Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32571

concentrations of regulated substances to

closure requirements)

.0202 Interim prohibition for deferred UST

systems

.0203 Definitions

3. Section .0300 UST Systems: Design,

Construction, Installation, and Notification

.0301 Performance standards for new UST

systems

.0302 Upgrading of existing UST systems

.0303 Notification requirements

4. Section .0400 General Operating

Requirements

.0401 Spill and overfill control

.0402 Operation and maintenance of

corrosion protection

.0403 Compatibility

.0404 Repairs allowed

.0405 Reporting and recordkeeping

5. Section .0500 Release Detection

.0501 General requirements for all UST

systems

.0502 Requirements for petroleum UST

systems

.0503 Requirements for hazardous

substance UST systems

.0504 Methods of release detection for tanks

.0505 Methods of release detection for

piping

.0506 Release detection recordkeeping

6. Section .0600 Release Reporting,

Investigation, and Confirmation

.0601 Reporting of suspected releases

.0602 Investigation due to off-site impacts

.0603 Release investigation and

confirmation steps

.0604 Reporting and cleanup of spills and

overfills

7. Section .0700 Release Response and

Corrective Action for UST Systems

Containing Petroleum or Hazardous

Substances

.0701 General

.0702 Initial response

.0703 Initial abatement measures and site

check

.0704 Initial site characterization

.0705 Free product removal

.0706 Investigations for soil and ground

water cleanup

.0707 Corrective action plan

.0708 Public participation

8. Section .0800 Out-of-Service UST

Systems and Closure

.0801 Temporary closure

.0802 Permanent closure and changes-inservice (Except insofar as it subjects

USTs containing de minimis

concentrations of regulated substances to

closure requirements)

.0803 Assessing the site at closure or

change-in-service

.0804 Applicability to previously closed

UST systems

.0805 Closure records

North Carolina Administrative Code, Title

15A—Department of Environment and

Natural Resources; Chapter 2, Subchapter 2O:

Financial Responsibility Requirements for

Owners and Operators of Underground

Storage Tanks

1. Section .0100 General Considerations

.0101 General (Except insofar as .0101(c)

provides inspection and enforcement

authority.)

.0102 Copies of referenced Federal

regulations

.0103 Substituted sections

2. Section .0200 Program Scope

.0201 Applicability

.0202 Compliance dates

.0203 Definitions (Except insofar as (b)(1)

defines ‘‘annual operating fee’’)

.0204 Amount and scope of required

financial responsibility

3. Section .0300 Assurance Mechanisms

.0301 Allowable mechanisms and

combinations of mechanisms

.0302 Self insurance

.0303 Guarantee

.0304 Insurance and risk retention group

coverage

.0305 Surety bond

.0306 Letter of credit

.0307 Standby trust fund

.0308 Insurance pools

.0309 Substitution of financial assurance

mechanisms

.0310 Cancellation or nonrenewal by a

provider of assurance

4. Section .0400 Responsibilities of Owners

and Operators

.0401 Reporting by owner or operator

.0402 Record keeping (Except insofar as

(b)(2) addresses annual operating fee

requirements.)

5. Section .0500 Changes in Status

.0501 Drawing on financial assurance

mechanisms

.0502 Release from the requirements

.0503 Incapacity of owner or operator or

provider of assurance

.0504 Replenishment

North Carolina Administrative Code, Title

15A—Department of Environment and

Natural Resources; Chapter 2, Subchapter 2P:

Leaking Petroleum Underground Storage

Tank Cleanup Funds

1. Section .0100 General Considerations

.0101 General (Except insofar as .0101(d)

provides inspection and enforcement

authority.)

.0102 Copies of rules incorporated by

reference

.0103 False or misleading information

2. Section .0200 Program Scope

.0201 Applicability (Except insofar as

.0201(a) and (b) relate to annual

operating fees.)

.0202 Definitions (Except insofar as .0202

(b)(1) relates to annual operating fees.)

3. Section .0300 Annual Operating Fees

.0302 Notification

4. Section .0400 Reimbursement Procedure

.0401 Eligibility of owner or operator

(Except insofar as .0401(b) relates to

annual operating fees.)

.0402 Cleanup costs

.0403 Third party claims

.0404 Requests for reimbursement

.0405 Method of reimbursement

.0406 Reimbursement apportionment

.0407 Final action

[FR Doc. 01–14895 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3800

[WO–320–1990–PB–24 1A]

RIN 1004–AD22

Mining Claims Under the General

Mining Laws; Surface Management

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) is issuing this final

rule to amend at this time only one

provision of its regulations for surface

management of mining operations

conducted under the Mining Laws. This

final rule changes the date by which

operators with plans of operation

approved by BLM before January 20,

2001, must provide a financial

guarantee—from July 19, 2001, to

November 20, 2001, for operations that

already have financial guarantees, and

to September 13, 2001 for operations

without any financial guarantee.

The amendment is necessary because

BLM field offices and the State

governments with which we cooperate

are not able to implement the financial

guarantee requirements in the existing

regulations to enable operators to

comply by the deadline in those

regulations. Changing the deadline will

better enable BLM and the States to

implement fully the financial guarantee

requirements in the BLM surface

management regulations. BLM intends

to retain the financial guarantee

(sometimes referred to as ‘‘bonding’’)

provisions in these regulations that

became effective on January 20, 2001.

BLM will issue a final rule addressing

other issues identified in its March 23,

2001, notice of proposed rulemaking at

a later date.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may send inquiries or

suggestions to Director (320), 501LS,

Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C

St., NW, Washington, DC 20240.

32572 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob

M. Anderson, Deputy Assistant Director

for Minerals, Realty, and Resource

Protection, at (202) 208–4201, or

Michael H. Schwartz, Group Manager

for Regulatory Affairs, at (202) 452–

5198. Persons who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Reasons for This Final Rule

III. Procedural Matters

I. Background

On November 21, 2000 (65 FR 69998),

BLM published a final rule completely

revising 43 CFR subpart 3809 (the 2000

regulations). Among its features, that

final rule contained financial guarantee

requirements for operators whose plans

of operations BLM approved before the

effective date of the rule, January 20,

2001. The rule contained regulations

requiring such operators to provide

financial guarantees that comply with

the new regulations by July 19, 2001.

The 2000 regulations were issued

following a complex procedural history.

In the 1998 Omnibus Consolidated and

Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105–277,

sec. 120(a)), Congress directed the

National Academy of Sciences (‘‘NAS’’)

to review the adequacy of existing

regulations of hardrock mining on

Federal lands in each State in which it

occurs, without regard to BLM’s

proposed regulations. The law directed

the National Research Council (‘‘NRC’’),

within the NAS, to complete the study

by July 31, 1999. In the 1999 Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub.

L. 106–31, § 3002, 113 Stat. 57, 89–90),

Congress prohibited Interior from both

completing its work on the February 9,

1999, proposed rule and issuing a final

rule until Interior provided at least 120

days for public comment on the

proposed rule, subsequent to the

publication of the NRC study. The NRC

completed and published its report,

entitled Hardrock Mining on Federal

Lands (‘‘NRC study’’), in late September

1999.

In addition, Congress enacted a series

of provisions in Interior appropriations

acts beginning in 1997 that pertain to

the 3809 rules. The last one, in the FY

2001 Interior Appropriations bill,

provides as follows:

None of the funds in this Act or any other

Act shall be used by the Secretary of the

Interior to promulgate final rules to revise 43

CFR subpart 3809, except that the Secretary,

following the public comment period

required by section 3002 of Public Law 106–

31, may issue final rules to amend 43 CFR

Subpart 3809 which are not inconsistent with

the recommendations contained in the

National Research Council report entitled

‘‘Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands’’ so long

as these regulations are also not inconsistent

with existing statutory authorities. Nothing

in this section shall be construed to expand

the existing statutory authority of the

Secretary.

FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Act,

Pub. L. No. 106–291, § 156, 114 Stat.

922, 962–63 (Oct. 11, 2000).

After the 2000 rules were issued, four

lawsuits were filed challenging those

rules; three in the U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia, and one in the

U.S. District Court for the District of

Nevada. In one of those lawsuits,

National Mining Association v.

Department of the Interior, No.

1:00CV02998 (D.D.C., filed December

15, 2000), the plaintiffs sought to enjoin

the effectiveness of all of the 2000 rules,

except for the bonding provisions. On

January 19, 2001, the judge denied the

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

injunction. The litigation has been

stayed until September 4, 2001, pending

a decision on the proposal described in

the next paragraph.

On March 23, 2001, BLM published a

proposed rule, 66 FR 16162, to suspend,

in whole or in part, the 2000

regulations. As stated in the proposal,

the suspension would provide BLM the

opportunity to review some of the

requirements of the new rule in light of

issues the plaintiffs raised in the legal

challenges to the rules and concerns

expressed by others, including the

Governor of Nevada. BLM proposed to

reinstate the previous rules (commonly

referred to as the ‘‘1980 regulations’’).

We also requested comment on whether

we should retain some combination of

the 2000 regulations and the 1980

regulations. The 45-day comment period

on the proposal closed on May 7, 2001.

BLM has received more than 25,000

comments. BLM is currently

considering what action to take next on

the proposal, and intends to issue a final

rule in the next few months.

In advance of decisions involving the

rest of the rulemaking, and for the

reasons explained below, BLM is

issuing this final rule now to address

one issue—the timing of the financial

guarantee requirements for operations

for which BLM approved a plan of

operations before January 20, 2001.

II. Reasons for This Final Rule

General Financial Guarantee Comments

and BLM Position

The overwhelming majority of

comments expressed support for the

financial guarantee provisions in the

2000 rules. Many comments filed by

individuals and environmental groups

urged the retention of the 2000

regulations, including the financial

guarantee provisions. There were,

however, some dissenting views. A

number of comments, some of which

were filed by representatives of the

mining industry and by states which

contain hardrock mining operations

covered by 43 CFR subpart 3809, urged

reinstatement of the 1980 regulations.

Many of these latter respondents

recognized, however, that the BLM rules

must comply with recent congressional

enactments and not be inconsistent with

the recommendations of the NRC study.

Accordingly, most agreed that the final

rule could reflect the so-called ‘‘NRC

Alternative,’’ which was Alternative 5

in BLM’s final environmental impact

statement for the 2000 regulations. This

alternative included provisions

reflecting only the NRC study’s

recommended regulatory changes.

A number of small miners expressed

concern over their financial ability to

meet the requirements of the rule if they

have to post a financial guarantee for

notice level activities. Comments also

suggested that, at least for notice level

activities, BLM should establish a

standard bond amount as suggested by

the NRC study. In addition, the State of

Alaska (see below) expressed concern

about effect of the rules on its bond

pool. We received one industry

comment suggesting that BLM phase out

existing corporate guarantees.

Addressing a regulatory gap, the NRC

Study recommended that ‘‘Financial

assurance should be required for

reclamation of disturbances to the

environment caused by all mining

activities beyond those classified as

casual use, even if the area disturbed is

less than 5 acres.’’ (NRC Study,

Recommendation 1, pp. 8, 93.) The

principal import of this

recommendation was to require

financial assurances for ‘‘notice-level’’

activities, that is, those operations

disturbing less than 5 acres of public

lands on which reclamation has not

been completed, for which the previous

rules did not authorize the posting of

financial assurances. The NRC study

also included other discussions to

achieve its stated objective of

guaranteeing financial assurance, such

as the establishment of standard bond

amounts for certain types of activities

on specific kinds of terrain. (NRC study,

pp. 94–95.)

As a general matter, BLM intends to

follow the NRC study recommendation,

and has concluded that we should

retain the financial guarantee provisions

of the 2000 regulations to ensure that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32573

sound financial guarantees will exist.

With respect to the comments

advocating that BLM eliminate the

financial guarantee requirement for

notice level activities, we cannot do so.

This would be inconsistent with the

NRC Study recommendation and

therefore prohibited by the FY 2001

Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act.

BLM also continues to believe that the

rules provide sufficient flexibility to

establish standard bond amounts for

particular activities on specific kinds of

terrain. The preamble of the 2000 rule

(See 65 FR 70066, column 2) explains

that the ‘‘final rule is broad enough to

allow BLM field managers to establish

and accept standard financial guarantee

amounts.’’ However, even if BLM field

managers do this, financial guarantees

must meet the likely cost of reclamation

for the specific activity. As to the use of

bond pools, the preamble to the 2000

rule (See 65 FR 70073) clearly supports

the use of State bond pools if the BLM

State Director determines the pool is

sound. We continue to adhere to this

position.

Although under the 1980 regulations,

the bonding provision for plans of

operations was discretionary with BLM,

most operators having plans of

operation that were approved under the

previous rules did post financial

guarantees with BLM or the state. Thus

the 2000 regulations codified an existing

practice for most plan-level operations,

and, consistent with the NRC study,

made the posting of a sufficient

financial guarantee compulsory for

disturbances caused by all mining

activities beyond casual use.

Current Implementation Issue

The problem BLM currently faces is

how to complete the transition from the

previous financial guarantee

requirements to the ones in the 2000

regulations for operations under plans

that BLM approved before January 20,

2001. The 2000 rule at section 3809.505

establishes July 19, 2001, as the date by

which mining operations with plans of

operations approved before January 20,

2001, must come into compliance with

the new financial assurance provisions

of the 2000 regulations. Implementation

of the provision by that date has proven

to be difficult.

The reasons for the problem vary. In

many states, BLM implements bonding

and financial guarantee requirements in

cooperation with State agencies. In

some States, BLM accepts Stateapproved bonds to satisfy these

requirements. In at least 6 States, either

BLM or the State or both will be unable

to implement the financial guarantee

requirement by the July 19, 2001,

deadline. Reasons for this inability

include an unrealistic deadline to start

with, uncertainty over the fate of the

2000 rules caused by the pending

lawsuits, and a multiplicity of State

agencies with which BLM must

coordinate. BLM cooperates with State

governments through memoranda of

understanding (MOUs). Many of these

MOUs need updating to meet the

requirements of the new regulations

and, in some cases, States will need to

revise their laws. Thus, on July 19,

2001, for reasons beyond their control,

a number of operators would not be in

compliance with the 2000 regulations

unless BLM changes that date.

For example, in Alaska, the State

legislature authorized a State bond pool

covering bonds under the 1980

regulations. Most small scale operators

in Alaska are unable to get bonds from

any source other than the State bond

pool. The MOU under which BLM

accepts these State bond pool bonds

expires July 17, 2001. Although the

MOU could be renewed in its present

form, it would not be in compliance

with the 2000 regulations. The BLM

Alaska State Office is not able to modify

the MOU to make it consistent with the

2000 regulations by July 17 or July 19,

2001. The consequences of failing to

make this deadline would be that

miners in Alaska would be left without

a source of bonds, potentially resulting

in a general shutdown in the middle of

the placer mining season.

In Arizona, there is no single State

program with which BLM coordinates.

Rather, many agencies exist with

different standards and requirements.

Further, no single acceptable State

financial guarantee exists that is

intended to cover entire mining

operations from exploration to

reclamation and termination. We need

to review all mining financial

guarantees in the State for compliance

with the 2000 regulations, and notify

operators of deficiencies. BLM does not

expect to complete this review by July

19, 2001, despite its best efforts to do so.

To remedy this implementation

problem, this final rule extends the

effective date of the financial guarantee

requirements in section 3809.505 of the

2000 regulations from July 19, 2001, to

November 20, 2001, for operations with

plans of operations that BLM approved

before January 20, 2001, that have a

financial guarantee in place. BLM is also

extending the deadline for acquiring an

initial financial guarantee. Those

operators with ongoing activities who

had plans of operations approved before

January 20, 2001, but who did not have

a financial guarantee, must provide a

financial guarantee by September 13,

2001. This latter date establishes a

shorter time period to comply with the

financial guarantee requirements in the

2000 rule than BLM is giving those

operators who already have an approved

financial guarantee.

We are taking today’s action separate

and apart from the rest of the

rulemaking because we want to ensure

that BLM properly implements the

transfer to the financial guarantee

system contained in the 2000 rule. As

stated above, unless further analysis of

comments on our March 23, 2001,

proposed rule discloses significant new

information strongly supporting a

change in the approach to financial

guarantees, it is our intention to

continue with the current framework for

financial guarantees. Once we complete

review and analysis of the many

comments received in response to the

March 23, 2001, proposal (66 FR 16162),

we expect to issue a final rule

addressing other matters related to the

2000 regulations.

III. Procedural Matters

In its March 23, 2001, proposal, BLM

stated that it intends to rely on the

support documents prepared for the

2000 regulations for its final actions. We

explain below how we have met the

procedural requirements related to this

final rule, and the extent to which those

earlier documents support this final

rule.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget

reviewed the 2000 regulations under

Executive Order 12866. The Federal

Register preamble to the final 2000

regulations discussed the impacts of

those regulations. The incremental

impact of today’s action is minimal.

Extending the deadline for

implementing the financial assurance

requirements for existing operations

with plans approved before January 20,

2001, will not have an effect on the

economy in excess of $100 million. It

will not adversely affect in a material

way the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.

The rule will not create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency. It does not alter the

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the right

or obligations of their recipients; nor

does it raise novel legal or policy issues.

32574 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Clarity of the Regulations

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations that are

simple and easy to understand. We

invite your comments on how to make

these regulations easier to understand,

including answers to questions such as

the following: (1) Are the requirements

in the regulations clearly stated? (2) Do

the regulations contain technical

language or jargon that interferes with

their clarity? (3) Is the description of the

regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this preamble

helpful in understanding the

regulations? How could this description

be more helpful in making the

regulations easier to understand?

Please send any comments you have

on the clarity of the regulations to the

address specified in the ADDRESSES

section.

National Environmental Policy Act

This final rule amends regulations

that constitute a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment under section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).

BLM has prepared a final environmental

impact statement (EIS) for the 2000

regulations, which is on file and

available to the public in the BLM

Administrative Record at the Nevada

State Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno,

Nevada 89520, and on BLM’s home page

at www.blm.gov. The effect of this final

rule is to postpone a deadline in the

regulations that cannot be met. The

impacts of this change are minimal and

are covered by the final EIS for the 2000

regulations. Thus this final rule does not

constitute a major Federal action that

would have a significant effect upon the

quality of the human environment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Congress enacted the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5

U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure that

Government regulations do not

unnecessarily or disproportionately

burden small entities. The RFA requires

a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule

would have a significant economic

impact, either detrimental or beneficial,

on a substantial number of small

entities. This final rule is covered by the

regulatory flexibility analysis of the

2000 regulations (see 65 FR 70103, and

particularly the discussion of bonding

beginning on page 70104). This rule

merely extends the deadline for

compliance, making compliance easier

for small entities.

Therefore, BLM has determined under

the RFA that the incremental effects of

this final rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This final rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule

merely extends a deadline on a

regulatory requirement that was already

established after completion of an

analysis BLM did to comply with

SBREFA.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This final rule does not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector

of more than $100 million per year; nor

does it have a significant or unique

effect on State, local, or tribal

governments or the private sector. The

rule merely extends a deadline for

operators with approved plans of

operations predating January 20, 2001. It

imposes no requirements on State, local,

or tribal entities. Therefore, BLM is not

required to prepare a statement

containing the information required by

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Executive Order 12630, Governmental

Actions and Interference With

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights (Takings)

The final rule does not represent a

government action capable of interfering

with constitutionally protected property

rights. The rule merely extends a

deadline on a regulatory requirement

that is already established. Therefore,

the Department of the Interior has

determined that the rule would not

cause a taking of private property or

require further discussion of takings

implications under this Executive

Order.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

As part of the process establishing the

2000 regulations, which this final rule

amends, BLM prepared a Federalism

Assessment (see 65 FR 70109). The final

rule will not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. It

continues in effect the present

procedural arrangements between BLM

and the various western States in

providing for financial guarantees for

mining operations—the memorandum

of understanding process. It merely

provides additional time for both BLM

and the States to prepare for

implementation of new regulatory

requirements for financial guarantees for

mining operations. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 13132,

BLM has determined that this final rule

does not have sufficient Federalism

implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform

Under Executive Order 12988, the

Office of the Solicitor has determined

that this final rule would not unduly

burden the judicial system and that it

meets the requirements of sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

In accordance with Executive Order

13175, we have found that this final rule

does not include policies that have

tribal implications. Providing additional

time for both BLM and the States to

prepare for implementation of new

regulatory requirements for financial

guarantees for mining operations will

not have an impact on Tribes.

Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This rule is not a significant energy

action. It will not have an adverse effect

on energy supplies. The rule applies

only to the date by which operators

must comply with financial guarantee

provisions of these regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These regulations do not contain

information collection requirements that

the Office of Management and Budget

must approve under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

Author

The principal author of this rule is

Richard Deery, Solid Minerals Group,

assisted by Ted Hudson of the

Regulatory Affairs Group, Washington

Office, Bureau of Land Management,

and Joel Yudson, Office of the Solicitor,

Department of the Interior.

List of Subjects for 43 CFR part 3800

Administrative practice and

procedure, Environmental protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Mines,

Public lands-mineral resources,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Surety bonds, Wilderness

areas.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32575

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Piet deWitt,

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

For the reasons stated in the

Preamble, and under the authorities

cited below, subpart 3809, part 3800,

Subchapter C, Chapter II, Subtitle B,

Title 43 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 3800—MINING CLAIMS UNDER

THE GENERAL MINING LAWS

Subpart 3809—Surface Management

1. The authority citation for subpart

3809 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1280; 30 U.S.C. 22; 30

U.S.C. 612; 43 U.S.C. 1201; and 43 U.S.C.

1732, 1733, 1740, 1781, and 1782.

2. Revise § 3809.505 to read as

follows:

§ 3809.505 How do the financial guarantee

requirements of this subpart apply to my

existing plan of operations?

For each plan of operations approved

before January 20, 2001, for which you

or your predecessor in interest posted a

financial guarantee under the

regulations in force before that date, you

must post a financial guarantee

according to the requirements of this

subpart no later than November 20,

2001, at the local BLM office with

jurisdiction over the lands involved.

You do not need to post a new financial

guarantee if your existing financial

guarantee satisfies this subpart. If you

are conducting operations under a plan

of operations approved before January

20, 2001, but you have not provided a

financial guarantee, you must post a

financial guarantee under § 3809.551 by

September 13, 2001.

[FR Doc. 01–15136 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 354

RIN 3067–AC87

Fee for Services To Support FEMA’s

Offsite Radiological Emergency

Preparedness Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes the

policies and administrative basis for

FEMA to assess fees on Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees

to recover the full amount of the funds

that we obligate to provide services for

offsite radiological emergency planning

and preparedness beginning in Fiscal

Year (FY) 2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

July 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vanessa E. Quinn, Preparedness,

Training, and Exercises Directorate,

Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington,

DC 20472, (202) 646–3664, (telephone

fax) 202–646–3508, (email)

vanessa.quinn@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout the preamble and the rule,

the terms ‘‘we’’, ‘‘our’’ and ‘‘us’’ refer to

FEMA.

Background: A Chronology

• 1991. On March 6, 1991, we

published in the Federal Register (56

FR 9452–9459) a final rule, 44 CFR part

353, that established a structure for

assessing and collecting user fees from

NRC licensees. Under 44 CFR part 353,

Radiological Emergency Preparedness

(REP) services provided by FEMA

personnel and FEMA contractors were

reimbursable only if these services were

site-specific in nature and directly

contributed to the fulfillment of

emergency preparedness requirements

needed for licensing by the NRC under

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended. Although we published a new

approach for the assessment and

collection of fees from licensees for FY

1999 and beyond, part 353 remains in

effect and will apply in any subsequent

fiscal year for which the Congress does

not authorize us to collect user fees for

generic services.

• 1992. Public Law 102–389, October

6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1571–1606, expanded

reimbursable REP Program activities by

authorizing us to charge licensees of

commercial nuclear power plants fees to

recover the full amount of the funds

anticipated to be obligated for our REP

Program for FY 1993.

• 1993. On July 1, 1993, we published

in the Federal Register (58 FR 35770–

35775) an interim final rule, 44 CFR part

354, to establish and set forth the

policies and administrative basis for

assessing and collecting these fees. We

reserved the option to reissue or amend

part 354 for other fiscal years provided

that the Congress enacted appropriate

authority.

• Public Law 103–124, September 23,

1993, 107 Stat. 1297, directed us to

continue assessing and collecting fees to

recover the full amount of the funds

anticipated to be obligated for our REP

Program for FY 1994. In addition, the

Administration proposed to assess such

fees for subsequent fiscal years.

• Using the methodology established

by the interim final rule, 44 CFR part

354, we calculated the final hourly user

fee rate for FEMA personnel during FY

1993 at $122.88. On December 13, 1993,

we published a notice to this effect in

the Federal Register (58 FR 65274). The

notice explained that we would not

publish a final rule at that time, pending

a reconsideration of the methodology

used for FY 1993 and taking into

consideration the comments received on

interim final rule 44 CFR part 354.

• 1994. We continued the

methodology established by the interim

final rule 44 CFR part 354 in effect for

FY 1994 by notice in the Federal

Register (59 FR 26350, published May

19, 1994).

• Using the methodology established

by the interim final rule, we calculated

the final hourly user fee rate for FEMA

personnel during FY 1994 at $120.79.

On November 28, 1994, we published a

notice to this effect in the Federal

Register (59 FR 60792–60793).

• On July 27, 1994, we published a

proposed rule in the Federal Register,

59 FR 38306–38309, 44 CFR part 354.

Predicated on Congress passing

authorizing legislation, this rule

proposed to establish fees for FY 1995

assessed at a flat rate based on fiscal

year budgeted funds for REP Program

services performed by FEMA personnel

and by FEMA contractors whether or

not those services directly supported

NRC licensing requirements.

• 1995. Under our appropriation for

FY 1995, Public Law 103–327,

September 28, 1994, 108 Stat. 2325, the

Congress authorized us to assess and

collect fees from Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) licensees to recover

approximately, but not less than, 100

percent of the amounts that we

anticipated would be obligated for our

Radiological Emergency Preparedness

(REP) Program. This appropriations act

further required us to publish through

rulemaking a fair and equitable

methodology for the assessment and

collection of fees applicable to persons

subject to FEMA’s radiological

emergency preparedness regulations.

Public Law 103–327 granted authority

for these user fees to be assessed and

collected for fiscal year 1995 services

only. Although the public law was

limited to FY 1995, we reserved the

option to reissue or amend part 354 for

other fiscal years provided that the

Congress enacted appropriate authority.

• Under final rule 44 CFR part 354,

60 FR 15628–15634, published on

March 24, 1995, we acted to recover

fiscal year budgeted funds for REP