Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 4451

PART 620—DISCLOSURE TO

SHAREHOLDERS

35. The authority citation for part 620

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 5.17, 5.19, 8.11 of the

Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2252, 2254,

2279aa–11); sec. 424 of Pub. L. 100–233, 101

Stat. 1568, 1656.

Subpart B—Annual Report to

Shareholders

36. Section 620.5 is amended by

revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ix) and

(g)(4)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 620.5 Contents of the annual report to

shareholders.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(ix) The statutory and regulatory

restriction regarding retirement of stock

and distribution of earnings pursuant to

§ 615.5215, and any requirements to add

capital under a plan approved by the

Farm Credit Administration pursuant to

§§ 615.5330, 615.5335, 615.5351, or

615.5357.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) Describe any material trends or

changes in the mix and cost of debt and

capital resources. The discussion shall

consider changes in permanent capital,

core and total surplus, and net collateral

requirements, debt, and any off-balancesheet financing arrangements.

* * * * *

PART 626—NONDISCRIMINATION IN

LENDING

37. The authority citation for part 626

is added to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1.5, 2.2, 2.12, 3.1, 5.9, 5.17

of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2073,

2093, 2122, 2243, 2252); 42 U.S.C. 3601 et

seq.; 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.; 12 CFR 202, 24

CFR 100, 109, 110.

§ 626.6025 [Amended]

38. Newly designated § 626.6025 is

amended by removing the reference

‘‘§ 613.3160(b)’’ and adding in its place,

the reference ‘‘§ 626.6020(b)’’ in

paragraph (b).

* * * * *

Dated: January 23, 1997.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 97–2058 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 943

[SPATS No. TX–025–FOR]

Texas Regulatory Program and

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with

certain exceptions, a proposed

amendment to the Texas regulatory

program and abandoned mine land

reclamation plan (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘‘Texas program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

Texas is proposing to recodify the Texas

Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation

Act. Texas intends to reclassify and

rearrange its statutes into a format that

will accommodate further expansion of

the law and to eliminate repealed,

invalid, and duplicated provisions in

order to make the statutes more

understandable and usable without

altering the meaning or effect of the law.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jack R. Carson, Acting Director, Tulsa

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 5100

East Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74135–6548, Telephone:

(918) 581–6430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Texas 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 Texas Program

On February 16, 1980, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Texas regulatory program. Background

information on the Texas program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval can be found in

the February 27, 1980, Federal Register

(45 FR 12998). Subsequent actions

concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments can be found

at 30 CFR 943.10, 943.15, and 943.16.

On June 23, 1980, the Secretary of the

Interior approved the Texas abandoned

mine plan as submitted on April 24,

1980, and amended on May 30, and

June 2 and 4, 1980. Information

pertaining to the general background,

revisions, and amendments to the initial

plan submission, as well as the

Secretary’s findings and the disposition

of comments can be found in the June

23, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR

41940). Subsequent actions concerning

plan amendments can be found at 30

CFR 943.25.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated August 24, 1995

(Administrative Record No. TX–594),

Texas submitted a proposed amendment

to its program pursuant to SMCRA.

Texas submitted the proposed

amendment at its own initiative. Texas

proposed to recodify the Texas Surface

Coal Mining and Reclamation Act

(TSCMRA) as enacted by Senate Bill

(S.B.) 959 (Section 12.02), 74th Texas

Legislature (1995). S.B. 959 codified,

with revisions, the TSCMRA at Chapter

134 of Title 4, Natural Resources Code,

and it repealed Article 5920–11,

Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes with

exceptions, including Sections 11 (b),

(c), and (d).

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the October 16,

1995, Federal Register (60 FR 53569),

and in the same document opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The public comment period closed on

November 15, 1995.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to: (1)

A definition for ‘‘permit applicant’’ or

‘‘applicant’’ [Article 5920–11, Section

3(2)]; (2) repeal of the exemption for

surface coal mining operations affecting

two acres or less [Article 5920–11,

Section 35(2) and Chapter 134, Section

134.005(a)(2), as recodified]; (3) coal

exploration operations being subject to

penalties for violating statutes and/or

regulations [Article 5920–11, Section

27(c) and Chapter 134, Section 134.014,

as recodified]; (4) the determination

date on which surface coal mining

operations are exempted from being

subject to designations of areas

unsuitable for mining [Article 5920–11,

Section 33(e) and Chapter 134, Section

134.022, as recodified]; (5) notices of

violations that permit applicants are

required to disclose when applying for

a coal mining permit [Article 5920–11,

Section 21(c) and Chapter 134, Section

134.068, as recodified]; (6) performance

standards regarding the elimination of

all highwalls and spoil piles [Article

5920–11, Section 23(b)(3) and Chapter

134, Section 134.092(a)(2), as

recodified]; (7) violations not creating
4452 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

imminent danger or causing imminent

harm [Article 5920–11, Section 32(b)

and Chapter 134, Section

134.162(a)(2)(A), as recodified]; (8) the

termination of cessation orders [Article

5920–11, Section 32(a) and Chapter 134,

Section 134.163(1), as recodified]; (9)

the payment of penalties [Article 5920–

11, Section 30(c) and Chapter 134,

Section 134.176, as recodified]; and (10)

mining by government agencies [Article

5920–11, Section 34(b)]. OSM discussed

these concerns with Texas by telephone

on February 9, and 27, 1996, and August

19, 1996 (Administrative Record Nos.

TX–594.06, TX–594.07, and TX–594.12,

respectively); by telefax dated February

28, 1996 (Administrative Record No.

TX–594.09); and by letter dated July 10,

1996 (Administrative Record No. TX–

594.12).

By letters dated April 2 and July 30,

1996 (Administrative Record Nos. TX–

594.08 and TX–594.11, respectively),

Texas responded to OSM’s concerns by

submitting additional explanatory

information to its proposed program

amendment.

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 notations to reflect

organizational changes resulting from

this amendment.

The previously approved provisions

at Article 5920–11, Vernon’s Texas Civil

Statutes are shown in brackets. When

applicable.

A. Nonsubstantive Recodification of

Texas’s Statutes

With the exceptions discussed in the

findings below, the proposed

recodification of the Texas statutes is

nonsubstantive in nature, and the

Director finds that the recodification

does not make these statutes less

stringent than SMCRA.

B. Revisions to Texas’ Statutes With no

Corresponding Federal Provisions

1. Short Title

At Chapter 134, Section 134.001

[Article 5920–11, Section 1], Texas

proposes to change the reference for the

Texas Surface Coal Mining and

Reclamation Act (TSCMRA) from ‘‘Act’’

to ‘‘chapter’’ throughout the recodified

statutes. The Director finds that this

change is not inconsistent with SMCRA

because Texas proposes only a change

in the term used to describe the statutes

that govern coal mining in the State.

2. Definitions

a. At Chapter 134, Section 134.004(1),

Texas proposes to add a new definition,

‘‘Affected person,’’ which means ‘‘a

person having an interest that is or may

be affected.’’ Accordingly, all references

to ‘‘a person having an interest that is

or may be affected’’ are proposed to be

changed to ‘‘affected person’’

throughout the recodified statutes. The

Director finds that the proposal to add

existing language to the new definition

and to refer to the defined term is not

inconsistent with SMCRA and will not

render the Texas program less stringent

than SMCRA or less effective than the

Federal regulations.

b. Texas proposes to change the

definition for ‘‘Secretary’’ at Chapter

134, Section 134.004(16) [Article 5902–

11, Section 3(19)] to ‘‘Secretary of

Agriculture,’’ which means the secretary

of the United States Department of

Agriculture. Accordingly, all references

to ‘‘Secretary’’ are proposed to be

change to ‘‘Secretary of Agriculture’’

throughout the recodified statutes. The

Director finds that the definition for

‘‘Secretary of Agriculture’’ is

substantively identical to that for

‘‘Secretary’’ which is previously

approved language.

3. Jurisdiction of Commission over

Surface Coal, Iron Ore, and Iron Ore

Gravel Mining and Reclamation

Operations

Texas proposes to add provisions for

jurisdiction of the commission over iron

ore and iron ore gravel mining and

reclamation operations. Chapter 134,

Section 134.012(a)(2) [Article 5902–11,

Section 4(b)], would provide for

exclusive jurisdiction over iron ore and

iron ore gravel mining and reclamation

operations in the State. Chapter 134,

Section 134.012(b) [Article 5902–11,

Section 4(b)] would provide for Chapter

134, Natural Resources Code, to govern

these operations to the extent it can be

made applicable. Chapter 134, Section

134.012(c) [Article 5902–11, Section

4(b)(1) and (2)] would provide

exceptions for iron ore and iron ore

gravel mining and reclamation activities

in progress on or before September 1,

1985, or for iron ore and iron ore gravel

mining operations and reclamation

activities that are conducted solely on

real property owned in fee simple by the

person authorizing the operations or

reclamation activities and that is

confined to a single, contiguous tract of

land if the activities are conducted in an

area not larger than 20 acres, the depth

of mining operations is restricted to 30

inches or less, and the fee simple owner

receives surface damages. Chapter 134,

Section 134.188 [Article 5902–11,

Section 4(c)] would provide that it is a

defense to a civil or criminal penalty

under Chapter 134 that a person

allegedly conducting an iron ore or iron

ore gravel mining and reclamation

operation in violation in Chapter 134

has a written general warranty or

ownership of land, separate from any

lease, from the person authorizing the

operation. There are not counterpart

provisions in SMCRA or the Federal

regulations pertaining to iron ore or iron

ore gravel mining and reclamation.

However, the Director finds that the

proposed provisions do not make the

Texas program less stringent than

SMCRA or less effective than the

Federal regulations.

C. Revisions to Texas’ Statutes That Are

Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Federal Provisions

1. Definitions

a. At Chapter 134, Section 134.004(7),

Texas proposes to add a new definition,

‘‘Federal Act,’’ which is defined as ‘‘the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C.

Section 1201 et seq.).’’ Consequently, all

references to SMCRA are proposed to be

changed to ‘‘Federal Act’’ throughout

the recodified statutes. The proposed

definition is substantively the same as

the Federal definition of ‘‘Act’’ at 30

CFR 700.5. Therefore, the Director finds

that defining and referring the SMCRA

as the ‘‘Federal Act’’ is not inconsistent

with SMCRA or the Federal regulations,

which define and reference SMCRA as

the ‘‘Act.’’

b. At Chapter 134, Section

134.004(13) [Article 5920–11, Section

3(13)], Texas proposes to change the

term ‘‘permittee’’ to ‘‘permit holder,’’

with no change in the definition.

Accordingly, all references to

‘‘permittee’’ are proposed to be changed

to ‘‘permit holder’’ throughout the

recodified statutes. The Director finds

that the definition for ‘‘permit holder’’

is substantively identical to that

previously approved for ‘‘permittee’’

and the proposed change in terminology

will not make the definition less

stringent than the definition for

‘‘permittee’’ at section 701(18) of

SMCRA.

c. At Chapter 134, Section

134.004(17), Texas proposes to add the

definition, ‘‘Secretary of the interior,’’ as

meaning ‘‘the Secretary of the United

States Department of the Interior.’’

Accordingly, all references to ‘‘the

Secretary of the United States

Department of the Interior’’ are
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 4453

proposed to be changed to ‘‘Secretary of

the interior’’ throughout the recodified

statutes. The Director finds that this

definition is substantively identical to

the definition of ‘‘Secretary’’ found at

section 701(23) of SMCRA and is,

therefore, approving its addition.

d. At Article 5920–11, Section 3(7),

Texas proposes to remove the definition

for ‘‘Eligible land and water’’ and to

recodify its substantively identical

provisions at Chapter 134, Section

134.142, Eligibility of Land and Water.

The Director finds that removing these

provisions from the general definition

section of the Texas statutes and adding

them to the abandoned mine

reclamation section is consistent with

section 404 of SMCRA.

D. Revisions to Texas’ Statutes That Are

Not Substantively Identical to the

Corresponding Federal Provisions

1. Definitions

a. At Article 5920–11, Section 3(2),

Texas proposes to delete the definition

for ‘‘applicant’’ and not include the

definition in its recodified statutes. The

Director is approving the removal of this

definition because Texas proposed to

add a definition for ‘‘applicant’’ to the

Texas Coal Mining Regulations in a

revised amendment submittal dated July

31, 1996 (Administrative Record No.

TX–621).

b. At Chapter 134, Section 134.004(3)

[Article 5920–11, Section 3(3)], Texas

proposes to remove, from the definition

of ‘‘Approximate Original Contour,’’ the

language ‘‘and water impoundments

may be permitted if the commission

determines that they are in compliance

with Section 23(b)(8) of this Act.’’ The

Federal definition for ‘‘approximate

original contour’’ at section 701(2) of

SMCRA allows regulatory authorities to

permit water impoundments if they

determine that the impoundments are in

compliance with section 515(b)(8) of

SMCRA. Since the Texas program

continues to allow permanent water

impoundments to be permitted under

Chapter 134 if they meet the

performance standards of Section

134.092(8), which is a counterpart to

section 515(b)(8) of SMCRA, the

Director finds that the change to the

definition does not render the Texas

program less stringent than SMCRA.

c. At Article 5920–11, Section 3(15),

Texas proposes to remove the following

sentence from the definition of prime

farmland: ‘‘The slope of the land can be

a factor in determining whether a given

soil is outside the purview of prime

farmland and the commission may thus

make a negative determination based

upon soil type and slope,’’ and to

recodify this sentence at Chapter 134,

Section 134.032, Determination

Regarding Prime Farmland. Texas also

proposes to recodify the new definition

for prime farmland at Chapter 134,

Section 134.004(15). The Director finds

that the recodified sections contain

previously approved language and is

approving them.

2. Exemptions

a. At Chapter 134, Section

134.005(a)(2) [Article 5920–11, Section

35(2)], Texas proposes to recodify a

provision that states that, ‘‘This chapter

does not apply to the extraction of coal:

* * * for commercial purposes if the

surface mining operation affects two

acres or less.’’ On May 7, 1987, section

528(2) of SMCRA was amended to

remove the exemption on surface coal

mining operations affecting two acres or

less {[101 STAT. 300] SMCRA Title II—

Two-Acre Exemption, Section 201

Repeal of Exemption (a)(2)}. In addition,

{101 STAT. 301} Title II, Section

201(d), Effect on State Law, rendered

ineffective any provision of a State law,

or of a State regulation that allowed this

exemption. Therefore, the Director finds

that keeping this exemption in the

Texas statutes does not render the

statutes less stringent than SMCRA.

Nevertheless, in order to prevent

confusion as to whether or not this

exemption is allowable, and as a

housekeeping measure, Texas should

remove this exemption from its statutes.

In an enclosure to a letter dated April

2, 1996 (Administrative Record No. TX–

594.08), Texas agreed that it was

appropriate to repeal this exemption.

b. At Article 5920–11, Section 35(4),

Texas proposes to remove an

exemption, from the provisions of

TSCMRA, regarding the extraction of

coal incidental to the extraction of other

minerals. In the exemption that is

proposed to be removed, the extracted

coal cannot exceed 162⁄3 percent of the

total tonnage of coal and other minerals

removed annually for purposes of

commercial use or sale or coal

explorations subject to TSCMRA. The

removed exemption is a duplication of

language in Texas’ definition of

‘‘Surface coal mining operations’’ at

Chapter 134, Section 134.004(19)

[Article 5920–11, Section 3(17)].

Therefore, the Director finds that the

proposal to remove this exemption does

not make the Texas statutes less

stringent than SMCRA.

3. Coal Exploration Operations

Texas proposes not to recodify the

provision at Article 5920–11, Section

27(c) that provides for penalties for any

person who conducts any coal

exploration operations, that

substantially disturb the natural land

surface, in violation of Article 5920–11,

Section 27, Coal Exploration Permits, or

the rules issued pursuant to Section 27.

In the recodified statutes at Chapter 134,

Section 134.014, Coal Exploration

Operations, the proposed amendment

states that, ‘‘A person who conducts

coal exploration operations that

substantially disturb the natural land

surface shall comply with commission

rules adopted to govern those

operations.’’ Also, in the recodified

statute at Chapter 134, Section 134.174,

Administrative Penalty for Violation of

Permit Condition or this Chapter, Texas

proposes that, ‘‘The commission may

assess an administrative penalty against

a person who violates a permit

condition or this chapter.’’ The Director

finds that the decision of the State not

to recodify Article 5920–11, Section

27(c) will not render this portion of the

State statutes less stringent than SMCRA

because the provisions for

administrative penalties at recodified

Chapter 134, Section 134.174 apply to

violations of permit conditions and/or

violations of the statutes governing the

Texas surface coal mining program.

4. Rules Regarding Monitoring,

Reporting, and Inspections

At Chapter 134, Section 134.030(2)

[Article 5920–11, Section 29(d)], Texas

proposes to add a provision that would

prohibit it from disclosing confidential

information, as discussed under Chapter

134, Section 134.031, when making

public all inspection and monitoring

reports and other records and reports

required to be kept under Chapter 134

and rules adopted under Chapter 134.

The confidential information discussed

under Chapter 134, Section 134.031

refers only to the analysis of the

chemical and physical properties of the

coal, except information regarding the

mineral and chemical content that is

potentially toxic in the environment.

The Director finds that this provision is

no less stringent than section 507(b)(17)

of SMCRA and that it adds clarification

that confidential information will not be

disclosed.

5. Contents of Permit Application

At Chapter 134, Section

134.052(a)(18), Texas proposes to add a

provision that would require the

submittal of a schedule listing any

notices of violations, incurred by the

applicant at coal mining operations, as

part of the permit application. Section

510(c) of SMCRA, Permit Approval and

Denial, requires that the permit

applicant file, with his permit

application, a schedule of notices of
4454 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

violations. Therefore, the Director finds

the proposed provision is consistent

with SMCRA.

6. Application Fees

At Chapter 143, Section 134.054(b)

[Article 5920–11, Section 18(b)], Texas

proposes to change its initial

application fee for a permit to a

minimum of $5,000. In the previous

Texas statutes there was no minimum

application fee, but the maximum fee

could not exceed $1,000. Texas also

proposes to add requirements for a

minimum application fee of $3,000 for

renewal of a permit, and a minimum

application fee of $500 for revision of a

permit. At Chapter 134, Section

134.054(c) [Article 5920–11, Section

18(b)], Texas proposes to allow initial

application fees and renewal

application fees to be paid in equal

annual installments during the term of

the permit. Also, Texas proposes to

remove the provision at Article 5920–

11, Section 18(d), as amended, that

requires fees to be deposited in the State

treasury and credited to the general

revenue fund. The Director finds that

the Texas proposals regarding a fee

structure for initial, renewal, and

revision permit applications are no less

stringent than section 507(a) of SMCRA

which allows application fees to be

determined by the regulatory authority.

Also, the proposal to allow initial and

renewal application fees to be paid in

equal installments during the term of

the permit is in accordance with section

507(a) of SMCRA which allows the

regulatory authority to develop

procedures to enable the cost of fees to

be paid over the term of the permit. The

proposal to stop requiring fees to be

deposited in the State treasury and

credited to the general revenue fund is

not inconsistent with SMCRA.

7. Annual Fee

At Chapter 134, Section 134.055

[Article 5920–11, Section 18(c)], Texas

proposes to add a new provision that

requires a permit holder to pay the

commission an annual fee, in an amount

determined by the commission, for each

acre of land in the permit area on which

the permit holder actually conducted

operations for removing coal during the

year. The fee is due by March 15 of the

year following the year of the removal

operations. The minimum fee is $120

per acre. Section 507(a) of SMCRA

provides that an application for a

surface coal mining and reclamation

permit shall be accompanied by a fee

determined by the regulatory authority.

Such fee may be less than, but shall not

exceed the actual or anticipated cost of

reviewing, administering, and enforcing

the permit. The regulatory authority

may develop procedures to allow the fee

to be paid over the term of the permit.

The Director finds that the income will

be less than the anticipated cost of

reviewing, administering, and enforcing

permits under the Texas program.

Therefore, the proposed provision

pertaining to an annual fee does not

render the Texas statutes less stringent

than section 507(a) of SMCRA.

8. Public Inspection of Application

Texas proposes to amend Chapter

134, Section 134.057(b) [Article 5920–

11, Section 17(b)], to include a

provision that specifies that subsection

(b) does not apply to records, reports,

inspection materials, or information that

is confidential under Chapter 134,

Section 134.031. The Director finds that

the inclusion of this provision only adds

clarification that confidential

information will not be disclosed and

does not render the State statute less

stringent than section 507(b)(17) of

SMCRA.

9. Notice by Applicant

At Chapter 134, Section 134.058(2)

[Article 5920–11, Section 20(a)], Texas

proposes to add a new provision that

specifies that the advertisement

published in the newspaper of general

circulation in the locality of the

proposed mining operation state that the

application is available for public

inspection at the county courthouse of

the county in which the property lies.

The Director finds that the addition of

this provision is consistent with section

507(b)(6) of SMCRA, which requires the

advertisement to include the location of

where the application is available for

public inspection.

10. Lien

Previously approved Article 5920–11,

Section 9(a) concerns past mining

practices on privately owned land and

makes reference to the completion of

projects ‘‘* * * to restore, reclaim,

abate, control, or prevent the adverse

effects * * *’’ on these lands. At

Chapter 134, Section 134.150(A), Texas

proposes to remove the words ‘‘restore,’’

‘‘abate,’’ ‘‘control,’’ and ‘‘prevent,’’ and

to use only the word ‘‘reclaim.’’ The

Director finds that the omitted words or

variations thereof are included in

Chapter 134, Section 134.150(a)(2) and

when Section 134.150, as recodified, is

read in its entirety, the proposed

revision is no less stringent than section

408(a) of SMCRA.

11. Prohibition on Surface Coal Mining

in Certain Areas

At Article 5920–11, Section 33(e),

pertaining to areas unsuitable for

surface coal mining, Texas provided

that after May 9, 1979, and subject to

valid existing rights, no surface coal

mining operation except those that

existed on August 3, 1977, shall be

permitted to mine in areas designated as

unsuitable for mining. At Chapter 134,

Section 134.022(c), as recodified, Texas

proposes to extend the date for valid

existing rights to May 9, 1979, and to

provide that this section does not affect

surface coal mining operations that

existed on August 3, 1977. Section

522(e) of SMCRA provides that after

August 3, 1977, and subject to valid

existing rights, no surface coal mining

operations except those that existed on

August 3, 1977, shall be permitted to

mine in areas designated as unsuitable

for mining. Therefore, the Director finds

that Texas is requiring a less stringent

provision than SMCRA and is not

approving this proposed amendment.

The Director is requiring Texas to

remove this unapproved provision from

its recodified statutes and to restore its

previously approved statute language.

Texas is also directed to notify OSM

when the previously approved language

has been restored. It is the

understanding of the Director that if any

provisions of Chapter 134, Natural

Resources Code are disapproved by

OSM, the provisions of the former

TSCMRA from which the disapproved

provisions were derived are continued

in effect for the purposes of those

provisions until September 1, 1997.

In addition, it is the Director’s

understanding that Texas may amend

Section 134.022(c) to refer to ‘‘rights

existing on August 3, 1977,’’ rather than

‘‘rights existing on May 9, 1979,’’ so as

to conform the Texas statute with

SMCRA (Administrative Record No.

TX–594.08).

12. Schedule of Notices of Violations

At Chapter 134, Section 134.068

[Article 5920–11, Section 21(c)], Texas

proposes to remove the requirement that

the applicant file a schedule listing any

and all notices of violations (NOV’s) of

any department or agency in the United

States pertaining to air or water

environmental protection incurred by

the applicant. Instead, Texas proposes

that the applicant file a schedule that

lists only NOV’s of the proposed

recodified Chapter 134 or of a law, rule,

or regulation of the United States or

Texas pertaining to air or water

environmental protection incurred by

the applicant in connection with a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 4455

surface coal mining operation in Texas

during the three years before the

application date. Because section 510(c)

of SMCRA requires that the schedule

list any and all NOV’s of any

department or agency in the United

States pertaining to air or water

environmental protection incurred by

the applicant in connection with ‘‘any’’

surface coal mining operation, and not

just those incurred at operations located

in Texas, the Director finds the

proposed statute amendment is less

stringent than SMCRA and is not

approving it.

However, Texas corrected this

deficiency by revising Article 5920–11,

Section 21(c) in an amendment

submitted on August 30, 1995

(Administrative Record No. TX–595),

which was approved in a separate

Federal Register notice dated June 18,

1996 (61 FR 30805). This revision was

enacted by Chapter 272, Senate Bill

(S.B.) 271 during the same legislative

session that S.B. 959 was enacted. In the

amendment submitted on August 30,

1995 (Administrative Record No. TX–

595), Texas provided a legal opinion of

the effect of the enactments of S.B. 271

and S.B. 959. The opinion stated that

the S.B. 271 amendments survive the

repealer provision of S.B. 959 and are

preserved as part of Chapter 134 of the

Natural Resources Code.

13. Performance Standards

At Article 5920–11, Section 23(b)(3),

Texas requires coal operators to

‘‘* * * restore the approximate original

contour of the land with all highwalls,

spoils piles, and depressions

eliminated, * * *’’ At recodified

Chapter 134, Section 134.092(a)(2),

Texas proposes to remove the words

‘‘highwalls’’ and ‘‘spoil piles’’ from the

requirement to restore the approximate

original contour. The Director finds that

the removal of the words ‘‘highwalls’’

and ‘‘spoil piles’’ from the requirement

to restore the approximate original

contour does not make this portion of

the Texas statute less stringent than

section 515(b)(3) of SMCRA because at

recodified Chapter 134, Section

134.004(3), the definition for

‘‘approximate original contour’’

includes the elimination of all highwalls

and spoils piles.

14. Violation not Creating Imminent

Danger or Causing Imminent Harm

At Chapter 134, Section 134.162(a)

[Article 5920–11, Section 32(b)], Texas

requires the commission or its

authorized representative to issue a

notice, for abating a violation, to the

permit holder if the violation does not

create an imminent danger to the health

or safety of the public ‘‘and’’ is not

causing or reasonably expected to cause

significant, imminent environmental

harm to land, air, or water resources.

Section 521(a)(3) of SMCRA requires

issuance of a notice if the violation does

not create imminent danger to the

health or safety of the public ‘‘or’’

cannot be reasonably expected to cause

significant, imminent environmental

harm to land, air or water resources.

However, in a letter dated April 2, 1996

(Administrative Record No. TX–594.08),

Texas indicated that it had no authority

to issue a notice of violation if the

violation creates an imminent danger or

imminent environmental harm. Texas

stated that, ‘‘If the violation meets either

of those criteria, the commission is

required to ‘‘immediately’’ order the

cessation of operations.’’ Thus, Texas’

interpretation of the intent of Chapter

134, Section 134.162(a) is consistent

with Section 521(a)(3) of SMCRA. It is

also noted that the Texas Coal Mining

Regulations (TCMR) 843.681(a) require

an authorized representative of the

commission to issue a notice of

violation to any permit holder having a

violation that does not create imminent

danger ‘‘or’’ imminent environmental

harm. Therefore, the Director finds that

the intent and implementation of the

proposed, recodified statute will be

consistent with SMCRA and the Federal

regulations and he is approving the

recodification.

15. Term of Cessation Order

The currently approved Texas statutes

at Article 5920–11, Sections 32 (a) and

(b) set forth requirements under which

a cessation order issued for two

different classifications of violations can

be terminated. For a cessation order that

is issued when a violation ‘‘creates’’ an

imminent danger to the health or safety

of the public or is causing or can

reasonably be expected to cause

significant, imminent environmental

harm to land, air, or water resources,

‘‘* * * The cessation order shall

remain in effect until the Commission or

its authorized representative determines

that the condition, practice, or violation

has been abated * * *’’ For a cessation

order that is issued when a violation

‘‘does not create’’ an imminent danger

to the health or safety of the public or

is not causing or cannot be reasonably

expected to cause significant, imminent

environmental harm to land, air, or

water resources, ‘‘* * * The cessation

order shall remain in effect until the

Commission or its authorized

representative determines that the

violation has been abated * * *’’ The

requirements of section 521(a)(2) of

SMCRA are substantively the same as

the currently approved Texas statutes.

In the proposed recodified statute at

Chapter 134, Section 134.163, Texas

proposes that a cessation order for both

classifications of violations; i.e., those

that ‘‘create’’ imminent danger or

significant, imminent environmental

harm and those that ‘‘do not create’’

imminent danger or significant,

imminent environmental harm will

remain in effect only until the

Commission determines that the

violation has been abated. However,

Texas’ implementing regulation at

TCMR 843.680(c) requires a cessation

order to remain in effect until the

condition, practice or violation has been

abated. Therefore, the Director finds that

the implementation of the proposed,

recodified statute will be consistent

with SMCRA and the Federal

regulations and he is approving the

recodification.

It is the Director’s understanding that

Texas may amend Chapter 134, Section

134.163 to refer to ‘‘the condition,

practice, or violation’’ in order to more

closely track the language of SMCRA

and the Texas regulation

(Administrative Record No. TX–594.08).

16. Payment of Penalty; Refund

Texas proposes to amend its statute at

recodified Chapter 134, Section 134.176

[Article 5920–11, Section 30(c)] by

removing the provision which states

that failure to forward money to the

Commission within 30 days of

notification of the proposed penalty

shall result in a waiver of all legal rights

to contest the violation or the amount of

the penalty. Moreover, Texas has

indicated an intention to interpret its

statute such that no prepayment of

penalty is required. Section 518(c) of

SMCRA contains the procedural

requirement that failure to forward the

proposed penalty within 30 days results

in a waiver of all legal rights to contest

the violation or the amount of the

penalty. Section 518(i) of SMCRA

requires that the civil penalty provisions

of a State program contain the same or

similar procedural requirements relating

thereto as does SMCRA. Since SMCRA

has a prepayment requirement and

consequences for failure to prepay, and

Texas’ recodified statute does not, the

proposed amendment to the Texas Act

is not consistent with SMCRA.

Therefore, the Director finds that

Chapter 134, Section 134.176 is less

stringent than Section 518(c) of SMCRA

and is not approving the proposed

removal of the provision discussed

above. The Director is requiring Texas to

restore this previously approved statute

language and to notify OSM when the

previously approved language has been
4456 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

restored. It is the understanding of the

Director that if any provisions of

Chapter 134, Natural Resources Code

are disapproved by OSM, the provisions

of the former TSCMRA from which the

disapproved provisions were derived

are continued in effect for the purposes

of those provisions until September 1,

1997.

It should be noted that OSM has

considered an amendment to 30 CFR

845.19 which would require

prepayment only with respect to

proceedings that occur after an

administrative law judge has

determined that a penalty is lawfully

due. OSM has deferred final rulemaking

on this issue. However, OSM has

approved an amendment to the

Kentucky State law regulating surface

coal mining which allows for a waiver

of the prepayment requirement under

very limited circumstances. See 58 FR

42001, August 6, 1993. Texas may

amend its program to include a limited

waiver provision similar to the one

approved for Kentucky.

17. Mining by Governmental Agencies;

Mining on Government Land

Texas proposes not to recodify Article

5920–11, Section 34(b) which requires

any agency, unit, or instrumentality of

Federal, State, or local government,

including any publicly owned utility or

publicly owned corporation of Federal,

State, or local government that proposes

to engage in surface coal mining

operations that are subject to the

requirements of TSCMRA to comply

with all provisions of TSCMRA. The

Director finds that the removal of this

provision does not render the Texas

program less stringent than section 524

of SMCRA and is approving it because

the Texas Act requires all surface coal

mining operations to be permitted, and,

therefore, every permit has a permit

holder. The State’s definition for permit

holder is ‘‘a person holding a permit to

conduct surface coal mining and

reclamation operations or underground

mining activities * * *’’ (Chapter 134,

Section 134.004(13), as recodified).

Texas further defines ‘‘person’’ to mean

‘‘an individual, partnership, society,

joint-stock company, firm, company,

corporation, business organization,

governmental agency, or any

organization or association of citizens’’

(Chapter 134, Section 134.004(14), as

recodified). The definition for ‘‘person’’

includes ‘‘governmental agency,’’ and

because it does, the Texas statutes

include a provision that government

entities engaging in surface coal mining

operations are subject to the

requirements of TSCMRA.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

The Director solicited public

comments and provided an opportunity

for a public hearing on the proposed

amendment. OSM received only one

public comment from the Texas Utilities

Services, Incorporated, by letter dated

November 15, 1995 (Administrative

Record No. TX–594–05), thanking OSM

for the opportunity to comment. No

actual comments were offered on the

proposed amendment. No one requested

an opportunity to speak at a public

hearing, therefore, no hearing was held.

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 Texas program.

By a letter dated September 18, 1995

(Administrative Record No. TX–594.02),

OSM received a response from the

Department of the Army, United States

Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering

Division stating that the proposed

changes were satisfactory.

By letter dated October 2, 1995

(Administrative Record No. TX–594.04),

OSM received comments on the

proposed program amendment from the

United States Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS). These

comments concerned the definition

Texas proposed for prime farmland at

Chapter 134, Section 134.004(15), as

recodified. The NRCS stated that the

Texas State Office of the Natural

Resources Conservation Service in

cooperation with the Texas State Soil

and Water Conservation Board, and the

Texas Agricultural Extension Service

developed guidelines to insure

consistent interpretation of the prime

farmland criteria prescribed by the

United States Secretary of Agriculture

and published in the Federal Register.

The NRCS suggested that the State may

wish to reference the ‘‘Texas’’ criteria,

in its definition for prime farmland, as

well as the Federal criteria that is

published in the Federal Register.

Because the Director considers the

proposed definition for prime farmland

to be a nonsubstantive recodification of

a previously approved definition, it is

unnecessary for Texas to reference the

‘‘Texas’’ criteria in its definition for

prime farmland.

The NRCS had other comment on the

proposed amendment at Chapter 134,

Section 134.032, Determination

Regarding Prime Farmland, as

recodified. The NRCS stated that the

sentence, ‘‘The commission may

determine that land is not prime

farmland because of its soil type or

slope,’’ is very open-ended and does not

refer back to the definition of prime

farmland at Chapter 134, Section

134.004(15), and that Texas needs to

provide more guidance regarding

determination of prime farmland. The

Director has determined that the

language in Chapter 134, Section

134.032 is previously approved

language.

By letter dated September 15, 1995

(Administrative Record No. TX–594.03),

OSM received three comments from the

United States Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM). BLM stated that Chapter 134,

Sections 134.092(a)(8) and 134.107, as

recodified, appear to conflict. Section

134.092(a)(8) pertains to the surface coal

mining and reclamation operations

performance standards regarding

permanent impoundments. Section

134.107 pertains to permits that may be

granted a variance from having to

restore the land to approximate original

contour after mining. BLM also had a

comment regarding mining through

abandoned underground mines. BLM

believed that Chapter 134, Sections

134.092(a)(12) and 134.100 conflicted.

The third comment from BLM pertained

to the proposed recodified Chapter 134,

Section 134.098, Prohibition on

Augering. The Director finds that no

substantive changes were made to these

previously approved provisions.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

OSM is required 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 Texas

proposed to make in this amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards.

Therefore, OSM did not request EPA’s

concurrence.

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

solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from EPA (Administrative

Record No. 594.01). EPA did not

respond to OSM’s request.

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

proposed amendments which may have

an effect on historic properties from the

SHPO and ACHP. OSM solicited
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 4457

comments on the proposed amendment

from the SHPO an ACHP

(Administrative Record No. 594.01).

Neither SHPO nor ACHP responded to

OSM’s request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, the

Director approves, with certain

exceptions and additional requirements,

the proposed amendment as submitted

by Texas on August 24, 1995.

As discussed in finding number

D.2.a., the Director is recommending

that Texas remove Chapter 134, Section

134.005(a)(2) from its statutes

concerning an exemption for surface

coal mining operations affecting two

acres or less. Texas should notify OSM

when the removal is completed.

As discussed in finding number D.11.,

the Director does not approve Chapter

134, Section 134.022(c) which extends

the date for valid existing rights to May

9, 1979, for the provisions relating to

designating areas unsuitable for mining

and is requiring Texas to remove the

disapproved language at recodified

Chapter 134.022(c), to restore its

previously approved statute language,

and to notify OSM when the removal

and restoration are completed.

As discussed in finding number D.12.,

the Director does not approve Chapter

134, Section 134.068 which requires an

applicant to file a schedule listing only

notices of violations of Chapter 134 or

of a law, rule, or regulation of the

United States or Texas pertaining to air

or water environmental protection and

is requiring Texas to remove the

disapproved provision and to notify

OSM when the removal is completed.

As discussed in finding number D.16.,

the Director does not approve at Chapter

134, Section 134.176 the removal of a

provision that the person charged with

a violation waives all legal rights to

contest the violation or amount of the

penalty unless the proposed penalty is

paid within 30 days of notification of

the proposed penalty and is requiring

Texas to restore this previously

approved statute language, and to notify

OSM when the restoration is completed.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

Part 943, codifying decisions concerning

the Texas 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.

Effect of Director’s Decision

Section 503 of SMCRA provides that

a State may not exercise jurisdiction

under SMCRA unless the State program

is approved by the Secretary. Similarly,

30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any

alteration of an approved State program

be submitted to OSM for review as a

program amendment. The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit

any unilateral changes to approve State

programs. In the oversight of the Texas

program, the Director will recognize

only the statutes, regulations and other

materials approved by OSM, together

with any consistent implementing

policies, directives and other materials,

and will require the enforcement by

Texas of only such provisions.

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

abandoned mine land reclamation

plans, and program and plan

amendments since each such program

and plan 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. Decisions on proposed abandoned

mine land reclamation plans and

revisions thereof submitted by a State

are based on a determination of whether

the submittal meets the requirements of

Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–

1243) and 30 CFR Parts 884 and 888.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule regarding the

regulatory program amendment since

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)). Also, no environmental

impact statement is required for this

rule regarding the abandoned mine land

reclamation plan amendment since

agency decisions on proposed State

abandoned mine land reclamation plans

and revisions thereof are categorically

excluded from compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the

Department of the Interior (516 DM 6,

appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

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

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: December 19, 1996.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 943 is amended

as set forth below:
4458 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 by

adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:

§ 943.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(p) With the exceptions noted below,

the recodification of Article 5920–11,

Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, Sections

1 through 38 to Chapter 134 of Title 4,

Natural Resources Code, Sections

134.001 through 134.188, the revisions

to and the addition of statutes to the

Texas Surface Coal Mining and

Reclamation Act as submitted to OSM

on August 24, 1995, and supplemented

with explanatory information on April 2

and July 30, 1996, are approved

effective January 30, 1997.

(1) The Director is not approving

Chapter 134, Section 134.022(c) which

extends the date for valid existing rights

to May 9, 1979, for the provisions

relating to areas unsuitable for mining.

(2) The Director is not approving

Chapter 134, Section 134.068, which

requires an applicant to file a schedule

listing only notices of violations of

Chapter 134 or of a law, rule, or

regulation of the United States or Texas

pertaining to air or water environmental

protection.

(3) The Director is approving Chapter

134, Section 134.176, except to the

extent that the recodified statute does

not include the previously approved

provision that the person charged with

a penalty waives all legal rights to

contest the violation or amount of the

penalty unless the proposed penalty is

paid within 30 days.

3. Section 943.25 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 943.25 Approval of abandoned mine land

reclamation plan amendments.

(a) The amendment, as submitted by

Texas on May 11 and 26, 1989, and

clarified by it on April 13, 1992,

certifying completion of reclamation on

all lands adversely impacted by past

coal mining, is approved effective

August 19, 1992.

(b) The recodification of Article 5920–

11, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes,

Section 3(7) to Chapter 134 of Title 4,

Natural Resources Code, Section

134.142 and revision to statutes of the

Texas Surface Coal Mining and

Reclamation Act concerning the Texas

abandoned mine land reclamation plan

as submitted to OSM on August 24,

1995, are approved effective January 30,

1997.

[FR Doc. 97–2329 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Parts 220 and 352

Third Party Collection Program and

Comptroller of the Department of

Defense Organizational Chart;

Removal

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document removes the

Department of Defense’s Third Party

Collection (TPC) Program and the

organizational charter on the

Comptroller of the Department of

Defense codified in the CFR. The parts

have served the purpose for which they

were intended and are no longer

necessary in the CFR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

L. Bynum or P. Toppings, 703-697–

4111.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD

Instruction 6010.15, ‘‘Third Party

Collection (TPC) Program’’ (32 CFR part

220) was replaced by DoD Instruction

6015.23. DoD Directive 5118.3,

‘‘Comptroller of the Department of

Defense (C, DoD)’’ (32 CFR part 352)

was revised by a January 6, 1997

version. Copies of the DoD Instruction

6015.23 and DoD Directive 5118.3 may

be obtained from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

List of Subjects

32 CFR Part 220

Claims, Health care, Health insurance,

Military personnel.

32 CFR Part 352

Organization and functions.

PARTS 220 AND 352—[REMOVED]

Accordingly, by the authority of 10

U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR parts 220 and 352

are removed.

Dated: January 24, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–2249 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 7

Board of Governors Bylaws

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the

United States Postal Service has

approved amendments to its bylaws.

The amendments repeal unnecessary

provisions of the Board’s regulations

concerning the Government in the

Sunshine Act. One change removes a

provision for publishing in the Federal

Register a notice not required to be

published there by the Act. The other

change removes an unused provision

concerning Sunshine Act practice by

committees of the Board.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Koerber, (202) 268–4800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Board’s bylaws, in §§ 7.4(e) and 7.5(d),

have required publication in the Federal

Register of two separate notices for each

closed meeting of the Board. These are

first, under § 7.4(e), a notice of the vote

to close the meeting, which is published

immediately after the vote; and second,

under § 7.5(d), a notice of the time, date,

place, and subject of the meeting, which

is published about 10 days before the

meeting.

The amendment repeals § 7.4(e), in

order to remove the bylaws’’

requirement for Federal Register

publication of the first of these notices,

which goes beyond legal requirements

and other agencies’’ practice. The

Government in the Sunshine Act

requires that notice of votes to close a

meeting be made available to the public

immediately after such a vote, but does

not require that this notice be published

in the Federal Register. The Act does

require Federal Register publication of

the notice of time, date, place, and

subject of the meeting, as provided for

in bylaw § 7.5(d), which is not changed.

Other federal agencies ordinarily

publish only this latter notice. As

required by the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C.

552b(d)(3), the notice of votes to close

a future meeting will continue to be

made publicly available through the

office of the Secretary to the Board,

although no longer published in the

Federal Register.

The other amendment repeals § 7.4(d)

of the bylaws. This provision has

provided that a committee of the Board

may determine to close all of its

meetings if it finds that most of them

fall under certain exemptions under the

Government in the Sunshine Act. This