10928 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

transactions to CSA recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. Domestic and 

import transactions involving chemical 

mixtures containing acetone, ethyl 

ether, 2-butanone and toluene are not 

subject to the following information 

collections: DEA information collection 

1117–0023: Import/Export Declaration 

for List I and List II Chemicals [imports 

only]; and DEA information collection 

1117–0029: Annual Reporting 

Requirement for Manufacturers of Listed 

Chemicals. 

List of Subjects In 21 CFR Part 1310 

Drug traffic control, List I and List II 

chemicals, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR 

part 1310 is amended to read as follows: 

PART 1310—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1310 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 802, 827(h), 830, 

871(b), 890. 

■ 2. Section 1310.08 is amended by 

revising paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 1310.08 Excluded Transactions. 

* * * * * 

(l) Domestic and import transactions 

in chemical mixtures that contain 

acetone, ethyl ether, 2-butanone, and/or 

toluene, unless regulated because of 

being formulated with other List I or 

List II chemical(s) above the 

concentration limit. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–4314 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 925 

[Docket No. MO–039–FOR] 

Missouri 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 Missouri regulatory program 

(Missouri program) regarding bonding 

under the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). Previously, we approved an 

emergency rule that allowed Missouri to 

transition from a ‘‘bond pool’’ approach 

to bonding to a ‘‘full cost bond’’

approach in a timely manner. We are 

now approving Missouri’s permanent 

rule concerning this same topic. 

Missouri proposed to revise its program 

to improve operational efficiency. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

Division. Telephone: (618) 463–6460. Email: MCR_AMEND@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Missouri 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 Missouri 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 Missouri 

program on November 21, 1980. You 

can find background information on the 

Missouri program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and conditions of approval, 

in the November 21, 1980, Federal 

Register (45 FR 77017). You can also 

find later actions concerning the 

Missouri program and program 

amendments at 30 CFR 925.10, 925.12, 

925.15, and 925.16. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated October 11, 2006 

(Administrative Record No. MO–666), 

Missouri sent us a ‘‘permanent rule’’

amendment to its program regarding 

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

et seq.). This amendment was sent as a 

replacement for Missouri’s ‘‘emergency 

rule’’ that we previously approved on 

June 8, 2006 (71 FR 33243). The 

‘‘emergency rule’’ allowed Missouri to 

transition from a ‘‘bond pool’’ approach 

to bonding to a ‘‘full cost bond’’

approach in a timely manner. The 

‘‘permanent rule’’ amendment, when 

approved, will become a permanent part 

of Missouri’s program. 

We announced receipt of Missouri’s 

proposed ‘‘emergency rule’’ amendment 

in the November 29, 2005, Federal 

Register (70 FR 71425). 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 and we did not receive 

any comments. We also stated in this 

Federal Register document that if 

Missouri submitted a ‘‘permanent rule’’

with language that has the same 

meaning as the ‘‘emergency rule,’’ we 

would publish a final rule and 

Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’ would 

become part of the Missouri program. 

Because Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’

has the same meaning as the 

‘‘emergency rule,’’ we are proceeding 

with the final rule. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

Following are the findings we made 

concerning Missouri’s ‘‘permanent rule’’

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. Minor Revisions to Missouri’s 

Regulations 

Missouri’s definition for ‘‘regulatory 

authority,’’ found at 10 CSR [Code of 

State Regulations] 40–8.010(82), means 

the Land Reclamation Commission 

(commission), the director, or their 

designated representatives and 

employees unless otherwise specified in 

the State’s rules. Missouri proposed to 

replace the words ‘‘commission’’ or 

‘‘regulatory authority’’ with the word 

‘‘director’’ in the following regulations: 

10 CSR 40–7.011(2)(A), (3)(C), (4)(B), 

(6)(B)1., 5., 6., and 7., (6)(C)1. and 8., 

(6)(D)2., and (6)(D)2.B, 3.B, 3.B(I) and 

5.C; and 10 CSR 40–7.041(1)(A), (B)1. 

and (B)2. Missouri proposed to improve 

operational efficiency by specifying that 

the director is to perform certain duties. 

We find that the substitution of the 

word ‘‘director’’ for the words 

‘‘commission’’ or ‘‘regulatory authority’’

will not render Missouri’s regulations 

less effective than the Federal 

regulations because in accordance with 

Missouri’s definition for regulatory 

authority, the director is a regulatory 

authority as is the commission and the 

certain duties specified in the 

regulations cited above are not duties 

reserved solely for the commission 

according to section 444.810 of 

Missouri’s surface coal mining law. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10929 

Therefore, we are approving these 

revisions. 

B. Revisions to Missouri’s Regulations 

That Have the Same Meaning as the 

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal 

Regulations 

The State regulations listed in the 

table below contain language that is the 

same as or similar to the corresponding 

sections of the Federal regulations. 

Topic Missouri regulation (10 CSR) Federal counterpart regulation (30 CFR) 

Requirement to File a Bond .............................. 40–7.011(2)(B) ................................................. 800.11(d). 

Bond Amounts ................................................... 40–7.011(4) ...................................................... 800.14(a) and (b). 

Changing Bond Amounts .................................. 40–7.011(5) ...................................................... 800.15. 

Personal Bonds Secured by Letters of Credit .. 40–7.011(6)(C)2. .............................................. 800.21(b)(2). 

Definition for ‘‘Parent Corporation’’ ................... 40–7.011(6)(D)1.F. ........................................... 800.23(a). 

Self-Bonding ...................................................... 40–7.011(6)(D)2., (6)(D)2.B., (6)(D)2.D.(I) 

through (III), and (6)(D)3., and (6)(D)6..

800.23(b), (b)(2), (b)(4)(i) through (iii), (c), and 

(f). 

Criteria and schedule for release of reclamation liability.40–7.021(2)(B)5. and 6. ................................... 800.40(c). 

Because the above State regulations 

have the same meaning as the 

corresponding Federal regulations, we 

find that they are no less effective than 

the Federal regulations. 

C. 10 CSR 40–7.011 Bond Requirements 

1. 10 CSR 40–7.011(1) Definitions 

a. Missouri proposed to revise its 

definition for personal bond in 

paragraph (1)(C) to read as follows: 

Personal bond means an indemnity 

agreement in a sum certain executed by the 

permittee as principal which is supported by 

negotiable certificates of deposit or 

irrevocable letters of credit which may be 

drawn upon by the director if reclamation is 

not completed or if the permit is revoked 

prior to completion of reclamation. 

The Federal definition for collateral 

bond found at 30 CFR 800.15(b) means 

an indemnity agreement in a sum 

certain executed by the permittee as 

principal which is supported by one or 

more of the following: A cash account; 

negotiable bonds of the United States, a 

State, or municipality; negotiable 

certificates of deposit; irrevocable letters 

of credit; a perfected, first-lien security 

interest in real property; or other 

investment-grade rated securities having 

a rating of AAA, AA, or A or an 

equivalent rating issued by a nationally 

recognized securities rating service. The 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.50 

provides for the regulatory authority to 

forfeit bonds and use funds collected 

from bond forfeiture to complete the 

reclamation plan or portion thereof, on 

the permit area or increment to which 

bond coverage applies. 

Missouri has chosen to limit the 

vehicles that support an indemnity 

agreement to negotiable certificates of 

deposit and irrevocable letters of credit. 

Missouri also provides that the director 

may use funds from personal bonds if 

reclamation is not completed or if the 

permit is revoked before the completion 

of reclamation. We are, therefore, 

approving Missouri’s definition for 

personal bond because it is no less 

effective than the above Federal 

regulations. 

b. Missouri proposed to revise its 

definition for Phase I bond in paragraph 

(1)(D) to read as follows: 

Phase I bond means performance bond 

conditioned on the release of sixty percent 

(60%) of the bond upon the successful 

completion of Phase I reclamation of a permit 

area in accordance with the approved 

reclamation plan. 

There is no Federal definition for Phase 

I bond, however, the Federal regulation 

at 30 CFR 800.40(c) states that the 

regulatory authority may release all or 

part of the bond for the entire permit 

area or incremental area if the regulatory 

authority is satisfied that all the 

reclamation or a phase of the 

reclamation covered by the bond or 

portion thereof has been accomplished 

in accordance with specific schedules 

for reclamation of Phases I, II, and III. 

The schedule for Phase I reclamation, 

found at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1), involves 

the operator completing the backfilling, 

re-grading (which may include the 

replacement of topsoil), and drainage 

control of a bonded area in accordance 

with the approved reclamation plan. 

When this schedule is complete, the 

regulatory authority may release 60 

percent of the bond. We are approving 

Missouri’s definition for Phase I bond 

because it is no less effective than the 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.40(c)(1). 

2. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6) Types of Bonds 

a. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(A) Surety Bonds 

Missouri proposed to revise paragraph 

(6)(A)8. regarding surety bonds. This 

paragraph inappropriately refers to a 

‘‘bank’’ or ‘‘bank charter’’ when the 

subject matter of this paragraph pertains 

to a surety company. Missouri proposed 

to delete the language that refers to a 

‘‘bank’’ or ‘‘bank charter.’’ Also, 

Missouri proposed to correct the 

incorrect reference citation, 10 CSR 40–

7.031(A)(6), so that it correctly reads 10 

CSR 40–7.031(1)(F)2. We are approving 

Missouri’s revisions regarding the 

deletion of the terms ‘‘bank’’ and ‘‘bank 

charter’’ because they are 

inappropriately included in this 

paragraph that pertains only to surety 

companies. We are also approving the 

correction of the incorrect reference 

citation. 

Finally, Missouri proposed that, upon 

the incapacity of the surety because of 

bankruptcy or insolvency, or suspension 

or revocation of its license, the 

permittee must promptly notify the 

director. Upon this notification, the 

director must issue a notice of violation 

(NOV) against the operator who is 

without bond coverage specifying that 

the operator must replace the bond in 

no more than 90 days. If the NOV is not 

abated in accordance with the schedule, 

a cessation order must be issued 

requiring immediate compliance with 

10 CSR 40–3.150(4), Cessation of 

Operations—Permanent. 

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.16(e)(2) sets forth a requirement that 

upon the incapacity of a bank or surety 

company by reason of bankruptcy or 

insolvency, or suspension or revocation 

of a charter or license, the permittee 

must be deemed to be without bond 

coverage and must promptly notify the 

regulatory authority. When the 

regulatory authority receives the 

notification, it must notify the operator 

in writing to replace the bond in a 

period not to exceed 90 days. If the 

operator does not provide an adequate 

bond, the operator must cease mining 

and immediately begin reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

approved reclamation plan. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10930 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

We are approving the above revision 

because it is no less effective than the 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.16(e)(2). 

b. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(B) Personal 

Bonds Secured by Certificates of Deposit 

i. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraphs (6)(B)2., 4., 6., and 7. 

regarding personal bonds secured by 

certificates of deposit. Paragraph (6)(B)4. 

refers to banks or savings and loan 

companies issuing the certificates of 

deposit, while paragraphs (6)(B)2., 6., 

and 7. only refer to banks issuing 

certificates of deposit. Missouri 

proposed to revise these paragraphs to 

make them consistent with paragraph 

(6)(B)4. Missouri also proposed to 

remove the term ‘‘Federal Savings and 

Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC)’’

from this paragraph because the FSLIC 

was abolished and the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC) now 

insures savings and loan companies. We 

are approving these revisions because 

the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.21(a)(4) implies that banks or 

savings and loan companies are 

acceptable sources for certificates of 

deposit by its reference to certificates of 

deposits insured by the FDIC or the 

FSLIC. 

ii. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraph (6)(B)4. by adding that 

permittees may not submit, from a 

single bank or savings and loan 

company, certificates of deposit totaling 

more than the maximum insurable 

amount as determined by the FDIC. We 

are approving this revision because the 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.21(a)(4) contains the provision that 

an individual certificate of deposit 

cannot be accepted in an amount that is 

greater than the maximum insurable 

amount as determined by the FDIC. 

iii. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraph (6)(B)7. by changing the 

number of days that an operator has for 

replacing bond coverage from 60 to 90 

days if the operator is without bond 

because of a bank’s or savings and loan 

company’s insolvency or bankruptcy or 

suspension or revocation of its charter 

or license. Missouri also proposed to 

add a requirement to paragraph (6)(B)7. 

that prohibits an operator from 

resuming mining operations until after 

the director has determined that an 

acceptable bond has been posted. We 

are approving the revision because the 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e) 

provides that the operator must replace 

the bond in a period not to exceed 90 

days and that the operator must not 

resume mining operations until the 

regulatory authority has determined that 

an acceptable bond has been posted. 

c. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(C) Personal 

Bonds Secured by Letters of Credit 

i. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraph (6)(C)4. as follows: 

The letter of credit shall be issued by a 

bank authorized to do business in the United 

States. If the issuing bank is located in 

another state, a bank located in Missouri 

must confirm the letter of credit. 

Confirmations shall be irrevocable and on a 

form provided by the director; 

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.21(b)(1) requires letters of credit to 

be issued by a bank organized or 

authorized to do business in the United 

States. Therefore, we are approving 

Missouri’s proposed revision because it 

is no less effective than the Federal 

regulation. 

ii. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraph (6)(C)9. to require the bond to 

have a mechanism by which a bank 

must give prompt notice to the director 

and the permittee of any action filed 

alleging the insolvency or bankruptcy of 

the bank or permittee or alleging any 

violations which would result in the 

suspension or revocation of the bank’s 

charter or license to do business. 

Missouri also proposed that upon the 

incapacity of any bank by reason of 

insolvency or bankruptcy or suspension 

or revocation of its charter or license, 

the permittee shall be deemed to be 

without bond and the director must, 

upon notification of the incapacity, 

issue an NOV to the operator who is 

without bond. The NOV must specify a 

period not to exceed 90 days in which 

to replace the bond coverage. In 

addition, if the NOV is not abated in 

accordance with the abatement 

schedule, a cessation order must be 

issued requiring the immediate 

compliance with 10 CSR 40–3.150(4) 

Cessation of Operations—Permanent 

and the mining operations must not 

resume until the director has 

determined that an acceptable bond has 

been posted. 

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.16(e)(1) requires the bond to have a 

mechanism for a bank or surety 

company to promptly notify the 

regulatory authority and the permittee 

of any action filed alleging the 

insolvency or bankruptcy of the bank, 

surety company, or permittee or alleging 

any violations which would result in 

the suspension or revocation of the 

bank’s or surety company’s charter or 

license to do business. The Federal 

regulation at 30 CFR 800.16(e)(2) deems 

the permittee to be without bond 

coverage upon the incapacity of the 

bank or surety company by reason of 

insolvency or bankruptcy or suspension 

or revocation of its charter or license 

and requires the permittee to promptly 

notify the regulatory authority of the 

incapacity. The regulatory authority 

upon this notification must notify, in 

writing, the operator who is without 

bond coverage, to replace bond coverage 

in a period not to exceed 90 days. If an 

adequate bond is not posted, the 

operator must (1) cease mining, (2) 

comply with 30 CFR 816.132 or 30 CFR 

817.132, Cessation of Operations: 

Permanent, and (3) immediately begin 

reclamation operations in accordance 

with the reclamation plan. 

We are approving Missouri’s revisions 

because they are no less effective than 

the above Federal regulations. 

d. 10 CSR 40–7.011(6)(D) Self-Bonding 

i. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraph (6)(D)8. by changing the time 

period for replacing the bond from 60 

days to 90 days if the financial 

conditions of the permittee or thirdparty guarantors change so that they no 

longer satisfy the requirements for being 

able to post self bonds. Missouri also 

proposed that if the bond is not replaced 

in accordance with the schedule set by 

the director, the operator must 

immediately begin to conduct 

reclamation operations in accordance 

with the reclamation plan. 

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.23(g) provides that if the financial 

conditions of the applicant, parent, or 

non-parent corporate guarantor change 

so that the criteria for being able to post 

self bonds are not met, the permittee 

must immediately notify the regulatory 

authority and must post an alternative 

form of bond within 90 days. If the 

permittee does not post the alternate 

bond, the operator must cease mining 

operations and immediately begin to 

conduct reclamation operations in 

accordance with the reclamation plan. 

We are approving Missouri’s revision 

because it is no less effective than the 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.23(g). 

3. 10 CSR 40–7.011(7) Replacement of 

Bonds 

Missouri proposed to revise paragraph 

(7)(A). This paragraph allows permittees 

to replace existing surety or personal 

bonds with other surety or personal 

bonds. Missouri proposed to add self 

bonds so that permittees may replace 

existing surety, personal or self bonds 

with other surety, personal or self 

bonds. 

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 

800.30(a) provides that the regulatory 

authority may allow a permittee to 

replace existing bonds with other bonds 

that provide adequate coverage. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10931 

We are approving Missouri’s revision 

because it is no less effective than the 

Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.30(a). 

D. 10 CSR 40–7.021(2) Criteria and 

Schedule for Release of Reclamation 

Liability 

1. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraphs (2) and (2)(E) Paragraph (2) 

reads as follows: 

(2) Criteria and Schedule for Release of 

Reclamation Liability. Except as described in 

subsection (2)(E), reclamation liability shall 

be released in three (3) phases. 

Missouri proposed to delete the phrase, 

‘‘Except as described in subsection 

(2)(E),’’ so that revised paragraph (2) 

reads as follows: 

(2) Criteria and Schedule for Release of 

Reclamation Liability. Reclamation liability 

shall be released in three (3) phases. 

Paragraph (2)(E) reads as follows: 

(E) All bonding liability may be released in 

full from undisturbed areas when further 

disturbances from surface mining have 

ceased. No bonding shall be released from 

undisturbed areas before Phase I liability 

applying to adjacent disturbed lands is 

released, except that the commission may 

approve a separate bond release from an area 

of undisturbed land if the area is not 

excessively small and can be separated from 

areas that have been or will be disturbed by 

a distinct boundary, which can be easily 

located in the field and which is not so 

irregular as to make record keeping 

unusually difficult. The permit shall 

terminate on all areas where all bonds have 

been released. 

Missouri proposed to delete all the 

language in this paragraph except the 

last sentence, so that revised paragraph 

(2)(E) reads as follows: 

(E) The permit shall terminate on all areas 

where all bonds have been released. 

The Federal regulations that pertain to 

the requirement for releasing Phase I, II, 

and III performance bonds are found at 

30 CFR 800.40(c), however, there are no 

direct Federal counterpart regulations to 

10 CSR 40–7.021(2) and (2)(E). The 

language being removed from 10 CSR 

40–7.021(2) references 10 CSR 40–

7.021(2)(E) and both of these paragraphs 

pertain to the full release of bond, under 

certain conditions, from undisturbed 

areas where further disturbance from 

surface mining have ceased. The Federal 

regulation at 30 CFR 800.15(c) allows 

bond adjustments which involve 

undisturbed land and states that these 

adjustments are not considered bond 

release subject to the procedures of 30 

CFR 800.40. We are approving the 

removal of the language from 10 CSR 

40–7.021(2) and (2)(E) because the 

removal of this language is not 

inconsistent with and will not render 

Missouri’s regulations less effective than 

the Federal regulations. 

2. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraph (2)(A) regarding the criteria 

for release of Phase I liability. Paragraph 

(2)(A) reads as follows: 

(A) An area shall qualify for release of 

Phase I liability upon completion of 

backfilling and grading, topsoiling, drainage 

control and initial seeding of the disturbed 

area. Phase I bond shall be retained on 

unreclaimed temporary structures, such as 

roads, siltation structures, diversions and 

stockpiles, on an acre for acre basis. 

Missouri proposed to delete the phrase, 

‘‘on an acre for acre basis,’’ from the last 

sentence of this paragraph. 

The Federal counterpart regulation is 

found at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1) and 

provides that Phase I reclamation is 

complete after the operator completes 

the backfilling, regrading (which may 

include the replacement of topsoil), and 

drainage control of the bonded area in 

accordance with the approved 

reclamation plan. We are approving the 

deletion of the above phrase from 

Missouri’s regulation because it will not 

render the State regulation less effective 

than the Federal counterpart regulation. 

3. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraph (2)(B)4. regarding the criteria 

for qualifying for release of Phase II 

liability to read as follows: 

4. A plan for achieving Phase III release has 

been approved for the area requested for 

release and the plan has been incorporated 

into the permit; 

There is no direct Federal counterpart 

regulation for paragraph (2)(B)4. 

However, the Federal regulation at 30 

CFR 784.13(a) requires each application 

to contain a plan for the reclamation of 

the lands within the proposed permit 

area. Missouri’s proposed regulation is 

no less effective than the above Federal 

regulations and we are approving it. 

4. Missouri proposed to revise 

paragraph (2)(D) regarding bond release 

by deleting the language and replacing 

it with new language, and by adding 

new paragraphs 1. through 3. to read as 

follows: 

(D) Bonds release. 

1. Phase I—After the operator completes 

the backfilling, grading, topsoiling, drainage 

control, and initial seeding of the disturbed 

area in accordance with the approved 

reclamation plan, the director shall release 60 

percent of the bond for the applicable area. 

2. Phase II—After vegetation has been 

established on the regraded mined lands in 

accordance with the approved reclamation 

plan, the director shall release an additional 

amount of bond. When determining the 

amount of bond to be released after 

successful vegetation has been established, 

the director shall retain that amount of bond 

for the vegetated area which would be 

sufficient to cover the cost of reestablishing 

vegetation if completed by a third party and 

for the period specified for in 10 CSR 40–

7.021(1)(B) for reestablishing vegetation. 

3. Phase III—After the operator has 

completed successfully all surface coal 

mining and reclamation activities, the 

director shall release the remaining portion 

of the bond, but not before the expiration 

period specified for the period of liability in 

10 CSR 40–7.021(1)(B). 

The Federal counterpart regulations are 

found at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1) through 

(c)(3) and set forth the criteria for 

releasing bond based upon the three 

phases of reclamation. We are approving 

Missouri’s proposed revision because it 

is substantively the same as the Federal 

counterpart regulations. 

E. 10 CSR 40–7.031 Permit Revocation, 

Bond Forfeiture and Authorization To 

Expend Reclamation Fund Monies 

Missouri proposed to revise paragraph 

(2) regarding the procedures for permit 

suspension or revocation and paragraph 

(4) regarding declaration of permit 

revocation. More specifically, Missouri 

proposed to revise paragraphs (2)(E)1. 

and (4), and to delete paragraphs 

(2)(E)2.C and D in order to remove 

provisions related to the Missouri Coal 

Mine Land Reclamation Fund. Missouri 

also proposed to add new paragraphs 

(4)(A) through (B)2. to specify what 

monies the director may use for 

reclamation purposes for bonds forfeited 

before January 1, 2006, and for those 

forfeited on or after January 1, 2006. 

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

800.11(a) through (d) set forth the 

provisions for a permit applicant to file, 

with the regulatory authority, a bond or 

bonds for performance that is 

conditioned upon the faithful 

performance of all the requirements of 

the Act, the regulatory program, the 

permit, and the reclamation plan. The 

regulations also include a ‘‘full cost 

bond’’ bonding system. The Federal 

regulation at 30 CFR 800.11(e) provides 

that we may approve an alternative 

bonding system as part of a State 

program. The previously approved 

Missouri Coal Mine Land Reclamation 

Fund is a ‘‘bond pool’’ fund that is part 

of Missouri’s alternative bonding system 

and is used to complete reclamation on 

permit sites for which the permits have 

been revoked and the associated bonds 

have been forfeited. Missouri proposed 

to terminate its alternative bonding 

system and to adopt a ‘‘full cost bond’’

bonding system effective January 1, 

2006. With this transition to a ‘‘full cost 

bond’’ bonding system, Missouri 

proposed that only permit sites whose 

bonds have been forfeited before 

January 1, 2006, are eligible to have 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10932 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

monies expended from the ‘‘bond pool’’

fund for the purpose of completing 

reclamation of the sites. Missouri also 

proposed that permit sites whose bonds 

have been forfeited on or after January 

1, 2006, are eligible to have monies 

expended from the forfeited ‘‘full cost 

bonds’’ for the purpose of completing 

reclamation of the sites. We are 

approving Missouri’s revisions as they 

are no less effective than the Federal 

regulations because permit sites under 

the alternative bonding system and the 

‘‘full cost bond’’ bonding system have 

funds available for reclamation, if 

required. 

Finally, Missouri proposed to add 

new paragraphs (4)(B)1. and 2. to read 

as follows: 

1. In the event the estimated amount 

forfeited is insufficient to pay for the full cost 

of reclamation, the operator shall be liable for 

remaining costs. The director may complete 

or authorize completion of reclamation of the 

bonded area and may recover from the 

operator all costs of reclamation in excess of 

the amount forfeited. 

2. In the event the amount of performance 

bond forfeited is more than the amount 

necessary to complete reclamation, the 

unused funds shall be returned by the 

director to the party from whom they were 

collected. 

The Federal counterpart regulations are 

found at 30 CFR 800.50(d)(1) and (2). 

We are approving Missouri’s revisions 

because they are substantively identical 

to the Federal regulations. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

emergency rule amendment (70 FR 

71425), but did not receive any. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On November 10, 2005, and December 

13, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) 

and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we 

requested comments on the emergency 

rule amendment from various Federal 

agencies with an actual or potential 

interest in the Missouri program 

(Administrative Record Nos. MO–665.1 

and MO–665.9). 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 Missouri proposed to 

make in this amendment pertain to air 

or water quality standards. Therefore, 

we did not ask EPA to concur on the 

emergency rule amendment. 

On November 10, 2005, and December 

13, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), 

we requested comments on the 

emergency rule amendment from EPA 

(Administrative Record Nos. MO–665.1 

and MO–665.9). EPA did not respond to 

our request. 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

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

required to request comments from the 

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that 

may have an effect on historic 

properties. On November 10, 2005, and 

December 13, 2005, we requested 

comments on Missouri’s emergency rule 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

MO–665.1 and MO–665.9), but neither 

responded to our request. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve the amendment Missouri sent 

us on October 11, 2006. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 925, which codify decisions 

concerning the Missouri program to 

include the original amendment 

submission date and the date of final 

publication for this rulemaking. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This final rule has been issued 

without prior public notice or 

opportunity for public comment. The 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553) provides an exception to the 

notice and comment procedures when 

an agency finds there is good cause for 

dispensing with such procedures on the 

basis that they are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. We have determined that under 

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists 

for dispensing with the notice of 

proposed rulemaking and public 

comment procedures for this rule. The 

provisions being approved in this 

rulemaking are substantively identical 

to those approved in the emergency 

rulemaking on June 8, 2006. At that 

time, notice and an opportunity to 

comment were provided to members of 

the public and no comments were 

received. Consequently, an additional 

comment period on the same provisions 

is viewed as unnecessary. In addition, 

we find that good cause exists under 5 

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

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of 

SMCRA requires that the State’s 

program demonstrate that the State has 

the capability of carrying out the 

provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. Making this rule effective 

immediately will expedite that process. 

SMCRA requires consistency of State 

and Federal standards. 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

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. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10933 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that the Missouri program does not 

regulate coal exploration and surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on Indian lands. Therefore, the Missouri 

program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

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 

regulations did not impose an unfunded 

mandate. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 925 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: February 2, 2007. 

Ervin J. Barchenger, 

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent 

Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 925 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 925—MISSOURI 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 925 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 925.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 925.15 Approval of Missouri regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission 

date Date of final publication Citation/description 

*******

October 11, 2006 ........................... March 12, 2007 .............................. 10 CSR 40–7.011(1)(C) and (D), (2)(A) and (B), (3)(C), (4) and (5), 

(6)(A)6., 8. and 9., (6)(B)1., 2., and 4. through 7., (6)(C)1. through 

4., 8. and 9., (6)(D)1.F., 2., 2.B., 2.D.(I) through (III), 3., 5.C., 6., 8., 

and (7)(A); 10 CSR 40–7.021(1)(A), (2), (2)(A), (2)(B)3. through 6., 

(2)(C)2., (2)(D) and (E); 10 CSR 40–7.031(2)(E)1. and 2., 

(2)(E)2.C. & D., (3)(C), and (4) through (4)(B)2.; and 10 CSR 40–

7.041. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. E7–4416 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 230 

[Docket No. 070302051–7051–01; I.D. 

021607D] 

Whaling Provisions; Aboriginal 

Subsistence Whaling Quotas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for 

bowhead whales, and other limitations 

deriving from regulations adopted at the 

2002 Special Meeting of the 

International Whaling Commission 

(IWC). For 2007, the quota is 75 

bowhead whales struck. This quota and 

other limitations will govern the harvest 

of bowhead whales by members of the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC). 

DATES: Effective March 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Office of International 

Affairs, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cheri McCarty, (301) 713–9090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aboriginal 

subsistence whaling in the United States 

is governed by the Whaling Convention 

Act (16 U.S.C. 916 et seq.). Regulations 

that implement the Act, found at 50 CFR 

230.6, require the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) to publish, at 

least annually, aboriginal subsistence 

whaling quotas and any other 

limitations on aboriginal subsistence 

whaling deriving from regulations of the 

IWC. 

At the 2002 Special Meeting of the 

IWC, the Commission set quotas for 

aboriginal subsistence use of bowhead 

whales from the Bering-ChukchiBeaufort Seas stock. The bowhead quota 

was based on a joint request by the 

United States and the Russian 

Federation, accompanied by 

documentation concerning the needs of 

two Native groups: Alaska Eskimos and 

Chukotka Natives in the Russian Far 

East. 

This action by the IWC thus 

authorized aboriginal subsistence 

whaling by the AEWC for bowhead 

whales. This aboriginal subsistence 

harvest is conducted in accordance with 

a cooperative agreement between NOAA 

and the AEWC. 

The IWC set a 5–year block quota of 

280 bowhead whales landed. For each 

of the years 2003 through 2007, the 

number of bowhead whales struck may 

not exceed 67, except that any unused 

portion of a strike quota from any year, 

including 15 unused strikes from the 

1998 through 2002 quota, may be 

carried forward. No more than 15 strikes 

may be added to the strike quota for any 

one year. At the end of the 2006 harvest, 

there were 15 unused strikes available 

for carry-forward, so the combined 

strike quota for 2007 is 82 (67 + 15). 

This arrangement ensures that the 

total quota of bowhead whales landed 

and struck in 2007 will not exceed the 

quotas set by the IWC. Under an 

arrangement between the United States 

and the Russian Federation, the Russian 

natives may use no more than seven 

strikes, and the Alaska Eskimos may use 

no more than 75 strikes. 

NOAA is assigning 75 strikes to the 

Alaska Eskimos. The AEWC will 

allocate these strikes among the 10 

villages whose cultural and subsistence 

needs have been documented in past 

requests for bowhead quotas from the 

IWC, and will ensure that its hunters 

use no more than 75 strikes. 

Other Limitations 

The IWC regulations, as well as the 

NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), 

forbid the taking of calves or any whale 

accompanied by a calf. 

NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) 

contain a number of other prohibitions 

relating to aboriginal subsistence 

whaling, some of which are summarized 

here. Only licensed whaling captains or 

crew under the control of those captains 

may engage in whaling. They must 

follow the provisions of the relevant 

cooperative agreement between NOAA 

and a Native American whaling 

organization. The aboriginal hunters 

must have adequate crew, supplies, and 

equipment. They may not receive 

money for participating in the hunt. No 

person may sell or offer for sale whale 

products from whales taken in the hunt, 

except for authentic articles of Native 

handicrafts. Captains may not continue 

to whale after the relevant quota is 

taken, after the season has been closed, 

or if their licenses have been suspended. 

They may not engage in whaling in a 

wasteful manner. 

Dated: March 6, 2007. 

William T. Hogarth, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–4443 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 061109296-7009-02; I.D. 

030607B] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; 

Quota Transfer 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason quota 

transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Commonwealth of Virginia is 

transferring 150,000 lb (68,039 kg) of 

commercial bluefish quota to the State 

of New York from its 2007 quota. By 

this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas 

and announces the revised commercial 

quota for each state involved. 

DATES: Effective March 7, 2007 through 

December 31, 2007, unless NMFS 

publishes a superseding document in 

the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Potts, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9341, FAX (978) 

281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the Atlantic 

bluefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 

648. The regulations require annual 

specification of a commercial quota that 

is apportioned among the coastal states 

from Florida through Maine. The 

process to set the annual commercial 

quota and the percent allocated to each 

state is described in § 648.160. 

Two or more states, under mutual 

agreement and with the concurrence of 

the Administrator, Northeast Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator), can 

transfer or combine bluefish commercial 

quota under § 648.160(f). The Regional 

Administrator is required to consider 

the criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) in 

the evaluation of requests for quota 

transfers or combinations. 

Virginia has agreed to transfer 150,000 

lb (68,039 kg) of its 2007 commercial 

quota to New York. The Regional 

Administrator has determined that the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES