81122 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes. 

The rule does not involve or affect 

Indian Tribes in any way. 

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) et seq.). 

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. 

3501 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), of 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. 

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 934 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: August 12, 2010. 

Allen D. Klein, 

Regional Director, Western Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 934 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 934—NORTH DAKOTA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 934 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 934.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final 

Publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 934.15 Approval of North Dakota 

regulatory program amendments 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description 

*******

November 12, 2009 ..................................................... December 27, 2010 ..................................................... NDCC 38–14.1–24(18). 

NDAC 69–05.2–09–2. 

2NDAC 69–05.2–22–07. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32414 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 943 

[SATS No. TX–059–FOR; Docket No. OSM– 

2010–0001] 

Texas 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 Texas regulatory program (Texas 

program) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). Texas proposed 

revisions to its regulations regarding 

annual permit fees. Texas revised its 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81123 

program at its own initiative to improve 

operational efficiency. The fee changes 

encourage mining companies to more 

quickly reclaim lands and request bond 

release, thereby fulfilling SMCRA’s 

purpose of assuring the reclamation of 

mined land as quickly as possible. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 27, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa 

Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581– 

6430. E-mail: aclayborne@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Texas 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 Texas 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 State 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 Texas 

program effective February 16, 1980. 

You can find background information 

on the Texas program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and the conditions of 

approval, in the February 27, 1980, 

Federal Register (45 FR 12998). You can 

find later actions on the Texas program 

at 30 CFR 943.10, 943.15, and 943.16. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated January 5, 2010 

(Administrative Record No. TX–666), 

Texas sent us an amendment to its 

program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 

et seq.). Texas sent the amendment at its 

own initiative. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the April 26, 

2010, Federal Register (75 FR 21534). 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 May 26, 2010. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

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. 

16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 

Section 12.108 Permit Fees 

Texas proposed to revise its 

regulations at 16 TAC sections 

12.108(b)(1) through (b)(3) regarding 

annual permit fees by: 

(1) Decreasing, from $150.00 per acre 

to $130.00 per acre, the amount of the 

fee in paragraph (b)(1) for each acre of 

land within the permit area on which 

coal or lignite was actually removed 

during the calendar year, 

(2) Increasing, from $3.75 to $5.50, the 

amount of the fee in paragraph (b)(2) for 

each acre of land within a permit area 

covered by a reclamation bond on 

December 31st of the year, and 

(3) Increasing, from $4,200.00 to 

$4,250.00, the amount of the fee in 

paragraph (b)(3) for each permit in effect 

on December 31st of the year. 

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

777.17, concerning permit fees, provide 

that applications for surface coal mining 

permits must be accompanied by a fee 

determined by the regulatory authority. 

The Federal regulations also provide 

that the fees may be less than, but not 

more than, the actual or anticipated cost 

of reviewing, administering, and 

enforcing the permit. 

Texas’ amendment describes how 

Texas funds its coal mining regulatory 

program. Texas operates on a biennial 

budget which appropriates general 

revenue funds for permitting and 

inspecting coal mining facilities within 

the state. This appropriation is 

contingent on the Railroad Commission 

of Texas (Commission) assessing fees 

sufficient to generate revenue to recover 

the general revenue appropriation. 

When calculating anticipated costs to 

the Commission, for regulating coal 

mining activity, Texas anticipates OSM 

providing grant funding up to fifty 

percent of the regulatory program costs 

based on section 705(a) of SMCRA. 

However, OSM does not agree that this 

is a reasonable expectation in light of 

the Administration’s proposed fiscal 

year 2011 budget announced on 

February 2, 2010. The proposed fiscal 

year 2011 budget reduces overall 

funding to States, which may result in 

them receiving less than fifty percent of 

their anticipated regulatory program 

costs, consistent with Section 705 of 

SMCRA. 

Texas adjusts its fees biennially to 

recover the amounts expended from 

State appropriations in accordance with 

a formula and schedule agreed to in 

2005 by the coal mining industry and 

the Commission. This amendment 

represents the third adjustment to 

surface mining fees based upon that 

agreement. Adjustments are expected to 

continue for a ten year period that began 

in 2005. This amendment identifies 

historical and anticipated costs of 

conducting coal regulatory functions, 

describes how these costs are allocated 

to each of the fee types assessed by the 

Commission, and identifies the per unit 

rate for each fee that will be assessed 

during State fiscal years 2010 and 2011. 

OSM is concerned that the rate for each 

fee will not generate funds sufficient to 

cover the cost of the regulatory program. 

We find that Texas’ changes are 

consistent with the discretionary 

authority provided by the Federal 

Regulations at 30 CFR 777.17. OSM 

approves Texas’ proposed permit fees, 

including the annual permit fees, 

recognizing that Texas has a process to 

adjust its fees to cover the cost of its 

regulatory program that exceeds fifty 

percent of the total program costs not 

covered by the Federal grant. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment, but did not receive any. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On January 22, 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 Texas program 

(Administrative Record No. TX–664.02). 

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 Texas 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 January 22, 

2010, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we 

requested comments from the EPA on 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
81124 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the amendment (Administrative Record 

No. TX–664.02). 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 January 22, 2010, we 

requested comments on Texas’ 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

TX–664.02), but neither responded to 

our request. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve the amendment Texas sent us 

on January 5, 2010. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR Part 943, which codify decisions 

concerning the Texas 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—Taking 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81125 

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 943 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: December 2, 2010. 

Ervin J. Barchenger, 

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 943 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 943—TEXAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 943 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 943.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description 

*******

January 5, 2010 ........................................................ December 27, 2010 .................................................. 16 TAC 12.108(b)(1) through (b)(3). 

[FR Doc. 2010–32406 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1105] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, 

IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, has issued a 

temporary deviation from the regulation 

governing the operation of the Crescent 

Railroad Drawbridge across the Upper 

Mississippi River, mile 481.4, at Rock 

Island, Illinois. The deviation is 

necessary to allow the bridge owner 

time to perform preventive maintenance 

that is essential to the continued safe 

operation of the drawbridge. 

Maintenance is scheduled in the winter 

and when there is less impact on 

navigation; instead of scheduling work 

in the summer, when river traffic 

increases. This deviation allows the 

bridge to open on signal if at least 24 

hours advance notice is given. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

12:01 a.m., January 17, 2011 to 9 a.m. 

March 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

1105 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–1105 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box 

and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the Docket Management Facility (M– 

30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Eric A. Washburn, Bridge 

Administrator, Western Rivers, United 

States Coast Guard; telephone 314–269– 

2378, e-mail Eric.Washburn@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 

requested a temporary deviation for the 

Crescent Railroad Drawbridge, across 

the Upper Mississippi River, mile 481.4, 

at Rock Island, Illinois to open on signal 

if at least 24 hours advance notice is 

given for 44 days from 12:01 a.m., 

January 17, 2011 to 9 a.m., March 1, 

2011 to allow the bridge owner time for 

preventive maintenance. The Crescent 

Railroad Drawbridge currently operates 

in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which 

states the general requirement that 

drawbridges shall open promptly and 

fully for the passage of vessels when a 

request to open is given in accordance 

with the subpart. 

There are no alternate routes for 

vessels transiting this section of the 

Upper Mississippi River. 

Winter conditions on the Upper 

Mississippi River coupled with the 

closure of Army Corps of Engineer’s 

Lock No. 20 (Mile 343.2 UMR), Lock No. 

21 (Mile 324.9 UMR) and Lock No. 22 

(Mile 301.2 UMR) from January 3, 2011 

to February 28, 2011 will preclude any 

significant navigation demands for the 

drawspan opening for most of the 

deviation period. 

The Crescent Railroad Drawbridge, in 

the closed-to-navigation position, 

provides a vertical clearance of 25.7 feet 

above normal pool. Navigation on the 

waterway consists primarily of 

commercial tows and recreational 

watercraft. The drawbridge will open if 

at least 24-hours advance notice is 

given. This temporary deviation has 

been coordinated with waterway users. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: December 13, 2010. 

Eric A. Washburn, 

Bridge Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32379 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1100] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Sassafras River, Georgetown, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast 

Guard District has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulations 

governing the operation of the Sassafras 

River (Route 213) Bridge, mile 10.0, in 

Georgetown, MD. The deviation is 

necessary to facilitate mechanical 

repairs and gate replacement. This 

deviation allows the drawbridge to 

remain in the closed to navigation 

position. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

5 a.m. on January 10, 2011 until 5 p.m. 

on January 21, 2011. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES