*
December 19, 2012 .......................
Date of final publication
*
*
*
*
*
September 10, 2013 ...................... Addition of definitions to 25 Pa. Code 86.1, clarification of 86.3, and
increase of fees at 86.17.
[FR Doc. 2013–22011 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0723]
Annual Marine Events in the Eighth
Coast Guard District, Sabine River;
Orange, TX
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
Special Local Regulations for the
Southern Professional Outboard Racing
Tour (S.P.O.R.T.) boat races to be held
on the Neches River in Orange, TX from
3 p.m. on September 20, 2013, through
6 p.m. on September 22, 2013. This
action is necessary to provide for the
safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, participating vessels, nonparticipating vessels and other users of
the waterway. During the enforcement
period no person or vessel may enter the
zone established by the Special Local
Regulation without permission of the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Port Arthur
or his designated on-scene Patrol
Commander.
SUMMARY:
The regulation in 33 CFR
100.801 will be enforced from 3 p.m. to
6 p.m. on September 20, 2013; and from
9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on September 21 and
22, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice of
enforcement, call or email Mr. Scott
Whalen. U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety
Unit Port Arthur, TX; telephone 409–
719–5086, email scott.k.whalen@
uscg.mil.
DATES:
The Coast
Guard will enforce Special Local
Regulation for the annual S.P.O.R.T.
boat races in 33 CFR 100.801(60) on
September 21, 2012, from 3 p.m. to 6
p.m. and on September 22 and 23, 2012
from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR
100.801, a vessel may not enter the
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Sep 09, 2013
Citation/description
Jkt 229001
regulated area, unless it receives
permission from the Captain of the Port
or his designated on-scene Patrol
Commander. Spectator vessels may
safely transit outside the regulated area
but may not anchor, block, loiter, or
impede participants or official patrol
vessels. The Coast Guard may be
assisted by other federal, state or local
law enforcement agencies in enforcing
this regulation.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 CFR 100.801 and 33 U.S.C. 1233.
In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with
notification of this enforcement period
via Local Notice to Mariners, Marine
Information Broadcasts, and Marine
Safety Information Bulletins.
If the Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene Patrol Commander
determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration
stated in this notice, he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant
general permission to enter the
regulated area.
Dated: July 30, 2013.
G.J. Paitl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Port Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2013–21924 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0807]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle,
WA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating
schedule that governs the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway
Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship
Canal, mile 0.1, at Seattle, WA. This
deviation is necessary to facilitate heavy
maintenance on the bridge. This
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
deviation allows the bridge to remain in
the down, or closed position, during the
maintenance period.
DATES: This deviation is effective from
9 a.m. on November 5, 2013 to 11:59
p.m. on November 14, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
deviation, [USCG–2013–0807] is
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Type the docket number in the
‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’
Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may
also visit the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12–140 on the
ground floor of the Department of
Transportation West Building, 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 temporary
deviation, call or email Lieutenant
Commander Steven Fischer, Thirteenth
District Bridge Program Office, Coast
Guard; telephone (206)220–7277,
Steven.M.Fischer2@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BNSF
Railway has requested that the draw of
the BNSF Railway Bridge across the
Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1
(Ballard-Salmon Bay), be locked in the
closed position and not be required to
open for the passage of vessels on 4
separate days during a 9 day period to
facilitate heavy maintenance on the
bridge. The bridge provides 43 feet of
vertical clearance above mean high
water while in the closed position.
Under normal operations this bridge
opens on signal as required by 33 CFR
117.5 and 33 CFR 117.1051(c). The
deviation period is from 9 a.m. on
November 5, 2013 to 11:59 p.m. on
November 14, 2013. This deviation
allows the draw span of the BNSF
Railway Bridge across the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1, to
remain in the closed position and to not
open for maritime traffic from 9 a.m. to
11:59 p.m. on November 5, 2013, and 9
a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on November 7, 2013,
and 9 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on November
12, 2013, and 9 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55210-55214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22011]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 938
[PA-162-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2012-0022;
S1D1SSS08011000SX066A00067F134S180110;
S2D2SSS08011000SX066A00033F13XS501520]
Pennsylvania Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (``OSM''),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are announcing the approval of an amendment to the
Pennsylvania regulatory program (the ``Pennsylvania program'') under
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (``SMCRA'' or
the ``Act''). Pennsylvania proposed to revise its program at 25 Pa.
Code 86.1, 86.3, and 86.17, to reflect the addition of new definitions
and revisions to Pennsylvania's regulations on the use of the Coal
Refuse Disposal Control Fund (``CRDCF'') and permit and reclamation
fees. OSM is approving the proposed amendment which was submitted by
Pennsylvania on December 19, 2012.
DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ben Owens, Chief, Pittsburgh Field
Division, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 3
Parkway Center, 3rd Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220; Telephone:
(412) 937-2827; E-Mail: bowens@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania Program
Section 503(a) of the SMCRA 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.'' 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the
basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Pennsylvania program, effective July 30, 1982. You can
find background information on the Pennsylvania program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions
of approval of the Pennsylvania program in the July 30, 1982, Federal
Register (47 FR 33050). You can also find later actions concerning the
Pennsylvania program and program amendments at 30 CFR 938.11, 938.12,
938.13, 938.15, and 938.16.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated December 19, 2012, (Administrative Record Number,
PA 895.00), Pennsylvania sent OSM a request to approve the amendment of
regulations found at Chapter 86 relating to surface and underground
coal mining. The submission establishes a revised schedule of fees for
coal mining activity permit applications. Specifically, Pennsylvania is
requesting approval of regulations found at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 86,
sections 1, 3, and 17. These changes were made at Pennsylvania's
initiative.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 26,
2013, Federal Register (78 FR 13002). In the same document, we opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting.
We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because one was not
requested. The public comment period ended on March 28, 2013. We
received one comment from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (Administrative Record Number, PA 895.04). This comment was in
response to OSM's December 26, 2012, letter (Administrative Record
Number, PA 895.01) soliciting comment. No comments were received from
the public.
III. OSM's Findings
30 CFR 732.17(h)(10) requires that State program amendments meet
the criteria for approval of State programs set forth in 30 CFR 732.15,
including that the State's laws and regulations are in accordance with
the provisions of the Act and consistent with the requirements of 30
CFR Part 700. In 30 CFR 730.5, OSM defines ``consistent with'' and ``in
accordance with'' to mean: (a) With regard to SMCRA, the State laws and
regulations are no less stringent than, meet the minimum requirements
of, and include all applicable provisions of the Act; and (b) with
regard to the Federal regulations, the State laws and regulations are
no less effective than the Federal regulations in meeting the
requirements of SMCRA.
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 concern non-substantive wording or editorial
changes.
Minor Revisions to Pennsylvania's Regulations
Bifurcation of 25 Pa. Code 86.3 for Clarity Purposes
Pennsylvania proposed minor wording, editorial, and recodification
changes to the following previously-approved regulation at 25 Pa. Code
86.3 (a). This section is amended to add subsection (b), which
necessitates the lettering of the existing paragraph as subsection (a).
Although Pennsylvania has always collected permit application fees, the
bifurcation of this section, resulting in the addition of subsection
(b) provides clarity regarding the use of the money collected from
permit application fees that are deposited in the Coal Refuse Disposal
Control Fund (``CRDCF''); a function within Pennsylvania's purview, as
the regulatory authority. Specifically, subsection (b), will
incorporate the definition of ``Permit application fee,'' discussed at
length herein, and will read:
Permit application fees required under this chapter for permit
applications submitted under the Coal Refuse Disposal Control Act
[[Page 55211]]
will be used by the Department to cover its costs to review
applications.
OSM finds that this provision is consistent with regulations issued
pursuant to 30 CFR 777.17. Accordingly, we are approving this portion
of the amendment.
Revisions to Pennsylvania's Regulations That Are No Less Effective Than
the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations and No Less
Stringent Than SMCRA
Definition of ``Permit application fee'' at 25 Pa. Code 86.1
Pennsylvania proposes the addition of a new term; the definition of
``Permit application fee.'' This term will be found at 25 Pa. Code
86.1. Pennsylvania has always assessed a fee for permits consistent
with Section 4(a) of the Pennsylvania Surface Mining Conservation and
Reclamation Act and in a manner no less stringent than SMCRA, but did
not define this term. In addition to the term, ``Permit application
fee'' being introduced in the ``Definitions'' section, it will be
incorporated in Sec. 86.17, as a sub-section heading and shall be
defined as, ``[a] nonrefundable filing fee due at the time of
submission of an application. The permit application fee is required
for an application to be considered complete.'' While there are no
direct Federal counterpart provisions, section 507(a) of SMCRA
specifically authorizes the implementation of a fee for permit
applications, providing that a permit application ``shall be
accompanied by a fee as determined by the regulatory authority, [which]
may be less than but shall not exceed the actual or anticipated cost of
reviewing, administering, and enforcing such permit . . .'' and that
``[t]he regulatory authority may develop procedures so as to enable the
cost of the fee to be paid over the term of the permit.'' Therefore, we
find Pennsylvania's introduction of this definition to be no less
stringent than SMCRA. Accordingly, we are approving this portion of the
amendment.
Pennsylvania's Revision to 25 Pa. Code 86.17, Permit and Reclamation
Fees, Creating an Increase in Permit Fees
Pennsylvania has resolved to increase the permit application fee
schedule for coal mining permit activity applications in order to pay
the costs the Department of Environmental Protection (``PA DEP'')
incurs in reviewing permit applications. Prior to this submission, a
permit application for coal mining activities or a coal preparation
plant was required to be submitted with an application fee of $250.
Additionally, any permit application fee for coal refuse disposal
activities required a fee of $500, plus an additional $10 per acre fee
for acreage in excess of 50 acres. This submission increases the fees
and creates new categories of permits with differing fees. Surface
mining and coal refuse disposal permits will be assessed a fee of
$3,250; coal refuse reprocessing permits will be assessed a fee of
$1,900; coal preparation plants, anthracite underground mining, and
incidental extraction permits will be assessed a fee of $1,650;
bituminous underground mining permits will be assessed a fee of $5,750;
and post-mining activity permits will be assessed a fee of $300. As
discussed above, SMCRA gives the regulatory authority discretion in
selecting the fee to be imposed, stating that the fee ``may be less
than but shall not exceed the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing,
administering, and enforcing such permit. . . .'' In establishing the
new fees, Pennsylvania calculated the amounts using a workload analysis
system. This system assigns a specific number of hours to each task to
be completed, such as processing a permit application based on
historical data recorded by staff. Using this historical data, the new
fees were determined.
Under subsection (b)(2) of the amendment, a new fee for major
permit revisions is imposed. This fee is either $300 or $1,250,
depending upon the permit type.
Subsection (b)(3) introduces a new fee of $250 for permit
transfers. The renewal fee, as detailed in subsection (b)(4), continues
to be assessed under the former rate of $250. Additionally, new fees
for auger safety and bond liability revisions will be assessed in the
amount of $200 and $100, respectively.
Subsection (c) now describes how the collected fees will be
allocated. Permit application fees collected for surface coal mine
facilities, coal refuse reprocessing facilities, and coal mining
activity facilities will be deposited in the Surface Mining
Conservation and Reclamation Fund. Permit application fees for
bituminous underground mines will be deposited in the Bituminous Mine
Subsidence and Land Reclamation Fund. The fees collected for coal
refuse disposal facilities are to be deposited in the CRDCF.
The amendment also adds a new component at subsection (d). This
subsection requires the PA DEP to review the adequacy of the permit
application fees at least once every three years. The results of this
review must be submitted in writing to Pennsylvania's Environmental
Quality Board. Specifically, the proposed report will identify and
reconcile any disparity between the amount of income generated by the
fees and the cost to administer these programs as well as recommend a
fee increase, as necessary.
Subsection (e) of the current regulation will remain unaltered.
Pennsylvania has established that it has discretion in defining the
fees for permit applications provided Pennsylvania conforms to section
507 of SMCRA in performing this analysis. As demonstrated,
Pennsylvania, using the recommendations of the PA DEP and the Mining
and Reclamation Advisory Board, reviewed historical data to determine
the costs of reviewing, processing, and performing these tasks. We find
the proposed Pennsylvania amendment to be no less stringent than the
applicable SMCRA provisions and no less effective than the regulations
promulgated thereunder. Therefore, we are approving this portion of the
amendment as proposed by Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania also proposes the addition of the term, ``Major Permit
Revisions,'' to be added to the Definitions section found at 25 Pa.
Code 86.1. This term is also used as a section header, found at 25 Pa.
Code 86.17(b)(2). OSM considered the use of this term, taking into
consideration EPA's reservations regarding the introduction of this
term into the Pennsylvania program. EPA's concerns are discussed at
length in the ``Federal Agency Comments'' section below.
There is no direct, definitional Federal counterpart within SMCRA
for the proposed term, ``Major Permit Revisions''; however, OSM finds
sufficient support for incorporating this term into the Pennsylvania
program and has found it to be no less stringent than SMCRA and no less
effective than the regulations promulgated thereunder. This, too, is
discussed in the ``Federal Agency Comments'' section below.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments (Administrative Record Number PA
895.03) on the amendment when advertising the existence of the proposed
amendment in the Federal Register on February 26, 2013. We did not
receive any public comments on the proposed amendment.
Federal Agency Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we
requested comments on the amendment from
[[Page 55212]]
various Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Mine Safety and
Health Administration, with an actual or potential interest in the
Pennsylvania program (Administrative Record Number PA 895.01). No
comments were received.
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') Comments
On December 26, 2012, (Administrative Record Number PA 895.01), we
asked for comment from the EPA. Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii),
we are required to obtain a written concurrence from the EPA for those
provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality
standards promulgated 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.). We
did not seek concurrence from the EPA for this amendment. The purpose
of the amendment is to alter pre-existing guidelines for permit fees;
therefore, this amendment does not require EPA concurrence as it does
not relate to air or water quality standards as outlined in the
regulations.
On February 25, 2013, the EPA, as requested by OSM, provided
comments to the proposed amendments, expressing concern that the
proposed amendment had the potential for impacting water quality
standards. Specifically, the EPA expressed concern that the addition of
the term ``Major Permit Revisions'' to 25 Pa. Code 86.1, Definitions,
and included as a section header at Sec. 86.17, as detailed in the
proposed amendment, may undermine the mandatory process of providing
public notice and opportunity to comment on any modification to a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permit
issued under the Federal Clean Water Act (``CWA''). As noted by the
EPA, this mandatory process is outlined in 40 CFR Part 124 and 40 CFR
123.62, pertaining to decision making and State program amendments of
the EPA regulations.
The EPA recommended that the definition of ``Major Permit
Revisions'' at Sec. 86.1, be clarified to specifically state that the
Federal regulatory requirements for NPDES permit modifications will
apply and may require, among other things, public notice and
opportunity to comment.
We gave deference to the EPA's comment, as the agency promulgating
the regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 and 40 CFR 123.62. However, OSM
notes that, consistent with section 702 of SMCRA, nothing in the
submission shall be construed as superseding, amending, modifying, or
repealing the requirements of the Federal CWA. Upon review of the
Pennsylvania program, we found direct support for approving the
addition of the term ``Major Permit Revisions'' and its use as a
header.
Specifically, the approved Pennsylvania program incorporates by
reference provisions of Chapter 92a of the Pennsylvania regulations
that govern the implementation of the NPDES Permitting, Monitoring, and
Compliance. For each of the permit applications or major permit
revisions referenced in the proposed amendment, there are applicable
Pennsylvania regulations that incorporate by reference the requirements
of the regulations promulgated pursuant to the CWA and the Pennsylvania
counterpart, the Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. 691.5. For example,
relative to surface coal mining permits, 25 Pa. Code 87.102(f),
Hydrologic balance: effluent standards, specifically reads:
In addition to the requirements of subsections (a)-(e), the
discharge of water from areas disturbed by mining activities shall
comply with this title, including Chapters 91, 92, 93, 95, 97
(reserved) and 102.
The provisions in Pennsylvania's Chapter 92 deal specifically with
Public Participation. This portion of the Pennsylvania environmental
protection regulation, found at 25 Pa. Code 92a.82, is incorporated by
reference into the Pennsylvania program. Therefore, the Pennsylvania
program specifically requires that when dealing with the discharge of
water from areas disturbed by mining activities, ``a public notice of
every new draft individual permit, or major amendment to an individual
permit, will be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.'' (25 Pa. Code
92a.82(b)) With respect to categorizing revisions and modifications as
``minor'' or ``major,'' OSM notes that the Pennsylvania definition of
``minor amendment,'' found at 25 Pa. Code 92a.2, directly mirrors, with
a few insignificant exceptions, the definition of ``Minor
modifications'' as promulgated by the EPA at 40 CFR 122.63. The
Pennsylvania regulations also provide for a standard 30-day public
comment period following publication. (25 Pa. Code 92a.82)
In addition to the provision of the Pennsylvania program dealing
with surface coal mining permits, there are similar provisions found
at: 25 Pa. Code 89.52(h), applicable to underground coal mine permits
and coal preparation facilities permits; 25 Pa. Code 90.102(f),
applicable to coal refuse disposal permits, and 25 Pa. Code 88.92(f)
applicable to anthracite coal mine permits. The presence of these
public notice requirements dispense with the concern raised by the EPA
that modifications to NPDES permits may not receive required public
notice and comment periods.
Therefore, while taking the EPA's comment into consideration, we
conclude that this aspect of the amendment may be approved as it is no
less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the implementing
regulations.
State Historic 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 December 26, 2012, we requested comments on
Pennsylvania's amendment (Administrative Record PA 895.01), but neither
responded to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment proposed by
Pennsylvania and sent to OSM on December 19, 2012.
We approve, as discussed in finding number 1, 25 Pa. Code 86.3,
concerning the CRDCF fund; finding number 2, 25 Pa. Code 86.1,
concerning the definition of permit application fee; and finding number
3, 25 Pa. Code 86.17, concerning the change in amount and addition of
fees.
Moreover, as stated herein, OSM, while considering the comments
received by the EPA, finds that the introduction of the definition,
``Major Permit Revisions'' found at 25 Pa. Code 86.1, of the
Pennsylvania amendment and the reference thereto at 25 Pa. Code
86.17(2), is no less stringent than SMCRA and is not construed as
superseding, amending, modifying, or repealing the Federal regulatory
requirements for NPDES permit modifications. Specifically, the
Pennsylvania program provides for public notice and opportunity to
comment for ``every . . . major amendment to an individual permit.''
(25 Pa. Code 92a.82(b))
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the Federal regulations. Section
507(a) of
[[Page 55213]]
SMCRA gives the regulatory authority discretion in selecting the fee to
be imposed. Other changes implemented through this final rule notice
are administrative in nature and have no takings implications.
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, to the
extent allowable by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of
Subsections (a) and (b). However, these standards are not applicable to
the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments
because each plan 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 plans and plan
amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a
determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its
implementing 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 because it does not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the Federal government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The rule merely approves a program amendment submitted by the State of
Pennsylvania at its own initiative.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Government
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 pertains to the
Pennsylvania regulatory program and does not involve a Federal program
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
requiring agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review), and (2) likely to have 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)).
It is further documented in the DOI Departmental Manual 516 DM 13.5,
that agency decisions on approval of State regulatory programs do not
constitute major Federal actions.
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 effect 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
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 data and assumptions for
the 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, geographic regions, or Federal, State, or local government
agencies; 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 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 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 938
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 13, 2013.
Thomas D. Shope,
Regional Director, Appalachian Region.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Part 938 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 938--PENNSYLVANIA
0
1. The authority citation for Part 938 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 938.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 938.15 Approval of Pennsylvania regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
[[Page 55214]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission Date of final
date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
December 19, 2012............. September 10, Addition of
2013. definitions to 25
Pa. Code 86.1,
clarification of
86.3, and increase
of fees at 86.17.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2013-22011 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
