83 FR 18409 - Alabama Regulatory Program

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 82 (April 27, 2018)

Page Range		18409-18412
FR Document		2018-08935

We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are approving an amendment to the Alabama regulatory program (Alabama program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama proposed revisions clarifying that the venue for appeals of Alabama Surface Mining Commission decisions resides in the Circuit Court of the county in which the agency maintains its principal office. Alabama is revising its program to be no less effective than the Federal regulations and to improve operational efficiency.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18409-18412]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08935]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 901

[SATS No. AL-078-FOR; Docket ID: OSMRE-2015-0005; S1D1S SS08011000
SX064A000 178S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 17XS501520]

Alabama Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE), are approving an amendment to the Alabama regulatory program
(Alabama program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama proposed revisions clarifying that
the venue for appeals of Alabama Surface Mining Commission decisions
resides in the Circuit Court of the county in which the agency
maintains its principal

[[Page 18410]]

office. Alabama is revising its program to be no less effective than
the Federal regulations and to improve operational efficiency.

DATES: The effective date is May 29, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Joseph, Acting Director,
Birmingham Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, AL 35209.
Telephone: (918) 5814-6431 ext. 230. Email: bjoseph@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Alabama Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSMRE's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSMRE's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Alabama Program

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations
that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in
accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations.
See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the
Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Alabama program
effective May 20, 1982. You can find background information on the
Alabama program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval of the Alabama program in the
May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 22030). You can also find later
actions concerning the Alabama program and program amendments at 30 CFR
901.10, 901.15 and 901.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

By letter dated June 12, 2015 (Administrative Record No. AL-0666),
Alabama sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq.) at its own initiative.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the October 5,
2015, Federal Register (80 FR 60107). In the same document, we opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a
public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public
comment period ended on November 4, 2015. We received four public
comments (Administrative Record No. AL-0666-03) that are addressed in
the Public Comments section of part IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments.

III. OSMRE's Findings

We are approving the amendment as described below. The following
are the findings we made concerning Alabama's amendment under SMCRA and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. Any revisions that
we do not specifically discuss below concerning non-substantive wording
or editorial changes can be found in the full text of the program
amendment available at www.regulations.gov.

1. Code of Alabama Section 9-16-79 Hearing and Appeals

Alabama added new language clarifying that procedures for the
Alabama Surface Mining Commission are governed by this section of the
Alabama Code because the Alabama Surface Mining Commission (ASMC) is
within the jurisdiction of the Alabama Surface Mining Act and the
procedures for hearings and appeals may be no less effective than the
Federal counterpart. This clarification is necessary to distinguish
this article of the code from other sections of the Alabama Code that
are exclusively governed by the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act
and have no impact upon the implementation of the Alabama Surface
Mining Act.
We find that Alabama's clarification does not make its rules or
regulations less effective than, or inconsistent with, the Federal
requirements. Therefore, we are approving Alabama's revision.

2. Code of Alabama Section 9-16-79 Hearing and Appeals; Procedures
(4)b.

Alabama made edits and added new language to this paragraph
clarifying that the venue for appeals of Alabama Surface Mining
Commission decisions resides in the Circuit Court of the county in
which the agency maintains its principal office.
We find that Alabama's edits and clarifications do not make its
rules inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA section 526(e).
Therefore, we are approving Alabama's revisions.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the amendment. As noted in Section
II, we received four comments, which generally focused on two issues.
The comments received are discussed below.
First, the commenters alleged that the proposed program amendment
violates the venue-provisions of SMCRA as they relate to actions
seeking judicial review of final decisions. Two of the commenters cited
section 520(c)(1) as support for this comment. That provision states
that citizen suits ``may be brought only in the judicial district in
which the surface coal mining operation complained of is located.'' 30
U.S.C. 1270(c)(1).
Contrary to the commenters' assertion, this change to Alabama's
program does not violate section 520(c)(1) of SMCRA. Even with the
program amendment, citizen suits may still be filed by any person
having an interest in the judicial district in which the surface coal
mining operation complained of is located. Final decisions of the ASMC
cannot be the subject of citizen suits. Instead, challenges to final
decisions of the ASMC are challenged under the Alabama counterpart to
section 526 of SMCRA. In contrast to section 520(c)(1), section 526(e)
of SMCRA provides that an ``[a]ction of the State regulatory authority
pursuant to an approved State program shall be subject to judicial
review by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with State
law.'' Section 526(e) also makes clear that its judicial review
provisions do not extend to citizen suits under section 520. 30 U.S.C.
1276(e) (``the availability of such review shall not be construed to
limit the operation of the rights established in section 520 except as
provided therein.''). Because the county in which the ASMC maintains
its principal office is a court of competent jurisdiction in Alabama,
it is not inconsistent with SMCRA for Alabama to specify that all
actions challenging its decisions must be brought there.
Second, the commenters alleged that requiring judicial review of
ASMC final decisions in the circuit court of the county in which the
commission maintains its principal office would unfairly limit the
rights of citizens, would be difficult and expensive for citizens, and
would provide for potential bias based upon industry and politics.
We understand the citizens' concerns, but we do not find that they
make the Alabama program inconsistent with SMCRA. For example, on the
federal level, when a citizen brings a lawsuit in the ``judicial
district in which the surface coal mining operation complained of is
located,'' the judicial district may be made up of multiple counties or
even an entire state. Even in these situations, the litigation often
occurs in a county that is different than the county where either the
citizen resides or the surface coal mining operation is located.
Therefore, it is not inconsistent with SMCRA that the

[[Page 18411]]

venue is located away from the citizen's county or residence or the
location of the surface coal mining operation. Because our role is
solely to determine whether Alabama's proposed amendment is consistent
with SMCRA--and it is--we have no basis to disapprove the amendment
based on the concerns raised by the commenters.

Federal Agency Comments

On June 26, 2015, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b)
of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Alabama program
(Administrative Record No. AL-0666-03). We did not receive any
comments.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that
relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that Alabama proposed to
make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. However, on
June 26, 2015, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments
from the EPA on the amendment (Administrative Record No. AL-0666-03).
The EPA did not respond to our request.

State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. On June 26, 2016, we requested comments on Alabama's
amendment (Administrative Record No. AL-0666-03), but neither the SHPO
nor the ACHP responded to our request.

V. OSMRE's Decision

Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Alabama sent
us on June 12, 2015 (Administrative Record No. AL-0666).
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal
regulations, at 30 CFR part 901, that codify decisions concerning the
Alabama program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act,
this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication.
Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate
that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the
Act and meeting its purposes. SMCRA requires consistency of State and
Federal standards.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12630--Takings

This rulemaking does not have takings implications. This
determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart
Federal regulation.

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance dated
October 12, 1993, the approval of state program amendments is exempted
from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required
by section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined
that this Federal Register notice meets the criteria of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency
reviews its legislation and proposed regulations to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; that the agency write its legislation and
regulations to minimize litigation; and that the agency's legislation
and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden
reduction. Because Section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal
legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under
this Executive Order to the quality of this Federal Register notice and
to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this Executive
Order did not extend to the language of the State regulatory program or
to the program amendment that the State of Alabama drafted.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

This rule is not a ``[p]olicy that [has] Federalism implications''
as defined by section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 because it does not
have ``substantial direct effects 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.''
Instead, this rule approves an amendment to the Alabama program
submitted and drafted by that State. OSMRE reviewed the submission with
fundamental federalism principles in mind as set forth in sections 2
and 3 of the Executive Order and with the principles of cooperative
federalism set forth in SMCRA. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. 1201(f). As such,
pursuant to section 503(a)(1) an (7) (30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7)),
OSMRE reviewed the program amendment to ensure that it is ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA and is ``consistent with''
the regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the
potential effects of this rulemaking on federally recognized Indian
tribes and have determined that the rulemaking does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. The basis for this determination is that
our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve
Federal regulations involving Indian lands.

Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy

Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, requires agencies to prepare
a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered
significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Because this rulemaking is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy
Effects is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rulemaking does not require an environmental impact statement
because 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 rulemaking does not contain information collection
requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).

[[Page 18412]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rulemaking 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 rulemaking, 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. In making the determination as to whether this rulemaking
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 rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rulemaking:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b)
Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects
on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking, 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 rulemaking will not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or
more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that
the State submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking, is based
upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared
and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 901

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: April 3, 2018.
Alfred L. Clayborne,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 901 is amended
as set forth below:

PART 901--ALABAMA

0
1. The authority citation for part 901 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 901.15 is amended in the table by adding an entry FOR
``ASMCRA 9-16-79 and 9-16-79(4)b'' in chronological order by ``Date of
final publication'' to read as follows:

Sec. 901.15 Approval of Alabama regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of final
Original amendment submission date publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
June 12, 2015................................. April 27, 2018 ASMCRA 9-16-79 and 9-16-79(4)b.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-08935 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 18409

REVISIONS TO IFR ALTITUDES AND CHANGEOVER POINT—Continued
[Amendment 539 effective date May 24, 2018]

FROM TO MEA

HAGAR, PA FIX ............................................................................ TIDIOUTE, PA VORTAC ............................................................. 3600

§ 95.6573 VOR Federal Airway V573 is Amended to Read in Part

ELMMO, AR FIX ........................................................................... MARKI, AR FIX ............................................................................ *5500
*2600—MOCA
MARKI, AR FIX ............................................................................. HOT SPRINGS, AR VOR/DME.
NE BND ....................................................................................... *3500
SW BND ...................................................................................... *5500
*2700—MOCA

§ 95.6584 VOR Federal Airway V584 is Amended to Delete

WATERVILLE, OH VOR/DME ...................................................... DRYER, OH VOR/DME ............................................................... *3000
*2200—MOCA

§ 95.6319 Alaska VOR Federal Airway V319 is Amended to Read in Part

JOHNSTONE POINT, AK VOR/DME ........................................... EDELE, AK FIX.
E BND .......................................................................................... 4400
W BND ......................................................................................... 10000
SNRIS, AK FIX .............................................................................. *ANCHORAGE, AK VOR/DME.
W BND ......................................................................................... 8200
E BND .......................................................................................... 10000
*8000—MCA ANCHORAGE, AK VOR/DME, E BND

§ 95.6322 Alaska VOR Federal Airway V322 is Amended to Read in Part

KING SALMON, AK VORTAC ...................................................... KONIC, AK FIX.
W BND ......................................................................................... 5000
E BND .......................................................................................... 9000

AIRWAY SEGMENT CHANGEOVER POINTS

FROM TO DISTANCE FROM

§ 95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Point is Amended to Delete Changeover Point

APPLETON, OH VORTAC .................................... MANSFIELD, OH VORTAC ................................ 28 APPLETON.

V6 is Amended to Delete Changeover Point

DRYER, OH VOR/DME ......................................... YOUNGSTOWN, OH VORTAC .......................... 39 DRYER.
YOUNGSTOWN, OH VORTAC ............................. CLARION, PA VOR/DME .................................... 20 YOUNGSTOWN.

V467 is Amended to Delete Changeover Point

RICHMOND, IN VORTAC ..................................... WATERVILLE, OH VOR/DME ............................ 56 RICHMOND.

V542 is Amended to Delete Changeover Point

YOUNGSTOWN, OH VORTAC ............................. TIDIOUTE, PA VORTAC ..................................... 21 YOUNGSTOWN.

[FR Doc. 2018–08837 Filed 4–26–18; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Final rule; approval of
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P amendment.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 901 (OSMRE), are approving an amendment
to the Alabama regulatory program
[SATS No. AL–078–FOR; Docket ID: (Alabama program) under the Surface
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES

OSMRE–2015–0005; S1D1S SS08011000 Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
SX064A000 178S180110; S2D2S 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama
SS08011000 SX064A000 17XS501520]
proposed revisions clarifying that the
Alabama Regulatory Program venue for appeals of Alabama Surface
Mining Commission decisions resides in
AGENCY:Office of Surface Mining the Circuit Court of the county in which
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. the agency maintains its principal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Apr 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM 27APR1

18410 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

office. Alabama is revising its program Comments section of part IV. Summary of final decisions. Two of the
to be no less effective than the Federal and Disposition of Comments. commenters cited section 520(c)(1) as
regulations and to improve operational support for this comment. That
III. OSMRE’s Findings
efficiency. provision states that citizen suits ‘‘may
DATES: The effective date is May 29, We are approving the amendment as be brought only in the judicial district
2018. described below. The following are the in which the surface coal mining
findings we made concerning Alabama’s operation complained of is located.’’ 30
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill amendment under SMCRA and the U.S.C. 1270(c)(1).
Joseph, Acting Director, Birmingham Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 Contrary to the commenters’
Field Office, Office of Surface Mining and 732.17. Any revisions that we do assertion, this change to Alabama’s
Reclamation and Enforcement, 135 not specifically discuss below program does not violate section
Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, concerning non-substantive wording or 520(c)(1) of SMCRA. Even with the
AL 35209. Telephone: (918) 5814–6431 editorial changes can be found in the program amendment, citizen suits may
ext. 230. Email: bjoseph@osmre.gov. full text of the program amendment still be filed by any person having an
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: available at www.regulations.gov. interest in the judicial district in which
I. Background on the Alabama Program
II. Submission of the Amendment 1. Code of Alabama Section 9–16–79 the surface coal mining operation
III. OSMRE’s Findings Hearing and Appeals complained of is located. Final
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments decisions of the ASMC cannot be the
V. OSMRE’s Decision Alabama added new language subject of citizen suits. Instead,
VI. Procedural Determinations clarifying that procedures for the challenges to final decisions of the
Alabama Surface Mining Commission ASMC are challenged under the
I. Background on the Alabama Program are governed by this section of the Alabama counterpart to section 526 of
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a Alabama Code because the Alabama SMCRA. In contrast to section 520(c)(1),
State to assume primacy for the Surface Mining Commission (ASMC) is section 526(e) of SMCRA provides that
regulation of surface coal mining and within the jurisdiction of the Alabama an ‘‘[a]ction of the State regulatory
reclamation operations on non-Federal Surface Mining Act and the procedures authority pursuant to an approved State
and non-Indian lands within its borders for hearings and appeals may be no less program shall be subject to judicial
by demonstrating that its program effective than the Federal counterpart. review by a court of competent
includes, among other things, State laws This clarification is necessary to jurisdiction in accordance with State
and regulations that govern surface coal distinguish this article of the code from law.’’ Section 526(e) also makes clear
mining and reclamation operations in other sections of the Alabama Code that that its judicial review provisions do not
accordance with the Act and consistent are exclusively governed by the extend to citizen suits under section
with the Federal regulations. See 30 Alabama Administrative Procedure Act 520. 30 U.S.C. 1276(e) (‘‘the availability
U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis and have no impact upon the of such review shall not be construed to
of these criteria, the Secretary of the implementation of the Alabama Surface limit the operation of the rights
Interior conditionally approved the Mining Act. established in section 520 except as
Alabama program effective May 20, We find that Alabama’s clarification provided therein.’’). Because the county
1982. You can find background does not make its rules or regulations in which the ASMC maintains its
information on the Alabama program, less effective than, or inconsistent with, principal office is a court of competent
including the Secretary’s findings, the the Federal requirements. Therefore, we jurisdiction in Alabama, it is not
disposition of comments, and the are approving Alabama’s revision. inconsistent with SMCRA for Alabama
conditions of approval of the Alabama 2. Code of Alabama Section 9–16–79 to specify that all actions challenging its
program in the May 20, 1982, Federal Hearing and Appeals; Procedures (4)b. decisions must be brought there.
Register (47 FR 22030). You can also Second, the commenters alleged that
find later actions concerning the Alabama made edits and added new requiring judicial review of ASMC final
Alabama program and program language to this paragraph clarifying decisions in the circuit court of the
amendments at 30 CFR 901.10, 901.15 that the venue for appeals of Alabama county in which the commission
and 901.16. Surface Mining Commission decisions maintains its principal office would
resides in the Circuit Court of the unfairly limit the rights of citizens,
II. Submission of the Amendment county in which the agency maintains would be difficult and expensive for
By letter dated June 12, 2015 its principal office. citizens, and would provide for
(Administrative Record No. AL–0666), We find that Alabama’s edits and potential bias based upon industry and
Alabama sent us an amendment to its clarifications do not make its rules politics.
program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 inconsistent with the requirements of We understand the citizens’ concerns,
et seq.) at its own initiative. SMCRA section 526(e). Therefore, we but we do not find that they make the
We announced receipt of the are approving Alabama’s revisions. Alabama program inconsistent with
proposed amendment in the October 5, IV. Summary and Disposition of SMCRA. For example, on the federal
2015, Federal Register (80 FR 60107). In Comments level, when a citizen brings a lawsuit in
the same document, we opened the the ‘‘judicial district in which the
public comment period and provided an Public Comments surface coal mining operation
opportunity for a public hearing or We asked for public comments on the complained of is located,’’ the judicial
meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. As noted in Section II, we district may be made up of multiple
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES

amendment. We did not hold a public received four comments, which counties or even an entire state. Even in
hearing or meeting because no one generally focused on two issues. The these situations, the litigation often
requested one. The public comment comments received are discussed below. occurs in a county that is different than
period ended on November 4, 2015. We First, the commenters alleged that the the county where either the citizen
received four public comments proposed program amendment violates resides or the surface coal mining
(Administrative Record No. AL–0666– the venue-provisions of SMCRA as they operation is located. Therefore, it is not
03) that are addressed in the Public relate to actions seeking judicial review inconsistent with SMCRA that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Apr 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM 27APR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 18411

venue is located away from the citizen’s the provisions of the Act and meeting its forth in SMCRA. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C.
county or residence or the location of purposes. SMCRA requires consistency 1201(f). As such, pursuant to section
the surface coal mining operation. of State and Federal standards. 503(a)(1) an (7) (30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1)
Because our role is solely to determine and (7)), OSMRE reviewed the program
VI. Procedural Determinations
whether Alabama’s proposed amendment to ensure that it is ‘‘in
amendment is consistent with Executive Order 12630—Takings accordance with’’ the requirements of
SMCRA—and it is—we have no basis to This rulemaking does not have SMCRA and is ‘‘consistent with’’ the
disapprove the amendment based on the takings implications. This regulations issued by the Secretary
concerns raised by the commenters. determination is based on the analysis pursuant to SMCRA.
Federal Agency Comments performed for the counterpart Federal
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
regulation.
On June 26, 2015, under 30 CFR and Coordination With Indian Tribal
732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Governments
SMCRA, we requested comments on the Planning and Review
amendment from various Federal In accordance with Executive Order
Pursuant to Office of Management and
agencies with an actual or potential 13175, we have evaluated the potential
Budget (OMB) Guidance dated October
interest in the Alabama program effects of this rulemaking on federally
12, 1993, the approval of state program
(Administrative Record No. AL–0666– amendments is exempted from OMB recognized Indian tribes and have
03). We did not receive any comments. review under Executive Order 12866. determined that the rulemaking does
not have substantial direct effects on
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice one or more Indian tribes, on the
Concurrence and Comments Reform relationship between the Federal
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we The Department of the Interior has Government and Indian tribes, or on the
are required to get a written concurrence reviewed this rule as required by section distribution of power and
from EPA for those provisions of the 3(a) of Executive Order 12988. The responsibilities between the Federal
program amendment that relate to air or Department determined that this Government and Indian tribes. The basis
water quality standards issued under Federal Register notice meets the for this determination is that our
the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 criteria of Section 3 of Executive Order decision is on a State regulatory
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act 12988, which is intended to ensure that program and does not involve Federal
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the the agency reviews its legislation and regulations involving Indian lands.
revisions that Alabama proposed to proposed regulations to eliminate
make in this amendment pertain to air drafting errors and ambiguity; that the Executive Order 13211—Regulations
or water quality standards. Therefore, agency write its legislation and That Significantly Affect the Supply,
we did not ask EPA to concur on the regulations to minimize litigation; and Distribution, or Use of Energy
amendment. However, on June 26, 2015, that the agency’s legislation and
Executive Order 13211 of May 18,
under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we regulations provide a clear legal
2001, requires agencies to prepare a
requested comments from the EPA on standard for affected conduct rather
than a general standard, and promote Statement of Energy Effects for a
the amendment (Administrative Record
simplification and burden reduction. rulemaking that is (1) considered
No. AL–0666–03). The EPA did not
respond to our request. Because Section 3 focuses on the quality significant under Executive Order
of Federal legislation and regulations, 12866, and (2) likely to have a
State Historical Preservation Officer the Department limited its review under significant adverse effect on the supply,
(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on this Executive Order to the quality of distribution, or use of energy. Because
Historic Preservation (ACHP) this Federal Register notice and to this rulemaking is exempt from review
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are changes to the Federal regulations. The under Executive Order 12866 and is not
required to request comments from the review under this Executive Order did expected to have a significant adverse
SHPO and ACHP on amendments that not extend to the language of the State effect on the supply, distribution, or use
may have an effect on historic regulatory program or to the program of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects
properties. On June 26, 2016, we amendment that the State of Alabama is not required.
requested comments on Alabama’s drafted.
National Environmental Policy Act
amendment (Administrative Record No.
Executive Order 13132—Federalism
AL–0666–03), but neither the SHPO nor This rulemaking does not require an
the ACHP responded to our request. This rule is not a ‘‘[p]olicy that [has] environmental impact statement
Federalism implications’’ as defined by because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30
V. OSMRE’s Decision section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132
U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
Based on the above findings, we because it does not have ‘‘substantial
decisions on proposed State regulatory
approve the amendment Alabama sent direct effects on the States, on the
program provisions do not constitute
us on June 12, 2015 (Administrative relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the major Federal actions within the
Record No. AL–0666).
To implement this decision, we are distribution of power and meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the
amending the Federal regulations, at 30 responsibilities among the various National Environmental Policy Act (42
CFR part 901, that codify decisions levels of government.’’ Instead, this rule U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES

concerning the Alabama program. In approves an amendment to the Alabama Paperwork Reduction Act
accordance with the Administrative program submitted and drafted by that
Procedure Act, this rule will take effect State. OSMRE reviewed the submission This rulemaking does not contain
30 days after the date of publication. with fundamental federalism principles information collection requirements that
Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that in mind as set forth in sections 2 and require approval by OMB under the
the State’s program demonstrate that the 3 of the Executive Order and with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
State has the capability of carrying out principles of cooperative federalism set 3507 et seq.).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Apr 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM 27APR1

Document Created: 2018-04-27 01:45:21
Document Modified: 2018-04-27 01:45:21

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule; approval of amendment.
Dates		The effective date is May 29, 2018.
Contact		Bill Joseph, Acting Director, Birmingham Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, AL 35209. Telephone: (918) 5814-6431 ext. 230. Email: [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 18409
CFR Associated		Intergovernmental Relations; Surface Mining and Underground Mining

83 FR 18409 - Alabama Regulatory Program

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOROffice of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 82 (April 27, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement