9642 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Annual Update of Filing Fees in Part 

381; Annual Update of Filing Fees 

The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) is issuing 

this Final Rule to update filing fees that 

the Commission assesses for specific 

services and benefits provided to 

identifiable beneficiaries. Pursuant to 18 

CFR 381.104, the Commission is 

establishing updated fees on the basis of 

the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2010 

costs. The adjusted fees announced in 

this notice are effective March 24, 2011. 

The Commission has determined, with 

the concurrence of the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of the Office of Management and 

Budget, that this Final Rule is not a 

major rule within the meaning of 

section 251 of Subtitle E of Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 

Commission is submitting this Final 

Rule to both houses of the United States 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. 

The new fee schedule is as follows: 

FEES APPLICABLE TO THE NATURAL

GAS POLICY ACT

1. Petitions for rate approval 

pursuant to 18 CFR 

284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 

381.403) ................................ $11,720. 

FEES APPLICABLE TO GENERAL

ACTIVITIES

1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except under 

Part I of the Federal Power 

Act). (18 CFR 381.302(a)) .... $23,540. 

2. Review of a Department of Energy 

remedial order: 

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) $100 

$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 

381.303(b)) ............................ 600 

$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 

381.303(b)) ............................ 600 

$30,000 or more. (18 CFR 

381.303(a)) ............................ 34,370 

3. Review of a Department of Energy 

denial of adjustment: 

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) $100 

$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 

381.304(b)) ............................ 600 

$30,000 or more. (18 CFR 

381.304(a)) ............................ 18,020 

4. Written legal interpretations by the 

Office of General Counsel. (18 CFR 

381.305(a)) $6,750. 

FEES APPLICABLE TO NATURAL GAS

PIPELINES

1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR 

284.224. (18 CFR 

381.207(b)) ............................ $1,000.* 

* This fee has not been changed. 

FEES APPLICABLE TO COGENERATORS

AND SMALL POWER PRODUCERS

1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power production facility. (18 CFR 

381.505(a)) ............................ $20,240. 

2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration facility. 

(18 CFR 381.505(a)) ............. 22,920. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381 

Electric power plants, Electric 

utilities, Natural gas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Charles H. Schneider, 

Executive Director. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission amends Part 381, Chapter I, 

Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

set forth below. 

PART 381—FEES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 381 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w; 16 U.S.C. 

791–828c, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 

U.S.C. 7101–7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. 

U.S.C. 1–85. 

§ 381.302 [Amended] 

■ 2. In 381.302, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$23,140’’ and 

adding ‘‘$23,540’’ in its place. 

§ 381.303 [Amended] 

■ 3. In 381.303, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$33,780’’ and 

adding ‘‘$34,370’’ in its place. 

§ 381.304 [Amended] 

■ 4. In 381.304, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$17,710’’ and 

adding ‘‘$18,020’’ in its place. 

§ 381.305 [Amended] 

■ 5. In 381.305, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$6,640’’ and 

adding ‘‘$6,750’’ in its place. 

§ 381.403 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 381.403 is amended by 

removing ‘‘$11,520’’ and adding 

‘‘$11,720’’ in its place. 

§ 381.505 [Amended] 

■ 7. In 381.505, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$19,900’’ and 

adding ‘‘$20,240’’ in its place and by 

removing ‘‘$22,530’’ and adding 

‘‘$22,920’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3811 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 901 

[SATS No. AL–075–FOR; Docket No. OSM– 

2010–0009] 

Alabama Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are approving an amendment to 

the Alabama regulatory program 

(Alabama program) under the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama 

proposed revisions to its regulations 

regarding their Surface Mining 

Commission, who is eligible to apply for 

and obtain a mining license, Hearing 

Officers, license fees, and several minor 

editorial changes throughout the 

document such as changing ‘‘him’’ to 

‘‘him or her’’ and ‘‘chairman’’ to ‘‘chair.’’ 

Alabama revised its program to improve 

operational efficiency. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 22, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham 

Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290– 

7280. E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Alabama Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Alabama Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 9643 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the Alabama 

program effective May 20, 1982. You 

can find background information on the 

Alabama program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and the conditions of 

approval of the Alabama program in the 

May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 

22030). You can also find later actions 

concerning the Alabama program and 

program amendments at 30 CFR 901.10, 

901.15, and 901.16. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated May 12, 2010 

(Administrative Record No. AL–661), 

and revised on July 14, 2010 

(Administrative Record No. AL–661– 

006), Alabama sent us an amendment to 

its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 

1201 et seq.). Alabama sent the 

amendment at its own initiative. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the September 

30, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 

60371). In the same document, we 

opened the public comment period and 

provided an opportunity for a public 

hearing or meeting on the adequacy of 

the amendment. We did not hold a 

public hearing or meeting because no 

one requested one. The public comment 

period ended on November 1, 2010. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

The following are the findings we 

made concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment as described 

below. Any revisions that we do not 

specifically discuss below concern 

nonsubstantive wording or editorial 

changes. 

A. Alabama Code § 9–16–73 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–73(a) with several minor editorial 

changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

this paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–73(b). This change adds the 

requirements that members of the seven 

member Commission reflect the racial, 

gender, geographic, urban/rural and 

economic diversity of the state. This 

seven member board appointed by the 

Governor with the advice and consent of 

the Alabama State Senate is, pursuant to 

the approved state program, vested with 

the power and authority to implement 

the state Title V program acting through 

its director and staff. The full text of the 

changes is available in the 

Administrative Record. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

this paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–73(c) through (f) with several 

minor editorial changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

these paragraphs does not make 

Alabama’s program less effective than 

the Federal regulations. Therefore, we 

are approving it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–73(g). This change authorizes the 

Commission to meet once every month 

rather than once every 30 days as 

previously required. The full text of the 

changes is available in the 

Administrative Record. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

this paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–73(h) through (j) with several 

minor editorial changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

these paragraphs does not make 

Alabama’s program less effective than 

the Federal regulations. Therefore, we 

are approving it. 

B. Alabama Code § 9–16–74 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–74(1) through (3) with several 

minor editorial changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

these paragraphs does not make 

Alabama’s program less effective than 

the Federal regulations. Therefore, we 

are approving it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–74(4). This addition allows the 

Commission to promulgate rules and 

regulations charging reasonable fees for 

administration of these blasting rules, 

regulations, and standards including, 

but not limited to, fees for certifications, 

renewals, and continuing education for 

certified blaster applicants. The full text 

of the changes is available in the 

Administrative Record. There is no 

Federal counterpart to this section and 

we find the amendment of this 

paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–74(5) through (22) with several 

minor editorial changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

these paragraphs does not make 

Alabama’s program less effective than 

the Federal regulations. Therefore, we 

are approving it. 

C. Alabama Code § 9–16–77 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–77(a) with several minor editorial 

changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

this paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–77(b). This change amends 

existing provisions for the hiring or 

contracting with Hearing Officers to 

preside over administrative appeals of 

agency actions, continues the existing 

requirements that Hearing Officers be 

members in good standing with the 

Alabama State Bar and have no direct or 

indirect interests in a surface or 

underground coal mine operation, and 

adds a prohibition against hearing 

officers having been employed by or 

having represented a coal mine operator 

within the previous 24 months. This 

section corresponds to 30 CFR 705.1. 

The full text of the changes is available 

in the Administrative Record. 

We find the amendment of these 

paragraphs does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

D. Alabama Code § 9–16–78 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–78(a) through (c) with several 

minor editorial changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

these paragraphs does not make 

Alabama’s program less effective than 

the Federal regulations. Therefore, we 

are approving it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–78(d). This change deletes an 

existing provision of law that Hearing 

Officer facilities be located in a facility 

apart from Commission offices. The full 

text of the changes is available in the 

Administrative Record. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

this paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

9644 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

E. Alabama Code § 9–16–81 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–81(a) with several minor editorial 

changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

this paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–81(b). This change amends the 

existing license statute to require that 

only citizens of the United States or 

persons legally present in the United 

States with appropriate documentation 

from the Federal government and that 

possess a mining license may engage in 

surface coal mining operations within 

Alabama. Additionally, several minor 

editorial changes were made. The full 

text of the changes is available in the 

Administrative Record. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

this paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–81(c) and (d) with several minor 

editorial changes. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

these paragraphs does not make 

Alabama’s program less effective than 

the Federal regulations. Therefore, we 

are approving it. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–81(f). This change modifies 

existing law to remove a fixed $1,000 

fee and allow the Commission to 

establish by rule the initial fee for a 

mining license and annual license 

update fees. Such fees must be 

reasonable in amount. Additionally, 

several minor editorial changes were 

made. The full text of the changes is 

available in the Administrative Record. 

There is no Federal counterpart to this 

section and we find the amendment of 

this paragraph does not make Alabama’s 

program less effective than the Federal 

regulations. Therefore, we are approving 

it. 

F. Alabama Code § 9–16–93 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–93(b). This change deletes a 

requirement of existing law that 

cessation orders alleging imminent 

harm or danger include a citation for an 

expeditious hearing before an 

administrative hearing officer. The 

amendment conforms the Alabama 

Statute to the requirements of the 

corresponding Federal SMCRA 

provisions. The full text of the changes 

is available in the Administrative 

Record. 

We find that the changes to this 

section make Alabama’s program no less 

effective than its Federal counterparts at 

30 CFR 840.13(b). Therefore, we are 

approving them. 

Alabama revised its code at Section 

9–16–93(c) through (f) with several 

minor editorial changes. 

We find that the changes in Alabama’s 

program are no less stringent than its 

Federal counterparts at 30 U.S.C. 1271 

(a)(2). Therefore, we are approving 

them. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment and received one 

concerning the proposed changes to 

Alabama Code § 9–16–73 with respect to 

the Alabama program requiring that 

members of the seven member Alabama 

Surface Mining Commission reflect the 

racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural 

and economic diversity of the state. The 

commenter objected to using gender and 

race as a basis for the selection by the 

Alabama governor of future members of 

the Commission. That commenter 

asserted ‘‘[t]here is no justification for 

discrimination in this particular 

context.’’ The commenter opined, ‘‘the 

best qualified individuals should be 

selected, without regard to race, 

ethnicity, or sex,’’ and requested that the 

words ‘‘racial’’ and ‘‘gender’’ be deleted 

from the proposed change to the 

Alabama program.. 

The commenter cited three decisions 

by the U.S. Supreme Court [Adarand 

Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 

227 (1995); Mississippi University for 

Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982); 

Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. 

Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)] and one 

Federal statute [Title VII of the 1964 

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.] 

in support of his objection and request. 

However, the cases relied upon by the 

commenter do not make it 

unconstitutional for the Governor of 

Alabama to appoint people to the 

Commission who reflect the racial, 

gender, geographic, urban/rural and 

economic diversity of the state. 

In fact, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. 

Pena specifically holds, ‘‘government is 

not disqualified from acting in response 

to the persistence of both the practice 

and the lingering effects of racial 

discrimination against minority groups 

in the United States.’’ Rather than 

outlawing affirmative action as the 

commenter suggests, the Supreme Court 

requires that provisions like the one 

Alabama is proposing be narrowly 

tailored to further compelling 

government interests. The State of 

Alabama has decided that it has a 

compelling government interest in 

having the Alabama Surface Mining 

Commission reflect the racial, gender, 

geographic, urban/rural and economic 

diversity of the state. 

In reviewing proposed amendments to 

the approved Alabama regulatory 

program, OSM does not second-guess 

the State’s determinations about its 

compelling government interests. OSM’s 

task is to determine whether the 

proposed regulatory changes render the 

Alabama program less effective than the 

Federal standards established by 

Congress. We have determined the 

proposed changes will not make the 

Alabama program less effective and we 

are therefore approving them. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On July 28, 2010, under 30 CFR 

732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of 

SMCRA, we requested comments on the 

amendment from various Federal 

agencies with an actual or potential 

interest in the Alabama program 

(Administrative Record No. AL–661.07). 

We did not receive any comments. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Concurrence and Comments 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we 

are required to get a written concurrence 

from EPA for those provisions of the 

program amendment that relate to air or 

water quality standards issued under 

the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the 

revisions that Alabama proposed to 

make in this amendment pertain to air 

or water quality standards. Therefore, 

we did not ask EPA to concur on the 

amendment. However, on July 28, 2010, 

under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we 

requested comments from the EPA on 

the amendment (Administrative Record 

No. AL–661.07). The EPA did not 

respond to our request. 

State Historical Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are 

required to request comments from the 

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that 

may have an effect on historic 

properties. On July 28, 2010, we 

requested comments on Alabama’s 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

AL–661.07), but neither responded to 

our request. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 9645 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve the amendment Alabama sent 

us on May 12, 2010 and revised on July 

14, 2010. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR Part 901, which codify decisions 

concerning the Alabama program. We 

find that good cause exists under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule 

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of 

SMCRA requires that the State’s 

program demonstrate that the State has 

the capability of carrying out the 

provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. Making this rule effective 

immediately will expedite that process. 

SMCRA requires consistency of State 

and Federal standards. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulation. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that this rule meets the 

applicable standards of subsections (a) 

and (b) of that section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

because each program is drafted and 

promulgated by a specific State, not by 

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

submitted by the States must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and 

its implementing Federal regulations 

and whether the other requirements of 

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have 

been met. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA 

requires that State laws regulating 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations be ‘‘in accordance with’’ the 

requirements of SMCRA, and section 

503(a)(7) requires that State programs 

contain rules and regulations 

‘‘consistent with’’ regulations issued by 

the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

The basis for this determination is that 

our decision is on a State regulatory 

program and does not involve Federal 

regulations involving Indian lands. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 

U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

program provisions do not constitute 

major Federal actions within the 

meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, 

which is the subject of this rule, is based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

making the determination as to whether 

this rule would have a significant 

economic impact, the Department relied 

upon the data and assumptions for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and (c) Does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based upon the fact 

that the State submittal, which is the 

subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation was not considered a major 

rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of $100 million or more in any given 

year. This determination is based upon 

the fact that the State submittal, which 

is the subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation did not impose an unfunded 

mandate. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 901 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

9646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: December 23, 2010. 

Ervin J. Barchenger, 

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR Part 901 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 901—ALABAMA 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 901 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 901.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 901.15 Approval of Alabama regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment 

submission date 

Date of final 

publication Citation/description 

*******

January 5, 2010 ................... February 22, 2011 .............. ASMCRA sections 9–16–73; 9–16–74; 9–16–77; 9–16–78; 9–16–81(a) through (d) 

and (f); and 9–16–93(b) through (f). 

[FR Doc. 2011–3907 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165 

[USCG–2010–0399] 

Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, 

Security Zones, Special Local 

Regulations, Drawbridge Operation 

Regulations and Regulated Navigation 

Areas 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of expired temporary 

rules issued; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a 

document in the Federal Register of 

February 9, 2011, concerning the 

expiration of temporary rules. The 

document contained an incorrect docket 

number. 

DATES: Effective February 22, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on this notice contact Yeoman 

First Class Denise Johnson, Office of 

Regulations and Administrative Law, 

telephone (202) 372–3862. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of February 9, 

2011, in FR Vol. 76, No. 27, on page 

7107, in the second column, correct the 

docket number [USCG–2011–0399] to 

read [USCG–2010–0399]. 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

K.A. Sinniger, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3867 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN65 

Copayments for Medications After 

June 30, 2010 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document affirms as 

final an interim final rule that froze 

until January 1, 2012, the copayment 

required for certain medications. Under 

those amendments, the copayment 

amount for veterans in the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care 

system, enrollment priority categories 2 

through 6, will remain at $8 and the 

copayment amount for veterans in 

enrollment priority categories 7 and 8 

will remain at $9. The maximum annual 

copayment amount will also not 

increase. On January 1, 2012, the 

copayment amounts will increase based 

on the prescription drug component of 

the Medical Consumer Price Index (CPI– 

P). When the copayment increases, the 

maximum annual copayment amount 

automatically increases in turn. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on February 22, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roscoe Butler, Acting Director, Business 

Policy, Chief Business Office, 810 

Vermont Avenue, Washington, DC 

20420, 202–461–1586. (This is not a 

toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 

U.S.C. 1722A(a), VA must require 

veterans to pay a $2 copayment for each 

30-day supply of medication furnished 

on an outpatient basis for the treatment 

of a nonservice-connected disability or 

condition. Under 38 U.S.C. 1722A(b), 

VA may, by regulation, increase that 

copayment and establish a maximum 

annual copayment (a ‘‘cap’’). We 

interpret section 1722A(b) to mean that 

VA has discretion to determine the 

appropriate copayment amount and 

annual cap amount for medication 

furnished on an outpatient basis for 

covered treatment, provided that any 

decision by VA to increase the 

copayment amount or annual cap 

amount is the subject of a rulemaking 

proceeding. We have implemented this 

statute in 38 CFR 17.110. 

On June 9, 2010, we published a final 

rule that affirmed as final an interim 

final rule that amended § 17.110 to 

‘‘freeze’’ at $8 the copayment required 

for prescription medications through 

June 30, 2010. 75 FR 32668. Also on 

June 9, 2010, we published an interim 

final rule amending § 17.110 such that 

the copayment amounts are fixed at $8 

for veterans in enrollment priority 

categories 2 through 6 of VA’s health 

care system, and at $9 for veterans in 

priority categories 7 and 8 through 

December 31, 2011. 75 FR 32670. Any 

changes to these copayment amounts 

that would take effect after December 

31, 2011, would be based on changes to 

the CPI–P, as described in 

§ 17.110(b)(1)(iv). 

In addition, § 17.110(b)(2) includes a 

cap on the total amount of copayments 

in a calendar year for a veteran enrolled 

in one of VA’s health care enrollment 

system priority categories 2 through 6. 

The amount of the cap for the period 

from January 1, 2010, through December 

31, 2011 is fixed at $960. Also under 

paragraph (b)(2), the ‘‘cap of $960 shall 

be increased by $120 for each $1 

increase in the copayment amount.’’ 

In the June 9, 2010, interim final rule, 

we cited the previous interim final rule 

published on December 31, 2009 

(adopted without change as a final rule 

on June 9, 2010 (75 FR 32668)), in 

which we stated that we had concerns 

about increasing copayments under the 

methodology in current 38 CFR 

17.110(b)(1)(iv). 75 FR 32670. We stated 

that we needed ‘‘time to determine 

whether an increase [in copayments] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES