Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5781

1998, provided the statute of limitations

on the assessment of tax has not expired

as of April 27, 1998 and, in the case of

paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the

taxpayers who filed the joint return

have consistently applied the rules of

that section to all taxable years

following the year the election was

made. Paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section

is applicable as of February 7, 2000,

however a taxpayer may apply the rules

to a taxable year prior to the applicable

date provided the statute of limitations

on the assessment of tax for that taxable

year has not expired.

§ 1.1295–3T [Redesignated as § 1.1295–3]

Par. 6. Section § 1.1295–3T is

redesignated as § 1.1295–3 and the

newly designated section is amended by

revising the section heading and

paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(5)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 1.1295–3 Retroactive elections.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Reasonably believed, within the

meaning of paragraph (d) of this section,

that as of the election due date, as

defined in § 1.1295–1(e), the foreign

corporation was not a PFIC for its

taxable year that ended during the

retroactive election year;

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(5) Time of and manner for filing a

Protective Statement—(i) In general.

Except as provided in paragraph

(c)(5)(ii) of this section, a Protective

Statement must be attached to the

shareholder’s federal income tax return

for the shareholder’s first taxable year to

which the Protective Statement will

apply. The shareholder must file its

return and the copy of the Protective

Statement by the due date, as extended

under section 6081, for the return.

* * * * *

Par. 7. In the list below, for each

section indicated in the left column,

remove the language in the middle

column and add the language in the

right column.

Affected Section Remove Add

1.1293–1(c)(1), last sentence ........................................... § 1.295–1T(j) ................................................................... § 1.1295–1(j).

1.1293–1(c)(2)(i), first sentence ....................................... § 1.1295–1T(D)(2) ........................................................... § 1.1295–1(d)(2).

1.1295–1(b)(3)(iv)(A) ........................................................ stock), and ....................................................................... stock) and

1.1295–1(c)(2)(ii), first sentence ....................................... 1296(a) ............................................................................ 1297(a)

1.1295–1(c)(2)(ii), first sentence ....................................... 1297(b)(1). ....................................................................... 1298(b)(1).

1.1295–1(c)(2)(iv), last sentence ...................................... § 1.1293–1T(c). ............................................................... § 1.1293–1(c).

1.1295–1(d)(1), last sentence ........................................... (d)(5) ................................................................................ (d)(6)

1.1295–1(d)(2)(i)(A), last sentence ................................... § 1.1293–1T(c)(1), ........................................................... § 1.1293–1(c)(1),

1.1295–1(d)(2)(ii), last sentence ....................................... § 1.1293–1T(c)(1), ........................................................... § 1.1293–1(c)(1),

1.1295–1(d)(2)(iii), last sentence ...................................... § 1.1293–1T(c)(1), ........................................................... § 1.1293–1(c)(1),

1.1295–1(d)(6), first sentence .......................................... § 1.1291–1T(e), ............................................................... § 1.1291–1(e),

1.1295–1(f)(1)(iii), last sentence ....................................... QEF calculated the QEF’s .............................................. PFIC calculated the PFIC’s

1.1295–1(g)(1) introductory text, second sentence, last

word.

representation— .............................................................. representations—

1.1295–1(g)(1)(ii)(A) ......................................................... § 1.1293–1T(a)(2) ............................................................ § 1.1293–1(a)(2)

1.1295–1(h), second sentence ......................................... § 1.1295–1T ..................................................................... § 1.1295–1

1.1295–1(i)(1)(iii), last sentence ....................................... never was made. ............................................................. was never made.

1.1295–1(i)(3)(iii) ............................................................... through 1297 ................................................................... through 1298

1.1295–3(a), first sentence ............................................... § 1.1295–1T(j), ................................................................ § 1.1295–1(j),

1.1295–3(a), first sentence ............................................... § 1.1295–1T(e) ................................................................ § 1.1295–1(e)

1.1295–3(b)(2) .................................................................. and 1297 ......................................................................... and 1298

1.1295–3(c)(3) .................................................................. § 1.1295–1T(d). ............................................................... § 1.1295–1(d).

1.1295–3(c)(4)(i)(A), third sentence ................................. assessment of taxes ....................................................... assessment of all PFIC related taxes

1.1295–3(c)(6)(i), last sentence ........................................ see § 1.1295–1T(c)(2)(iii). ............................................... see § 1.1295–1(c)(2)(iii).

1.1295–3(d)(1), first sentence .......................................... section 1296(a) ............................................................... section 1297(a)

1.1295–3(d)(1), second sentence ..................................... section 1296(a) ............................................................... section 1297(a)

1.1295–3(f)(2)(i) introductory text, second sentence ........ PFIC and the availability ................................................. PFIC and of the availability

1.1295–3(f)(4)(vi), first sentence ...................................... § 1.1295–1T(d). ............................................................... § 1.1295–1(d).

1.1295–3(g)(3), first sentence .......................................... § 1.1295–1T(d). ............................................................... § 1.1295–1(d).

PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

UNDER THE PAPERWORK

REDUCTION ACT

Par. 8. The authority citation for part

602 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.

Par. 9. In 602.101, paragraph (b) is

amended by removing the entries for

§1.1295–1T and 1.1295–3T and adding

entries in numerical order to the table

to read as follows:

§ 602.101 OMB Control numbers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

CFR part or section where

identified and described

Current

OMB control

no.

*****

1.1295–1 ................................... 1545–1555

1.1295–3 ................................... 1545–1555

* * * * *

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Approved: January 14, 2000.

Jonathan Talisman,

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 00–1892 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 946

[VA–114–FOR]

Virginia Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving an

amendment to the Virginia permanent

5782 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

regulatory program (hereinafter referred

to as the Virginia program) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

amendment clarifies the State’s

interpretation of its regulations

concerning the disposal of excess spoil.

The amendment is intended to improve

the operational efficiency of the Virginia

program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1941

Neeley Road, Suite 201, Compartment

116, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219,

Telephone: (540) 523–4303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Virginia Program.

II. Submission of the Amendment.

III. Director’s Findings.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments.

V. Director’s Decision.

VI. Procedural Determinations.

I Background on the Virginia Program

On December 15, 1981, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the Virginia program. You can find

background information on the Virginia

program, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

and the conditions of approval in the

December 15, 1981, Federal Register (46

FR 61085–61115). You can find later

actions on conditions of approval and

program amendments at 30 CFR 946.11,

946.12, 946.13, 946.15, and 946.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment.

By letter dated November 24, 1998

(Administrative Record No. VA–961),

the Virginia Department of Mines,

Minerals and Energy, Division of Mined

Land Reclamation (DMLR) submitted a

clarification to its interpretation of its

regulations at 4 VAC 25–130–816/

817.76 concerning the disposal of excess

spoil.

We announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the December

23, 1998, Federal Register (63 FR

71049), invited public comment, and

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing on the adequacy of the proposed

amendment. The comment period

closed on January 22, 1999. No one

requested to speak at a public hearing,

so no hearing was held. By letters dated

December 6, 1999, and January 11, 2000

(Administrative Record No. VA–995 and

VA–998, respectively), the DMLR

submitted additional information

concerning the amendment, and

withdrew the proposal to dispose of

excess spoil on bond forfeiture sites.

III. Director’s Findings

Following, according to SMCRA and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15

and 732.17, are our findings concerning

the proposed amendment.

The proposed clarification is as

follows:

The Division of Mined Land

Reclamation proposes to clarify the

interpretation of 4 VAC 25–130–816.76.

The regulation states that excess spoil

may be placed on ‘‘another area under

a permit issued pursuant to the Act, or

on abandoned mine lands under

contract for reclamation according to the

Abandoned Mine Land (AML)

Guidelines and approved by the

Division of Mined Land Reclamation.’’

The Virginia Division of Mined Land

Reclamation interprets this regulation to

mean excess spoil from a permitted coal

mining operation may be used by the

Division of Mined Land Reclamation to

reclaim a bond forfeiture site or an AML

project site. Through any of the

contracting procedures available to the

agency, including negotiated, no-cost, or

competitively bid contracts, the agency

may cause the placement of excess spoil

on the forfeiture or AML site in

accordance with the provisions of a

contract executed between the Division

and a contractor. The spoil material

removed from the permitted area will be

demonstrated to be excess spoil and

unnecessary for the achievement of

approximate original contour within the

permitted area.

The forfeiture or AML project must

be:

1. Located in general proximity to the

permit area;

2. on the AML inventory list or bond

forfeiture list; and

3. referenced in the permit plans,

along with the demonstration that the

spoil is excess and identified on the

permit map. However, the forfeiture or

AML site will not be included in the

permit acreage; will not be subject to the

requirements for permits, performance

bonds; and will not delay or otherwise

affect bond release on the permitted

area.

In the event the contractor fails to

perform the work specified in the ‘‘nocost contract’’, the Division will invoke

the appropriate contact sanctions to

cause completion of the contract terms.

When the contractor and the mine

operator happen to be one and the same,

the contract will include an additional

default provision. In this case, the

contract will specify that the mine

operator will revise the permit boundary

to include the area upon which the

excess spoil was placed pursuant to the

‘‘no-cost contract.’’ The permit

performance bond requirements will

become applicable.

In response to our comments on the

proposal (Administrative Record

Numbers VA–983, 984, and 985), DMLR

submitted a letter on December 6, 1999,

stating the following:

1. Virginia is proposing to follow the

information contained in the letters of

November 24, 1997, and November 24,

1998, as well as the AML Guidelines.

The November 24, 1997, letter was a

previous request by Virginia for OSM to

approve an interpretation of 4 VAC 25–

13–816.76 that would allow the

placement of excess spoil on eligible

AML sites pursuant to ‘‘no-cost’’

contracts. In that letter, Virginia

committed to apply the following

guidelines for such contracts:

—Conditions for placement of spoil are

to be outlined in a written agreement

between the operator and the

regulatory authority;

—Only spoil not necessary to restore

AOC or reclaim the permitted area

can be placed on abandoned mine

lands;

—The spoil is to be disposed of in a

technically and environmentally

sound fashion;

—The spoil is placed where it will not

destroy or degrade features of

environmental value;

—Areas for excess spoil disposal must

be eligible as noted in the state

reclamation plan;

—The mining company will not be

required to permit the disposal area;

—No coal can be removed from the

disposal area; and,

—The abandoned mine land features

reclaimed will be moved to the

completed column of AMLIS and

noted as Private Reclamation;

2. For financial assurance, the DMLR

would require the operator to post an

AML bond on the site;

3. The DMLR withdraws its proposal

to dispose of excess spoil on bond

forfeiture sites; and

4. The DMLR stated that it will not

allow fills to be constructed on

abandoned mine land.

We disapproved a similar Virginia

proposal to allow the placement of

excess spoil on unpermitted abandoned

sites through ‘‘no-cost’’ contracts in

1990. That proposal was disapproved

for three reasons. First, Virginia failed to

designate a fund that could be used in

the event that the contractor defaults on

his reclamation obligations. Second, the

proposal did not contain a reference to

the Federal AML policy guidelines.

Finally, the proposal did not provide for

‘‘public notice or participation such as

would occur on an AML contract or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5783

mining permit.’’ (55 FR 2240, 2243–4,

January 23, 1990).

We have also addressed the

placement of excess spoil on adjacent

abandoned mine land previously in

program amendment decisions in other

states. Most recently, we approved a

Pennsylvania amendment regarding the

placement of excess spoil on abandoned

mine sites (March 26, 1999; 64 FR

14610). In that approval, we explained

that in order to obtain our approval of

‘‘no cost reclamation,’’ such reclamation

would have to contain meaningful

performance incentives or safeguards to

ensure that spoil is placed only where

it is needed to restore the approximate

original contour (AOC) and where it

will not destroy or degrade features of

environmental value. In addition, the

amendments must require that spoil be

placed in an environmentally and

technically sound fashion. In short, ‘‘no

cost reclamation’’ amendments must

provide a degree of security comparable

to that afforded by a Federally funded

AML reclamation contract. 64 FR at

14617.

The approved Virginia program at 4

VAC 25–130–816/817.76(a) provides

that the DMLR may approve, where

environmental benefits will occur, the

placement of spoil not needed to restore

the approximate original contour of the

land and reclaim land within the permit

area in a manner consistent with the

Virginia Coal Surface Mining Control

and Reclamation Laws and the Virginia

Coal Surface Mining Reclamation

Regulations on abandoned mine lands

under a contract for reclamation

according to the AML Guidelines and

approved by the Division. In the

amendment, Virginia would authorize

the placement of excess spoil, via a nocost contract, on AML sites. ‘‘No-cost’’

contracts are so called because the

contractor receives no moneys from the

state AML agency in exchange for

performance of the terms of the contract.

Rather, the contractor receives the

benefit of a free disposal area for its

excess spoil in consideration for

performance of the needed reclamation.

To be approvable, the policies and

procedures applicable to such no-cost

contracts must provide a degree of

security comparable to contracts under

Federally-funded AML projects.

In Virginia’s amendment, AML lands

will be reclaimed in accordance with 4

VAC 25–130–816/817.76(a)(2). That is,

all reclamation must be in accordance

with the AML Guidelines, regardless of

whether the contracts are ‘‘no-cost,’’ or

Federally funded AML contracts. The

DMLR confirmed in its December 6,

1999, letter that the disposal of excess

spoil as incidental reclamation will be

in accordance with the AML Guidelines,

will require an AML bond to be posted,

and that excess spoil fills will not be

constructed on the AML sites.

We find, therefore, that Virginia’s

amendment regarding the use of ‘‘nocost contracts’’ under the approved

provisions at 4 VAC 25–130–816/817.76

concerning the disposal of excess spoil

and incidental reclamation will afford

the same degree of performance

incentives and safeguards as Federally

funded AML construction projects. We

are approving the amendment for the

reasons set below.

First, the requirements of 4 VAC 25–

130–816/817.76 provide that the

placement of the excess spoil under a

contract for reclamation must be in

accordance with the AML guidelines.

These guidelines were published in the

Federal Register at 61 FR 68777,

December 30, 1996.

Second, the amount of excess spoil

placed on an abandoned site will only

be that needed to reclaim the bond

forfeiture or AML site. Therefore, valley,

head-of-hollow and durable rock fills

will not be constructed on these AML

sites, because the amount of material

deposited would exceed that necessary

to address the reclamation of the

forfeited site or AML impacts and

problems.

Third, the use of the ‘‘no-cost

contracts’’ contains sufficient

performance incentives to require

compliance with all applicable

requirements to ensure that the sites are

fully reclaimed. In its December 6, 1999,

letter, the DMLR stated that it will

require the operator conducting a nocost contract to post an AML bond on

the site. In addition, in its January 11,

2000, letter, the DMLR stated that

Virginia’s AML grant funds would also

be a source available to reclaim a site in

the event of operator default or, after the

project is released, to correct any failure

of the project reclamation.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Federal Agency Comments

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

we solicited comments on the proposed

amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Virginia program. The

U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety

and Health Administration (MSHA)

responded and stated that there appears

to be no conflict with MSHA regulations

and/or procedures. The U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service responded and

stated that its position is that the

amendment be accepted. The U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

responded and stated that it appears

that no impacts to Federally listed or

proposed species or critical habitat will

occur and, therefore, it has no

comments on the proposed

amendments. The U.S. Forest Service

responded that it concurs with the

amendment, as long as the AML sites

will not lose soil or water quality as a

result of this additional spoil material.

In response, we note that the DMLR has

confirmed in its December 6, 1999,

letter that the disposal of excess spoil as

incidental reclamation will be in

accordance with the AML Guidelines.

By following these guidelines, soil and

water quality will be protected at least

to the extent that they are under

Federally-funded AML projects.

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

any provisions of the State 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 clarifications Virginia

proposed pertain to air or water quality

standards. Nevertheless, we requested

EPA’s comments on the proposed

amendment. EPA did not provide any

comments.

Public Comments

We solicited public comments on the

amendment. The Virginia Department of

Historic Resources responded that the

amendment will not affect historic

properties, and that it has no objection

to the amendment.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, we

approve the Virginia amendment as

submitted by Virginia on November 24,

1998, and clarified on December 6,

1999, and January 11, 2000.

To implement this decision, we are

amending the Federal regulations at 30

CFR Part 946 which codifies decisions

concerning the Virginia program. We are

making this final rule effective

immediately to expedite the State

program amendment process.

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).

5784 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15 and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)]

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior 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 counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

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

counterpart 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 946

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Tim L. Dieringer,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 946—VIRGINIA

1. The authority citation for Part 946

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 946.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 946.15 Approval of Virginia regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

*******

November 24, 1998 .......................................... February 7, 2000 .............................................. Policy clarification for implementing 4 VAC

25–130–816/817.76.

[FR Doc. 00–2641 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[GGD08–99–068]

Drawbridge Operating Regulation;

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation

from regulations.

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth

Coast Guard District, has issued a

temporary deviation from the regulation

governing the operation of the Norfolk

Southern Railroad bascule span

drawbridge across the Inner Harbor

Navigation Canal, mile 4.5, at New

Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. This

deviation allows the Port of New

Orleans to close the bridge to navigation

daily from 7 a.m. until noon and from

1 p.m. until 6 p.m. from Monday, March

6, 2000 through Wednesday, April 19,

2000. This temporary deviation was

issued to allow for the repair of the

damaged fender system. The draw will

open at any time for a vessel in distress.

Presently, the draw opens on signal at

all times.

DATES: This deviation is effective from

7 a.m. on Monday, March 6, 2000

through 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to in this notice are

available for inspection or copying at

the office of the Eighth Coast Guard

District, Bridge Administration Branch,

Commander (ob), Eighth Coast Guard

District, 501 Magazine Street, New

Orleans, Louisiana, 70130–3396. The

Bridge Administration Branch of the

Eighth Coast Guard District maintains

the public docket for this temporary

deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil

Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch,

telephone (504) 589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Norfolk Southern Railroad bascule span

drawbridge across the Inner Harbor

Navigation Canal in New Orleans,

Louisiana, has a vertical clearance of

one foot above mean high water in the

closed-to-navigation position and

unlimited clearance in the open-tonavigation position. Navigation on the

waterway consists of tugs with tows,

fishing vessels, sailing vessels,and other

recreational craft. The Port of New

Orleans requested a temporary deviation

from the normal operation of the

drawbridge in order to accommodate the

maintenance work, involving removal

and replacement of the portions of the

fender system.

This deviation allows the draw of the

Norfolk Southern Railroad bascule span

drawbridge across the Inner Harbor