[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41622-41625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 917

[KY-222-FOR]


Kentucky 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 a proposed amendment to the Kentucky regulatory 
program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA or the Act). Kentucky proposed to revise the Kentucky 
Administrative Regulations (KAR) pertaining to the general requirements 
for mining on steep slopes. The approved amendment revises the Kentucky 
program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Kovacic, Field Office 
Director. Address: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503. Telephone: 
(859) 260-8400.
    Email: [email protected].

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 
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 the conditions 
of approval in the May 18, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 21404). You 
can also find later actions concerning the Kentucky program and 
previous amendments at 30 CFR 917.11, 917.12, 917.13, 917.15, 917.16, 
and 917.17.

II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated January 28, 2000, Kentucky sent us an amendment to 
its program (KY-222-FOR, Administrative Record No. KY-1469) under SMCRA 
(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Kentucky sent the amendment in response to 
the required program amendment at 30 CFR 917.16(d)(5). The proposed 
amendment establishes special performance standards and limited 
variance procedures for operations conducted on steep slopes by 
revising 405 KAR 20.060--Section 3(3)(b) and (c). The amendment is 
intended to revise the Kentucky program to be no less effective than 
the Federal regulations.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 18, 
2000, Federal Register (65 FR 8327). In the same document, we opened 
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public 
hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy. We did not hold a 
public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public 
comment period ended on March 20, 2000. We did not receive any public 
comments.
    By letter dated May 25, 2000 (Administrative Record No. KY-1476), 
Kentucky submitted the promulgated version of the regulation. No 
substantive changes were made from the original submission. Therefore, 
we did not reopen the comment period.
    We received comments from two Federal agencies.

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. As 
discussed below, we are approving the amendment.
    Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concern 
nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes.
    Kentucky's amendment is responding to the required program 
amendment codified at 30 CFR 917.16(d)(5). 30 CFR 917.16(d)(5) provides 
that Kentucky must amend its program to:

    Clarify that the total volume of flow from the proposed permit 
area, during every season of the year, will not vary in a way that 
adversely affects the ecology of any surface water or any existing 
or planned use of surface or ground water; and to require the 
appropriate State environmental agency to approve the plan.

    Kentucky has amended its program by establishing special 
performance standards and limited variance procedures for operations 
conducted on steep slopes by revising 405 KAR 20.060--Section 3(3)(b) 
and (c). Kentucky is requiring that the total volume of flow from the 
proposed permit area, during every season of the year, not vary in a 
way that adversely affects the ecology of any surface water or any 
existing or planned use of surface or ground water. Kentucky is also 
requiring that the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 
Cabinet (Cabinet) consider any agency comments under subsection (2) of 
this section regarding watershed improvement.

405 KAR 20:060  Section 3(3)(b)

    Kentucky is revising this paragraph by adding the words ``water or 
any existing or planned use of surface.'' As amended, paragraph (b) at 
section 3(3) provides that the total volume of flow from the proposed 
permit area, during every season of the year, will not vary in a way 
that adversely affects the ecology of any surface water or any existing 
or planned use of surface or ground water. We find that as amended, the 
Kentucky provision is identical to and, therefore, no less effective 
than the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 785.16(a)(3)(ii) and 
can be approved. This amendment satisfies part of the required 
regulatory program amendment codified in the Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 917.16(d)(5).

[[Page 41623]]

405 KAR 20:060  Section 3(3)(c)

    Kentucky is adding this new paragraph to provide that the Cabinet 
must have considered any agency comments under subsection (2) of 405 
KAR 20:060 section 3, regarding watershed improvement. Subsection (2), 
which is part of the existing Kentucky program, offers Federal, State 
and local government agencies with an interest in the proposed land use 
an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed use. While there 
is no Federal counterpart to the Kentucky proposal, the amendment is 
consistent with the general permitting requirements at 30 CFR 773.6, 
which provides certain Federal, State and local governmental entities 
with notice and opportunity to comment on permit applications. Thus, 
the amendment is hereby approved.
    Kentucky has also submitted an accompanying document entitled 
``Federal Mandate Analysis Comparison'' (Administrative Record No. KY-
1469). In that document, Kentucky acknowledges that its regulation does 
not include the requirement, contained in 30 CFR 785.16(a)(3)(iii), 
that ``the appropriate State environmental agency approves the 
[watershed improvement] plan,'' but contends that the ``Federal 
language is indefinite regarding the identity of the agency and 
regarding what `plan' must be approved * * *'' Furthermore, Kentucky 
contends that this language is unnecessary for its program, because the 
Cabinet, which approves mining permits, is also the agency charged with 
approving watershed improvement plans. Therefore, the State argues, 
approval of any such plans, where necessary, will be ``accomplished by 
the Cabinet'' as part of the permit decision-making process. We believe 
that Kentucky's explanation of its watershed improvement plan approval 
procedure is sufficient to satisfy the remaining portion of the 
required regulatory program amendment codified in the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 917.16(d)(5). As such, the required amendment 
will be removed.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative 
Record No. KY-1475), 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 Kentucky program (Administrative 
Record No. KY-1492). The request for comments was made on February 18, 
2000.
    Two comments were received. The Mine Safety and Health 
Administration concurred without comment. The Fish and Wildlife Service 
commented that the proposed amendment: (1) Disregards the Federal 
mandate to develop and implement a plan to improve watershed 
conditions; (2) is based on an apparent misinterpretation of the 
Federal mandate for the appropriate State environmental agency to 
review and approve the watershed improvement plan; and (3) disregards 
the Federal mandate to require reduced pollution or reduced flood 
hazards during peak discharges.
    In response, we disagree with the commenter's contention that the 
amendment is inconsistent with the intent of 30 CFR 785.16(a)(3) 
because it omits the specific requirement to develop and implement a 
comprehensive watershed plan where steep slope variances are permitted. 
To the contrary, we believe the existing State program requirements are 
consistent with the Federal regulations. While subdivision 30 CFR 
785.16(a)(3)(iii) refers to approval of a ``plan,'' the Federal 
regulations are otherwise silent as to what should be contained in the 
plan. Moreover, the current Kentucky program at 405 KAR 20:060 Section 
3(3) requires the permit applicant to demonstrate that the watershed of 
lands within the proposed permit and adjacent areas will be improved by 
the operations. Because this demonstration, which is identical to the 
one required in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 785.16(a)(3), must be 
contained in the permit application, it is tantamount to a ``plan'' for 
watershed improvement. Therefore, in this respect, the State program 
remains consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations.
    The commenter next stated that the intent of 30 CFR 785.16 is for 
the State agency with the responsibility for general protection of 
aquatic systems to approve the watershed improvement plan. According to 
the commenter, the ``appropriate State environmental agency'' is 
required to approve the watershed improvement plan in order to maintain 
checks and balances within the permit review process. The commenter 
stated that the appropriate agency in Kentucky to approve watershed 
improvement plans is the Kentucky Division of Water (DOW), since that 
is the agency with responsibility for general protection of aquatic 
systems. The commenter believes that because the proposed amendment 
fails to specifically designate the DOW, as opposed to the Department 
for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (DSMRE), as the 
``appropriate State environmental agency,'' the amendment ``appears to 
be based upon a misrepresentation of the Federal mandate for the 
`appropriate State environmental agency' to approve the watershed 
improvement plan. We disagree with this comment for the reasons 
discussed below.
    The preamble to the September 1, 1983, Federal Register notice 
announcing our approval of 30 CFR 785.16 states, in part, that ``[i]t 
is not possible on a national basis to specify precisely which 
environmental agencies must approve the planned improvement of the 
watershed. Within particular states, the regulatory authority should 
have little difficulty in discerning the particular agencies with 
expertise and /or responsibility for the watershed.'' 48 FR 39892, 
39896. As noted above in the finding for 405 KAR 20:060 Section 
3(3)(c), Kentucky has explained that the Cabinet is the agency with 
statewide environmental responsibilities. Three departments are under 
jurisdiction of the Cabinet, one of which is the DSMRE. The DOW is 
under the Department for Environmental Protection, a department also 
under the jurisdiction of the Cabinet. The Cabinet considers any 
comments from Federal, State, or local agencies that address the issue 
of watershed improvement.
    The DSMRE has responsibility for implementing SMCRA. If a plan for 
watershed improvement is part of a SMCRA permit, DSMRE is responsible 
for its review. The proposed program amendment includes a request for 
comments by other agencies to ensure that the SMCRA plan demonstrates 
watershed improvement. In Kentucky, the DOW is given the opportunity to 
review and comment on all SMCRA permits. This would include watershed 
improvement plans. Therefore, we believe that the revised regulation at 
405 KAR 20:060 Section 3(3)(c) is no less effective than 30 CFR 
785.16(a)(3)(iii).
    The commenter stated that the proposed amendment disregards the 
Federal regulations to require reduced pollution or reduced flood 
hazards during peak discharges. According to the commenter, ``[t]he 
amended State regulations would circumvent this requirement by allowing 
its substitution with increased streamflow during low flow periods.'' 
The language claimed by the commenter to be inconsistent with the 
Federal regulations is contained in the phrase ``* * * or there will be 
an increase in streamflow during times of the year when streams within 
the

[[Page 41624]]

watershed are normally at low flow or dry and the increase in 
streamflow is determined by the cabinet to be beneficial to public or 
private users or to the ecology of the streams.''
    In response, we note that the quoted language is not newly 
proposed, as the commenter has asserted, but rather is already 
contained in the approved State program. Thus, comments on the language 
are not germane to this rulemaking.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (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.). This amendment does not contain 
provisions that relate to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we 
did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
    On March 1, 2000, we requested comments from EPA on the amendment 
(administrative record no. KY-1492). EPA did not respond to our 
request.

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

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from 
SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic 
properties. This amendment does not contain provisions that relate to 
historic properties. Therefore, we did not ask SHPO or ACHP to comment 
on this amendment.

V. OSM's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Kentucky sent 
us on January 28, 2000. In addition, we are removing the required 
program amendment codified at 30 CFR 917.16(d)(5).
    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 the Kentucky program demonstrate that Kentucky has the 
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its 
purpose. Making this regulation effective immediately will expedite 
that process. SMCRA requires consistency of Kentucky and Federal 
standards.

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 regulation.

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget 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 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
require approval by the 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

[[Page 41625]]

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 regulation did not impose an 
unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 917

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: May 14, 2002.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII, 
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth 
below:

PART 917--KENTUCKY

    1. The authority citation for Part 917 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 917.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 917.15  Approval of Kentucky regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Original amendment submission    Date of final
             date                  publication      Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
January 28, 2000..............  June 19, 2002....  405 KAR 20:060 Sec.
                                                    3(3)(b) 2000 and
                                                    (c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Section 917.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(d)(5).
[FR Doc. 02-15483 Filed 6-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P