[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66385-66391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30677]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 915

[SPATS No. IA-005-FOR]


Iowa Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 
is approving, with certain exceptions and additional requirements, an 
amendment to the Iowa regulatory program (Iowa program) under the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Iowa added 
revegetation success guidelines to its program. These guidelines 
include revegetation success standards, statistically valid sampling 
procedures and techniques for determining revegetation success on areas 
being restored to various land uses, and normal husbandry practices. 
Iowa intends to revise its program to be consistent with the 
corresponding Federal regulations and to improve operational 
efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 26, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Coleman, Office of Surface 
Mining, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center, Alton Federal 
Building, 501 Belle Street, Alton, Illinois 62002. Telephone: (618) 
463-6460. Internet: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Iowa Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

[[Page 66386]]

V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Iowa Program

    On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of Interior 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 the conditions of approval 
in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5885). You can find 
later actions on the Iowa program at 30 CFR 915.10, 915.15, and 915.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated September 28, 1998 (Administrative Record No. IA-
441), Iowa sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA. Iowa sent 
the amendment in response to our letter dated August 1, 1986 
(Administrative Record No. IA-280), that we sent to Iowa under 30 CFR 
732.17(c). The amendment concerns guidelines for revegetation success 
and normal husbandry practices, entitled ``Revegetation Success 
Standards and Statistically Valid Sampling Techniques.''
    We announced receipt of the amendment in the October 14, 1998, 
Federal Register (63 FR 55025) and invited public comment on its 
adequacy. The public comment period closed November 13, 1998. Because 
no one requested a public hearing or meeting, we did not hold one.
    During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns relating 
to Iowa's revegetation success guidelines concerning the definition for 
``prime farmland''; plant species for recreational and wildlife areas; 
reference areas; minimum planting arrangements for recreational, 
wildlife, and forested lands; and control area adjustments of prime 
farmland yields. We also identified concerns with Iowa's guidelines for 
normal husbandry practices. We notified Iowa of these concerns by 
electronic mail on November 19, 1998 (Administrative Record No. IA-
441.6). On August 3, 1999, Iowa sent us a revised amendment dated April 
1999 (Administrative Record No. IA-441.7).
    Based upon Iowa's revisions to its amendment, we reopened the 
public comment period in the October 8, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 
54840). The public comment period closed on October 25, 1999.

III. Director's Findings

    Following, under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 
and 732.17, are our findings concerning the amendment.

A. Revegetation Success Standards and Statistically Valid Sampling 
Techniques for Mined Lands in Iowa

    Iowa submitted revegetation success guidelines that describe the 
standards and procedures for determining revegetation success on 
reclaimed mined lands in Iowa. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(a)(1) and 817.116(a)(1) require that each regulatory authority 
select revegetation success standards and statically valid sampling 
techniques for measuring revegetation success and include them in its 
approved regulatory program. Iowa developed its revegetation success 
guidelines to satisfy this requirement. In some cases, Iowa's 
revegetation success guidelines supplement and clarify the performance 
standards for revegetation success contained in the Iowa program, but 
they do not replace or change any of them.
    The guidelines include revegetation success standards and 
statically valid sampling techniques for measuring revegetation success 
of reclaimed pastureland; cropland; industrial, commercial, or 
residential lands; recreational, wildlife, or forested lands; and 
remined lands in accordance with Iowa's counterparts to the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116. The guidelines also include 
revegetation success standards and statically valid sampling techniques 
for restoring soil productivity of prime farmland soils in accordance 
with Iowa's counterparts to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15. 
Iowa's standards, criteria, and parameters for revegetation success 
reflect the extent of cover, species composition, and soil 
stabilization required in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111 and 
817.111. As required by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) 
and (b), 817.116(a)(2) and (b), and 823.15, Iowa's revegetation success 
standards include criteria representative of unmined lands in the area 
being reclaimed to evaluate the appropriate vegetation parameters of 
ground cover, production, or stocking suitable to the approved 
postmining land uses. Iowa's guidelines specify the procedures and 
techniques to be used for sampling, measuring, and analyzing vegetation 
parameters.
    Ground cover, production, and stocking suitable to the approved 
postmining land uses, except prime farmland, are considered equal to 
the approved success standard when they are not less than 90 percent of 
the success standard. The average production of crops for prime 
farmland soils must equal or exceed the average production of the same 
crops for the same or similar unmined prime farmland soils. Sampling 
techniques for measuring success use a 90-percent statistical 
confidence interval for all land uses. We found that use of these 
procedures and techniques will ensure consistent, objective collection 
of vegetation data.
    For the above reasons, we find that, except as discussed in the 
following findings, the revegetation success standards and statically 
valid sampling techniques for measuring revegetation success contained 
in Iowa's revegetation success guidelines satisfy the requirements of 
30 CFR 816.116(a)(1), 817.116(a)(1), and 823.15.
1. Reference Areas
    Section III, part F of Iowa's revegetation success guidelines 
contains requirements for the use of reference areas for establishing 
revegetation success standards. Permittees can use data from reference 
areas for direct comparison only when Iowa has approved the use of 
reference areas in the permit. When reference areas are used, the 
reference areas will serve as the data set for establishing the 
revegetation success standard. The reclaimed areas will be directly 
compared to the revegetation success standard developed from the 
reference area production yields for the same growing season. 
Management of all of the reference areas and the reclaimed areas must 
be identical in all aspects. Part F contains examples of the criteria 
that must be met on both the reclaimed and reference areas. Reference 
areas must be within a five-mile radius of the permit site, unless the 
Division approves a site outside of the five-mile radius that has 
special features which cannot be found closer to the permit site. Part 
F also contains additional prime farmland reference area requirements, 
including examples of calculations for developing corn and soybean 
productivity success standards.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and 817.116(a)(2) 
require that standards for success include criteria representative of 
unmined lands in the area being reclaimed in order to evaluate the 
appropriate vegetation parameters of ground cover, production, and 
stocking. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b) and 817.116(b) 
allow the use of reference areas for determining revegetation success. 
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(2) requires that permittees 
measure soil productivity on a representative sample or on all of the

[[Page 66387]]

mined and reclaimed prime farmland areas using the reference crop 
determined under 30 CFR 823.15(b)(6). It also requires that they use a 
statistically valid sampling technique at a 90-percent or greater 
statistical confidence level as approved by the regulatory authority in 
consultation with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS). The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(4) requires that 
permittees manage the reclaimed areas in the same manner as nonmined 
prime farmland in the surrounding area. The Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 823.15(b)(7) allow the use of reference crop yields of 
representative local farms in the surrounding area for determining 
revegetation success for prime farmland, with concurrence by the NRCS. 
Iowa submitted a fax dated July 21, 1997, from the NRCS as evidence of 
consultation when developing its revegetation success guidelines for 
reference areas (Administrative Record No. IA-441.5). We find that 
Iowa's requirements for reference areas are consistent with the Federal 
requirements at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and (b), 817.116(a)(2) and (b), 
and 823.15(b)(2), (4), and (6). Therefore, we are approving the 
requirements in section III, part F. However, the fax did not contain 
specific concurrence by the NRCS for Iowa's use of the current yield 
records of reference areas for measuring productivity on prime 
farmland, as required by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
823.15(b)(7). Because Iowa did not submit evidence of concurrence by 
the NRCS, as required by the Federal regulations, we are not approving 
the use of reference areas for determining success of productivity on 
prime farmland areas. We are requiring Iowa to submit evidence of 
concurrence by the NRCS before it allows permittees to use reference 
area revegetation success standards for prime farmland. We are 
approving Iowa's guidelines on reference areas for all other applicable 
land uses.
2. Prime Farmland
    Section IV, part A contains the revegetation success standards for 
prime farmland. Section IV, part G contains a method for adjusting the 
average prime farmland reference crop yield for adverse or beneficial 
climatic conditions.
    a. Section IV, part A, provides that in order to establish 
revegetation success on prime farmland soils, the production of corn, 
soybeans, or a combination of corn and soybeans must produce yields 
equal to or greater than the yields of the same crops in similar 
unmined prime farmland soils for three years of the five-year 
responsibility period. Corn and soybeans are the most common deep-
rooted prime farmland crops in Iowa. The Division will consider 
restoration of prime farmland soil productivity achieved each year that 
the average yield during the measurement period exceeds or equals the 
average yield for the same prime farmland soil map units as provided in 
the County Soil Map Unit Yield Data tables for that county. These 
tables were developed from a U. S. Department of Agriculture-Natural 
Resources Conservation Service State Soil Survey Database. Part A.1 
contains the method of determining the average yield of corn or soybean 
productivity using the County Soil Map Unit Yield Data tables located 
in Appendices 1 through 4. Part A.1 includes examples of how to 
calculate the corn and soybean success standards for prime farmland 
soils. At part A.2, Iowa also allows permittees to use prime farmland 
reference area yield data instead of the County Soil Map Unit Yield 
Data to prove productivity. Permittees would calculate corn or soybean 
productivity revegetation success standards from the prime farmland 
reference area yield data using the methods contained in part A.1.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(7) allow permittees to 
prove restoration of prime farmland soil productivity in two ways. At 
30 CFR 823.15(b)(7)(i), the permittee can use the current yield records 
of representative local farms in the surrounding area (reference areas) 
to prove productivity, with concurrence by the NRCS. At 30 CFR 
823.15(b)(7)(ii), the permittee can use the average county yields 
recognized by the USDA, which have been adjusted by the NRCS for local 
yield variation. Iowa submitted a fax dated July 21, 1997, from the 
NRCS as evidence of consultation when developing its revegetation 
success guidelines for prime farmland (Administrative Record No. IA-
441.5). We find that Iowa's requirements for revegetation and 
restoration of prime farmland soil productivity are consistent with the 
Federal requirements at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(7). Therefore, we are 
approving the requirements in section IV, parts A and A.1. However, in 
section IV, part A.2, Iowa proposed to use reference areas. The 
evidence submitted by Iowa did not contain specific concurrence by the 
NRCS for Iowa's use of the current yield records of reference areas for 
measuring productivity on prime farmland, as required by 30 CFR 
823.15(b)(7)(i). Because Iowa did not submit evidence of concurrence by 
the NRCS, we are not approving Iowa's use of reference areas for 
determining success of productivity on prime farmland areas. As 
discussed in Finding A.1, we are requiring Iowa to submit evidence of 
concurrence by the NRCS before allowing permittees to use reference 
area revegetation success standards for measuring productivity on prime 
farmland.
    b. Section IV, parts A.1(a) and (b) allow permittees to adjust 
average yield values for weather conditions by one of two methods. Part 
A.1(a) allows the permittee to use control areas to adjust the County 
Soil Map Unit Yield Data in accordance with the requirements of section 
IV, part G. Part A.1(b) allows the permittee to get written concurrence 
from the NRCS to adjust the calculated County Soil Map Unit Yield Data 
to reflect a one year disease, pest, or weather induced variation 
during a specific growing season. Section IV, part G contains the 
requirements and methods for control area adjustments of prime farmland 
revegetation success standards developed from the County Soil Map Unit 
Yield Data. Control areas must contain one or more of the soil map 
units which exist in the reclaimed tract. The control area data is used 
to develop a climatic correction factor. The correction factor is used 
to adjust the revegetation success standards developed for prime 
farmlands for yield variations caused by adverse or beneficial climatic 
conditions during the crop year. Permittees can use control areas to 
develop a revegetation success standard adjusted for climatic condition 
only when the Division approves its use in the permit for that site. 
The control area must receive the same management as the reclaimed 
area. If the Division approves the use of control areas, the permittee 
must use the control area climatic correction factor in all production 
years within the responsibility period, whether it increases or 
decreases the revegetation success standards.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(8) provide that the 
permittee may adjust the average reference crop yield for disease, 
pest, and weather-induced seasonal variations, with the concurrence of 
the NRCS. Therefore, we are approving Iowa's provision at section IV, 
part A.1(b) that requires the permittee to get written concurrence from 
the NRCS to adjust the calculated County Soil Map Unit Yield Data corn 
or soybean productivity revegetation success standards for disease, 
pest, or weather-induced seasonal variations. However, Iowa did not 
provide evidence that the NRCS concurred with Iowa's provisions at 
section IV, part G

[[Page 66388]]

concerning the methods used to adjust the County Soil Map Unit Yield 
Data for climatic conditions using control areas. Therefore, we are not 
approving Iowa's provisions at section IV, part G that contain the 
requirements and methods for adjusting prime farmland revegetation 
success standards using control areas. Our decision also makes the 
provision that allows the use of control areas at section IV, part 
A.1(b) moot. We are requiring Iowa to either remove section IV, part G 
from its revegetation success guidelines or submit evidence that the 
NRCS concurs with this provision.
3. Recreational, Wildlife, and Forested Lands
    Section IV, part E contains the revegetation success standards for 
recreational areas, wildlife areas, and forested lands. The permittee 
must first meet all of the general erosion control and ground cover 
requirements of section III, part A and the general revegetation 
requirements of section III, part C for these land uses. Once the 
Permittee has documented that all of the criteria in these two sections 
has been met, the reclaimed permit site must achieve 90 percent 
vegetative cover density for a minimum of two years. Tree and shrub 
survival must be measured by counting live and healthy trees and 
shrubs. All trees and shrubs counted must have been in place for a 
minimum of two years and must have at least one-third of their height 
in live crown. At the time of counting trees or shrubs to determine if 
their survival meets the revegetation success standard, 80 percent of 
the original number of trees and shrubs planted per acre must be alive 
and must have been in place for three years. There must be a minimum of 
400 live trees or shrubs per acre of land under a forested land use, 
including recreation or wildlife land use areas where woody plants are 
used, for purposes of achieving revegetation success. The Division will 
require the permittee to document the time of planting of all trees and 
shrubs on the permit. The permittee must tag all trees and shrubs 
planted with permanent markers which indicate the planting date. The 
permittee is responsible for assuring that the markings are permanent 
and will remain legible during the period of responsibility. Any tree 
having tags which are illegible or appear to have been tampered with 
will not count towards meeting the revegetation success standard for 
forest lands. Iowa submitted two appendices that are referenced in its 
guidelines for these land uses. Appendix 5 lists the recommended tree 
planting species in Iowa. This appendix was developed by using lists of 
tree planting species obtained from the Iowa Department of Natural 
Resources and the Iowa State University Forestry Extension. Appendix 8 
contains the recommended wildlife and recreation planting species in 
Iowa. This appendix was also developed from information provided by the 
Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the Iowa State University 
Forestry Extension. Iowa submitted a letter dated October 21, 1996, 
from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources as evidence of 
consultation with the State agency responsible for the administration 
of forestry and wildlife programs when developing it guidelines for 
recreational, wildlife, and forested lands (Administrative Record No. 
IA-441.5).
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3) and 817.116(b)(3) 
for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest 
products require that permittees determine success of vegetation on the 
basis of tree and shrub stocking and vegetative ground cover. They also 
require that:

    (i) Minimum stocking and planting arrangements shall be 
specified by the regulatory authority on the basis of local and 
regional conditions and after consultation with and approval by the 
State agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and 
wildlife programs. Consultation and approval may occur on either a 
programwide or a permit-specific basis.
    (ii) Trees and shrubs that will be used in determining the 
success of stocking and the adequacy of the plant arrangement shall 
have utility for the approved postmining land use. Trees and shrubs 
counted in determining such success shall be healthy and have been 
in place for not less than two growing seasons. At the time of bond 
release, at least 80 percent of the trees and shrubs used to 
determine such success shall have been in place for 60 percent of 
the applicable minimum period of responsibility.
    (iii) Vegetative ground cover shall not be less than that 
required to achieve the approved postmining land use.

    We find that Iowa's revegetation success standards for 
recreational, wildlife, and forested lands at section IV, part E are no 
less effective than the requirements of the Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 816.116(b)(3) and 817.116(b)(3), with two exceptions. First, Iowa's 
guidelines do not contain any planting arrangement provisions for these 
land uses as required by 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i). 
Second, Iowa did not submit any documentation to prove that the State 
agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife 
programs approved its minimum stocking provisions as required by 30 CFR 
816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i). Therefore, we are requiring Iowa 
to either add planting arrangement provisions for recreational, 
wildlife, and forested land to its guidelines and obtain program-wide 
concurrence from the State agencies responsible for the administration 
of forestry and wildlife programs or add a provision to its guidelines 
that requires permit-specific concurrence for planting arrangements 
from the State agencies responsible for the administration of forestry 
and wildlife programs. We are also requiring Iowa to either obtain 
program-wide concurrence for its minimum stocking provisions or add a 
provision to its guidelines that requires permit-specific concurrence 
for minimum stocking from the State agencies responsible for the 
administration of forestry and wildlife programs.
4. Sampling Procedures and Techniques
    Section V of Iowa's revegetation success guidelines contain 
sampling procedures and techniques to determine productivity for corn, 
soybeans, oats, wheat, and forage crops; to determine ground cover 
percentage; and to determine if trees and shrubs meet minimum density 
standards. With one exception, we find that Iowa's sampling procedures 
and techniques are statistically valid at a 90 percent or greater 
statistical confidence level as required by the Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 816.116(a) (1) and (2), 817.116(a) (1) and (2), and 
823.15(a)(2). Section V, part A.2, which contains the grain sampling 
technique for test plot harvesting, does not specify how the permittee 
is to obtain the dry weight of the test plot grain samples. The dry 
weight is used in a calculation to determine the moisture percentage 
for each test plot sample. Therefore, we are requiring Iowa to revise 
its revegetation success guidelines at section V, part A.2 by adding a 
provision that specifies the standard method that permittees are to use 
for obtaining the dry weight of test plot grain samples.

B. Normal Husbandry Practices

    Iowa also proposed guidelines relating to normal husbandry 
practices that may be used without restarting the responsibility 
period. Section III, part H contains requirements for rill and gully 
repair; terrace repair and maintenance; riprap repair and maintenance; 
land smoothing and reseeding; and liming, fertilizing, and 
interseeding. Rill and gully erosion may be addressed within the permit 
or partial permit area without restarting the responsibility period 
only if repairs are completed using normal

[[Page 66389]]

husbandry practices. If the repair work requires augmented seeding, 
fertilization, or irrigation, the period of responsibility will 
restart. Normal husbandry practices do not include any temporary 
erosion control structures, such as silt fencing, straw, or hay bale 
dikes. Part H.1 specifies that the State will consider as normal 
husbandry practices any terrace repairs and maintenance required due 
to: (1) Rainfall events that exceed their designed capacities; (2) 
sediment deposition into a terrace flow line during the first year or 
two after the initial terrace construction and seeding that exceed the 
designed sediment storage capacity of the terrace; and (3) differential 
settling that impacts the flow line of the terrace. Part H.1 includes a 
listing of the types of terrace repair and maintenance options that the 
State will consider as normal husbandry practices. In part H.2, the 
State considers riprap repair and maintenance on ditches and structures 
due to storm events that exceed the maximum design standard as normal 
husbandry practices. Part H.2 includes a listing of the types of riprap 
repair and maintenance practices that will be considered normal 
husbandry practices. Part H.3 provides that normal husbandry practices 
can include limited land smoothing and reseeding as long as: (1) the 
individual areas are no larger than one acre in size and (2) the 
cumulative acreage is no greater than 10 percent of the entire permit 
or partial area. At part H.4, Iowa will consider applications of lime 
and fertilizer and interseeding to be normal husbandry practices when 
they meet specified conditions. For lime and fertilizer applications, 
the permittee must submit the original weight tickets for the 
applications at the times specified in section III, part B.3. For 
interseeding, the permittee must submit the original seed tickets at 
the times specified in section III, part B.3. Part H.4(a) and (b) 
provide, respectively, that lime and fertilizer applications must be 
made based on soil test recommendations for the appropriate crop or 
vegetation. Before any lime and fertilizer applications, the permittee 
must submit to the Division the original copies of the soil test 
recommendations and a map of the permit areas indicating where each 
soil sample was taken. If subsequent submittals of lime and fertilizer 
weight tickets prove that actual applications were in excess of the 
soil test recommendations, the Division will restart the responsibility 
period. Interseeding will be considered a normal husbandry practice 
based on the criteria listed in part H.4(c). This criteria includes: 
(1) interseeding of a legume on the third year of a grass/legume 
vegetative cover; (2) interseeding of a single species that failed to 
germinate due to unfavorable climate conditions on half or more of the 
permit area; and (3) interseeding of a species due to excessive winter 
kill.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) for surface mining 
operations and 817.116(c)(4) for underground mining operations allow 
the regulatory authority to approve selective husbandry practices, 
excluding augmented seeding, fertilization, or irrigation, without 
extending the period of responsibility for revegetation success and 
bond liability, under specified conditions. The regulatory authority 
must obtain prior approval from OSM in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17 
that the practices are normal husbandry practices that can be expected 
to continue as part of the postmining land use or that discontinuance 
of the practices after the responsibility period expires will not 
reduce the probability of permanent revegetation success. Approved 
practices must be normal husbandry practices within the region for 
unmined lands having land uses similar to the approved postmining land 
use of the disturbed area. In the September 7, 1988, preamble for the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) and 817.116(c)(4), we 
discussed the type of documentation that the regulatory authority must 
submit to support its proposed normal husbandry practices (53 FR 
34641). The regulatory authority must submit documentation that 
demonstrates that the practice is the usual or expected state, form, 
amount or degree of management performed habitually or customarily to 
prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect of the resource and 
maintain a prescribed level of use or productivity of similar unmined 
lands. We will consider, on a practice-by-practice basis, the 
documentation supporting each practice proposed by a regulatory 
authority as a normal husbandry practice. The documentation must 
include conservation practice guidelines or agronomy guidelines and 
fact sheets for the management of unmined lands in the applicable 
State. The guidelines and fact sheets could be those distributed by the 
NRCS or other organizations with similar expertise in management of a 
State's natural resources, including agricultural lands.
    Iowa submitted a fax dated July 21, 1997, from the NRCS as evidence 
that Iowa consulted with the NRCS when developing its normal husbandry 
practice guidelines (Administrative Record No. IA-441.5. Iowa also 
submitted a letter dated December 16, 1996, from the Iowa State 
University, Department of Agronomy, as additional evidence of 
consultation when developing its normal husbandry practices. However, 
Iowa did not submit actual NRCS conservation practice guidelines or 
Iowa State University agronomy guidelines or fact sheets to support its 
proposed normal husbandry practices. Therefore, we find that Iowa has 
not adequately demonstrated that its proposals for rill and gully 
repair; terrace repair and maintenance; riprap repair and maintenance; 
land smoothing and reseeding; and liming, fertilizing, and interseeding 
of areas disturbed by mining in Iowa are normal husbandry practices 
within the region for unmined lands having land uses similar to the 
approved postmining land uses of the disturbed areas. We are requiring 
Iowa to either remove its guidelines for normal husbandry practices at 
section III, part H or submit documentation that support the proposed 
normal husbandry practices.

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), we requested comments on the 
amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential 
interest in the Iowa program (Administrative Record Nos. IA-441.1 and 
IA-441.9). On October 5, 1999, the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration sent us a letter stating that it had no comments on the 
amendment (Administrative Record No. IA-441.10).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written 
agreement from the 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 the EPA to agree on the amendment.
    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the 
amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record Nos. IA-441.1 and IA-
441.9). The EPA did not respond to our requests.

[[Page 66390]]

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 October 5, 1998, and September 28, 1999, we requested 
comments on Iowa's amendment (Administrative Record Nos. IA-441.1 and 
IA-441.9), but neither responded to our request.

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve, with certain exceptions 
and additional requirements, the amendment as sent to us by Iowa on 
September 28, 1998, and as revised and sent to us by Iowa on August 3, 
1999.
    With the requirement that Iowa further revise its revegetation 
success guidelines, we do not approve, as discussed in: findings No. 
A.1 and A.2.a, the use of reference areas for determining success of 
productivity on prime farmland areas; finding No. A.2.b., section IV, 
part G, concerning the requirements and methods for use of control 
areas to adjust the County Soil Map Unit Yield Data for climatic 
conditions; and finding No. B, section III, part H, concerning normal 
husbandry practices.
    With the requirement that Iowa further revise its revegetation 
success guidelines, we approve, as discussed in finding No. A.3, 
section IV, part E, concerning revegetation success standards for 
recreational, wildlife, and forested lands; finding No. A.4, section V, 
concerning sampling procedures and techniques for ground cover, 
stocking, and production.
    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR Part 915, which codify decisions concerning the Iowa program. 
We are making this final rule effective immediately to expedite the 
State program amendment process and to encourage Iowa to bring its 
program into conformity with the Federal standards. SMCRA requires 
consistency of State and Federal standards.

Effect of Director's Decision

    Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise 
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the 
Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any change to an 
approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program 
amendment. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit any 
changes to State programs that are not approved by OSM. In the 
oversight of the Iowa program, we will recognize only the statutes, 
regulations and other materials approved by the Secretary or by us, 
together with any consistent implementing policies, directives and 
other materials. We will require the enforcement by Iowa of only such 
provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempts this rule from 
review under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has 
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the 
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. 
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of 
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such 
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. 
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on State regulatory 
programs and program amendments must be based solely on a determination 
of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing 
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 
730, 731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not require an environmental impact statement since 
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 
decisions on 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 has determined that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon 
corresponding 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. Therefore, this rule will ensure that existing requirements 
previously published by OSM will be implemented by the State. In making 
the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant 
economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions 
for the corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

    OSM has determined and certifies under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a cost of 
$100 million or more in any given year on local, state, or tribal 
governments or private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 915

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: November 10, 1999.
Richard J. Seibel,
Acting 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:

PART 915--IOWA

    1. The authority citation for part 915 continues to read as 
follows:

    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:


Sec. 915.15  Approval of Iowa regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

[[Page 66391]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Original amendment submission       Date of final
               date                    publication                                            Citation/description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
September 28, 1998...............  November 26, 1999..  Revegetation Success Guidelines dated April 1999 (partial approval).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 915.16 is amended by adding paragraphs (a) through (e) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 915.16  Required program amendments.

* * * * *
    (a) Before Iowa allows the use of reference areas for determining 
success of productivity on prime farmland as proposed at section III, 
part F and section IV, part A.2 of its revegetation success guidelines, 
Iowa must submit for OSM approval evidence that the U.S. Natural 
Resources Conservation Service concurs with these provisions.
    (b) By May 25, 2000, Iowa must either remove the guidelines for 
normal husbandry practices from section III, part H of its April 1999 
revegetation success guidelines or submit for OSM approval 
documentation that demonstrates each practice is a normal husbandry 
practice within the region for unmined lands having land uses similar 
to the approved postmining land uses of areas disturbed by mining in 
Iowa.
    (c) By May 25, 2000, Iowa must either remove section IV, part G, 
which contains the requirements and methods for control area climatic 
adjustments to the prime farmland average yields provided in the County 
Soil Map Unit Yield Data tables, from its April 1999 revegetation 
success guidelines or submit for OSM approval evidence that the U.S. 
Natural Resources Conservation Service concurs with this provision.
    (d) By May 25, 2000, Iowa must amend its revegetation success 
guidelines at:
    (1) Section IV, part E by either adding planting arrangement 
provisions for recreational, wildlife, and forested lands and obtaining 
program-wide concurrence for the provisions from the State agencies 
responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife programs or 
adding a provision that requires permit-specific concurrence for 
minimum planting arrangements from the State agencies responsible for 
the administration of forestry and wildlife programs.
    (2) Section IV, part E by either obtaining program-wide concurrence 
for its minimum stocking provisions or adding a provision that requires 
permit-specific concurrence for minimum stocking from the State 
agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife 
programs.
    (e) By May 25, 2000, Iowa must add a provision to section V, Part 
A.2 of its revegetation success guidelines that specifies the standard 
method that permittees are to use for obtaining the dry weight of test 
plot grain samples.

[FR Doc. 99-30677 Filed 11-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P