Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 2133 

2Sec. 701, Public Law 114–74, 129 Stat. 599–601 

(Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015). 

3See M–24–07, Implementation of Penalty 

Inflation Adjustments for 2024, Pursuant to the 

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

Improvements Act of 2015, https://

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ 

M-24-07-Implementation-of-Penalty-InflationAdjustments-for-2024.pdf. 

PBGC to assess a civil penalty of up to 

$1,000 a day for failure to provide a 

notice or other material information 

under subtitles A, B, and C of title IV 

and sections 303(k)(4) and 306(g)(4) of 

title I of ERISA. 

Adjustment of Civil Penalties 

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 

2015 2 requires agencies to adjust civil 

monetary penalties for inflation and to 

publish the adjustments in the Federal 

Register. An initial adjustment was 

required to be made by interim final 

rule published by July 1, 2016, and 

effective by August 1, 2016. Subsequent 

adjustments must be published by 

January 15 each year after 2016. 

On December 19, 2023, the Office of 

Management and Budget issued 

memorandum M–24–07 on 

implementation of the 2024 annual 

inflation adjustment.3 The 

memorandum provides agencies with 

the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier 

for 2024, which is based on the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI–U) for the 

month of October 2023, not seasonally 

adjusted. The multiplier for 2024 is 

1.03241. The adjusted maximum 

amounts are $2,670 for section 4071 

penalties and $356 for section 4302 

penalties. 

Compliance With Regulatory 

Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866 and therefore not 

subject to its review. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

also has determined that notice and 

public comment on this final rule are 

unnecessary because the adjustment of 

civil penalties implemented in the rule 

is required by law. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

Because no general notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required for this rule, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does 

not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 4071 

and 4302 

Penalties. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

PBGC amends 29 CFR parts 4071 and 

4302 as follows: 

PART 4071—PENALTIES FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN 

NOTICES OR OTHER MATERIAL 

INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4071 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as 

amended by sec. 701, Pub. L. 114–74, 129 

Stat. 599–601; 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1371. 

§ 4071.3 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 4071.3, remove the number 

‘‘$2,586’’ and add in its place the 

number ‘‘$2,670’’. 

PART 4302—PENALTIES FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN 

MULTIEMPLOYER PLAN NOTICES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 4302 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as 

amended by sec. 701, Pub. L. 114–74, 129 

Stat. 599–601; 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1452. 

§ 4302.3 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 4302.3, remove the number 

‘‘$345’’ and add in its place the number 

‘‘$356’’. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Gordon Hartogensis, 

Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00488 Filed 1–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 948 

[SATS No. WV–125–FOR; Docket ID: 

OSMRE–2017–0003 S1D1S SS08011000 

SX064A000 2340S180110; S2D2S 

SS08011000 SX064A000 23XS501520] 

West Virginia Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment with deferral. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE), are approving, with one 

deferral, an amendment to the West 

Virginia statutory program under the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). The amendment revises the West 

Virginia Surface Coal Mining and 

Reclamation Act (WVSCMRA) as 

contained in Senate Bill 687 of 2017. 

These revisions modify the WVSCMRA 

requirements related to the release of 

bonds and provisions related to the use 

of money from the Special Reclamation 

Water Trust Fund. We are deferring our 

decision on the removal of provisions 

pertaining to the long-range planning 

process for the selection and 

prioritization of sites to be reclaimed. 

DATE: This rule is effective February 12, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael Castle, Acting Field Office 

Director, Charleston Field Office, 

Telephone: (859) 260–3900. Email: osmchfo@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the West Virginia Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSMRE’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSMRE’s Decision 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background on the West Virginia 

Program 

Subject to OSMRE’s oversight, 

SMCRA section 503(a) permits a State to 

assume primacy for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations on non-Federal and nonIndian lands within its borders by 

demonstrating that its program includes, 

among other things, State laws and 

regulations that govern surface coal 

mining and reclamation operations in 

accordance with the Act and consistent 

with the Federal regulations. See 30 

U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis 

of these criteria, the Secretary of the 

Interior conditionally approved the 

West Virginia program on January 21, 

1981. You can find background 

information on the West Virginia 

program, including the Secretary’s 

findings, the disposition of comments, 

and conditions of approval of the West 

Virginia program in the January 21, 

1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5915). 

You can also find later actions 

concerning the West Virginia program 

and program amendments at 30 CFR 

948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 

948.16. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated May 3, 2017 

(Administrative Record No. 1608), and 

received by us on May 15, 2017, the 

West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP) 

submitted an amendment to its program 

under SMCRA, docketed as WV–125– 

FOR. The proposed amendment consists 

of statutory revisions to WVSCMRA 

contained in Senate Bill 687 of 2017 

(S.B. 687) (approved April 26, 2017). 

See 2017 W.Va. Acts ch. 86. 

Through S.B. 687, West Virginia seeks 

to revise statutory provisions related to 

the release of bonds and the use of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
2134 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

money from the Special Reclamation 

Water Trust Fund to assure a reliable 

source of capital and operating expenses 

for the treatment of discharges from 

bond-forfeited sites. West Virginia also 

seeks to revise and reorganize the bond 

release requirements specific to when 

the different phases of a bond can be 

released and under what circumstances; 

it also preserves the requirement that no 

bond will be released until all 

reclamation requirements are met. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the April 8, 

2019, Federal Register (84 FR 13853) 

(Administrative Record No. 1617). In 

the same notice, we opened a public 

comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing on 

these provisions. The public comment 

period closed on May 8, 2019. We did 

not hold a public hearing or meeting 

because one was not requested. Letters 

were sent to various Federal agencies 

requesting comments (Administrative 

Record No. 1618), but none were 

received. For clarification, the summary 

of the April 8, 2019, proposed rule 

notice also unintentionally mentions 

revisions to pre-blasting and blasting 

requirements as being a part of this 

amendment. West Virginia had 

submitted other amendments to its 

blasting regulations that we had not yet 

addressed; therefore, in order to keep all 

changes to the blasting regulations 

together, we consolidated them into a 

separate amendment, which can be 

viewed at www.regulations.gov by 

searching the Docket ID Number OSM– 

2016–0010–0002, or SATS No. WV– 

123–FOR. 

III. OSMRE’s Findings 

We are approving, with one deferral, 

the revisions proposed in WV–125–FOR 

as described below. The following are 

findings concerning West Virginia’s 

amendment under SMCRA and the 

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 

and 732.17. Any revisions that we do 

not specifically discuss below 

concerning non-substantive wording or 

editorial changes can be found in the 

full text of the program amendment 

available at www.regulations.gov, 

searchable by the Docket ID Number 

referenced at the top of this notice. 

The following describes the 

substantive statutory revisions that 

WVDEP submitted to OSMRE for 

approval on May 3, 2017 

(Administrative Record No. WV–1608). 

1. W. Va. Code 22–3–11(g)(1)—Bonds; 

amount and method of bonding; 

bonding requirements; special 

reclamation tax and funds; prohibited 

acts; period of bond liability. 

West Virginia seeks to revise W. Va. 

Code 22–3–11(g)(1) to specify that 

moneys in the Special Reclamation 

Water Trust Fund are to be used to 

assure a reliable source of capital and 

operating expenses for the treatment of 

water discharges from forfeited sites 

where the WVDEP Secretary has 

obtained or applied for a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit as of the effective date 

of WVSCMRA. The existing provision 

states only that the funds assure ‘‘a 

reliable source of capital to reclaim and 

restore water treatment systems on 

forfeited sites.’’ 

OSMRE’s Findings: The West Virginia 

alternative bonding system was 

conditionally approved by the Secretary 

on January 21, 1981 (46 FR 5915), and 

the condition of the approval was 

removed on March 1, 1983 (48 FR 8448). 

This approval was granted under 

section 509(c) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 

1259(c), which allows for the approval 

of an alternative bonding system that 

will achieve the objectives and purposes 

of section 509. In drafting section 

509(c), Congress was not specific in 

prescribing how alternative bonding 

programs should be financed. The 

relevant analysis is whether the 

proposed alternative bonding system 

achieves the objectives and purposes of 

a conventional bonding system as 

expressed in section 509 of SMCRA and 

as implemented by 30 CFR 800.11(e). 

In the May 7, 2020, Federal Register 

(85 FR 27139), we approved on a 

permanent basis revisions to W. Va. 

Code 22–3–11(g) made by West Virginia 

in 2008 that added language to provide 

that the Special Reclamation Water 

Trust Fund was created within the State 

Treasury, into and from which moneys 

would be paid for the purpose of 

assuring a reliable source of capital to 

reclaim and restore water treatment 

systems on forfeited sites. Previously, 

the expenditure for water treatment 

systems was limited to fees collected 

under the Special Reclamation Fund. 

The revisions West Virginia proposes 

through S.B. 687 clarify that in addition 

to assuring sufficient funds to cover 

capital costs, which generally relate to 

the construction of water treatment 

systems, the funds must also be 

sufficient to cover those systems’ 

operating expenses. 

Both capital and operating costs must 

be accounted for to ensure compliance 

with the requirement in 30 CFR 

800.11(e)(1) that the State have 

sufficient money to complete 

reclamation for any areas that may be in 

default at any time. In our 2020 

approval, we made special mention of 

other language in this provision, which 

West Virginia now proposes to delete, 

that both funds are ‘‘for the purpose of 

designing, constructing, and 

maintaining water treatment systems.’’ 

See 85 FR at 27152. The proposed text 

stating that the Special Reclamation 

Water Trust Fund moneys are to be used 

for both capital and operating expenses 

only calls special attention to the 

distinction and removes any ambiguity 

from West Virginia’s requirements in 

light of the proposed deletion of ‘‘for the 

purpose of designing, constructing, and 

maintaining water treatment systems,’’ 

which we address below in the 

provision West Virginia has renumbered 

as paragraph (g)(2). S.B. 687 also 

clarifies that the money from the Special 

Reclamation Water Trust Fund is to be 

used where the Secretary has received 

or applied for an NPDES permit. As 

indicated in proposed paragraph (g)(2), 

addressed below, both funds are ‘‘for the 

reclamation and rehabilitation’’ of 

eligible lands, which we understand to 

mean that to the extent that any 

reclamation obligation is not expensed 

under the Special Reclamation Water 

Trust Fund, it will be expensed under 

the Special Reclamation Fund. Neither 

of these revisions materially change 

West Virginia’s program as we approved 

it on May 7, 2020, and it continues to 

be no less stringent than the Federal 

alternative bonding requirement at 

section 509(c) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 

1259(c), and no less effective than the 

Federal alternative bonding 

requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e). 

2. W. Va. Code 22–3–11(g)(2)—Bonds; 

amount and method of bonding; 

bonding requirements; special 

reclamation tax and funds; prohibited 

acts; period of bond liability. 

In 1995, West Virginia submitted 

revisions to W. Va. Code 22–3–11(g) that 

established the development of a longrange planning process for selection and 

prioritization of sites to be reclaimed to 

avoid inordinate short-term obligations 

of the fund’s assets of such magnitude 

that the solvency of the fund was 

jeopardized. Relying on West Virginia’s 

implementing regulations at 38 CSR 2– 

12.4(c), which provide that reclamation 

operations must be initiated within 180 

days following final forfeiture notice, 

we approved that revision to the extent 

that it provided only for the ranking of 

sites for reclamation without 

compromising the requirement that all 

sites for which bonds were posted be 

properly and timely reclaimed. See 60 

FR 51900 (Oct. 4, 1995). In 2008, West 

Virginia further revised this section to 

account for the Special Reclamation 

Water Trust Fund and specified that 

‘‘[t]he secretary may use both funds for 

the purpose of designing, constructing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 2135 

and maintaining water treatment 

systems when they are required for a 

complete reclamation of the affected 

lands described in this subsection.’’ 

West Virginia now seeks to delete these 

provisions, as well as renumber the 

remaining paragraph, formerly part of 

(g)(1), as (g)(2). 

OSMRE’s Findings: We addressed 

West Virginia’s long-range planning 

process for selection and prioritization 

of sites to be reclaimed in previous 

decisions, specifically in the Federal 

Register documents of October 4, 1995 

(60 FR 51900) and May 29, 2002 (67 FR 

37610). In both of these instances, we 

explained in detail that for West 

Virginia’s Special Reclamation Fund 

and Special Reclamation Water Trust 

Fund to remain solvent requires an 

inventory of sites requiring reclamation. 

Without this inventory, it is virtually 

impossible for the Special Reclamation 

Advisory Council to accurately assess 

the liabilities that would be included in 

the alternative bonding system. We 

further emphasized this fact in our letter 

to the WVDEP dated August 23, 2021 

(Administrative Record No. 1659). 

Again, we raised concerns regarding 

WVDEP having not taken the necessary 

steps to ensure the complete and 

accurate listing of all outstanding 

reclamation obligations (including water 

treatment) on active permits. We 

informed WVDEP that the State was 

required to submit either a proposed 

written amendment or a description of 

an amendment to be proposed that 

meets the requirements of 30 CFR 

732.17(f)(1) to establish a better 

inventory of existing obligations. 

On October 18, 2021, WVDEP 

responded to our letter with a proposal 

for an amendment (Administrative 

Record No. 1664) to address this issue, 

which then proceeded through the 

State’s statute and rulemaking process. 

On March 29, 2022, WVDEP submitted 

this proposed revision to the West 

Virginia program (Administrative 

Record No. 1666) to develop and 

maintain a database to track reclamation 

liabilities in the WVDEP Special 

Reclamation Program. We are deferring 

our decision on Section 22–3–11(g)(2) 

until we have reviewed the 2022 

proposed amendment (docketed as WV– 

128–FOR). Our deferral does not impact 

West Virginia’s efforts to renumber 

these provisions from subsection (g) to 

paragraph (g)(2), and the renumbering 

has no effect on the West Virginia 

program. Therefore, we approve the 

renumbering. 

3. W. Va. Code 22–3–23(c)—Release 

of bond or deposits; application; notice; 

duties of Secretary; public hearings; 

final maps on grade release. 

West Virginia seeks to amend W. Va. 

Code 22–3–23(c) to more closely reflect 

the language used in section 519(c) of 

SMCRA (Requirements for release), 30 

U.S.C. 1269(c), first by eliminating the 

distinction previously created at 

existing subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) 

between operations with and without an 

approved variance from the requirement 

that areas be reclaimed to approximate 

original contour (AOC). This proposed 

change replaces two sets of phased bond 

release requirements (currently at 

(c)(1)(A)–(C) and (c)(2)(A)–(C)) with one 

set of bond release requirements under 

subsection (c), paragraphs (1) through 

(3). The State also seeks to eliminate the 

proviso repeated under both sets of 

requirements that a minimum bond of 

ten thousand dollars shall be retained 

following Phase I and II bond releases, 

and a proviso that allowed total release 

of bonds following backfilling where 

provisions for sound future 

maintenance was assured by the local or 

regional economic development or 

planning agency and certain other 

requirements were met. West Virginia 

originally proposed the provision about 

sound future maintenance, as well as 

bond release provisions specific to 

operations with variances from AOC 

requirements, in relation to a Consent 

Decree agreed to by the plaintiffs and 

WVDEP in the matter of Bragg v. 

Robertson, Civil Action No. 2:98–0636 

(S.D.W.Va.) (approved by the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District 

of West Virginia on February 17, 2000). 

The remaining changes relate to Phase 

II bond release at existing subparagraphs 

(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(B), which will 

become paragraph (c)(2). 

West Virginia’s proposed revisions 

eliminate a requirement that Phase II 

bond release (i.e., bond release 

following successful revegetation) may 

occur only at a minimum of two years 

from the last augmented seeding, 

fertilizing, irrigation, or other work, and 

eliminate the flat percentage of bond 

returned at Phase II bond release (ten 

percent for those operations with an 

approved variance from AOC, twentyfive percent for all other operations). In 

place of the flat percentages, paragraph 

(2) will provide that the bond or 

deposit, in whole or in part, may be 

released after revegetation has been 

established on the regraded mined lands 

in accordance with the approved 

reclamation plan. When determining the 

amount of bond to be released after 

successful revegetation has been 

established, the Secretary will retain 

that amount of bond for the revegetated 

area that would be sufficient for a third 

party to cover the cost of reestablishing 

revegetation and for the period specified 

for operator responsibility at W. Va. 

Code 22–3–13(b). This section 

establishes that the operator ensures 

that all reclamation efforts proceed in an 

environmentally sound manner and as 

contemporaneously as practicable and 

complies with the minimum 

environmental performance standards 

for surface mining operations. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) redrafts 

provisos from subparagraphs (c)(1)(C) 

and (c)(2)(C) that provide that when the 

operator has successfully completed all 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

activities, the remaining portion of the 

bond may be released, but not before the 

expiration of the period specified for 

operator responsibility at W. Va. Code 

22–3–13(b). These provisions also 

provide that no bond will be fully 

released until all reclamation 

requirements are complied with, and 

that ‘‘the release may be made where the 

quality of untreated post-mining water 

discharged is better than or equal to the 

premining water quality discharged 

from the mining site where expressly 

authorized,’’ which currently only 

relates to West Virginia’s remining 

regulations at CSR 38–2–23. All of this 

language will now appear at proposed 

paragraph (c)(3). 

OSMRE’s Findings: As we explained 

in our August 18, 2000, Federal Register 

notice (65 FR 50409, 50411), West 

Virginia’s bond release requirements 

particular to operations with approved 

AOC variances apply to mountaintop 

removal and steep slope mining 

operations. We noted at that time that 

the different percentages of bonds 

released did not exceed those provided 

under section 519(c) of SMCRA and the 

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(c). 

Further, we explained that there was no 

counterpart in SMCRA or its 

implementing regulations for the 

requirement that final bond cannot be 

released on lands subject to an AOC 

variance unless, if applicable, any 

necessary postmining infrastructure is 

established and any necessary financing 

is completed. Therefore, the elimination 

of these unique requirements from 

WVSCMRA is approved. 

West Virginia proposed to delete a 

proviso stating that after Phase I and II 

bond release, operations must still 

maintain a minimum bond of $10,000. 

We find that this requirement is 

redundant of W. Va. Code 22–3–11(a), 

which states: ‘‘Provided, that the 

minimum amount of bond furnished for 

any type of reclamation bonding shall 

be ten thousand dollars.’’ The 

elimination of this proviso from W. Va. 

Code 22–3–23 does not relieve 

operations of the requirement of W. Va. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
2136 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Code 22–3–11(a), which itself is the 

same as the requirement under section 

509(a) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1259(a). 

Therefore, we approve this deletion to 

the extent that it removes the 

requirement from West Virginia’s bond 

release requirements, but we note that 

its deletion has no effect on West 

Virginia’s general requirement that no 

reclamation bonds may be less than ten 

thousand dollars. 

In the November 12, 1999, Federal 

Register (64 FR 61507, 61512), we 

deferred a decision on the proposed 

amendment that would allow certain 

operations to be granted full bond 

release where provisions for sound 

future maintenance were assured by the 

local or regional economic development 

or planning agency and certain other 

requirements were met. Our deferral 

pended West Virginia’s submission of 

regulations that West Virginia believed 

would satisfy our concerns that the 

proviso created an exemption from bond 

release requirements that conflicted 

with SMCRA. At that time, we 

explained that until we readdressed our 

deferral, West Virginia was prohibited 

from implementing this provision. 

Because this provision never became 

effective, West Virginia’s current 

proposed deletion of the proviso has no 

effect on West Virginia’s program. 

Therefore, we are approving the 

deletion. 

West Virginia also proposed to revise 

the requirements for Phase II bond 

release by eliminating the specified 

amount (ten and twenty-five percent) 

that is to be returned upon a Phase II 

bond release and eliminating the 

minimum two-year waiting period after 

the last augmented seeding before 

revegetation standards may be met. 

Neither SMCRA nor the Federal 

regulations specify an amount of bond 

to be released upon Phase II or proscribe 

a time period for the determination that 

revegetation has been established for the 

purpose of Phase II bond release. Rather, 

Federal law places within the discretion 

of the regulatory authority the need to 

determine and retain adequate bond to 

complete all required reclamation and 

to determine that successful 

revegetation has been established. See 

30 U.S.C. 1269(c)(2) and 30 CFR 

800.40(c)(2). When we approved West 

Virginia’s inspection frequency of 

inactive mines, we explained that West 

Virginia’s two-year requirement from 

last augmented seeding was more 

stringent than Federal requirements. See 

55 FR 21304, 21333 (May 23, 1990). The 

Federal requirements at 30 CFR 

800.40(c) ‘‘require only that revegetation 

be successfully established, with the 

definition of ‘established’ left to the 

discretion of the regulatory authority, 

provided it includes adequacy to control 

erosion and compliance with the 

species composition requirements of the 

reclamation plan.’’ When a regulatory 

authority proposes to remove a 

provision that is more stringent than the 

Federal requirements, we must still 

ensure the remaining provisions are not 

rendered less stringent than those 

requirements. The two-year requirement 

is not critical to a mining operator’s 

achievement of the relevant vegetative 

performance standard or to WVDEP’s 

evaluation of whether the standard is 

met. The proposed amendment retains 

West Virginia’s commitment to verify 

that applicable standards for vegetative 

success have been met before the 

relevant portion of the bond is released 

and, therefore, is no less stringent than 

sections 505 and 519 of SMCRA, 30 

U.S.C. 1265 and 1269, or less effective 

than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

800.40 and 816.116. Therefore, we are 

approving the amendment. 

West Virginia’s proposed revision 

would eliminate the flat percentage 

Phase II bond release in favor of 

retaining the amount of bond for the 

revegetated area that would be sufficient 

for a third party to cover the cost of 

reestablishing revegetation and for the 

period specified for operator 

responsibility. This proposed revision 

directly reflects the language of 30 CFR 

800.40(c)(2). In 1983, we removed from 

paragraph (c)(2) a corresponding 

twenty-five percent Phase II maximum 

bond release requirement in favor of 

more flexibility for the regulatory 

authority to retain the amount of bond 

necessary. See 48 FR 32932, 32953 (July 

19, 1983). At that time, we 

acknowledged that establishment of a 

maximum percentage as a Federal 

requirement was arbitrary and not 

consistent with SMCRA. Id. Given that 

West Virginia’s revision brings its bond 

release requirement back in line with 

the Federal regulation, it is no less 

effective than Federal requirements, and 

we are approving it. 

Regarding proposed paragraph (c)(3), 

this paragraph simply redrafts 

provisions related to the conditions for 

final bond release from existing 

subparagraphs (c)(1)(C) and (c)(2)(C), 

which were revisions initially required 

by us, see 50 FR 28316, 28319 (July 11, 

1985), and for which we later approved 

subsequent revisions by West Virginia, 

see 68 FR 40157, 40158–59 (July 7, 

2003). Because the proposed redrafting 

does not change any of these provisions 

from when we last approved them, we 

are approving the redrafted language. 

4. W. Va. Code 22–3–23(i)—Release of 

bond or deposits; application; notice; 

duties of Secretary; public hearings; 

final maps on grade release. 

WVDEP proposed to add subdivision 

(i) to its bonding requirements, which 

would authorize the Secretary to 

propose rules for legislative approval 

during the 2018 regular session of the 

Legislature that implemented the 

statutory changes discussed above while 

adopting, where possible, corresponding 

Federal regulatory standards. In 

addition, the Secretary was to 

specifically consider the adoption of 

corresponding Federal standards 

codified at 30 CFR part 700 et seq. 

OSMRE’s findings: OSMRE is 

approving the addition of subdivision (i) 

to WVDEP’s bonding requirements, 

which authorizes the Secretary to 

propose rules for legislative approval. In 

addition, the WVDEP Secretary was to 

specifically consider the adoption of 

corresponding Federal standards 

codified at 30 CFR part 700 et seq. This 

approval enabled WVDEP the discretion 

to amend its bonding regulations as 

needed so that West Virginia’s program 

may continue to satisfy Federal law. 

West Virginia made its regulatory 

revisions through a Committee 

Substitute for Senate Bill 163 of 2018, 

see 2018 W.Va. Acts ch. 141, which 

West Virginia submitted to us on May 

2, 2018 (Administrative Record No. 

WV–1613A, in part), docketed as WV– 

126–FOR. Subsection (i) itself did not 

change any substantive provisions of 

West Virginia’s approved program, but 

instead only directed WVDEP to fashion 

revisions to WVDEP’s regulations that 

WVDEP determined were necessary to 

comply with Federal law. Therefore, 

subsection (i) is neither inconsistent 

with SMCRA nor less effective than 

SMCRA’s implementing regulations. We 

are currently reviewing those regulatory 

revisions made under the authority of 

subsection (i) as part of a separate action 

docketed at WV–126–FOR. 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment and received a letter dated 

May 8, 2019, from the West Virginia 

Coal Association (WVCA) 

(Administrative Record No. 1627). 

WVCA stated in its letter that S.B. 687 

revised both bonding and explosives 

and blasting provisions of the 

WVSCMRA. WVCA stated that it was 

unclear why WV–125–FOR only 

covered the bonding portion of the bill. 

The blasting provisions referenced in 

our public notice of WV–125–FOR on 

April 8, 2019, were moved into WV– 

123–FOR with House Bill 4726 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 2137 

(approved April 1, 2016), see 2016 

W.Va. Acts ch.106, and Senate Bill 163 

(approved May 2, 2018), see 2018 W.Va. 

Acts ch. 141, which also amended West 

Virginia’s blasting laws. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On April 10, 2019, under 30 CFR 

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

SMCRA, we requested comments on the 

amendment from various Federal 

agencies with an actual or potential 

interest in the West Virginia program 

(Administrative Record No. 1618). On 

April 30, 2019, we received a letter from 

the USDA Forest Service, Monongahela 

National Forest. The USDA Forest 

Service did not have any comments of 

the proposed changes to the revisions to 

the West Virginia Code (Administrative 

Record No. 1626). 

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.). On April 10, 

2019, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we 

requested comments and concurrence 

from the EPA on the amendment 

(Administrative Record No. 1618). We 

received concurrence but no comments 

from the EPA on August 14, 2019, 

(Administrative Record No. 1629). 

State Historic Preservation Office 

(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 April 10, 2019, we 

requested comments on West Virginia’s 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

1618). We did not receive any 

comments. 

V. OSMRE’s Decision 

We are approving this amendment, 

with one deferral, to the West Virginia 

statutory program under SMCRA. The 

amendment revises WVSCMRA as 

contained in Senate Bill 687 of 2017. 

These revisions modify the WVSCMRA 

requirements related to the release of 

bonds and provisions related to the use 

of money from the Special Reclamation 

Water Trust Fund. 

Based on the above findings, we are 

approving the amendment WVDEP sent 

to us on May 3, 2017 (Administrative 

Record No. 1608), with one exception— 

we are deferring our decision on the 

removal of provisions related to the 

long-range planning process and the 

prioritization of sites. We will address 

those proposed revisions along with 

West Virginia’s submission docketed at 

WV–128–FOR related to the 

establishment of a database to track 

existing reclamation liabilities. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 948 that codify decisions 

concerning the West Virginia program. 

In accordance with the Administrative 

Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 

30 days after the date of publication. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12630—Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

This rule would not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications that would result in 

public property being taken for 

government use without just 

compensation under the law. Therefore, 

a takings implication assessment is not 

required. This determination is based on 

an analysis of the corresponding Federal 

regulations. 

Executive Orders 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review, 13563— 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review, and 14094—Modernizing 

Regulatory Review 

Executive Order 12866, as amended 

by Executive Order 14094, provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated 

October 12, 1993, the approval of State 

program amendments is exempted from 

OMB review under Executive Order 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 

14094. Executive Order 13563, which 

reaffirms and supplements Executive 

Order 12866, retains this exemption. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

reviewed this rule as required by 

Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The 

Department determined that this 

Federal Register document meets the 

criteria of Section 3 of Executive Order 

12988, which is intended to ensure that 

the agency review its legislation and 

proposed regulations to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; that the 

agency write its legislation and 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

that the agency’s legislation and 

regulations provide a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, and promote 

simplification and burden reduction. 

Because Section 3 focuses on the quality 

of Federal legislation and regulations, 

the Department limited its review under 

this Executive Order to the quality of 

this Federal Register document and to 

changes to the Federal regulations. The 

review under this Executive Order did 

not extend to the language of the State 

regulatory program or to the program 

amendment that West Virginia drafted. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule has potential Federalism 

implications as defined under Section 

1(a) of Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 13132 directs agencies 

to ‘‘grant the States the maximum 

administrative discretion possible’’ with 

respect to Federal statutes and 

regulations administered by the States. 

West Virginia, through its approved 

regulatory program, implements and 

administers SMCRA and its 

implementing regulations at the State 

level. This rule approves, in part, an 

amendment to the West Virginia 

program submitted and drafted by the 

State and defers decision on one 

element of the amendment only to the 

extent necessary to evaluate it in concert 

with a related amendment recently 

submitted by the State. Therefore, this 

rule is consistent with the direction to 

provide maximum administrative 

discretion to States. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Department of the Interior strives 

to strengthen its government-togovernment relationship with Tribes 

through a commitment to consultation 

with Tribes and recognition of their 

right to self-governance and Tribal 

sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule 

under the Department’s consultation 

policy and under the criteria in 

Executive Order 13175 and have 

determined that it has no substantial 

direct effects on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Tribes. The 

basis for this determination is that our 

decision on the West Virginia program 

does not include Indian lands, as 

defined by SMCRA, or regulation of 

activities on Indian lands. Indian lands 

are regulated independently under the 

applicable approved Federal program. 

The Department’s consultation policy 

also acknowledges that our rules may 

have Tribal implications where the State 

proposing the amendment encompasses 

ancestral lands in areas with mineable 

coal. We are currently working to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
2138 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

identify and engage appropriate Tribal 

stakeholders to devise a constructive 

approach for consulting on such 

amendments. 

Executive Order 13211—Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rulemaking 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 

a significant energy action under the 

definition in Executive Order 13211, a 

Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because this is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866; and this action does not address 

environmental health or safety risks 

disproportionately affecting children. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Consistent with sections 501(a) and 

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) and 

1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. 

Department of the Interior Departmental 

Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), State 

program amendments are not major 

Federal actions within the meaning of 

section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)). 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) directs 

OSMRE to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. (OMB Circular A–119 at p. 

14). This action is not subject to the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

NTTAA because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with SMCRA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not include requests 

and requirements of an individual, 

partnership, or corporation to obtain 

information and report it to a Federal 

agency. As this rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, a 

submission to the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

is not required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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. 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. 

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 on an analysis of 

the corresponding Federal regulations, 

which were determined not to 

constitute a major rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

rule does not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

determination is based on an analysis of 

the corresponding Federal regulations, 

which were determined not to impose 

an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Thomas D. Shope, 

Regional Director, North Atlantic— 

Appalachian Region. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 948 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 948—WEST VIRGINIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 948 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 948.12 by adding 

paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 948.12 State statutory, regulatory, and 

proposed program amendment provisions 

not approved. 

* * * * * 

(k) We are not approving the 

following portions of provisions of the 

proposed program amendment that 

West Virginia submitted on May 15, 

2017: 

(1) We are deferring our decision on 

the deletion of provisions from W. Va. 

Code 22–3–11(g)(2) regarding the 

development of a long-range planning 

process for the selection and 

prioritization of sites to be reclaimed. 

We defer our decision until we make a 

determination on West Virginia’s related 

amendment docketed at WV–128–FOR, 

which relates to the complete and 

accurate listing of all outstanding 

reclamation obligations (including water 

treatment) on active permits in the 

State. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 3. In § 948.15 amend the table by 

adding an entry in chronological order 

by ‘‘Date of publication of final rule’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 948.15 Approval of West Virginia 

regulatory program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission 

date 

Date of final 

publication of 

final rule 

Citation/description of approved provisions 

*******

May 3, 2017 .............................. 1/12/2024 W.Va. Code 22–3–11(g)(1), (g)(2) (partial); 22–3–23(c) and (i). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 2139 

[FR Doc. 2024–00530 Filed 1–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

31 CFR Parts 501, 510, 535, 536, 539, 

541, 542, 544, 546, 547, 548, 549, 551, 

552, 553, 555, 558, 560, 561, 566, 570, 

576, 578, 583, 584, 588, 589, 590, 592, 

594, 597, and 598 

Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary 

Penalties 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is issuing this final rule 

to adjust certain civil monetary 

penalties for inflation pursuant to the 

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by 

the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 

2015. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 12, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, 

202–622–2480; Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, 202–622–4855; 

Assistant Director for Compliance, 202– 

622–2490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

This document and additional 

information concerning OFAC are 

available from OFAC’s website 

(www.treas.gov/ofac). 

Background 

Section 4 of the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 

1990 (Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890; 28 

U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by the 

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 

2015 (Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 599, 28 

U.S.C. 2461 note) (the FCPIA Act), 

requires each federal agency with 

statutory authority to assess civil 

monetary penalties (CMPs) to adjust 

CMPs annually for inflation according 

to a formula described in section 5 of 

the FCPIA Act. One purpose of the 

FCPIA Act is to ensure that CMPs 

continue to maintain their deterrent 

effect through periodic cost-of-livingbased adjustments. 

OFAC has adjusted its CMPs nine 

times since the Federal Civil Penalties 

Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements 

Act of 2015 went into effect on 

November 2, 2015: an initial catch-up 

adjustment on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 

43070, July 1, 2016); an additional 

initial catch-up adjustment related to 

CMPs for failure to comply with a 

requirement to furnish information, the 

late filing of a required report, and 

failure to maintain records 

(‘‘recordkeeping CMPs’’) that were 

inadvertently omitted from the August 

1, 2016 initial catch-up adjustment on 

October 5, 2020 (85 FR 54911, 

September 3, 2020); and annual 

adjustments on February 10, 2017 (82 

FR 10434, February 10, 2017); March 19, 

2018 (83 FR 11876, March 19, 2018); 

June 14, 2019 (84 FR 27714, June 14, 

2019); April 9, 2020 (85 FR 19884, April 

9, 2020); March 17, 2021 (86 FR 14534, 

March 17, 2021); February 9, 2022 (87 

FR 7369, February 9, 2022); and January 

13, 2023 (88 FR 2229, January 13, 2023). 

Method of Calculation 

The method of calculating CMP 

adjustments applied in this final rule is 

required by the FCPIA Act. Under the 

FCPIA Act and the Office of 

Management and Budget guidance 

required by the FCPIA Act, annual 

inflation adjustments subsequent to the 

initial catch-up adjustment are to be 

based on the percent change between 

the Consumer Price Index for all Urban 

Consumers (‘‘CPI–U’’) for the October 

preceding the date of the adjustment 

and the prior year’s October CPI–U. As 

set forth in Office of Management and 

Budget Memorandum M–24–07 of 

December 19, 2023, the adjustment 

multiplier for 2023 is 1.03241. In order 

to complete the 2024 annual 

adjustment, each current CMP is 

multiplied by the 2024 adjustment 

multiplier. Under the FCPIA Act, any 

increase in CMP must be rounded to the 

nearest multiple of $1. 

New Penalty Amounts 

OFAC imposes CMPs pursuant to the 

penalty authority in five statutes: the 

Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 

4301–4341, at 4315) (TWEA); the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706, at 

1705) (IEEPA); the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (18 

U.S.C. 2339B) (AEDPA); the Foreign 

Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (21 

U.S.C. 1901–1908, at 1906) (FNKDA); 

and the Clean Diamond Trade Act (19 

U.S.C. 3901–3913, at 3907) (CDTA). 

The table below summarizes the 

existing and new maximum CMP 

amounts for each statute. 

TABLE 1—MAXIMUM CMP AMOUNTS FOR RELEVANT STATUTES

Statute Existing maximum 

CMP amount 

Maximum CMP 

amount effective 

Jan. 12, 2024 

TWEA ............................................................................................................................................... $105,083 $108,489 

IEEPA .............................................................................................................................................. 356,579 368,136 

AEDPA ............................................................................................................................................. 94,127 97,178 

FNKDA ............................................................................................................................................. 1,771,754 1,829,177 

CDTA ............................................................................................................................................... 16,108 16,630 

In addition to updating these 

maximum CMP amounts, OFAC is also 

updating two references to one-half the 

IEEPA maximum CMP from $178,290 to 

$184,068, and is adjusting the 

recordkeeping CMP amounts found in 

OFAC’s Economic Sanctions 

Enforcement Guidelines in appendix A 

to 31 CFR part 501. The table below 

summarizes the existing and new 

maximum CMP amounts for OFAC’s 

recordkeeping CMPs. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES