Mississippi Regulatory Program, 64397-64402 [2013-25575]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
regulations to limit the application of
the identified mixed straddle
transaction rules in § 1.1092(b)–6T to
section 1092(b)(2) identified mixed
straddles established after the date of
publication of the Treasury decision
adopting these rules as final regulations
in the Federal Register. This document
also amends the examples in the
temporary regulations to reflect the
change in the applicability date and to
clarify the determination of a holding
period. The Treasury Department and
the IRS anticipate finalizing the
regulations no later than the end of the
current Priority Guidance Plan year on
June 30, 2014, and will as part of that
process consider all comments received.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 is amended by adding entries
in numerical order to read as follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.1092(b)–6T also issued under 26
U.S.C. 1092(b)(1).
Section 1.1092(b)–6T also issued under 26
U.S.C. 1092(b)(2).* * *
Par. 2. Section 1.1092(b)–3T is
amended by:
■ 1. Revising the heading of paragraph
(b)(6).
■ 2. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(6).
The amendments read as follows:
■
§ 1.1092(b)–3T Mixed straddles; straddleby-straddle identification under section
1092(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) (Temporary).
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(6) Accrued gain and loss with
respect to positions of a section
1092(b)(2) identified mixed straddle
established on or before the
applicability date of § 1.1092(b)–6T. The
rules of this paragraph (b)(6) apply to all
section 1092(b)(2) identified mixed
straddles established on or before the
applicability date of § 1.1092(b)–6T; see
§ 1.1092(b)–6T for section 1092(b)(2)
identified mixed straddles established
after the applicability date of
§ 1.1092(b)–6T.* * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ Par. 3. Section 1.1092(b)–6T is
amended as follows:
■ 1. Revising the heading of § 1.1092(b)–
6T.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
2. Adding a sentence at the end of the
introductory text of paragraph (b) and
revising Example 1 and Example 2 of
paragraph (b).
■ 3. Revising paragraph (c).
The amendments read as follows:
■
64397
40% short-term capital loss because it is
attributable to the section 1256 contract.
§ 1.1092(b)–6T Mixed straddles; accrued
gain and loss associated with a position
that becomes part of a section 1092(b)(2)
identified mixed straddle.
* * *
(b) * * * The following examples
assume that this section applies to
identified mixed straddles established
after August 1, Year 2.
(c) Effective/applicability date. The
rules of this section apply to all section
1092(b)(2) identified mixed straddles
established after the date of publication
of the Treasury decision adopting these
rules as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
*
*
*
*
*
Martin Franks,
Branch Chief, Publications & Regulations
Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate
Chief Counsel, (Procedure & Administration).
Example 1. On August 13, Year 2, A enters
into a section 1256 contract. As of the close
of the day on August 15, Year 2, there is $500
of unrealized loss on the section 1256
contract. On August 16, Year 2, A enters into
an offsetting non-section 1256 position and
makes a valid election to treat the straddle as
a section 1092(b)(2) identified mixed
straddle. A continues to hold both positions
of the section 1092(b)(2) identified mixed
straddle on January 1, Year 3. Under these
circumstances, A will recognize the $500 loss
on the section 1256 contract that existed
prior to establishing the section 1092(b)(2)
identified mixed straddle on the last business
day of Year 2 because the section 1256
contract would be treated as sold on
December 31, Year 2, (the last business day
of the taxable year) under section 1256(a).
The loss recognized in Year 2 will be treated
as 60% long-term capital loss and 40% shortterm capital loss. All gains and losses
occurring after the section 1092(b)(2)
identified mixed straddle is established are
accounted for under the applicable
provisions in § 1.1092(b)–3T.
Example 2. On September 3, Year 1, A
enters into a non-section 1256 position. As of
the close of the day on August 22, Year 2,
there is $400 of unrealized short-term capital
gain on the non-section 1256 position. On
August 23, Year 2, A enters into an offsetting
section 1256 contract and makes a valid
election to treat the straddle as a section
1092(b)(2) identified mixed straddle. On
September 10, Year 2, A closes out the
section 1256 contract at a $500 loss and
disposes of the non-section 1256 position,
realizing an $875 gain. Under these
circumstances, A has $400 of short-term
capital gain attributable to the non-section
1256 position prior to the day the section
1092(b)(2) identified mixed straddle was
established. The $400 unrealized gain earned
on the non-section 1256 position will be
recognized on September 10, Year 2, when
the non-section 1256 position is disposed of.
The gain will be short-term capital gain. See
§ 1.1092(b)–2T for rules concerning holding
period. On September 10, Year 2, the gain of
$875 on the non-section 1256 position will
be reduced to $475 to take into account the
$400 of unrealized gain when the section
1092(b)(2) identified mixed straddle was
established. The $475 gain on the nonsection 1256 position will be offset by the
$500 loss on the section 1256 contract. The
net loss of $25 from the straddle will be
treated as 60% long-term capital loss and
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[FR Doc. 2013–25361 Filed 10–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 924
[SATS No. MS–023–FOR; Docket No. OSM–
2012–0018; S1D1SSS08011000SX066A000
67F134S180110; S2D2SSS08011000SX
066A00033F13XS501520]
Mississippi Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to
the Mississippi regulatory program
(Mississippi Program) under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Mississippi
proposed revisions to its regulations
regarding: definitions; identification of
interests; lands eligible for remining;
permit eligibility determination; review
of permit applications; eligibility for
provisionally issued permits; criteria for
permit approval or denial; initial review
and finding requirements for
improvidently issued permits; notice
requirements for improvidently issued
permits; suspension or rescission
requirements for improvidently issued
permits; unanticipated events or
conditions at remining sites; verification
of ownership or control application
information; who may challenge
ownership or control listings and
findings; how to challenge an
ownership or control listing or finding;
burden of proof for ownership or control
challenges; written agency decision on
challenges to ownership or control
listings or findings; post-permit
issuance requirements for regulatory
authorities and other actions based on
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
64398
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ownership, control, and violation
information; post-permit issuance
requirements for permittees; backfilling
and grading: previously mined areas;
and alternative enforcement.
Mississippi intends to revise its program
to be no less effective than
corresponding Federal regulations, to
clarify ambiguities, and to improve
operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham
Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290–7282
Email: swilson@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Mississippi 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 Mississippi
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
conditionally approved the Mississippi
program effective September 4, 1980.
You can find background information
on the Mississippi program, including
the Secretary’s findings, the disposition
of comments, and the conditions of
approval of the Mississippi program in
the September 4, 1980, Federal Register
(45 FR 58520). You can also find later
actions concerning the Mississippi
program and program amendments at 30
CFR 924.10, 924.15, 924.16, and 924.17.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Submission of the Amendment
By email dated July 26, 2012
(Administrative Record No. MS–0423),
the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (Mississippi or
the Department) sent us an amendment
to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C.
1201 et seq.). Mississippi submitted the
proposed amendment in response to a
September 30, 2009, letter
(Administrative Record No. MS–0420–
02) that OSM sent to Mississippi in
accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c),
concerning multiple changes to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
ownership and control requirements.
Mississippi also made additional
changes to its regulations on its own
initiative. The specific sections in the
Mississippi program are discussed in
Part III OSM’s Findings. Mississippi
intends to revise its program to be no
less effective than the Federal
regulations, to clarify ambiguities, and
to improve operational efficiency.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the September
19, 2012, Federal Register (23 FR
58056). 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 none
were requested one. The public
comment period ended on October 19,
2012. We did not receive any public
comments.
By email dated March 4, 2013
(Administrative Record No. MS–0423–
03), Mississippi requested that we
suspend processing of their proposed
amendment while they made some
administrative corrections to their
submission. Mississippi submitted their
administratively revised proposed rule
by email dated June 28, 2013
(Administrative Record No. MS–0423–
04). We did not reopen the comment
period for the additional changes
because they were entirely
administrative in nature and did not
substantively affect the Mississippi
Program.
III. OSM’s Findings
We are approving the amendment as
described below. 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 also approving the
administrative changes made by
Mississippi throughout their proposed
rule, which primarily consisted of
changing the word ‘‘chapter’’ to ‘‘rule’’
and ‘‘subpart’’ to ‘‘chapter.’’ Statutory
references were added at the end of each
chapter and rule. Any revisions that we
do not specifically discuss below
concerning non-substantive wording or
editorial changes can be found in the
full text of the program amendment
available at www.regulations.gov.
A. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 105. Definitions
Mississippi proposed to add new
definitions for ‘‘Previously Mined Area’’
and ‘‘Violation’’; and revised the
definitions for ‘‘Applicant Violator
System or AVS’’; ‘‘Knowing or
Knowingly’’; ‘‘Slope’’; and ‘‘Willfully.’’
Mississippi’s new definitions and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
revised definitions are substantively the
same as counterpart Federal regulations
at 30 CFR 701.5. Mississippi also
corrected a reference to a regulatory
citation within its definition of
‘‘Ownership or Control Link,’’ which
has no Federal counterpart. Revision of
this previously approved definition
does not make Mississippi’s program
less effective than the Federal
regulation. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s new and revised
definitions.
B. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 2305. Identification of
Interests
Mississippi proposed to add
additional language clarifying the
requirements for information to be
included in a permit application
concerning the identification of interests
for the applicant and operator and for
the entry of the applicant’s information
into the Applicant Violator System
(AVS). We find that Mississippi’s new
language is substantively the same as
counterpart Federal regulations at 30
CFR 778.8, 778.9, and 778.11. Therefore,
we approve Mississippi’s revisions.
C. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 2902. Lands Eligible for
Remining
Mississippi proposed to add new
§ 2902 regarding lands eligible for
remining. The regulation requires that
any person who submits a permit
application to conduct a surface coal
mining operation on lands eligible for
remining must comply with all the
requirements of the regulations;
including the permitting requirements
of § 3130, which concerns unanticipated
events or conditions at remining sites.
We find that Mississippi’s new
regulation is substantively the same as
the counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 785.25. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s new regulation.
D. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 3102. Permit Eligibility
Determination; § 3112. Review of Permit
Applications; § 3113. Eligibility for
Provisionally Issued Permits; and
§ 3115. Criteria for Permit Approval or
Denial
Mississippi proposed to add new
§ 3102 which explains the roles and
responsibilities of the Department and
the Permit Board on whether the
applicant is eligible to receive a permit.
We find that Mississippi’s new
regulation is substantively the same as
the counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 773.12. Therefore, we are
approving Mississippi’s new regulation.
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Mississippi proposed renumbering
§ 3113 Review of Permit Applications,
to § 3112 Review of Permit
Applications. This change allows
Mississippi’s regulations to remain in
compliance with other portions of its
regulations. We find that these revisions
make Mississippi’s regulations no less
effective than the Federal regulations.
Therefore, we approve Mississippi’s
revision.
Mississippi proposed to add new
§ 3113 regarding the applicant’s
eligibility for a provisionally issued
permit. This applies to any applicant
that applies for a permit or who owns
or controls a surface coal mining and
reclamation operation with outstanding
permit violations. We find that
Mississippi’s new regulation is
substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 773.14. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s new regulation.
Mississippi proposed to revise its
citations in § 3115(m) to require
compliance with new § 3102(d)
regarding update of compliance
information prior to permit issuance.
Mississippi added new paragraphs (n)
and (o) to clarify the requirements
regarding permit approval criteria for
proposed remining operations. We find
that Mississippi’s revised citations and
new paragraphs (n) and (o) are
substantively the same as counterpart
Federal regulations at 30 CFR
773.15(k)(1) and (m)(i), (ii), and (iii).
Therefore, we approve Mississippi’s
revisions.
E. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations. § 3127. Initial Review and
Finding Requirements for Improvidently
Issued Permits; § 3128. Notice
Requirements for Improvidently Issued
Permits; and § 3129. Suspension or
Rescission Requirements for
Improvidently Issued Permits
Mississippi proposed to delete old
language in § 3127 regarding general
procedures for improvidently issued
permits. Mississippi replaced its old
language with new language regarding
what the Permit Board must do when it
has reason to believe that a permit has
been improvidently issued. The revision
describes the written permit findings
the Permit Board must make regarding
improvidently issued permits and how
a permittee can challenge those
findings. We find that Mississippi’s
newly added language is substantively
the same as the counterpart Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 773.21. Therefore,
we approve Mississippi’s revisions.
Mississippi proposed to add new
§ 3128 regarding the responsibilities of
the Department in serving the notice of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
suspension or rescission of
improvidently issued permits. We find
that Mississippi’s new regulation is
substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 773.22. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s new regulation.
Mississippi proposed to delete old
language in § 3129 regarding revocation
or suspension procedures for
improvidently issued permits.
Mississippi replaced this old language
with new language regarding the Permit
Board’s responsibilities for: (1)
Suspension or rescission of
improvidently issued permits; (2)
evaluation of permittee evidence; (3)
administrative review of the findings;
and (4) terms of the notice of cessation
of operations. We find that Mississippi’s
revisions are substantively the same as
counterpart Federal regulations at 30
CFR 773.21 and 773.23. Therefore, we
approve Mississippi’s revisions.
F. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 3130. Unanticipated
Events or Conditions at Remining Sites
Mississippi proposed to add new
§ 3130 regarding an applicant’s
eligibility for a permit if he has on
record an unabated violation resulting
from unanticipated events or conditions
at an existing or past permit on lands
eligible for remining. We find that
Mississippi’s new regulation is
substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 773.13. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s new regulation.
G. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 3131. Verification of
Ownership or Control Application
Information
Mississippi proposed revisions to
§ 3131 regarding what Mississippi must
do when it receives an application and
it appears that neither the applicant nor
the operator has any mining experience.
Specifically, it requires the Department
to investigate to determine whether
there may be additional owners or
controllers. If additional owners or
controllers are identified, Mississippi
requires such persons to disclose their
identity and make certifications, and
requires their identification information
be entered into AVS. We find that these
revisions allow Mississippi to fully meet
the Federal requirements of 30 CFR
773.10 and 773.11 regarding review of
permit history and review of
compliance history, thereby making
Mississippi’s regulation no less effective
than the Federal regulations. Therefore,
we approve Mississippi’s revisions.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
64399
H. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 3133. Who May Challenge
Ownership or Control Listings and
Findings; § 3135. How To Challenge an
Ownership or Control Listing or Finding;
§ 3136. Burden of Proof for Ownership
or Control Challenges; and § 3137.
Written Agency Decision on Challenges
to Ownership or Control Listings or
Findings
Mississippi proposed to delete old
language in § 3133 regarding the review
of ownership or control and violation
information and add new language
regarding who may challenge an
ownership or control listing or finding.
We find that the new language is
substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 773.25. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s revisions.
Mississippi proposed to delete old
language in § 3135 regarding procedures
for challenging ownership or control
listings or findings, and replaced it with
new language regarding how to
challenge an ownership or control
listing or finding. It explains that to
challenge an ownership or control
listing or finding, the person making the
challenge must submit a written
explanation of the basis for the
challenge, along with evidence or
explanatory material that a person
wishes to provide. We find that this new
language is substantively the same as
the counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 773.26. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s revisions.
Mississippi proposed to delete old
language in § 3136 regarding written
agency decisions on challenges to
ownership or control listings or findings
and replaced it with new language
regarding the burden of proof for
ownership or control challenges. This
applies to anyone who challenges a
listing of ownership or control, or a
finding of ownership or control made
under § 3138(g). It requires anyone who
challenges an ownership or control
listing or finding to prove by a
preponderance of evidence that they
either do not or did not own or control
the relevant portion of a surface coal
mining operation. We find that
Mississippi’s new language is
substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 773.27. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s revisions.
Mississippi proposed to delete old
language in § 3137 regarding standards
for challenging ownership or control
links and the status of violations, and
replaced it with new language regarding
written agency decisions on challenges
to ownership or control listings or
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
64400
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
findings. Mississippi explains that the
Permit Board will promptly provide the
person making the challenge with a
copy of its decision by any means
consistent with the rules governing
services of summons and complaints
under Rule 4 of the Mississippi Rule of
Civil Procedures. We find that this new
language is substantively the same as
the counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 773.28. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s revisions.
I. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 3138. Post-Permit
Issuance Requirements for Regulatory
Authorities and Other Actions Based on
Ownership, Control, and Violation
Information
Mississippi proposed to add new
§ 3138 regarding the Department’s
responsibilities after permit issuance
related to ownership, control, and
violation information. It also allows the
permittee to request a preliminary
hearing related to such actions. We find
that Mississippi’s new section is
substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 774.11. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s new regulation.
J. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 3139. Post-Permit
Issuance Requirements for Permittees
Mississippi proposed to add new
§ 3139 regarding the responsibilities of
permittees for providing information
following a cessation order after a
permit has been issued. We find that
Mississippi’s new section is
substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 774.12. Therefore, we are
approving Mississippi’s new regulation.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
K. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations § 5396. Backfilling and
Grading: Previously Mined Areas
Mississippi proposed to add new
§ 5396 regarding backfilling and grading
requirements on previously mined areas
with preexisting highwalls. The
regulation states that the requirements
of § 5391(a)(1) and (2) requiring
elimination of highwalls will not apply
to remining operations where the
volume of all reasonably available spoil
is insufficient to completely backfill the
highwall. Instead, the highwall is to be
backfilled to the maximum extent
practical in accordance with a set of
criteria articulated in the regulation. We
find that Mississippi’s new section is
substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30
CFR 816.106. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi’s new regulation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
L. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining
Regulations Chapter 73. Alternative
Enforcement
Mississippi proposed to add a new
chapter to its regulations regarding
alternative enforcement that provides
for criminal penalties and civil actions
to compel compliance with provisions
of the Act by adding § 7301 Scope,
§ 7303 General Provisions, § 7305
Criminal Penalties, and § 7307 Civil
Actions for Relief. We find that
Mississippi’s new Chapter 73
Alternative Enforcement is
substantively the same as counterpart
Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 847.
Therefore, we approve Mississippi’s
new Chapter 73.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendments, but did not receive any.
Federal Agency Comments
On August 1, 2012, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of
SMCRA, we requested comments on the
amendments from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential
interest in the Mississippi program
(Administrative Record No. MS–0423–
01). We did not receive any comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we
are required to get a written concurrence
from the EPA for those provisions of the
program amendments 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 Mississippi proposed to
make in these amendments pertained to
air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur
on the amendments. However, on
August 1, 2012, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested
comments on the amendments from the
EPA (Administrative Record No. MS–
0423–01). The EPA did not respond to
our request.
State Historical Preservation Officer
(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are
required to request comments from the
SHPO and ACHP on amendments that
may have an effect on historic
properties. On August 1, 2012, we
requested comments on Mississippi’s
amendments (Administrative Record
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
No. MS–0423–01), but neither the SHPO
nor ACHP responded to our request.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve the amendments Mississippi
sent us on July 26, 2012, as revised June
28, 2013.
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR Part 924 that codify decisions
concerning the Mississippi 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 sections (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
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
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 Mississippi program does not
regulate coal exploration and surface
coal mining and reclamation operations
on Indian lands. Therefore, the
Mississippi 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
64401
have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. This
determination is based upon the fact
that the State submittal, which is the
subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulation was not considered a major
rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of $100 million or more in any given
year. This determination is based upon
the fact that the State submittal, which
is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulation did not impose an unfunded
mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 924
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: July 3, 2013.
William L. Joseph,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent
Region.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 924 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 924—MISSISSIPPI
1. The authority citation for Part 924
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 924.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 924.15 Approval of Mississippi
regulatory program amendments.
*
*
*
*
*
Date of final
publication
Citation/description
*
July 26, 2012 .............
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Original amendment
submission date
*
October 29, 2013 ......
*
*
*
*
*
MSCMR Sections: 105; 1106; 2305; 2902; 3102; 3112; 3113; 3115(m), (n) and (o); 3127; 3128;
3129; 3130; 3131; 3133; 3135; 3136; 3137; 3138; 3139; 5396; 7301; 7303; 7305; and 7307.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
64402
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
[FR Doc. 2013–25575 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
Table of Contents
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0384; FRL–9901–77–
Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California;
South Coast; Contingency Measures
for 1997 PM2.5 Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a State
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by California to address Clean
Air Act (CAA) contingency measure
requirements for the 1997 annual and
24-hour national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) in the Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin (South Coast). Approval
of this SIP revision terminates the
sanctions clocks and a federal
implementation plan (FIP) clock that
were triggered by EPA’s partial
disapproval of a related SIP submission
on November 5, 2011.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may inspect the
supporting information for this action,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2013–0384, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking portal,
https://www.regulations.gov, please
follow the online instructions; or,
2. Visit our regional office at, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., voluminous records, large
maps, copyrighted material), and some
may not be publicly available in either
location (e.g., Confidential Business
Information). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed directly
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3959, lo.doris@epa.gov.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comment and EPA Response
III. EPA’s Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Proposed Action
On June 24, 2013 (78 FR 37741), EPA
proposed to approve the ‘‘South Coast
Air Quality Management District
Proposed Contingency Measures for the
2007 PM2.5 SIP’’ (dated October 2011),
which the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) submitted on November
14, 2011 and supplemented on April 24,
2013 (collectively the ‘‘Contingency
Measures SIP’’). EPA proposed to
approve the Contingency Measures SIP
as satisfying the attainment contingency
measure requirement in CAA section
172(c)(9) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
to conclude that the reasonable further
progress (RFP) contingency measure
requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9)
for the 2012 milestone year is moot
because the South Coast area has
achieved the emission reduction
benchmarks for the 2012 RFP year. Our
June 24, 2013 proposed rule provides
the rationale for this action.
II. Public Comment and EPA Response
EPA provided a 30-day public
comment period on our proposed
action. The comment period ended on
July 24, 2013. We received one public
comment and respond to that comment
below.
Comment: A private citizen asserted
that there has been no attempt to
address methane outgassing and the
many oil fields in the South Coast area.
The commenter also stated that train
maintenance, promotion of bicycles and
rail, automobile and truck lane
reductions, digital signage, outdoor
wood burning and landfills are not
being adequately addressed, that health
risk assessments should be required,
that there are cancer clusters in the area,
and that ‘‘the political handling of [the]
air quality problem does not change the
quality of life and health of’’ South
Coast area residents.
Response: The commenter’s
submission contained only general
observations and conclusions that are
outside the scope of EPA’s rulemaking
action. While expressing a broad range
of environmental concerns, the
commenter failed to identify any
specific issue relevant to EPA’s
proposed action on the Contingency
Measures SIP, and did not address the
basis for EPA’s approval of the South
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Coast’s contingency measures. To the
extent the commenter intended to
encourage additional review and
evaluation of air pollution sources in
the South Coast area, and additional
potential transportation and control
measures that may reduce air pollution,
EPA encourages the commenter to
participate in the regulatory processes
carried out by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), CARB, and other State/local
agencies involved in the development of
air quality management plans for the
South Coast area. EPA finds no basis in
the comment to change its views on the
approvability of the specific
contingency measures at issue in this
rulemaking.
III. EPA’s Final Action
We are finalizing our proposal to
conclude that the Contingency Measures
SIP submitted by CARB on November
14, 2011, as supplemented on April 24,
2013, satisfies the attainment
contingency measure requirement in
CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the South Coast
nonattainment area. We therefore fully
approve this submission into the
California SIP. This final action is based
in part on EPA’s final rule approving
SCAQMD Rule 444 and Rule 445, which
was signed by Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX, on
August 22, 2013. See ‘‘Revisions to
Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management District’’ Final
Rule, signed August 22, 2013 (prepublication copy).1
We are also finalizing our proposal to
conclude that the RFP contingency
measure requirement in CAA section
172(c)(9) for the 2012 milestone year is
moot as applied to the South Coast
because the area achieved its SIPapproved emission reduction
benchmarks for the 2012 RFP year.
Today’s final approval corrects
deficiencies that were the basis for
EPA’s partial disapproval of the South
Coast PM2.5 SIP on November 9, 2011
(76 FR 69928) and therefore terminates
the CAA section 179(b) sanctions clocks
triggered by that action and the
obligation on EPA to promulgate a FIP
within two years of that action.
1 EPA’s proposal to approve the Contingency
Measures SIP relied in part on a simultaneous
proposal to approve Rule 444 and Rule 445, which
we stated would provide SIP-creditable PM2.5
emission reductions upon final EPA approval of
these rules into the SIP. See 78 FR at 37745–37746
and 37751, Table 4.
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64397-64402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25575]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 924
[SATS No. MS-023-FOR; Docket No. OSM-2012-0018;
S1D1SSS08011000SX066A00067F134S180110;
S2D2SSS08011000SX066A00033F13XS501520]
Mississippi Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Mississippi regulatory program
(Mississippi Program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Mississippi proposed revisions to its
regulations regarding: definitions; identification of interests; lands
eligible for remining; permit eligibility determination; review of
permit applications; eligibility for provisionally issued permits;
criteria for permit approval or denial; initial review and finding
requirements for improvidently issued permits; notice requirements for
improvidently issued permits; suspension or rescission requirements for
improvidently issued permits; unanticipated events or conditions at
remining sites; verification of ownership or control application
information; who may challenge ownership or control listings and
findings; how to challenge an ownership or control listing or finding;
burden of proof for ownership or control challenges; written agency
decision on challenges to ownership or control listings or findings;
post-permit issuance requirements for regulatory authorities and other
actions based on
[[Page 64398]]
ownership, control, and violation information; post-permit issuance
requirements for permittees; backfilling and grading: previously mined
areas; and alternative enforcement. Mississippi intends to revise its
program to be no less effective than corresponding Federal regulations,
to clarify ambiguities, and to improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham
Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290-7282 Email: swilson@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Mississippi 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 Mississippi 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
conditionally approved the Mississippi program effective September 4,
1980. You can find background information on the Mississippi program,
including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and
the conditions of approval of the Mississippi program in the September
4, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 58520). You can also find later
actions concerning the Mississippi program and program amendments at 30
CFR 924.10, 924.15, 924.16, and 924.17.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By email dated July 26, 2012 (Administrative Record No. MS-0423),
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (Mississippi or the
Department) sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C.
1201 et seq.). Mississippi submitted the proposed amendment in response
to a September 30, 2009, letter (Administrative Record No. MS-0420-02)
that OSM sent to Mississippi in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c),
concerning multiple changes to ownership and control requirements.
Mississippi also made additional changes to its regulations on its own
initiative. The specific sections in the Mississippi program are
discussed in Part III OSM's Findings. Mississippi intends to revise its
program to be no less effective than the Federal regulations, to
clarify ambiguities, and to improve operational efficiency.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September 19,
2012, Federal Register (23 FR 58056). 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 none were requested one. The public
comment period ended on October 19, 2012. We did not receive any public
comments.
By email dated March 4, 2013 (Administrative Record No. MS-0423-
03), Mississippi requested that we suspend processing of their proposed
amendment while they made some administrative corrections to their
submission. Mississippi submitted their administratively revised
proposed rule by email dated June 28, 2013 (Administrative Record No.
MS-0423-04). We did not reopen the comment period for the additional
changes because they were entirely administrative in nature and did not
substantively affect the Mississippi Program.
III. OSM's Findings
We are approving the amendment as described below. 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 also approving
the administrative changes made by Mississippi throughout their
proposed rule, which primarily consisted of changing the word
``chapter'' to ``rule'' and ``subpart'' to ``chapter.'' Statutory
references were added at the end of each chapter and rule. Any
revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning non-
substantive wording or editorial changes can be found in the full text
of the program amendment available at www.regulations.gov.
A. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 105. Definitions
Mississippi proposed to add new definitions for ``Previously Mined
Area'' and ``Violation''; and revised the definitions for ``Applicant
Violator System or AVS''; ``Knowing or Knowingly''; ``Slope''; and
``Willfully.'' Mississippi's new definitions and revised definitions
are substantively the same as counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR
701.5. Mississippi also corrected a reference to a regulatory citation
within its definition of ``Ownership or Control Link,'' which has no
Federal counterpart. Revision of this previously approved definition
does not make Mississippi's program less effective than the Federal
regulation. Therefore, we approve Mississippi's new and revised
definitions.
B. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 2305.
Identification of Interests
Mississippi proposed to add additional language clarifying the
requirements for information to be included in a permit application
concerning the identification of interests for the applicant and
operator and for the entry of the applicant's information into the
Applicant Violator System (AVS). We find that Mississippi's new
language is substantively the same as counterpart Federal regulations
at 30 CFR 778.8, 778.9, and 778.11. Therefore, we approve Mississippi's
revisions.
C. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 2902. Lands
Eligible for Remining
Mississippi proposed to add new Sec. 2902 regarding lands eligible
for remining. The regulation requires that any person who submits a
permit application to conduct a surface coal mining operation on lands
eligible for remining must comply with all the requirements of the
regulations; including the permitting requirements of Sec. 3130, which
concerns unanticipated events or conditions at remining sites. We find
that Mississippi's new regulation is substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 785.25. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's new regulation.
D. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 3102. Permit
Eligibility Determination; Sec. 3112. Review of Permit Applications;
Sec. 3113. Eligibility for Provisionally Issued Permits; and Sec.
3115. Criteria for Permit Approval or Denial
Mississippi proposed to add new Sec. 3102 which explains the roles
and responsibilities of the Department and the Permit Board on whether
the applicant is eligible to receive a permit. We find that
Mississippi's new regulation is substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.12. Therefore, we are
approving Mississippi's new regulation.
[[Page 64399]]
Mississippi proposed renumbering Sec. 3113 Review of Permit
Applications, to Sec. 3112 Review of Permit Applications. This change
allows Mississippi's regulations to remain in compliance with other
portions of its regulations. We find that these revisions make
Mississippi's regulations no less effective than the Federal
regulations. Therefore, we approve Mississippi's revision.
Mississippi proposed to add new Sec. 3113 regarding the
applicant's eligibility for a provisionally issued permit. This applies
to any applicant that applies for a permit or who owns or controls a
surface coal mining and reclamation operation with outstanding permit
violations. We find that Mississippi's new regulation is substantively
the same as the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.14.
Therefore, we approve Mississippi's new regulation.
Mississippi proposed to revise its citations in Sec. 3115(m) to
require compliance with new Sec. 3102(d) regarding update of
compliance information prior to permit issuance. Mississippi added new
paragraphs (n) and (o) to clarify the requirements regarding permit
approval criteria for proposed remining operations. We find that
Mississippi's revised citations and new paragraphs (n) and (o) are
substantively the same as counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR
773.15(k)(1) and (m)(i), (ii), and (iii). Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's revisions.
E. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations. Sec. 3127. Initial
Review and Finding Requirements for Improvidently Issued Permits; Sec.
3128. Notice Requirements for Improvidently Issued Permits; and Sec.
3129. Suspension or Rescission Requirements for Improvidently Issued
Permits
Mississippi proposed to delete old language in Sec. 3127 regarding
general procedures for improvidently issued permits. Mississippi
replaced its old language with new language regarding what the Permit
Board must do when it has reason to believe that a permit has been
improvidently issued. The revision describes the written permit
findings the Permit Board must make regarding improvidently issued
permits and how a permittee can challenge those findings. We find that
Mississippi's newly added language is substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.21. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's revisions.
Mississippi proposed to add new Sec. 3128 regarding the
responsibilities of the Department in serving the notice of suspension
or rescission of improvidently issued permits. We find that
Mississippi's new regulation is substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.22. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's new regulation.
Mississippi proposed to delete old language in Sec. 3129 regarding
revocation or suspension procedures for improvidently issued permits.
Mississippi replaced this old language with new language regarding the
Permit Board's responsibilities for: (1) Suspension or rescission of
improvidently issued permits; (2) evaluation of permittee evidence; (3)
administrative review of the findings; and (4) terms of the notice of
cessation of operations. We find that Mississippi's revisions are
substantively the same as counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR
773.21 and 773.23. Therefore, we approve Mississippi's revisions.
F. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 3130.
Unanticipated Events or Conditions at Remining Sites
Mississippi proposed to add new Sec. 3130 regarding an applicant's
eligibility for a permit if he has on record an unabated violation
resulting from unanticipated events or conditions at an existing or
past permit on lands eligible for remining. We find that Mississippi's
new regulation is substantively the same as the counterpart Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 773.13. Therefore, we approve Mississippi's new
regulation.
G. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 3131. Verification
of Ownership or Control Application Information
Mississippi proposed revisions to Sec. 3131 regarding what
Mississippi must do when it receives an application and it appears that
neither the applicant nor the operator has any mining experience.
Specifically, it requires the Department to investigate to determine
whether there may be additional owners or controllers. If additional
owners or controllers are identified, Mississippi requires such persons
to disclose their identity and make certifications, and requires their
identification information be entered into AVS. We find that these
revisions allow Mississippi to fully meet the Federal requirements of
30 CFR 773.10 and 773.11 regarding review of permit history and review
of compliance history, thereby making Mississippi's regulation no less
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's revisions.
H. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 3133. Who May
Challenge Ownership or Control Listings and Findings; Sec. 3135. How
To Challenge an Ownership or Control Listing or Finding; Sec. 3136.
Burden of Proof for Ownership or Control Challenges; and Sec. 3137.
Written Agency Decision on Challenges to Ownership or Control Listings
or Findings
Mississippi proposed to delete old language in Sec. 3133 regarding
the review of ownership or control and violation information and add
new language regarding who may challenge an ownership or control
listing or finding. We find that the new language is substantively the
same as the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.25. Therefore,
we approve Mississippi's revisions.
Mississippi proposed to delete old language in Sec. 3135 regarding
procedures for challenging ownership or control listings or findings,
and replaced it with new language regarding how to challenge an
ownership or control listing or finding. It explains that to challenge
an ownership or control listing or finding, the person making the
challenge must submit a written explanation of the basis for the
challenge, along with evidence or explanatory material that a person
wishes to provide. We find that this new language is substantively the
same as the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.26. Therefore,
we approve Mississippi's revisions.
Mississippi proposed to delete old language in Sec. 3136 regarding
written agency decisions on challenges to ownership or control listings
or findings and replaced it with new language regarding the burden of
proof for ownership or control challenges. This applies to anyone who
challenges a listing of ownership or control, or a finding of ownership
or control made under Sec. 3138(g). It requires anyone who challenges
an ownership or control listing or finding to prove by a preponderance
of evidence that they either do not or did not own or control the
relevant portion of a surface coal mining operation. We find that
Mississippi's new language is substantively the same as the counterpart
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.27. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's revisions.
Mississippi proposed to delete old language in Sec. 3137 regarding
standards for challenging ownership or control links and the status of
violations, and replaced it with new language regarding written agency
decisions on challenges to ownership or control listings or
[[Page 64400]]
findings. Mississippi explains that the Permit Board will promptly
provide the person making the challenge with a copy of its decision by
any means consistent with the rules governing services of summons and
complaints under Rule 4 of the Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedures. We
find that this new language is substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.28. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's revisions.
I. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 3138. Post-Permit
Issuance Requirements for Regulatory Authorities and Other Actions
Based on Ownership, Control, and Violation Information
Mississippi proposed to add new Sec. 3138 regarding the
Department's responsibilities after permit issuance related to
ownership, control, and violation information. It also allows the
permittee to request a preliminary hearing related to such actions. We
find that Mississippi's new section is substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.11. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's new regulation.
J. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 3139. Post-Permit
Issuance Requirements for Permittees
Mississippi proposed to add new Sec. 3139 regarding the
responsibilities of permittees for providing information following a
cessation order after a permit has been issued. We find that
Mississippi's new section is substantively the same as the counterpart
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.12. Therefore, we are approving
Mississippi's new regulation.
K. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Sec. 5396. Backfilling
and Grading: Previously Mined Areas
Mississippi proposed to add new Sec. 5396 regarding backfilling
and grading requirements on previously mined areas with preexisting
highwalls. The regulation states that the requirements of Sec.
5391(a)(1) and (2) requiring elimination of highwalls will not apply to
remining operations where the volume of all reasonably available spoil
is insufficient to completely backfill the highwall. Instead, the
highwall is to be backfilled to the maximum extent practical in
accordance with a set of criteria articulated in the regulation. We
find that Mississippi's new section is substantively the same as the
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.106. Therefore, we approve
Mississippi's new regulation.
L. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Regulations Chapter 73. Alternative
Enforcement
Mississippi proposed to add a new chapter to its regulations
regarding alternative enforcement that provides for criminal penalties
and civil actions to compel compliance with provisions of the Act by
adding Sec. 7301 Scope, Sec. 7303 General Provisions, Sec. 7305
Criminal Penalties, and Sec. 7307 Civil Actions for Relief. We find
that Mississippi's new Chapter 73 Alternative Enforcement is
substantively the same as counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR
Part 847. Therefore, we approve Mississippi's new Chapter 73.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendments, but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
On August 1, 2012, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b)
of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendments from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Mississippi
program (Administrative Record No. MS-0423-01). We did not receive any
comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written
concurrence from the EPA for those provisions of the program amendments
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
Mississippi proposed to make in these amendments pertained to air or
water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the
amendments. However, on August 1, 2012, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),
we requested comments on the amendments from the EPA (Administrative
Record No. MS-0423-01). The EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. On August 1, 2012, we requested comments on Mississippi's
amendments (Administrative Record No. MS-0423-01), but neither the SHPO
nor ACHP responded to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendments Mississippi
sent us on July 26, 2012, as revised June 28, 2013.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR Part 924 that codify decisions concerning the Mississippi
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 sections (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
[[Page 64401]]
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 Mississippi program
does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Mississippi
program has no effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that
agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would
have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data
and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a
major rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 924
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: July 3, 2013.
William L. Joseph,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 924 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 924--MISSISSIPPI
0
1. The authority citation for Part 924 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 924.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 924.15 Approval of Mississippi regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
July 26, 2012......................... October 29, 2013...................... MSCMR Sections: 105; 1106; 2305;
2902; 3102; 3112; 3113;
3115(m), (n) and (o); 3127;
3128; 3129; 3130; 3131; 3133;
3135; 3136; 3137; 3138; 3139;
5396; 7301; 7303; 7305; and
7307.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64402]]
[FR Doc. 2013-25575 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
