Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/05/03/05-8731/kentucky-regulatory-program
Timestamp: 2018-03-24 11:02:23
Document Index: 694017379

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 816', 'art 816', 'art 816', 'art 816', 'art 816', 'art 917']

A Rule by the Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office on 05/03/2005
70 FR 22795
22795-22797 (3 pages)
KY-248-FOR
05-8731
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/05-8731 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/05-8731
We are approving an amendment to the Kentucky regulatory program (the “Kentucky program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Kentucky submitted examples of common husbandry practices in response to a required amendment.
Effective Date: May 3, 2005.
William J. Kovacic, Telephone: (859) 260-8400. Telefax number: (859) 260-8410.
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 State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Kentucky program on May 18, 1982. You can find background information on the Kentucky program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in the May 18, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 21434). You can also find later actions concerning Kentucky's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 917.11, 917.12, 917.13, 917.15, 917.16 and 917.17.
By letter dated July 29, 2004, Kentucky sent us information pertaining to its program ([KY-248-FOR], administrative record No. KY-1634) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to a required amendment at 30 CFR 917.16(i). The required amendment resulted from OSM's decision on June 9, 1993, to not approve proposed changes to 405 KAR (Kentucky Administrative Regulations) 16/18:200 Sections 1(7)(a), (7)(a)1 through 5, and 1(7)(d) that were submitted to OSM on June 28, 1991 (58 FR 32283). The finding stated, in part, that Kentucky (unlike other States) had not submitted any administrative record information to demonstrate that its proposed practices were normal husbandry practices within Kentucky. In its submission letter, Kentucky stated, in part, that its administrative regulations at 405 KAR 16/18:200 Sections 1(7)(a)1 through 5, and Sections 1(7)(b) and (d) “provide general direction on common remedial practices that will not extend the bond liability period” and “While these regulations establish a basic level of remedial activity that may occur, they do not identify many of the husbandry practices that may be commonly used in this region.” Kentucky included guidance documents from the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service that identify the common husbandry practices that Kentucky would allow, subject to the limitations in 405 KAR 16:200/18:200 Section 1(7)(a) and (d). Kentucky also submitted information regarding similar husbandry practices approved and used in Tennessee, Ohio and Virginia. Finally, Kentucky provided examples of common practices that would be encountered on lands in Kentucky and would not restart or extend the bond liability period. The examples pertained to the following land uses: hayland, pastureland, forestland, commercial forestry, fish and wildlife, commercial, industrial, residential or recreational. We note that some of these examples do not pertain to the husbandry practices listed in 405 KAR 16/18:200 Section 1 (7)(a) and (d) so they are not considered in this amendment.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September 14, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 55373), and in the same document invited public comment and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment period closed on October 14, 2004. We received one comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Following is the finding we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. The regulation at 405 KAR 16/18:200 Section 1(7)(a) allows quarter acres or less of discrete areas to be reseeded without restarting the responsibility period if the areas meet one of the five exemptions and the total of these areas is no more than three percent of the permit acreage. The Federal rules at 30 CFR part 816 and 817.116(c)(4) allow the performance of normal husbandry practices during the period of responsibility, without restarting that period, if the State and OSM approve such practices and such practices can be expected to continue as part of the postmining land use or if discontinuance of the practice after the liability period expires will not reduce the probability of permanent revegetation success. We find that the three percent overall size limitation will not reduce the probability of permanent revegetation success because the Federal rules at 30 CFR part 816 and 817.116(a)(2) provide that ground cover, Start Printed Page 22796production or stocking shall be considered equal to the approved success standard when they are not less than 90 percent of the success standard. Thus, the three percent limitation will still allow the area to meet the 90 percent success standard of part 816 and 817.116(a)(2). The size limitation of a specific area was addressed in our finding regarding Virginia's husbandry practices (59 FR 49195), where we said that the reseeding of large blocks of barren areas representing failed reclamation would be augmentative. The Federal rules at part 816 and 817.116(c)(4) prohibit husbandry practices to be augmentative. Kentucky's limit of a quarter acre for discrete areas would not be considered large blocks of barren areas. Thus, Kentucky's administrative record information is sufficient to support these practices as normal husbandry. Accordingly, we find 405 KAR 16/18:200 Section 1(7)(a) no less effective than the Federal rules.
405 KAR 16/18:200 section 1(7)(d) states that irrigating, reliming, and refertilizing pastureland; reseeding cropland; and renovating pastureland by overseeding after Phase II bond release and after three years from the initial seeding shall be considered normal husbandry practices. These practices will not restart the liability period if the amount and frequency of these practices do not exceed normal agricultural practices on unmined land in the region. The Federal rules at 30 CFR part 816 and 817.116(c)(4) permit selective husbandry practices, excluding augmented seeding, fertilization, or irrigation, provided the regulatory authority obtains prior approval from OSM that the practices are normal husbandry practices, without extending the period of responsibility for revegetation success and bond liability. Kentucky has provided guidance documents it employs to identify common husbandry practices. The documents are published by the Kentucky College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service and are: Renovating Hay and Pasture Fields, Growing Red Clover in Kentucky and Establishing Forage Crops. The administrative record information submitted by Kentucky demonstrates that its practices are the usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree of management performed habitually to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect of the resource and maintain a prescribed level of use or productivity of similar unmined lands. We find that these documents establish an adequate administrative record to support the normal husbandry practices listed in section 1(7)(d) and that 405 KAR 16/18:200 Section 1(7)(d) are no less effective than the Federal rules and can be approved.
It should be noted that 405 KAR 16/18:200 section 1(7)(b) was previously approved and therefore not part of this amendment (see 63 FR 41423, August 4, 1998).
We solicited public comments on September 14, 2004, and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the amendment. Because no one requested an opportunity to speak, a hearing was not held.
According to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), on September 30, 2004, we solicited comments on the proposed amendment submitted on May 14, 2004, from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Kentucky program (administrative record No. KY-1634). We received one response from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who concurred without comment.
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.). Because the provisions of this amendment do not relate to air or water quality standards, we did not request EPA's concurrence.
Based on the above finding, we are approving 405 KAR 16:200 Section 1(7)(a) and 1(7)(d) and 405 KAR 18:200 Section 1(7)(a) and 1(7)(d) which were previously not approved. We are also removing the required amendment at 30 CFR 917.16(i) because Kentucky has submitted the administrative record information necessary to demonstrate that its proposed practices are normal husbandry practices within Kentucky as discussed in Section III above.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 917 which codify decisions concerning the Kentucky program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that Kentucky's program demonstrate that it has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this regulation effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
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.Start Printed Page 22797
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule 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 our decision on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal regulation involving Indian lands.
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; 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 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.
2. Section 917.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by the “Date of Final Publication” to read as follows:
June 28, 1991 with record material submitted July 29, 2004 May 3, 2005 405 KAR 16:200 Section 1(7)(a) and (7)(d) and 405 KAR 18:200 Section 1 (7)(a) and (7)(d).
3. Section 917.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (i).
[FR Doc. 05-8731 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am]