48156 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Administration [DEA], and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection [CBP]) 

in cases involving fraud or other 

criminal activity, and the Department of 

State in cases involving fraud related to 

selected types of visas for entry into the 

United States. 

The Privacy Act allows government 

agencies to exempt certain records from 

the access and amendment provisions. If 

an agency claims an exemption, 

however, it must issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to 

the public the reasons why a particular 

exemption is claimed. 

In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, DHS now is proposing to 

exempt FDNS–DS, in part, from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act. Some 

information in FDNS–DS relates to 

official DHS law enforcement, 

intelligence, and immigration activities. 

These exemptions are needed to protect 

information relating to DHS activities 

from disclosure to subjects or others 

related to these activities. Specifically, 

the exemptions are required to preclude 

subjects of these activities from 

frustrating these processes; to avoid 

disclosure of activity techniques; to 

protect the identities and physical safety 

of confidential informants and of 

immigration and border management 

and law enforcement personnel; to 

ensure DHS’s ability to obtain 

information from third parties and other 

sources; and to protect the privacy of 

third parties. Disclosure of information 

to the subject of the inquiry could also 

permit the subject to avoid detection or 

apprehension. 

The exemptions proposed here are 

standard law enforcement and national 

security exemptions exercised by a large 

number of Federal law enforcement and 

intelligence agencies. In appropriate 

circumstances, where compliance 

would not appear to interfere with or 

adversely affect the law enforcement 

purposes of this system and the overall 

law enforcement process, the applicable 

exemptions may be waived. 

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 

Freedom of information; Privacy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DHS proposes to amend 

Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS 

AND INFORMATION 

1. The authority citation for part 5 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, 

6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A 

also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B 

also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

2. At the end of appendix C to part 5, 

add the following new paragraph ‘‘7’’: 

Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of 

Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 

* * * * * 

7. The Department of Homeland Security 

United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Fraud Detection and National 

Security Data System (FDNS–DS) System of 

Records consists of a stand-alone database 

and paper files that will be used by DHS and 

its components. FDNS–DS is a case 

management system used to record, track, 

and manage immigration inquiries, 

investigative referrals, law enforcement 

requests, and case determinations involving 

benefit fraud, criminal activity, public safety 

and national security concerns. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security has 

exempted this system from 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), 

(e)(4)(I), and (f) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2). These exemptions apply only to 

the extent that records in the system are 

subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2). Exemptions from these particular 

subsections are justified, on a case-by-case 

basis to be determined at the time a request 

is made, for the following reasons: 

(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for 

Disclosures) because release of the 

accounting of disclosures could alert the 

subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation to the existence of the investigation; 

and reveal investigative interest on the part 

of DHS as well as the recipient agency. 

Disclosure of the accounting would therefore 

present a serious impediment to law 

enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve 

national security. Disclosure of the 

accounting would also permit the individual 

who is the subject of a record to impede the 

investigation, to tamper with witnesses or 

evidence, and to avoid detection or 

apprehension, which would undermine the 

entire investigative process. 

(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) 

because access to the records contained in 

this system of records could inform the 

subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation, to the existence of the 

investigation, and reveal investigative 

interest on the part of DHS or another agency. 

Access to the records could permit the 

individual who is the subject of a record to 

impede the investigation, to tamper with 

witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection 

or apprehension. Amendment of the records 

could interfere with ongoing investigations 

and law enforcement activities and would 

impose an impossible administrative burden 

by requiring investigations to be 

continuously reinvestigated. In addition, 

permitting access and amendment to such 

information could disclose security-sensitive 

information that could be detrimental to 

homeland security. 

(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and 

Necessity of Information) because in the 

course of investigations into potential 

violations of Federal law, the accuracy of 

information obtained or introduced 

occasionally may be unclear or the 

information may not be strictly relevant or 

necessary to a specific investigation. In the 

interests of effective law enforcement, it is 

appropriate to retain all information that may 

aid in establishing patterns of unlawful 

activity. 

(d) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) 

(Agency Requirements) because portions of 

this system are exempt from the individual 

access provisions of subsection (d) which 

exempts providing access because it could 

alert a subject to the nature or existence of 

an investigation, and thus there could be no 

procedures for that particular data. 

Procedures do exist for access for those 

portions of the system that are not exempted. 

(e) From subsection (e)(4)(I) (Agency 

Requirements) because providing such 

source information would impede law 

enforcement or intelligence by compromising 

the nature or existence of a confidential 

investigation. 

(f) From subsection (f) (Agency Rules) 

because portions of this system are exempt 

from the access and amendment provisions 

of subsection (d). 

Dated: August 11, 2008. 

Hugo Teufel III, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. E8–19034 Filed 8–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–08–0052; FV08–922–

1 PR] 

Apricots Grown in Designated 

Counties in Washington; Increased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

Washington Apricot Marketing 

Committee (Committee) for the 2008–09 

and subsequent fiscal periods from 

$1.50 to $2.00 per ton for Washington 

apricots. The Committee is responsible 

for local administration of the marketing 

order regulating the handling of apricots 

grown in designated counties in 

Washington. Assessments upon 

handlers of apricots are used by the 

Committee to fund reasonable and 

necessary expenses of the program. The 

fiscal period for the marketing order 

begins April 1 and ends March 31. The 

assessment rate would remain in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, suspended 

or terminated. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 2, 2008. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48157 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

regarding this rule. Comments must be 

sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing 

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 

0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: 

(202) 720–8938; or Internet: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments should 

reference the docket number and the 

date and page number of this issue of 

the Federal Register and will be 

available for public inspection in the 

Office of the Docket Clerk during regular 

business hours, or can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert J. Curry or Gary D. Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, 

suite 385, Portland, OR 97204; 

Telephone: (503) 326–2724; Fax: (503) 

326–7440; or E-mail: 

Robert.Curry@usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–

2491; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

922 (7 CFR part 922), as amended, 

regulating the handling of apricots 

grown in designated counties in 

Washington, hereinafter referred to as 

the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective under 

the Agricultural Marketing Agreement 

Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–

674), hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. Under the marketing order now 

in effect, apricot handlers in designated 

counties in Washington are subject to 

assessments. Funds to administer the 

order are derived from such 

assessments. It is intended that the 

assessment rate as proposed herein 

would be applicable to all assessable 

Washington apricots beginning April 1, 

2008, and continue until amended, 

suspended, or terminated. This rule will 

not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. Such 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After the 

hearing USDA would rule on the 

petition. The Act provides that the 

district court of the United States in any 

district in which the handler is an 

inhabitant, or has his or her principal 

place of business, has jurisdiction to 

review USDA’s ruling on the petition, 

provided an action is filed not later than 

20 days after the date of the entry of the 

ruling. 

This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

Committee for the 2008–09 and 

subsequent fiscal periods from $1.50 to 

$2.00 per ton for Washington apricots 

handled under the order. 

The order provides authority for the 

Committee, with the approval of USDA, 

to formulate an annual budget of 

expenses and collect assessments from 

handlers to administer the program. The 

members of the Committee are 

producers and handlers of apricots in 

designated counties in Washington. 

They are familiar with the Committee’s 

needs and with the costs for goods and 

services in their local area and are thus 

in a position to formulate an appropriate 

budget and assessment rate. The 

assessment rate is formulated and 

discussed at a public meeting. Thus, all 

directly affected persons have an 

opportunity to participate and provide 

input. 

For the 2007–08 and subsequent fiscal 

periods, the Committee recommended, 

and the USDA approved, an assessment 

rate of $1.50 per ton of apricots handled. 

This rate continues in effect from fiscal 

period to fiscal period unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the Committee or other 

information available to USDA. 

The Committee met on May 15, 2008, 

and unanimously recommended 2008–

09 expenditures of $7,093. In 

comparison, last year’s budgeted 

expenditures were $6,743. In addition, 

the Committee recommended that the 

$1.50 per ton assessment rate be 

increased by $0.50 to $2.00 per ton of 

apricots handled. The Washington 

apricot production area experienced 

freezing weather in April this year that 

may have a significant impact on apricot 

production. As a result, the Committee 

has estimated a total fresh crop of only 

3,650 tons for this season—significantly 

less than the 6,620 tons of fresh prunes 

reported to the Committee by industry 

handlers last season. Due to this 

anticipated shortfall, the Committee 

recommended that the assessment rate 

be increased by $0.50 to help ensure 

that budgeted expenses are adequately 

covered. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2008–09 fiscal period include $4,800 for 

the management fee, $1,000 for 

Committee travel, $100 for compliance, 

and $1,193 for equipment maintenance, 

insurance, bonds, and miscellaneous 

expenses. In comparison, major 

expenditures for the 2007–08 fiscal 

period included $4,800 for the 

management fee, $1,000 for travel, $500 

for the annual financial audit, $100 for 

compliance, and $343 for equipment 

maintenance, insurance, bonds, and 

miscellaneous expenses. 

The assessment rate recommended by 

the Committee was derived by dividing 

the anticipated expenses of $7,093 by 

the projected 2008 3,650 ton apricot 

production. Applying the $2.00 per ton 

assessment rate to this crop estimate 

should provide $7,300 in assessment 

income. Although the 3,650 ton crop 

estimate reflects the Committee’s best 

current assessment of the damage the 

late-season freezing temperatures may 

have on production this season, 

Committee members expressed some 

concern that production could 

potentially end up even shorter. 

Because of the crop estimate 

uncertainty, the Committee felt the 

$2.00 per ton assessment rate is 

warranted even though the projected 

fiscal year-end reserve balance at this 

time is $8,173. Although this is slightly 

higher than the recommended budget, 

the reserve would still be within the 

order’s limit of approximately one fiscal 

period’s operational expenses. 

The proposed assessment rate would 

continue in effect indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended, or terminated by 

USDA upon recommendation and 

information submitted by the 

Committee or other available 

information. 

Although this assessment rate would 

be effective for an indefinite period, the 

Committee would continue to meet 

prior to or during each fiscal period to 

recommend a budget of expenses and 

consider recommendations for 

modification of the assessment rate. The 

dates and times of the Committee’s 

meetings are available from the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
48158 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Committee or USDA. The Committee’s 

meetings are open to the public and 

interested persons may express their 

views at these meetings. USDA would 

evaluate the Committee’s 

recommendations and other available 

information to determine whether 

modification of the assessment rate is 

needed. Further rulemaking will be 

undertaken as necessary. The 

Committee’s 2008–09 budget and those 

for subsequent fiscal periods would be 

reviewed and, as appropriate, approved 

by USDA. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 300 apricot 

producers within the regulated 

production area and approximately 22 

regulated handlers. Small agricultural 

producers are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (13 CFR 

121.201) as those having annual receipts 

of less than $750,000, and small 

agricultural service firms are defined as 

those whose annual receipts are less 

than $6,500,000. 

The Washington Agricultural 

Statistics Service has prepared a report 

showing that the total 7,000 ton apricot 

utilization sold for an average of $1,120 

per ton in 2007 with a total farm-gate 

value of approximately $7,827,000. 

Based on the number of producers in 

the production area (300), the average 

annual producer revenue from the sale 

of apricots in 2007 can thus be 

estimated at approximately $26,090. In 

addition, based on information from the 

Committee and USDA’s Market News 

Service, 2007 f.o.b. prices ranged from 

$18.00 to $20.00 per 24-pound loosepack container, and from $20.00 to 

$22.00 for 2-layer tray pack containers. 

Approximately 40 percent of the 2007 

6,620 ton fresh pack-out was packed in 

24-pound loose-pack containers while 

the remainder was packed in 2-layer 

tray-pack containers (weighing an 

average of about 20 pounds each). On 

the high end, this would have grossed 

the 22 apricot handlers approximately 

$13,151,700 in f.o.b. receipts for the 

2007 crop—leaving average receipts for 

each handler well below the SBA’s 

$6,500,000 threshold for small 

businesses. Therefore, the majority of 

producers and handlers of Washington 

apricots may be classified as small 

entities. 

This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

Committee and collected from handlers 

for the 2008–09 and subsequent fiscal 

periods from $1.50 to $2.00 per ton for 

apricots handled under the order’s 

authority. The Committee also 

unanimously recommended 2008–09 

expenditures of $7,093. With a 2008–09 

Washington apricot crop estimate of 

3,650 tons, the Committee anticipates 

assessment income of about $7,300. Due 

to the sharply smaller crop expected 

this season, the Committee 

recommended the assessment rate 

increase to help ensure that budgeted 

expenses are adequately covered. 

Although there continues to be 

uncertainty this season regarding 

production totals due to the mid-spring 

freezing weather, income derived from 

handler assessments should adequately 

cover budgeted expenses. Because of the 

crop estimate uncertainty, the 

Committee felt the $2.00 per ton 

assessment rate is warranted even 

though the projected fiscal year-end 

reserve balance at this time is $8,173. 

Although this is slightly higher than the 

recommended budget, the reserve 

would still be within the order’s limit of 

approximately one fiscal period’s 

operational expenses. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2008–09 fiscal period include $4,800 for 

the management fee, $1,000 for 

Committee travel, $100 for compliance, 

and $1,193 for equipment maintenance, 

insurance, bonds, and miscellaneous 

expenses. In comparison, major 

expenditures for the 2007–08 fiscal 

period included $4,800 for the 

management fee, $1,000 for travel, $500 

for the annual financial audit, $100 for 

compliance, and $343 for equipment 

maintenance, insurance, bonds, and 

miscellaneous expenses. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this recommended assessment 

increase. Leaving the assessment rate at 

the current $1.50 per ton was discussed, 

but not seriously considered since such 

a rate would not have earned adequate 

income and would have thus 

significantly depleted the Committee’s 

reserves. Although a rate of assessment 

somewhat less than the recommended 

$2.00 per ton rate would have 

potentially covered the recommended 

expenses, the Committee chose the 

higher rate due to the uncertainty the 

members felt regarding the 3,650 ton 

crop estimate. The mid-April freeze 

experienced in the growing regions this 

year left doubt in some members’ minds 

that the final pack-out this season will 

even reach the 3,650 ton estimate. 

A review of historical information and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming crop year indicates that 

the producer price for the 2008–09 

season could average about $1,000 per 

ton for fresh Washington apricots. 

Therefore, the estimated assessment 

revenue for the 2008–09 fiscal period as 

a percentage of total producer revenue 

is 0.2 percent for Washington apricots. 

This action would increase the 

assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers. While assessments impose 

some additional costs on handlers, the 

costs are minimal and uniform on all 

handlers. Some of the additional costs 

may be passed on to producers. 

However, these costs would be offset by 

the benefits derived by the operation of 

the order. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

Washington apricot industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the May 15, 2008, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on the issues. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

Washington apricot handlers. As with 

all Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

Additionally, USDA has not identified 

any relevant Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and order may be 

viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?

template=TemplateN&page=

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48159 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2008–09 fiscal period began on April 1, 

2008, and the order requires that the 

assessment rate for each fiscal period 

apply to all assessable apricots handled 

during such fiscal period; (2) the 

Washington apricot harvest and 

shipping season is expected to begin as 

early as the last week of June; (3) the 

Committee needs to have sufficient 

funds to pay its expenses, which are 

incurred on a continuous basis; and (4) 

handlers are aware of this action, which 

was recommended by the Committee at 

a public meeting and is similar to other 

assessment rate actions issued in past 

years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 922 

Apricots, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 922 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 922—APRICOTS GROWN IN 

DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN 

WASHINGTON 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 922 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 922.235 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 922.235 Assessment rate. 

On or after April 1, 2008, an 

assessment rate of $2.00 per ton is 

established for the Washington Apricot 

Marketing Committee. 

Dated: August 12, 2008. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–19018 Filed 8–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Parts 700, 724, 773, 785, 816, 

817, 845, 846, 870, 872, 873, 874, 875, 

876, 879, 880, 882, 884, 885, 886, and 

887 

[Docket Id: OSM–2008–0003] 

RIN 1029–AC56 

Abandoned Mine Land Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are extending the comment 

period on a proposed rule that would 

revise the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) 

program. The proposed rule would 

revise our regulations to be consistent 

with the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), as 

amended by the Tax Relief and Health 

Care Act of 2006, Public Law 109–432, 

signed into law on December 20, 2006. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received on or before August 

29, 2008, in order to ensure our 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. The rule is 

listed under the agency name ‘‘OFFICE 

OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION 

AND ENFORCEMENT.’’ The proposed 

rule has been assigned Docket ID: OSM–

2008–0003. 

If you would like to submit comments 

through the Federal e-Rulemaking 

Portal, go to www.regulations.gov and 

do the following. Click on the 

‘‘Advanced Docket Search’’ button on 

the right side of the screen. Type in the 

Docket ID OSM–2008–0003 and click 

the ‘‘Submit’’ button at the bottom of the 

page. The next screen will display the 

Docket Search Results for the 

rulemaking. If you click on OSM–2008–

0003, you can view the proposed rule 

and submit a comment. You can also 

view supporting material and any 

comments submitted by others. 

• Mail/Hand-Delivery/Courier to: 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, Administrative 

Record, Room 252–SIB, 1951 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20240. Please include the rule 

Docket ID (OSM–2008–0003) with your 

comment. 

We cannot ensure that comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) will be included in 

the docket for the rulemaking and 

considered. Comments sent to an 

address other than those listed above 

(see ADDRESSES) will not be included in 

the docket for the rulemaking. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see ‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

If you wish to comment on the 

information collection aspects of this 

proposed rule, you may submit your 

comments to the Office of Management 

and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Interior 

Desk Officer, via e-mail to 

OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov, or via 

facsimile to 202–365–6566. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Danny Lytton, Chief, Reclamation 

Support Division, 1951 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20240; 

Telephone: 202–208–2788. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on the Reclamation Fee 

and the Abandoned Mine Land 

Program 

On June 20, 2008, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(73 FR 35214) that would revise our 

regulations governing the AML program. 

We have received two requests to 

extend the comment period on the 

proposed rule. In response, we are 

extending the comment period to 

August 29, 2008. 

As discussed in greater detail in the 

June 20, 2008, Federal Register notice, 

the proposed rule would revise our 

regulations to be consistent with the Tax 

Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, 

Public Law 109–432, enacted on 

December 20, 2006, which included the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006 

(the ‘‘2006 amendments’’). The 

proposed rule reflects the extension of 

our statutory authority to collect 

reclamation fees for an additional 

fourteen years and to reduce the fee 

rates. The proposal also updates the 

regulations in light of the statutory 

amendments that change the activities 

State and Tribal reclamation programs 

may perform under the AML program, 

funding for reclamation grants to States 

and Indian tribes, and transfers to the 

United Mine Workers of America 

(UMWA) Combined Benefit Fund, the 

UMWA 1992 Benefit Plan, and the 

UMWA Multiemployer Health Benefit 

Plan. Finally, our proposed rule extends 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS