Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32743

Dated: April 10, 2001.

Mary A. Ryan,

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs,

Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01–15050 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–06–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 920

[MD–046–FOR]

Maryland Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving an

amendment to the Maryland regulatory

program (Maryland program) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30

U.S.C. 1201 et seq., as amended. The

amendment revises portions of the

Maryland regulations regarding a

definition of previously mined area,

termination of jurisdiction, permitting

requirements, bond release

requirements and performance

standards for inspections. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Maryland program to be no less effective

than the corresponding Federal

regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Rieger, Manager, Oversight and

Inspection Office, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center, Office

of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center,

Pittsburgh PA 15220, Telephone:

(412) 937–2153, E-mail:

grieger@osmre.gov

Maryland Bureau of Mines, 160 South

Water Street, Frostburg, Maryland

21532, Telephone: (301) 689–4136

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Maryland Program

II. Submission of the Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

I. Background on the Maryland

Program

On February 18, 1982, the Secretary of

the Interior approved the Maryland

program. You can find background

information on the Maryland program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval in the February

18, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 7214).

You can find subsequent actions

concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments at 30 CFR

920.15 and 920.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

By letter dated September 14, 1999

(Administrative Record No. 577–04),

Maryland provided an informal

amendment to OSM regarding a

definition of previously mined area,

termination of jurisdiction, permitting

requirements, bond release

requirements and performance

standards for inspections. Maryland

submitted the informal amendment in

response to requests made by OSM as

required under 30 CFR 732.17(d) in

letters dated July 8, 1997, and August

11, 1999 (Administrative Record Nos.

577–01 and 577–03, respectively). OSM

completed its review of the informal

amendment and submitted comments to

Maryland in a letter dated March 20,

2000 (Administrative Record No. 577–

05). By letter dated April 11, 2000

(Administrative Record No. MD–577–

06), Maryland submitted its response to

OSM’s comments in the form of a

proposed amendment to the Code of

Maryland Regulations (COMAR). The

proposed amendments were announced

in the April 28, 2000, Federal Register

(65 FR 24897). The public comment

period closed on May 30, 2000.

However, OSM’s review determined

that the proposed revisions to COMAR

26.20.31.02H the inspection frequency

on reclaimed bond forfeiture sites were

inconsistent with 30 CFR 840.11 and

700.11(d). As a result, a letter requesting

clarification was sent to Maryland dated

August 17, 2000 (Administrative Record

No. MD–577–12). Maryland responded

in its letter dated August 31, 2000

(Administrative Record No. MD 577–13)

with a new revision to COMAR

26.20.31.02H regarding the inspection

frequency on reclaimed bond forfeiture

sites. Therefore, OSM reopened the

public comment period regarding the

proposed amendments to Maryland’s

regulatory program. The proposed

rulemaking was published in the

October 4, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR

59150). The public comment period

closed on October 19, 2000. No one

requested an opportunity to speak at a

public hearing, so no hearing was held.

OSM’s review of this submission

determined that the proposed revision

to COMAR 26.20.31.02 J(3) was not as

effective as the Federal counterpart at 30

CFR 840.11(h)(1)(iii). To be as effective

as the corresponding Federal regulation

involved only the addition of a few

words to make the proposed rule

identical to the corresponding Federal

regulation. Maryland agreed to make the

change, and by a fax dated February 20,

2001, submitted the revision to OSM.

This change is explained later in this

document.

III. Director’s Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA

and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

732.15 and 732.17, are the Director’s

findings concerning the amendments to

the Maryland permanent regulatory

program.

1. COMAR 26.20.01.02B Definitions

Maryland is adding item (72–1) to the

definitions as follows: ‘‘Previously

Mined Area’’ means land affected by

surface coal mining operations prior to

August 3, 1977 that have not been

reclaimed to the standards of this

subtitle. The Director finds that the

definition described above is

substantively identical to and therefore

no less effective than the definition of

‘‘previously mined area’’ found at 30

CFR 701.5.

2. COMAR 26.20.02.01 Scope

Maryland is adding new paragraphs

C. and D. as follows:

C. The Bureau may terminate its

jurisdiction under the regulatory

program over the reclaimed site of a

completed surface coal mining and

reclamation operation or increment

thereof, when the Bureau determines, in

writing, that under the regulatory

program, all requirements imposed

under the applicable regulatory program

have been successfully completed or,

where a performance bond was

required, the bureau has made a final

decision in accordance with this subtitle

to fully release the performance bond.

D. Following a termination under

section C. of this regulation, the Bureau

shall reassert jurisdiction under the

regulatory program over a site if it is

demonstrated that the bond release or

written determination referenced in

section C. of this regulation was based

upon fraud, collusion, or

misrepresentation of a material fact.

The Director finds that the additions

described above are substantively

identical to and therefore no less

effective than the Federal Regulations at

30 CFR 700.11(d)(1)(ii) and (2).

3. COMAR 26.20.02.13 Description of

Proposed Mining Operations

Maryland is modifying paragraph M.

by inserting the phrase ‘‘Except as

provided in COMAR 26.20.26.01B,’’

before the existing text. This section

will now read as ‘‘Except as provided in

COMAR 26.20.26.01B, maps, plans and

32744 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

cross sections required under Sections K

and L of this regulation shall be

prepared by, or under the direction of

and certified by, a qualified registered

professional engineer or professional

geologist.’’ The federal rule at 30 CFR

780.14(c) requires cross sections, maps

and plans under 780.14(b)(4), (b)(5),

(b)(6), (b)(10) and (b)(11) to be prepared

by or under the direction of and

certified by a qualified registered

professional engineer or a professional

geologist. Section 780.14(c) also

provides exceptions to these

requirements, one of which is for fill

and appurtenant structures. Likewise,

Maryland’s proposed language creates

an exception to the requirements of 30

CFR 780.14(c) for fill and appurtenant

structures. Accordingly, since

Maryland’s language creates an

exception, which is allowed under 30

CFR 780.14(c), the Director finds that

the change described above is no less

effective than 30 CFR 780.14(c).

4. COMAR 26.20.03.05 Prime

Farmlands

Maryland is modifying paragraph I. by

adding new subsection (5) as follows:

The aggregate total prime farmland

acreage shall not be decreased from that

which existed prior to mining. Water

bodies, if any, to be constructed during

mining and reclamation operations must

be located within the post-reclamation

non-prime farmland portions of the

permit area. The creation of any such

water bodies must be approved by the

Bureau and the consent of all affected

property owners within the permit area

must be obtained.

The Director finds that the changes

described above are substantively

identical to and therefore no less

effective than the Federal Regulations at

30 CFR 785.17(e)(5).

5. COMAR 26.20.14.09 Procedures for

Release of Bonds

Maryland is modifying paragraph A.,

Application for Release, by adding new

subsection (5) as follows:

The permittee shall include in the

application for bond release a notarized

statement which certifies that all

applicable reclamation activities have

been accomplished in accordance with

the requirements of Environmental

Article, Title 15, Subtitle 5, Annotated

Code of Maryland, the Regulatory

Program, and the approved reclamation

plan. Such certification shall be

submitted for each application or phase

of bond release.

The Director finds that the changes

described above are substantively

identical to and therefore no less

effective than the Federal Regulations at

30 CFR 800.40(a)(3).

6. COMAR 26.20.31.02 Inspections

Maryland is deleting the existing

paragraph H. in its entirety and

substituting the following new

paragraph H:

H. An abandoned site means a surface

coal mining and reclamation operation

for which the Bureau has found in

writing that:

(1) All surface and underground coal

mining and reclamation activities at the

site have ceased;

(2) At least one notice of violation has

been issued and the notice could not be

served in accordance with Regulation

.08 of this chapter or the notice was

served and has progressed to a failureto-abate cessation order;

(3) Action is being taken to ensure

that the permittee and the operator, and

owners and controllers of the permittee

and the operator, will be precluded from

receiving future permits while the

violations continue at the site;

(4) Action is being taken in

accordance with the requirements of the

Regulatory Program to ensure that

abatement occurs or that there will not

be a recurrence of the failure-to-abate,

except where after evaluating the

circumstances it is concluded that

further enforcement offers little or no

likelihood of successfully compelling

abatement or recovering any

reclamation costs; and

(5) Where the site is or was permitted

and bonded and the permit has either

expired or been revoked, the forfeiture

of any available performance bond is

being diligently pursued or has been

forfeited.

Maryland is also adding new

paragraph I .as follows:

I. Instead of the inspection frequency

required in Sections A. and B. of this

regulation, the Bureau shall inspect

each abandoned site on a set frequency

commensurate with the public health

and safety and environmental

considerations present at each specific

site. However, in no case shall the

inspection frequency be set at less than

one complete inspection per calendar

year.

Maryland is also adding new

paragraph J. as follows:

J. The Bureau shall conduct a

complete inspection of the abandoned

site and provide the public notice

required under Section K. of this

regulation in order to select an

alternative inspection frequency

authorized under Section I. of this

regulation. Following the inspection

and public notice the Bureau shall

prepare and maintain for public review

a written finding that justifies the

selected alternative inspection

frequency. The written finding shall

justify the new inspection frequency by

addressing in detail all of the following

criteria:

(1) How the site meets each of the

criteria under the definition of

abandoned site under Section H of this

regulation and thereby qualifies for a

reduction in inspection frequency;

(2) Whether there exists on the site,

and to what extent, impoundments,

earthen structures, or other conditions

that pose, or may reasonably be

expected to ripen into, imminent

dangers to the health and safety of the

public or significant environmental

harms to land, air, or water resources;

(3) The extent to which existing

impoundments or earthen structures

were constructed and certified in

accordance with prudent engineering

designs approved in the permit;

(4) The degree to which erosion and

sediment control is present and

functioning;

(5) The extent to which the site is

located near or above urbanized areas,

communities, occupied dwellings,

schools, and other public or commercial

buildings and facilities;

(6) The extent of reclamation

completed prior to abandonment and

the degree of stability of unreclaimed

areas taking into consideration the

physical characteristics of the land

mined and the extent of settlement or

revegetation that has occurred naturally

with them; and

(7) Based on a review of the complete

and the partial inspection report record

for the site during at least the last two

consecutive years, the rate at which

adverse environmental or public health

and safety conditions can be expected to

progressively deteriorate.

Maryland is also adding new

paragraph K. as follows:

K. Public Notice:

(1) The Bureau shall place a notice in

the newspaper with the broadest

circulation in the locality of the

abandoned site providing the public

with a 30-day period in which to submit

written comments concerning the

alternative inspection frequency.

(2) The public notice shall contain

the:

(a) Permittee’s name and permit

number;

(b) Precise location of the land

affected.

(c) Inspection frequency proposed.

(d) General reasons for reducing the

inspection frequency;

(e) Bond status of the permit;

(f) Telephone number and address of

the Bureau where written comments on

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32745

the reduced inspection frequency may

be submitted; and

(g) Closing date of the comment

period.

When originally submitted, COMAR

26.20.31.02 J(3) did not include the

words ‘‘and certified’’ after the words

‘‘were constructed’’, with the result that

it was not as effective as the Federal

counterpart at 30 CFR 840.11(h)(1)(iii).

In order to be as effective as the Federal

regulation, these words must be

included in the Maryland regulation.

Maryland was informed of this in a

telephone call by the OSM Oversight

and Inspection Office, Pittsburgh, PA,

and Maryland agreed to make the

change. The change was submitted in a

facsimile transmission on February 20,

2001 (Administrative Record No.577–

14). The Director thus finds that the

changes described above are

substantively identical to and therefore

no less effective than the Federal

Regulations at 30 CFR 840.11(g) and (h).

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Federal Agency Comments

On April 19, 2000, we asked for

comments from various Federal

agencies who may have an interest in

the Maryland amendment

(Administrative Record Number MD–

577–06). We solicited comments in

accordance with section 503(b) of

SMCRA and 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) of

the Federal regulations. Both the Mine

Safety and Health Administration and

the Natural Resources Conservation

Service responded that they had no

comments in letters dated April 27,

2000 and May 8, 2000, respectively.

(Administrative Records Numbers MD–

577–09 and MD–577–10).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

OSM is required to obtain the written

concurrence of the EPA with respect to

those provisions of the proposed

program amendment that relate to air or

water quality standards promulgated

under the authority of the Clean Water

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

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The

Director has determined that this

amendment contains no such provisions

and that EPA concurrence is therefore

unnecessary. OSM did, however,

request comments from EPA by letter

dated April 19, 2000, and EPA

responded in its letter dated May 24,

2000 (Administrative Record Number

MD–577–11) that the amendment was in

compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Public Comments

No comments were received in

response to our request for public

comments.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the findings above we are

approving the amendments to the

Maryland program. This final rule is

being made effective immediately to

expedite the State program amendment

process and to encourage States to bring

their programs into conformity with the

Federal standards without undue delay.

Consistency of State and Federal

standards is required by SMCRA.

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart federal regulation.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

roles of the federal and state

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that state laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires

that state programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 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

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed state regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget 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.

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.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

32746 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the state submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

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 920

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 23, 2001.

Allen D. Klein,

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 920—MARYLAND

1. The authority citation for part 920

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 920.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 920.15 Approval of Maryland regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication Citation/description

*******

April 11, 2000 ............................................ 6/18/01 COMAR 26.20.01.02B(72–1), 26.20.02.01C and D, 26.20.02.13M, 26.20.03.05I(5),

26.20.14.09A(5), 26.20.31.02H, I, J,& K.

[FR Doc. 01–15290 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Part 103

Extension of Grant of Conditional

Exception to Bank Secrecy Act

Regulations Relating to Orders for

Transmittal of Funds by Financial

Institutions

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network (‘‘FinCEN’’), Treasury.

ACTION: Extension of a grant of

conditional exception; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: FinCEN extends for another

two years a conditional exception to a

Bank Secrecy Act requirement. The

exception, which would otherwise

expire on May 31, 2001, permits

financial institutions to comply more

efficiently with the requirement for

inclusion of certain information in

orders for transmissions of funds.

DATES: Effective June 1, 2001. Written

comments on the question raised in this

document must be received on or before

December 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to: Office of Chief Counsel,

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,

Department of the Treasury, 2070 Chain

Bridge Road, Vienna, Virginia 22182,

Attention: Travel Rule—Extension of

CIF Exception. Comments also may be

submitted by electronic mail to the

following internet address—

regcomments@fincen.treas.gov—using

the caption described in the previous

sentence. Comments may be inspected,

between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., in the

FinCEN reading room at the Franklin

Court Building, 14th and L Streets,

Washington, DC. Persons wishing to

inspect the comments submitted should

request an appointment by telephoning

(202) 354–6400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David K. Gilles, Chief, Financial

Institutions Program, FinCEN, (202)

354–6400, or Albert R. Zarate, Senior

Regulatory Counsel, Office of Chief

Counsel, FinCEN, (703) 905–3590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In 1998, FinCEN granted a conditional

exception (the ‘‘CIF Exception’’) to the

strict operation of 31 CFR 103.33(g) (the

‘‘Travel Rule’’). See FinCEN Issuance

98–1, 63 FR 3640 (January 26, 1998).

The Travel Rule requires a financial

institution to include certain

information in transmittal orders

relating to transmittals of funds of

$3,000 or more. The CIF Exception

addressed computer programming

problems in the banking and securities

industries by relaxing the Travel Rule’s

requirement that a customer’s true name

and street address be included in a

funds transmittal order, so long as

alternate steps, described in FinCEN

Issuance 98–1 and designed to prevent

avoidance of the Travel Rule, were

satisfied. By its terms, the CIF Exception

to the Travel Rule was to expire on May

31, 1999; however, FinCEN extended

the CIF Exception so that it would

expire instead on May 31, 2001. See

FinCEN Issuance 99–1, 64 FR 41041

(July 29, 1999).

The basis for the CIF Exception and

its extension remain valid—namely, that

relaxing the strict operation of the

Travel Rule is appropriate to meet the

continuing programming problems in

the banking and securities industry, so

long as complete information about

funds transfers can be made available

efficiently to law enforcement officials.

FinCEN specifically invites comments

as to whether the terms of the CIF

Exception should be permanently

incorporated into the Travel Rule.

II. FinCEN Issuance 2001–1

By virtue of the authority contained in

31 CFR 103.55(a) and (b), which has

been delegated to the Director of

FinCEN, the effective period of the CIF

Exception, as such Exception is set forth

(as part of FinCEN Issuance 98–1, 63 FR

3640 (January 26, 1998)) under the

heading ‘‘Grant of Exceptions’’ (63 FR

3641) is extended so that the CIF

Exception will expire, on May 31, 2003

(if not revoked or modified with respect

to such expiration date prior to that

time), for transmittals of funds initiated

after that date.

Signed this 30th day of May, 2001.

James F. Sloan,

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network.

[FR Doc. 01–15224 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–03–P