Iowa Regulatory Program, 22792-22795 [05-8732]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22792
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
embodying the terms of any partial
settlement the parties have reached.
(2) At the termination of the
settlement period without a full
settlement, the Chief Administrative
Law Judge shall promptly assign the
case to an Administrative Law Judge
other than the Settlement Judge or Chief
Administrative Law Judge for
appropriate action on the remaining
issues. If all the parties, the Settlement
Judge and the Chief Administrative Law
Judge agree, the Settlement Judge may
be retained as the Hearing Judge.
(g) Non-reviewability.
Notwithstanding the provisions of
§ 2200.73 regarding interlocutory
review, any decision concerning the
assignment of any Judge and any
decision by the Settlement Judge to
terminate settlement proceedings under
this section is not subject to review,
appeal, or rehearing.
Dated: April 27, 2005.
W. Scott Railton,
Chairman.
Subpart–M[Amended]
AGENCY:
I 17. In Subpart M all references to ‘‘E–
Z Trail’’ are revised to read ‘‘Simplified
Proceedings.’’
I 18. In Section 2200.202, paragraphs
(a)(2) and (b) are revised to read as
follows:
§ 2200.202 Eligibility for Simplified
Proceedings.
(a) * *
(2) An aggregate proposed penalty of
not more than $20,000,
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Those cases with an aggregate
proposed penalty of more than $20,000,
but not more than $30,000, if otherwise
appropriate, may be selected for
Simplified Proceedings at the discretion
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
PART 2204—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 2204
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 661(g); 5 U.S.C.
504(c)(1)
§ 2204.105
[Amended]
2. In Section 2204.105, paragraph (f) is
removed.
I 3. In Section 2204.302 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and removing
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
I
§ 2204.302
filed.
When an application may be
(a) An application may be filed
whenever an applicant has prevailed in
a proceeding or in a discrete substantive
portion of the proceeding, but in no case
later than thirty days after the period for
seeking appellate review expires.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:45 May 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
Dated: April 27, 2005.
Thomasina V. Rogers,
Commissioner.
Dated: April 27, 2005.
James M. Stephens,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 05–8744 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7600–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 915
[Docket No. IA–014–FOR]
Iowa Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; Approval of
amendment.
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to
the Iowa regulatory program (Iowa
program) under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). Iowa proposed
revisions to its April 1999 revegetation
success guidelines titled, ‘‘Revegetation
Success Standards and Statistically
Valid Sampling Techniques.’’ Iowa
intends to revise its program in response
to required program amendments.
DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division. Telephone: (618) 463–6460.
E-mail: MCR_AMEND@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Iowa Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Iowa 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 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 this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) conditionally approved the
Iowa program effective April 10, 1981.
You can find background information
on the Iowa program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval,
in the January 21, 1981, Federal
Register (46 FR 5885). You can also find
later actions concerning Iowa’s program
and program amendments at 30 CFR
915.10, 915.15, and 915.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated December 27, 2004
(Administrative Record No. IA–449),
Iowa sent us an amendment to its
program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq.). Iowa sent the amendment in
response to required program
amendments codified at 30 CFR
915.16(a) and (c).
We announced receipt of the
amendment in the February 8, 2005,
Federal Register (70 FR 6606). 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 March 10, 2005. We
received comments from one Federal
agency.
During our review of the amendment,
we identified concerns regarding the
yield data sources for revegetation
success standards. We notified Iowa of
these concerns by e-mail on March 10,
2005 (Administrative Record No. IA–
449.5). Iowa responded by telephone on
March 11, 2005 (Administrative Record
Number IA–449.6). Because additional
information presented by Iowa merely
clarified certain provisions of its
amendment, we did not reopen the
public comment period.
III. OSM’s Findings
Following are the findings we made
concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment as described
below.
Iowa currently has required program
amendments codified at 30 CFR
915.16(a) and (c). The required
amendment codified at 30 CFR
915.16(a) calls for Iowa to submit for our
approval evidence that the U.S. Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
concurs with its provisions to allow the
use of reference areas for determining
success of productivity on prime
farmland as proposed at Section III.,
E:\FR\FM\03MYR1.SGM
03MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Part F and Section IV., Part A.2 of its
revegetation success guidelines. At 30
CFR 915.16(c), Iowa is required to either
remove Section IV., Part G from its
revegetation success guidelines or
submit for our approval evidence that
the NRCS concurs with the provisions
in Part G. Part G, pertaining to control
areas, contains the requirements and
methods for making climate-based
adjustments to the prime farmland
average yields shown in the County Soil
Map Unit Yield Data tables.
In response to the above required
program amendments, Iowa proposed to
amend its April 1999 revegetation
success guidelines titled, ‘‘Revegetation
Success Standards and Statistically
Valid Sampling Techniques.’’ More
specifically, Iowa proposed to delete,
from the guidelines, all text related to
prime farmland reference areas in
Section III., Part F (Reference Areas) and
Section IV., Part A.2 (Prime Farmland—
Reference Area Corn and Soybean
Productivity Standards). Also, Iowa
proposed to delete Section IV., Part G
(Control Area Adjustments of Prime
Farmland and Revegetation Success
Standards). Following is an explanation
of the portions of the revegetation
success guidelines that Iowa proposed
to amend.
A. Section III. General Requirements
and Exclusions of Revegetation
Part F. Reference Areas
Currently, the introductory paragraph
applies to all land uses. Iowa proposed
to revise the introductory paragraph to
specify that data from reference areas
can be used for direct comparison ‘‘for
all applicable land uses except for prime
farmland’’ only when the Division has
approved the use of reference areas in
the permit. Iowa also proposed to delete
paragraph F.1., including example
numbers one through three.
B. Section IV. Revegetation Success
Standards
1. Part A. Prime Farmland
a. Iowa proposed to delete the fourth
paragraph in the introductory language
under Part A that reads as follows:
The use of reference areas to develop these
prime farmland productivity standards is not
recommended due to the difficulty of
obtaining a reference area with similar prime
farmland soil map units over which the
Permittee can retain absolute control of the
management practices. Reference area
management practices must be identical to
the management practices of the reclaimed
prime farmland area. (See the criteria listed
in III. General Requirements, F. Reference
Areas above for definition of identical
management practices.) The use of reference
areas for development of row crop
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:45 May 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
production standards shall be allowed only
when they are approved as a part of the
Permit for the site containing the reclaimed
prime farmland. The development of
reference area corn and soybean productivity
standards is detailed in III. General
Requirements, F. Reference Areas above.
b. In what is currently paragraph A.1.,
Iowa proposed to (1) revise the
introductory language to paragraphs
A.1.a and b, (2) delete paragraph A.1.a,
and (3) remove the paragraph
designation from paragraph b. The
newly revised language will read as
follows:
These calculated County Soil Map Unit
Yield Data corn and soybean productivity
revegetation success standards will remain
constant for the entire period of
responsibility. These standards can only be
adjusted if the permittee receives written
concurrence from the USDA–NRCS to adjust
the calculated County Soil Map Unit Yield
Data corn and/or soybean productivity
revegetation success standards to reflect a
one year disease, pest, or weather induced
variation in that county during the specific
growing season in question. The Division
must also concur that this variation actually
impacted the Permit site.
c. Iowa proposed to delete paragraph
A.2. pertaining to Reference Area Corn
and Soybean Productivity Standards
and to remove the number one (1)
designation from what is currently
paragraph A.1.
2. Part G. Control Area Adjustments of
Prime Farmland Revegetation Success
Standards
Iowa proposed to delete Part G in its
entirety.
We are approving Iowa’s proposed
amendments as discussed above
because the State is deleting from its
revegetation success guidelines
provisions that cannot be approved
without concurrence from the NRCS.
We are also removing the required
amendments at 30 CFR 915.16(a) and
(c).
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment, but did not receive any.
Federal Agency Comments
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 Iowa program
(Administrative Record No. IA–449.1).
The NRCS responded on January 18,
2005 (Administrative Record No. IA–
449.3), that it recommended that where
the term ‘‘County Soil Map Unit Yield
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22793
Data’’ is used it should be revised to
more accurately reflect the source and
location of the data. The NRCS
suggested that the term should read,
‘‘provided in the USDA-Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Field Office Technical Guide, Section II,
County Soil Map Unit Yield Data
Tables.’’ We forwarded the NRCS’s
comments to Iowa. We will address the
issue of yield data sources for
revegetation success standards, as
appropriate, in our future oversight of
the Iowa program.
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 Iowa proposed to make in
this amendment pertain to air or water
quality standards. Therefore, we did not
ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we
requested comments on the amendment
from EPA (Administrative Record No.
IA–449.1). EPA did not respond to our
request.
State Historic 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 January 5, 2005, we
requested comments on Iowa’s
amendment (Administrative Record No.
IA–449.1), but neither responded to our
request.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve the amendment Iowa sent us on
December 27, 2004.
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR part 915, which codify decisions
concerning the Iowa 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 the State’s
program demonstrate that the State has
the capability of carrying out the
provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective
immediately will expedite that process.
SMCRA requires consistency of State
and Federal standards.
E:\FR\FM\03MYR1.SGM
03MYR1
22794
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630—Takings
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
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 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 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
because each 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
the Federal regulations at 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.
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 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, we have evaluated the potential
effects of this rule on Federally-
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:45 May 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
This determination is based on the fact
that the Iowa program does not regulate
coal exploration and surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on
Indian lands. Therefore, the Iowa
program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211—Regulations
That Significantly Affect the Supply,
Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 which requires
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for a rule 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 rule 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 rule 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 rule does not contain
information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies 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. In
making the determination as to whether
this rule would have a significant
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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; 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.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule 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 rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulations did not impose an unfunded
mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 915
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 29, 2005.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional
Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble,
30 CFR part 915 is amended as set forth
below:
I
PART 915—IOWA
1. The authority citation for part 915
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 915.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of final
publication’’ to read as follows:
I
§ 915.15 Approval of Iowa regulatory
program amendments.
*
E:\FR\FM\03MYR1.SGM
*
*
03MYR1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Original amendment
submission date
Date of final
publication
*
12/27/2004 ................
§ 915.16
*
5/3/2005
Citation/description
*
*
*
*
*
Section III.F and Section IV.A and G of Iowa’s April 1999 Revegetation Success Standards and Statistically Valid Sampling Techniques.
[Amended]
3. Section 915.16 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (a)
and by removing paragraphs (c) through
(e).
I
[FR Doc. 05–8732 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 917
[KY–248–FOR]
Kentucky Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: 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.
DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William J. Kovacic, Telephone: (859)
260–8400. Telefax number: (859) 260–
8410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Kentucky Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Kentucky
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 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:45 May 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
22795
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.
II. Submission of the Proposed
Amendment
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
III. OSM’s Findings
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,
E:\FR\FM\03MYR1.SGM
03MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 3, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22792-22795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8732]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 915
[Docket No. IA-014-FOR]
Iowa 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
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Iowa regulatory program (Iowa
program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). Iowa proposed revisions to its April 1999
revegetation success guidelines titled, ``Revegetation Success
Standards and Statistically Valid Sampling Techniques.'' Iowa intends
to revise its program in response to required program amendments.
DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division. Telephone: (618) 463-6460. E-mail: MCR--AMEND@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Iowa Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Iowa 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 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 this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the
Secretary pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
conditionally approved the Iowa program effective April 10, 1981. You
can find background information on the Iowa program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of
approval, in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5885). You
can also find later actions concerning Iowa's program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 915.10, 915.15, and 915.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated December 27, 2004 (Administrative Record No. IA-
449), Iowa sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C.
1201 et seq.). Iowa sent the amendment in response to required program
amendments codified at 30 CFR 915.16(a) and (c).
We announced receipt of the amendment in the February 8, 2005,
Federal Register (70 FR 6606). 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 March 10, 2005. We received comments from one Federal
agency.
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns
regarding the yield data sources for revegetation success standards. We
notified Iowa of these concerns by e-mail on March 10, 2005
(Administrative Record No. IA-449.5). Iowa responded by telephone on
March 11, 2005 (Administrative Record Number IA-449.6). Because
additional information presented by Iowa merely clarified certain
provisions of its amendment, we did not reopen the public comment
period.
III. OSM's Findings
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment as described below.
Iowa currently has required program amendments codified at 30 CFR
915.16(a) and (c). The required amendment codified at 30 CFR 915.16(a)
calls for Iowa to submit for our approval evidence that the U.S.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) concurs with its
provisions to allow the use of reference areas for determining success
of productivity on prime farmland as proposed at Section III.,
[[Page 22793]]
Part F and Section IV., Part A.2 of its revegetation success
guidelines. At 30 CFR 915.16(c), Iowa is required to either remove
Section IV., Part G from its revegetation success guidelines or submit
for our approval evidence that the NRCS concurs with the provisions in
Part G. Part G, pertaining to control areas, contains the requirements
and methods for making climate-based adjustments to the prime farmland
average yields shown in the County Soil Map Unit Yield Data tables.
In response to the above required program amendments, Iowa proposed
to amend its April 1999 revegetation success guidelines titled,
``Revegetation Success Standards and Statistically Valid Sampling
Techniques.'' More specifically, Iowa proposed to delete, from the
guidelines, all text related to prime farmland reference areas in
Section III., Part F (Reference Areas) and Section IV., Part A.2 (Prime
Farmland--Reference Area Corn and Soybean Productivity Standards).
Also, Iowa proposed to delete Section IV., Part G (Control Area
Adjustments of Prime Farmland and Revegetation Success Standards).
Following is an explanation of the portions of the revegetation success
guidelines that Iowa proposed to amend.
A. Section III. General Requirements and Exclusions of Revegetation
Part F. Reference Areas
Currently, the introductory paragraph applies to all land uses.
Iowa proposed to revise the introductory paragraph to specify that data
from reference areas can be used for direct comparison ``for all
applicable land uses except for prime farmland'' only when the Division
has approved the use of reference areas in the permit. Iowa also
proposed to delete paragraph F.1., including example numbers one
through three.
B. Section IV. Revegetation Success Standards
1. Part A. Prime Farmland
a. Iowa proposed to delete the fourth paragraph in the introductory
language under Part A that reads as follows:
The use of reference areas to develop these prime farmland
productivity standards is not recommended due to the difficulty of
obtaining a reference area with similar prime farmland soil map
units over which the Permittee can retain absolute control of the
management practices. Reference area management practices must be
identical to the management practices of the reclaimed prime
farmland area. (See the criteria listed in III. General
Requirements, F. Reference Areas above for definition of identical
management practices.) The use of reference areas for development of
row crop production standards shall be allowed only when they are
approved as a part of the Permit for the site containing the
reclaimed prime farmland. The development of reference area corn and
soybean productivity standards is detailed in III. General
Requirements, F. Reference Areas above.
b. In what is currently paragraph A.1., Iowa proposed to (1) revise
the introductory language to paragraphs A.1.a and b, (2) delete
paragraph A.1.a, and (3) remove the paragraph designation from
paragraph b. The newly revised language will read as follows:
These calculated County Soil Map Unit Yield Data corn and
soybean productivity revegetation success standards will remain
constant for the entire period of responsibility. These standards
can only be adjusted if the permittee receives written concurrence
from the USDA-NRCS to adjust the calculated County Soil Map Unit
Yield Data corn and/or soybean productivity revegetation success
standards to reflect a one year disease, pest, or weather induced
variation in that county during the specific growing season in
question. The Division must also concur that this variation actually
impacted the Permit site.
c. Iowa proposed to delete paragraph A.2. pertaining to Reference
Area Corn and Soybean Productivity Standards and to remove the number
one (1) designation from what is currently paragraph A.1.
2. Part G. Control Area Adjustments of Prime Farmland Revegetation
Success Standards
Iowa proposed to delete Part G in its entirety.
We are approving Iowa's proposed amendments as discussed above
because the State is deleting from its revegetation success guidelines
provisions that cannot be approved without concurrence from the NRCS.
We are also removing the required amendments at 30 CFR 915.16(a) and
(c).
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
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 Iowa program (Administrative
Record No. IA-449.1). The NRCS responded on January 18, 2005
(Administrative Record No. IA-449.3), that it recommended that where
the term ``County Soil Map Unit Yield Data'' is used it should be
revised to more accurately reflect the source and location of the data.
The NRCS suggested that the term should read, ``provided in the USDA-
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical
Guide, Section II, County Soil Map Unit Yield Data Tables.'' We
forwarded the NRCS's comments to Iowa. We will address the issue of
yield data sources for revegetation success standards, as appropriate,
in our future oversight of the Iowa program.
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 Iowa proposed to make
in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore,
we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the
amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. IA-449.1). EPA did not
respond to our request.
State Historic 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 January 5, 2005, we requested comments on Iowa's
amendment (Administrative Record No. IA-449.1), but neither responded
to our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Iowa sent us
on December 27, 2004.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 915, which codify decisions concerning the Iowa 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
the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of
carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making
this rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA
requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
[[Page 22794]]
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal
regulations.
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 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 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 because
each 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
the Federal regulations at 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.
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 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
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.
This determination is based on the fact that the Iowa program does not
regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Iowa program has no effect
on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect the
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
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 rule 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 rule 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 rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies 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. 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; 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.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule 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 rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulations did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 915
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 29, 2005.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 915 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 915--IOWA
0
1. The authority citation for part 915 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
2. Section 915.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 915.15 Approval of Iowa regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
[[Page 22795]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission Date of final
date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
12/27/2004....................... 5/3/2005 Section III.F and
Section IV.A and G
of Iowa's April 1999
Revegetation Success
Standards and
Statistically Valid
Sampling Techniques.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 915.16 [Amended]
0
3. Section 915.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a)
and by removing paragraphs (c) through (e).
[FR Doc. 05-8732 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
