47138 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Railroad Retirement Act contains its

own termination provisions: section

5(c)(7) of that Act specifies when a

child’s annuity paid under the Railroad

Retirement Act terminates. Therefore,

this amendment to section 202(d)(1)

does not directly apply to benefits paid

under the Railroad Retirement Act.

However, it will affect the inclusion of

auxiliary beneficiaries in the

computation of the social security

overall minimum guarantee provision.

Consequently, under section

202(d)(1), as amended, if the marriage of

a railroad employee stepparent and

natural parent is terminated, then the

stepchild would no longer be included

in the computation under the social

security overall minimum guarantee

provision. Therefore, the Board is

proposing to amend its regulations to

provide that the inclusion of the

stepchild in the computation under the

social security overall minimum

guarantee provision will terminate

when the marriage of the stepparent and

the natural parent is terminated.

The Board published this rule as a

proposed rule on May 22, 1997 (62 FR

27989), and invited comments by July

21, 1997. None were received.

The Office of Management and Budget

has determined that this is not a

significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866. There are no

new information collections associated

with this rule.

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Parts 222 and

229

Railroad employees, Railroad

retirement.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 20, chapter II, parts 222

and 229 of the Code of Federal

Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 222—FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

1. The authority citation for part 222

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 45 U.S.C. 231f.

§ 222.55 [Amended]

2. Section 222.55 is amended by

removing the words ‘‘is living with or’’.

PART 229—SOCIAL SECURITY

OVERALL MINIMUM GUARANTEE

3. The authority citation for part 229

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(5).

4. Section 229.42 is amended by

removing the period at the end of

paragraph (f), by adding ‘‘; or’’ to the

end of paragraph (f), and by adding a

new paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 229.42 When a child can no longer be

included in computing an annuity rate

under the overall minimum.

* * * * *

(g) In the case of a stepchild of the

employee, the month after the month in

which the divorce between the

stepparent and the natural parent

becomes final.

Dated: August 27, 1997.

By Authority of the Board.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–23675 Filed 9–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 914

[SPATS No. IN–127-FOR; State Program

Amendment No. 95–5]

Indiana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Indiana regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Indiana program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Indiana proposed

revisions to its rules pertaining to an

exemption for coal extraction incidental

to the extraction of other minerals. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Indiana program to be consistent with

the corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew R. Gilmore, Director,

Indianapolis Field Office, Office of

Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal

Building, 575 North Pennsylvania

Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana

46204–1521, Telephone (317) 226–6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Indiana Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Indiana Program

On July 29, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Indiana program. Background

information on the Indiana program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the July 26, 1982, Federal Register (47

FR 32107). Subsequent actions

concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments can be found

at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, and 914.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated March 7, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1565),

Indiana submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA. Indiana submitted the

proposed amendment in response to the

required program amendments at 30

CFR 914.16(cc) and 914.16(dd). The

proposed amendment revises the

Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) at

310 IAC 12–1 pertaining to an

exemption for coal extraction incidental

to the extraction of other minerals.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the April 29,

1997, Federal Register (62 FR 23192),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing or

meeting on the adequacy of the

proposed amendment. The public

comment period closed on May 29,

1997. Because no one requested a public

hearing or meeting, none was held.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified a concern relating to

310 IAC 12–1–7.1(a), public availability

of information submitted for an

exemption for coal extraction incidental

to the extraction of other minerals. The

proposed rule did not specify where the

information would be made available.

OSM notified Indiana of this concern by

letter dated June 16, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1572).

By letter dated July 11, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IND–1577),

Indiana responded to OSM’s concern by

submitting a policy statement specifying

where all public documents, including

information submitted under 310 IAC

12–1, would be maintained for

inspection and copying by the public.

Because the additional information

merely clarified the provision at 310

IAC 12–1–7.1(a), OSM did not reopen

the public comment period.

III. Director’s Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, are the Director’s

findings concerning the proposed

amendment. Revisions not specifically

discussed below concern

nonsubstantive wording changes, or

revised cross-references and paragraph
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47139

notations to reflect organizational

changes resulting from this amendment.

1. Revisions to Indiana’s Rules That Are

Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Provisions of the Federal

Regulations

The proposed State rules, pertaining

to an exemption for coal extraction

incidental to the extraction of other

minerals, listed in the table contain

language that is the same as or similar

to the corresponding sections of the

Federal regulations. Differences between

the proposed State rules and the Federal

regulations are nonsubstantive.

Topic State regulation Federal regulation counterpart

Contents of application for exemption .............. 310 IAC 12–1–7(a) ........................................... 30 CFR 702.12, Introductory sentence

Contents of application for exemption .............. 310 IAC 12–1–7(a)(15)(A) ................................ 30 CFR 702.12(o)(1)

Revocation and enforcement ............................ 310 IAC 12–1–11(b) ......................................... 30 CFR 702.17(b)

Revocation and enforcement ............................ 310 IAC 12–1–11(c)(1) and (2) ........................ 30 CFR 702.17(c)(1) and (2)

Revocation and enforcement ............................ 310 IAC 12–1–11(d)(1) through (3) .................. 30 CFR 702.17(d)(1) through (3)

Because the above proposed revisions

are identical in meaning to the

corresponding Federal regulations, the

Director finds that Indiana’s proposed

rules are no less effective than the

Federal regulations.

2. 310 IAC 12–1–7(17) Exemption for

Coal Extraction Incidental to the

Extraction of Other Minerals; Contents

of Application for Exemption.

Indiana proposed to delete

subdivision (17), which requires that

information collected under the

provision of section 12–1–7 be subject

to the public availability of information

provisions in 310 IAC 12–3–17. As

discussed below in Finding No. 3,

Indiana proposed to add a new section

at 310 IAC 12–1–7.1 that contains

provisions pertaining to public

availability of information that are

substantively identical to the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 702.13. Therefore,

the Director finds that the removal of

subdivision (17) will not render the

Indiana rules less effective than the

Federal regulations.

3. 310 IAC 12–1–7.1 Exemption for Coal

Extraction Incidental to the Extraction

of Other Minerals; Public Availability of

Information

Indiana proposed to add new section

12–1–7.1 in response to OSM’s

requirement at 30 CFR 914.16(cc) that

Indiana amend its rules to make it clear

that information submitted under 310

IAC 12–1–7 must be held until at least

three years after expiration of the period

during which the subject mining area is

active. Subsection (a) requires that

except as provided in subsection (c), all

information submitted shall be made

immediately available for public

inspection and copying and shall be

maintained until at least three years

after expiration of the period during

which the subject mining area is active.

Per Indiana’s policy statement dated

July 11, 1997 (Administrative Record

No. IND–1577), all information

submitted would be maintained in the

Division of Reclamation Field Office at

Jasonville, Indiana, and it would be

available for inspection and copying by

the public during regular office hours.

The Jasonville Field Office is located

closest to all surface mining activities

conducted in the State of Indiana.

Subsection (b) allows Indiana to keep

information submitted confidential if

the person submitting the information

requests in writing, at the time of

submission, that it be kept confidential

and demonstrates that the information

concerns trade secrets or is privileged

commercial or financial information of

the persons intending to conduct

operations. Subsection (c) requires

information requested to be held

confidential under subsection (b) not be

made publicly available until after

notice and opportunity to be heard is

afforded to persons both seeking and

opposing disclosure of the information.

The Director finds that Indiana’s

proposed rule along with its policy

statement is consistent with and no less

effective than the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 702.13 and that it satisfies the

required amendment at 30 CFR

914.16(cc). Therefore, the Director is

approving the proposed amendment at

310 IAC 12–1–7.1, and is amending 30

CFR 914.16 to remove paragraph (cc).

4. 310 IAC 12–1–11(c)(3) Exemption for

Coal Extraction Incidental to the

Extraction of Other Minerals;

Revocation and Enforcement

Indiana proposed to add new

subdivision (c)(3) in response to OSM’s

requirement at 30 CFR 914.16(dd) that

Indiana amend 310 IAC 12–1–11 to add

a counterpart to 30 CFR 702.17(c)(3).

Subdivision (c)(3) requires that a

petition for administrative review filed

under subdivision (c)(2) not suspend the

effect of a decision on whether to revoke

an exemption.

The Director finds that Indiana’s

proposed rule is consistent with and no

less effective than the Federal regulation

at 30 CFR 702.17(c)(3) and that it

satisfies the required amendment at 30

CFR 914.16(dd). Therefore, the Director

is approving the proposed amendment

at 310 IAC 12–1–11(c)(3), and is

amending 30 CFR 914.16 to remove

paragraph (dd).

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

OSM solicited public comments on

the proposed amendment, but none

were received.

Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i),

the Director solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from various

Federal agencies with an actual or

potential interest in the Indiana program

(Administrative Record No. IND–1567).

On May 8, 1997 (Administrative Record

No. IND–1574, the Mine Safety and

Health Administration responded

without comment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii),

OSM is require to obtain the written

concurrence of the EPA with respect to

those provisions of the proposed

program amendment that relate to air or

water quality standards promulgated

under the authority of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None

of the revisions that Indiana proposed to

make in this amendment pertain to air

or water quality standards. Therefore,

OSM did not request the EPA’s

concurrence.

Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from the EPA

(Administrative Record No. IND–1567).

The EPA did not respond to OSM’s

request.
47140 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

State Historical Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM

is required to solicit comments on the

proposed amendments which may have

an effect on historic properties from the

SHPO and ACHP. OSM solicited

comments on the proposed amendment

from the SHPO and ACHP

(Administrative Record No. IND–1567).

Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded

to OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves the proposed

amendment as submitted by Indiana on

March 7, 1997, pertaining to revisions to

Indiana’s rules relating to an exemption

for coal extraction incidental to the

extraction of other minerals, and

removes the required amendments at 30

CFR 914.16(cc) and (dd).

The Director approves the rules as

proposed by Indiana with the provision

that they be fully promulgated in

identical form to the rules submitted to

and reviewed by OSM and the public.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 914, codifying decisions concerning

the Indiana program, are being amended

to implement this decision. This final

rule is being made effective immediately

to expedite the State program

amendment process and to encourage

States to bring their programs into

conformity with the Federal standards

without undue delay. Consistency of

State and Federal standards is required

by SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, 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 since 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 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.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since 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 has

determined 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 corresponding 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.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. 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

corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifies

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that

this rule will not impose a cost of $100

million or more in any given year on

local, state, or tribal governments or

private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations. Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: August 20, 1997.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 914 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 914—INDIANA

1. The authority citation for Part 914

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 914.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission

date

Date of final

publication Citation/description

* * * * * * *

March 7, 1997 ................................ September 8, 1997 ........................ 310 IAC 12–1–7(a), (15)(A), (17); 12–1–7.1 (a) through (c); 12–1–

11(b), (c) (1) through (3), (d) (1) through (3).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47141

1Section 402(b) of the Money Laundering

Suppression Act states simply that in administering

the new statutory exemption procedures

the Secretary of the Treasury shall seek to reduce,

within a reasonable period of time, the number of

reports required to be filed in the aggregate by

depository institutions pursuant to section 5313(a)

of title 31 * * * by at least 30 percent of the

number filed during the year preceding [September

23, 1994,] the date of enactment of [the Money

Laundering Suppression Act].

2The Interim Rule used the term bank to define

the class of financial institutions to which the

Interim Rule applied. As defined in 31 CFR

103.11(c), that term includes both commercial

banks and other classes of depository institutions at

which the language of 31 U.S.C. 5313 is directed.

§ 914.16 [Amended]

3. Section 914.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs (cc)

and (dd).

[FR Doc. 97–23725 Filed 9–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Part 103

RIN 1506–AA11

Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network; Amendment to the Bank

Secrecy Act Regulations—Exemptions

From the Requirement To Report

Transactions in Currency

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

final rule amending the Bank Secrecy

Act regulations. The amendment will

eliminate the requirement to report

transactions in currency in excess of

$10,000 between depository institutions

and certain classes of ‘‘exempt persons’’

defined in the rule. It will modify (and,

as modified, will supersede), an interim

rule on the same subject, to reflect the

comments that were requested when the

interim rule was published.

There appears elsewhere in today’s

edition of the Federal Register a notice

of proposed rulemaking that would

further modify the rules for granting

exemptions from the currency

transaction report filing requirements.

The final rule and the notice of

proposed rulemaking are additional

steps in a process intended to achieve

the reduction set by the Money

Laundering Suppression Act of 1994 in

the number of Bank Secrecy Act

currency transaction reports required to

be filed annually by depository

institutions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Djinis, Associate Director,

FinCEN, (703) 905–3819; Charles

Klingman, Financial Institutions Policy

Specialist, FinCEN, (703) 905–3602;

Stephen R. Kroll, Legal Counsel,

Cynthia L. Clark, on detail to the Office

of Legal Counsel, and Albert R. Zarate,

Attorney-Advisor, Office of Legal

Counsel, FinCEN, (703) 905–3590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Provisions

The Bank Secrecy Act, Titles I and II

of Pub. L. 91–508, as amended, codified

at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951–

1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311–5330,

authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury,

inter alia, to issue regulations requiring

financial institutions to keep records

and file reports that are determined to

have a high degree of usefulness in

criminal, tax, and regulatory matters,

and to implement counter-money

laundering programs and compliance

procedures. Regulations implementing

Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act

(codified at 31 U.S.C. 5311–5330)

appear at 31 CFR Part 103. The

authority of the Secretary to administer

Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act has been

delegated to the Director of FinCEN.

The reporting by financial institutions

of transactions in currency in excess of

$10,000 has long been a major

component of the Department of the

Treasury’s implementation of the Bank

Secrecy Act. The reporting requirement

is imposed by 31 CFR 103.22, a rule

issued under the broad authority

granted to the Secretary of the Treasury

by 31 U.S.C. 5313(a) to require reports

of domestic coins and currency

transactions.

Four new provisions (31 U.S.C.

5313(d) through (g)) concerning

exemptions were added to 31 U.S.C.

5313 by the Money Laundering

Suppression Act of 1994 (the ‘‘Money

Laundering Suppression Act’’), Title IV

of the Riegle Community Development

and Regulatory Improvement Act of

1994, Pub. L. 103–325 (September 23,

1994). According to subsection (d)(1),

the Treasury must exempt a depository

institution from the requirement to

report currency transactions with

respect to transactions between the

depository institution and the following

categories of entities:

(A) Another depository institution.

(B) A department or agency of the United

States, any State, or any political subdivision

of any State.

(C) Any entity established under the laws

of the United States, any State, or any

political subdivision of any State, or under

an interstate compact between 2 or more

States, which exercises governmental

authority on behalf of the United States or

any such State or political subdivision.

(D) Any business or category of business

the reports on which have little or no value

for law enforcement purposes.

Subsection (d)(2) requires the

Treasury to publish at least annually a

list of entities whose currency

transactions are exempt from reporting

under the mandatory rules. The

companion provisions of 31 U.S.C.

5313(e) authorize the Secretary to

permit a depository institution to grant

additional, discretionary, exemptions

from the currency transaction reporting

requirements. Subsection (f) places

limits on the liability of a depository

institution in connection with a

transaction that has been exempted from

reporting under either subsection (d) or

subsection (e) and provides for the

coordination of any exemption with

other Bank Secrecy Act provisions,

especially those relating to the reporting

of suspicious transactions. Subsection

(g) defines ‘‘depository institution’’ for

purposes of the new exemption

provisions.

The enactment of 31 U.S.C. 5313 (d)

through (g) reflects a congressional

intention to ‘‘reform * * * the

procedures for exempting transactions

between depository institutions and

their customers.’’ See H.R. Rep. 103–

652, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 186 (August

2, 1994).1 The administrative exemption

procedures at which the statutory

changes are directed are found in 31

CFR 103.22 (b)–(g).

Several reasons have been given for

the administrative exemption system’s

lack of success in eliminating routine

currency transactions from operation of

the Bank Secrecy Act rules. The first is

the retention by banks of liability for

making incorrect exemption

determinations. The second is the

complexity of the administrative

exemption procedures. Finally,

advances in technology have made it

less expensive for some banks to report

all currency transactions than to incur

the administrative costs and risks of

exempting customers and then

administering the terms of particular

exemptions properly.

II. The Interim Rule

On April 24, 1996, an interim rule

(the ‘‘Interim Rule’’) adding a new

paragraph (h) to the currency

transaction reporting rules in 31 CFR

103.22 was published in the Federal

Register. See 61 FR 18204. The Interim

Rule exempted, from the requirement to

report transactions in currency in excess

of $10,000, transactions occurring after

April 30, 1996, between banks 2 and