[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 78 (Monday, April 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21937-21941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08332]



[[Page 21937]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 917

[SATS No. KY-258-FOR; Docket No. OSM-2015-0001; S1D1S SS08011000 
SX064A000 212S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 21XS501520]


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 
(OSMRE), 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). The State submitted proposed revisions 
to the Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR) that establish the 
requirements for a permit applicant to demonstrate a legal right of 
entry and right to mine on land with severed surface and mineral 
estates. Kentucky submitted this proposed amendment to modify the 
requirements for demonstrating legal right of entry and right to mine 
on proposed coal mines sites with severed minerals.

DATES: The effective date is May 26, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Castle, Field Office 
Director, Lexington Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503, 
Telephone: (859) 260-3902, Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Kentucky Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSMRE's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSMRE's Decision
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations 
that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in 
accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. 
See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the 
Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the 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 21404). You can also find later actions concerning the 
Kentucky program and program 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 29, 2015 (Administrative Record No. KY-
2001), the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources (KYDNR) submitted 
to OSMRE an amendment to the Kentucky program under SMCRA. Kentucky 
proposed to establish, as it relates to underground mines, and amend, 
as it relates to surface mines, permit application requirements for an 
operator seeking to mine land with severed surface and mineral estates. 
Under the existing rule, if there is no conveyance expressly granting 
or reserving the right to extract coal by surface mining methods or no 
surface owner consent, then the applicant is nonetheless able to obtain 
a permit by submitting documentation that, under applicable state law, 
the applicant has the legal authority to extract coal by those methods. 
The additional, Kentucky requirement found in the existing rule -that 
the applicant also provide a copy of the original instrument of 
severance upon which the applicant bases his right to extract coal by 
surface mining methods--has been removed. Without the additional 
Kentucky requirement that Kentucky proposed to remove, the rule now 
mirrors and is consistent with Federal regulations.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the June 12, 
2015, Federal Register (80 FR 33456). 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. The public comment 
period ended on July 13, 2015. We did not hold a public hearing or 
meeting because one was not requested. We received comments from one 
commenter. Those comments are addressed in the Public Comments section, 
part IV, Summary and Disposition of Comments, below.

III. OSMRE's Findings

    The following are the findings we made concerning the proposed 
Kentucky amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
732.15 and 732.17, which govern OSMRE approval of state programs and 
program amendments. We are approving the amendment as described below. 
The full text of the approved amendment is available online at https://www.regulations.gov/.
    SMCRA allows for state regulatory authorities to promulgate rules 
no less effective and no less stringent than the Federal regulations. 
In addition, under Ky. Rev. Stat. section 13A.120(1)(a) (Promulgation 
of administrative regulations--Prohibitions concerning promulgations), 
administrative regulations may be no more stringent than Federal law or 
regulations.
    Kentucky proposed to revise section 4(2) of 405 KAR 8:030 for 
surface coal mining permits and to establish a new section 4(2) in 405 
KAR 8:040 for underground coal mining permits. As required by SMCRA, 
these regulations would establish administrative regulations that are 
as effective as, but no less stringent than, those required under 
Federal law.
    In accordance with the KYDNR's stated intent, section 4(2) of 405 
KAR 8:030 is being amended to modify a permit applicant's proof of 
legal right of entry and right to mine requirements. An identical 
provision is established as section 4(2) of 405 KAR 8:040 relating to 
underground mines. The amendment, as approved, removes the language in 
existing section 4(2)(c) (405 KAR 8:030), which requires submission of 
a copy of the original severance instrument as a means to establish a 
legal right of entry and right to mine the mineral estate. An 
additional revision moves the existing proviso, that the regulation 
does not authorize the cabinet to adjudicate property rights disputes, 
into a new subsection, found at section 4(3), with no modification to 
the existing language.
    We note that the language in section 4(2) of 405 KAR 8:030 and 
section 4(2) of 405 KAR 8:040 is substantively identical and, for this 
reason, this final rule addresses them as one. Kentucky's proposed 
amendment language is also substantively identical to that found in 30 
CFR 778.15. However, the existing version of section 4(2) in 405 KAR 
8:030 requires an additional element that the proposed version does 
not: It requires each applicant to submit a copy of the original 
instrument of severance upon which the applicant bases his right of 
entry and right to extract coal by surface mining methods. This 
requirement does not appear in SMCRA or its implementing regulations 
and, as a result, the existing provision imposes an additional 
obligation than that which SMCRA and its implementing regulations 
require. This additional

[[Page 21938]]

requirement in existing 405 KAR 8:030 makes it more stringent than 30 
U.S.C. 1260(b)(6) and 30 CFR 778.15. Kentucky's proposed amendment 
removes this additional requirement from the existing State regulations 
at 405 KAR 8:030 and also ensures the requirements of Ky. Rev. Stat. 
section 13A.120, that does not allow administrative regulations to be 
more stringent than the Federal law or regulations, are conformed with.
    We find that Kentucky's proposed amendment complies with the 
requirement that state regulations be no less stringent than and no 
less effective than the Federal regulations found at 30 CFR 778.15. 
Therefore, we are approving Kentucky's proposed amendment.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on this amendment in a proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33456). OSMRE 
received one set of comments from Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, 
Inc. (ACLC) on July 13, 2015. Each of the ACLC's comments are 
summarized and addressed below.
A. ACLC Comments Identifying Submission Omissions and Deficiencies
    The ACLC contends that OSMRE cannot approve the proposed amendment 
as Kentucky's submission is, according to ACLC, incomplete and 
procedurally defective.
    The ACLC contends that Kentucky's submission fails to acknowledge 
or explain how the proposed amendment would achieve the State's intent 
of ``clarify[ing] the process by which an entity submits proof of right 
of entry procedures on proposed coal mine sites with severed 
minerals.'' (Administrative Record No. KY-2001). In addition, the ACLC 
argues that the KYDNR's submission fails to explain what effect the 
proposed changes would have in administering the Kentucky program as 
well as whether those proposed changes, if approved, would render the 
Kentucky program no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective 
than the Federal regulations.
    Further, the ACLC claims that additional documentation, received 
through information requests, identifies the KYDNR's actual intent in 
submitting the proposed amendment. The ACLC contends that the KYDNR has 
been administering changes to its program, without OSMRE's approval, 
through guidance referred to as the Kentucky Reclamation Advisory 
Memorandum, or RAM-159.
    OSMRE Response: The amendment to Kentucky's program modifies the 
requirements that an applicant must submit to demonstrate legal right 
of entry and right to mine on proposed coal mine sites with severed 
minerals. The current version of section 4(2) of 405 KAR 8:030, is more 
stringent than 30 CFR 778.15 because it requires each applicant to 
submit a copy of the original instrument of severance upon which the 
applicant bases his right of entry and right to extract coal by surface 
mining methods. The requirement to submit a copy of the original 
instrument of severance in the current Kentucky regulations is not in 
SMCRA or in the Federal regulations and is more stringent than the 
Federal equivalents. The changes to existing regulation clearly remove 
the requirement that is more stringent than Federal law. This change is 
consistent with the Kentucky law that requires its administrative 
regulations to be no more stringent than Federal laws or regulations. 
See Ky. Rev. Stat. 13A.120(1)(a). Because section 4(2) of 405 KAR 8:030 
as modified is now substantively identical to the Federal regulation at 
30 CFR 778.15, we find that it is no less stringent that SMCRA and no 
less effective than the Federal regulations.
    We acknowledge the stated intent in RAM-159. A RAM is intended to 
be ``an open correspondence from the commissioner of the Department for 
Natural Resources (DNR) to operators and other interested persons that 
provides information related to DNR's surface mining regulatory 
program.'' RAM 159 does not modify state law but is intended to provide 
the regulatory authority with internal guidance for the implementation 
of the State program. Under 30 CFR 732.17, states are required to 
submit changes to its laws immediately as an amendment, but this kind 
of internal guidance does not change State law.
B. ACLC Comments Regarding Interpretation of the State's Proposed 
Changes and Construction of SMCRA Section 1260(b)(6)(A)-(C)
    The ACLC contends that Kentucky's interpretation and proposed 
changes, when read as a whole, would bring 30 U.S.C. 1260(b)(6)(A) and 
(C) into conflict and remove language OSMRE previously determined to 
meet the requirements in 30 U.S.C. 1260(b)(6)(C). By removing the 
requirement that an application provide ``the original instrument of 
severance'' under the proposed section 4(2)(C), the ACLC argues this 
change would create an unintended loophole. The ACLC states that 
removing the language would broaden the requirement in a manner 
inconsistent with SMCRA, thereby allowing the KYDNR to circumvent the 
requirement to obtain written consent from all surface owners. 
According to the ACLC, this change would no longer specify that state 
law is to be applied only when determining the surface-subsurface legal 
relationship, but would instead allow the KYDNR to issue SMCRA permits 
under subsection (c) based upon a single surface owner's consent deemed 
as sufficient for right of entry under state law. The ACLC cites to the 
KYDNR's RAM-159 as support for this contention.
    OSMRE Response: KYDNR's RAM 161, dated June 25, 2015, updates and 
modifies previously issued RAMs 159 and 160. RAM 161 explains how the 
Division of Mine Permits will apply those provisions of RAMs 159 and 
160 relating to identification of property ownership, to renewals, 
transfers and mined out areas.
    ACLC's concern--that the change brings 30 U.S.C. 1260(b)(6)(A) and 
1260(b)(6)(C) into disharmony and renders 30 U.S.C. 1260(b)(6)(A) 
superfluous--ignores the plain language of SMCRA and OSMRE's 
implementing regulation. 30 U.S.C. 1260(b)(6)(A), (B), and (C) are 
presented in the disjunctive. An applicant need only submit 
documentation satisfying one of them. If the applicant has the written 
consent from the surface owner (i.e., subsection A), then he or she 
need only submit documentation reflecting that consent. If the 
applicant has a conveyance that expressly grants or reserves the right 
to extract coal (i.e., subsection B), then he or she need only submit 
that documentation. If the applicant cannot satisfy either A or B, then 
he or she may proceed under subsection C, which provides that if a 
conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract coal, state 
law may be consulted. See M.L. Johnson Family Properties, LLC v. 
Bernhardt, 924 F.3d 842, 852 (6th Cir. 2019) (``Reading the subsections 
harmoniously, however, does not mandate such a narrow interpretation of 
subsection (C). An equally harmonious interpretation is that when an 
applicant has neither the consent of all surface owners, as allowed 
under subsection (A), nor an express conveyance, as allowed under 
subsection (B), it may establish a right to surface mine through any 
other method ``in accordance with State law'' under subsection (C). 
That interpretation does not create any inconsistencies between the 
three subsections.'').

[[Page 21939]]

    Consistent with 30 U.S.C. 1260(b)(6)(C), the Kentucky amendment 
provides in section 4(2) of both Kentucky regulations that if ``the 
conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract the coal by 
surface mining methods,'' then he or she may submit ``documentation 
that under applicable state law, the applicant has the legal authority 
to extract coal by surface mining methods.'' This presents no conflict 
under Kentucky law, where unanimous consent of the surface holders is 
not required. M.L. Johnson Family Properties, 924 F.3d at 852-853; see 
also Johnson v. Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, 289 SW3d 
216, 219-220 (Ky. App. 2009) (holding that ``a cotenant ha[s] the right 
to begin strip mining operations on . . . property despite objections 
from another cotenant.''). As stated above, subsection (C) provides an 
applicant with an alternate right of entry, which is dependent on State 
law.
C. ACLC Argues the Proposed Revisions Are Inconsistent With SMCRA's 
Legislative History
    The ACLC contends that SMCRA's text and legislative history 
requires determination of the ``the surface-subsurface legal 
relationship'' in accordance with state law. From this, the commenter 
suggests that 30 CFR 778.15(b)(3) requires documentation that under 
applicable State law, the applicant has the legal authority to extract 
the coal by those methods. The ACLC states that Kentucky has no State 
statute or regulation that requires KYDNR to demand a demonstration 
that ``the surface-subsurface legal relations'' for the proposed permit 
area, determined in accordance with Kentucky law, implicitly authorizes 
the mineral owner's right to surface mine the permit area.
    OSMRE Response: The language of the proposed amendment is 
substantively identical to the comparable Federal rule found in 30 CFR 
778.15, and it is unambiguous. Consulting the legislative history of 
the regulation is therefore unnecessary. M.L. Johnson Family 
Properties, 924 F.3d at 852-853 (``The text of subsection (C), then, is 
quite clear: When a conveyance does not expressly grant the right to 
surface mine, the regulatory authority may rely on any state law to 
determine whether the documents describing the surface-subsurface legal 
relationship of the severed estate grant such a right. Because 
subsection (C) is plain and unambiguous, our analysis ends where it 
began: With the statutory text. We need not consider Johnson's lengthy 
citations to conflicting legislative history.'' (citation omitted)). 
Further, the fact that the Kentucky regulation as amended mirrors the 
Federal rule, which itself tracks closely with the text of the 
corresponding SMCRA provision, is indicative that the amendment is no 
less stringent than SMCRA and is no less effective than the Federal 
regulations.

Federal Agency Comments

    On April 21, 2017, pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 
503(b) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253(b)), we requested comments on the 
amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential 
interest in the Kentucky program (Administrative Record No. KY-2002). 
We did not receive any comments.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to obtain 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 proposed amendment does not pertain to air 
or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on 
the amendment. However, on April 21, 2017, under 30 CFR 
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments from the EPA on the proposed 
amendment (Administrative Record No. KY-2002). The EPA did not respond 
to our request.

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

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from 
the SHPO and ACHP on any proposed amendment that may have an effect on 
historic properties. On April 21, 2017, we requested comments on 
Kentucky's proposed amendment (Administrative Record No. KY-2002). We 
did not receive any comments.

V. OSMRE's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve Kentucky's January 29, 2015 
proposed amendments. To implement this decision, we are amending the 
Federal regulations, at 30 CFR part 917, that codify decisions 
concerning the Kentucky program. In accordance with the Administrative 
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), this rule will take effect 30 days after 
the date of publication. Section 503(a) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253(a)) 
requires that the State's program must demonstrate that the State has 
the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting 
its purposes. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal 
standards.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12630--Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    This rule would not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications that would result in public property 
being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. 
Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This 
determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal 
regulations.

Executive Orders 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review and 13563--
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will 
review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 
12, 1993, the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB 
review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which 
reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this 
exemption.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

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

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule has potential federalism implications as defined under 
Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132.

[[Page 21940]]

Executive Order 13132 directs agencies to ``grant the States the 
maximum administrative discretion possible'' with respect to Federal 
statutes and regulations administered by the States. Kentucky, through 
its approved regulatory program, implements and administers SMCRA and 
its implementing regulations at the state level. This rule approves an 
amendment to the Kentucky program submitted and drafted by the State, 
and thus is consistent with the direction to provide maximum 
administrative discretion to States.

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

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its 
government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment 
to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-
governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under 
the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in 
Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial 
direct effects on federally recognized Tribes or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribes. 
Therefore, consultation under the Department's tribal consultation 
policy is not required. The basis for this determination is that our 
decision is on the Kentucky program, which does not include Tribal 
lands or regulation of activities on Tribal lands. Tribal lands are 
regulated independently under the applicable, approved Federal program.

Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is 
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental 
health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 
1251(a) and 1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. Department of the 
Interior Departmental Manual, Part 516, section 13.5(A), State program 
amendments are not major Federal actions within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)).

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) directs OSMRE to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. (OMB 
Circular A-119 at p. 14). This action is not subject to the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those 
requirements would be inconsistent with SMCRA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not include requests and requirements of an 
individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and 
report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain 
information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.) is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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. 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.

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 on an analysis of the 
corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to 
constitute a major rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. This determination 
is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which 
were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 917

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Thomas D. Shope,
Regional Director, North Atlantic--Appalachian Region.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 917 is amended 
as set forth below:

PART 917--KENTUCKY

0
1. The authority citation for part 917 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 917.15 is amended in paragraph (a) by adding an entry for 
``January 29, 2015'' at the end of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  917.15  Approval of Kentucky regulatory program amendments.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 21941]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Original amendment submission date            Date of final publication              Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
January 29, 2015........................  April 26, 2021.........................  Section 4(2) of 405 KAR
                                                                                    8:030, Section 4(2) of 405
                                                                                    KAR 8:040, related to Right
                                                                                    of Entry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-08332 Filed 4-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P