[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64746-64750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30895]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 918
[SPATS No. LA-020-FOR]
Louisiana 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 an amendment to the Louisiana regulatory program
(Louisiana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Louisiana proposed to add standards for measuring
revegetation success on pastureland. Louisiana intends to revise the
Louisiana program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal
regulations and to improve operational efficiency.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa
Field Office, Office of Surface Mining, 5100 East Skelly Drive, Suite
470, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135-6548. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. Internet:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Louisiana Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Louisiana Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its State program includes, among other things, ''* * * a State law
which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act
* * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by
the Secretary pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7).
On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Louisiana program on October 10, 1980. You
can find background information on the Louisiana program, including the
Secretary's findings and the disposition of comments in the October 10,
1980, Federal Register (45 FR 67340). You can find later actions
concerning the Louisiana program at 30 CFR 918.15 and 918.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated June 1, 2001 (Administrative Record No. LA-365.04),
Louisiana sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA and the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(b). Louisiana sent the amendment
in response to our letters dated March 24, 1999, and August 16, 2000,
that we sent to Louisiana under 30 CFR 732.17 (Administrative Record
Nos. LA-365 and LA-365.01, respectively).
We announced receipt of the amendment in the June 27, 2001, Federal
Register (66 FR 34137). 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
closed on July 27, 2001. 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 sampling procedures; data submission and analysis; data forms for
ground cover and whole release area harvesting; example uses of sample
adequacy formulas for ground cover and hay production measurements;
statistical analysis on whole release area harvesting; and acceptable
plant species for permanent ground cover. We notified Louisiana of
these concerns by letter dated August 20, 2001 (Administrative Record
No. LA-365.10).
By letter dated October 10, 2001 (Administrative Record No. LA-
365.11), Louisiana sent revisions to its program amendment. Because the
revisions merely clarified certain provisions of Louisiana's amendment,
we did not reopen the public comment period.
III. Director's Findings
Following, under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15
and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the amendment to the
Louisiana program.
Louisiana submitted revegetation success guidelines that describe
the standards and procedures for determining revegetation success on
pastureland. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) require
that each regulatory authority select revegetation success standards
and statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring revegetation
success and include them in its approved regulatory program. Louisiana
developed its revegetation success guidelines for pastureland to
satisfy this requirement. The guidelines for pastureland include
revegetation success standards and statistically valid sampling
techniques for measuring revegetation success of reclaimed pastureland
in accordance with Louisiana's counterpart to 30 CFR 816.116.
Louisiana's standards, criteria, and parameters for revegetation
success on pastureland reflect the extent of cover, species
composition, and soil stabilization required in the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR 816.111. As required by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2) and (b), Louisiana's revegetation success standards
include criteria representative of unmined lands in the area being
reclaimed to evaluate the appropriate vegetation parameters of ground
cover and production suitable to the approved postmining land use of
pastureland. Louisiana's guidelines specify the procedures and
techniques to be used for sampling, measuring, and analyzing vegetation
parameters. Ground cover and production suitable to the approved
postmining land use of pastureland is considered equal to the approved
success standard when they are not less than 90 percent of the success
standard. Sampling techniques for measuring success use a 90-percent
statistical confidence interval. We find
[[Page 64747]]
that use of these procedures and techniques will ensure consistent,
objective collection of vegetation data.
For the above reasons, we find that the revegetation success
standards and statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring
revegetation success contained in Louisiana's revegetation success
guidelines for pastureland satisfy the requirements of 30 CFR
816.116(a)(1).
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Federal Agency Comments
On June 12, 2001, under section 503(b) of SMCRA and 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i) of the Federal regulations, we requested comments on
the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential
interest in the Louisiana program (Administrative Record No. LA-
365.05). The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) responded on
July 10, 2001 (Administrative Record No. LA-365.08) with extensive
comments on the technical adequacy of the amendment. These comments are
discussed below.
A. The NRCS recommends that Louisiana delete the word ``density''
from its introductory language at A.2. concerning ``ground cover''
because Louisiana does not use the term ``ground cover density'' in the
remainder of its revegetation guidelines for pastureland.
We disagree with the NRCS's comment. The Federal regulation at 30
CFR 701.5 defines ground cover as ``the area of ground covered by the
combined aerial parts of the vegetation and the litter that is produced
naturally onsite, expressed as a percentage of the total area of
measurement.'' Louisiana definition of ground cover at Sec. 105 is
substantively identical to the Federal definition. The addition of the
word ``density'' to the phrase ``ground cover'' does not in any way
change the regulatory definition of ground cover. Furthermore, because
this is an introductory paragraph rather than a detailed requirement
for revegetation standards and methods, we believe the use of the word
``density'' is of no consequence.
B. The NRCS states that Louisiana should change the scientific name
for Kudzu found at B.2.f. As proposed, Louisiana uses the name Pueraria
lobata. The NRCS recommends that Louisiana change it to Pueraria
montana var. lobata.
We recognize that the NRCS promotes the use of the scientific name
of the species of plants listed in the NRCS plants database. However,
Pueraria lobata is the accepted scientific name for Kudzu listed in
``Common Weeds of the United States'' by the USDA in 1971, and in the
current 1995 volume of the Southern Weed Science Society. Furthermore,
Louisiana gives both the scientific and common names. Thus, we find
Louisiana's use of the scientific name Pueraria lobata acceptable.
C. The NRCS states that, at C.1.c. concerning success standards and
measurement frequency, it is unclear whether adequate sample size still
needs to be documented when the initial mean is greater than or equal
to the standard. The NRCS maintains that even though initial sampling
results in a mean that is greater than the standard, documentation that
the mean is from an adequate sample should still be required.
Section D.3.a. of Louisiana's guidelines gives the detailed
requirements for determining sample adequacy for ground cover data.
Specifically, it requires a minimum number of samples in a multi-stage
sampling procedure where sample adequacy is calculated after the
minimum samples are collected. This requirement is further clarified in
Appendix F: Example Use of Sample Adequacy Formula for Ground Cover
Measurements, where it is clearly stated that the sample adequacy
requirements must be fulfilled before a comparison to the standard can
be made. Thus, we find that Louisiana's guidelines are clear that an
adequate sample size needs to be documented prior to comparing the
sample mean with the standard.
D. The NRCS expressed concern about the provision at C.2.a., which
provides that the success standard for production of hay on pastureland
shall be 90 percent of an approved reference area if a reference area
is established, or 90 percent of the estimated yield found in the NRCS
parish soil survey at Appendix K. The NRCS states that most of the
species listed in Appendix L, which contains a list of acceptable plant
species for ground cover, do not have production estimates in the soil
survey found in Appendix K, and existing reference areas that have
these species are rare. The NRCS also states that species such as
buffalograss and the gama grasses listed do not have the production
potential of a bermudagrass stand under a high level of management.
Louisiana's guidelines specify that forage production will use the
standards of yields found in the NRCS parish soil survey in Appendix K.
Because the only species listed in the survey are common bermudagrass,
improved bermudagrass, bahiagrass, coastal bermudagrass, pensacola
bahiagrass, and tall fescue, the reclaimed pasture will need to be
seeded to one of these species in order to have a valid comparison to
the standard. Once the production standard is selected, the presence of
other planted or volunteer species in the pasture will in no way change
the production standard for comparison. If it is determined that the
operator could not meet the production standard due to an overabundance
of acceptable volunteer species that were not as productive as the
approved seed mix, then the operator would have to manage the stand to
increase the cover of the approved species and decrease the cover of
the acceptable species until the standard could be met.
Louisiana allows in its determination of ground cover that up to 15
percent of that cover can be volunteer species that are acceptable
based on the list provided in Appendix L. Because this list is for the
purposes of ground cover, no production rates for the species listed
are required.
E. The NRCS expressed concern that the phrase, ``similar plant
species and diversity,'' found at C.3.a.i. is too vague. The NRCS asks
how the terms ``similar'' and ``diversity'' will be determined, and
points out that there are several different methods to define these
terms.
We disagree with this comment. The word ``similar'' is a commonly
used term, and we do not believe further definition is required.
Furthermore, Louisiana must use the entire list of factors at C.3.a.
when determining the similarity of the reference area to the reclaimed
area. This is a qualitative assessment based on the expertise and
judgement of the Louisiana program consistent with factors cited in the
scientific literature for the establishment of reference areas for this
purpose.
The word ``diversity'' is defined at C.1.b. Louisiana's guidelines
provide that ground cover must consist of the species mixture approved
in the original permit or an approved acceptable species mixture as
recommended by the NRCS for use in that area. Furthermore, no more than
15% of the stand can be approved species not listed in the permit. The
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111 require vegetative diversity as a
performance standard for plant establishment. Louisiana has established
a qualitative standard for diversity. This is consistent with the
Federal regulations, which allows a qualitative standard for diversity.
F. The NRCS states that the use of the phrases, ``proposed mined
release area,'' ``mined test area,'' ``reclaimed area,'' and
``pastureland area'' at C.3.a.ii., iv., v., and ix. is confusing. The
NRCS suggests that if all these terms are meant
[[Page 64748]]
to denote pastureland in the reclaimed area, Louisiana should use the
same term. If they are not meant to mean the same thing, the NRCS
states that Louisiana should more clearly define them.
Louisiana proposes nine factors to be evaluated in order to
determine if an unmined reference area is representative of a reclaimed
area. Based on a simple reading of the terms in the context presented,
it is clear that all the above phrases refer to the reclaimed area. We
do not believe additional clarification is necessary.
G. The NRCS points out that D.2.a. describes three sampling methods
in which a sample is defined as a single point, a single point frame,
or a transect. Further, the provision at D.4.a. requires a minimum of
100 samples be taken. The NRCS expressed concern that the level of
effort required for each of the methods is very different, and asks if
this is what Louisiana intended. If not, the NRCS recommends that
Louisiana clarify the provision at D.4.a.
We agree with this comment. In a letter dated August 20, 2001
(Administrative Record No. LA-365.10), we informed Louisiana that,
while a minimum sample size of 100 may be appropriate for the pin
sampling technique, a sample size of 100 seems excessive for the point
frame and line intercept sampling techniques.
On October 10, 2001 (Administrative Record No. LA-365.11),
Louisiana revised section D. by removing D.3. concerning representative
test plots, redesignating D.4. as D.3., and revising the provision at
redesignated D.3. to specify that the minimum sample size depends upon
the results of the first stage of a multi-staged sampling procedure. We
find that the revisions to section D. are appropriate, and resolve the
NRCS's concerns.
H. The NRCS states that, at section D.4. concerning sample
adequacy, it is unclear if sample adequacy will be determined for the
reference area when using a reference area for comparison to the
reclaimed site. The NRCS also states that the sample adequacy equations
in this section do not account for Beta error.
Section C.3.a. concerning reference area requirements states that
either statistically adequate subsampling or whole plot harvesting may
be used to determine yields. Thus, sample adequacy must be determined
for reference areas. Furthermore, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2) require that the sampling techniques for measuring
success will use a 90% statistical confidence interval (i.e. one-sided
test with a 0.10 alpha error). Neither SMCRA not the Federal
regulations require consideration of Beta error.
I. The NRCS recommends that, in Appendix A: Selection of Random
Sampling Sites, Louisiana revise the last sentence of the second
paragraph by replacing the word, ``axes'' with the phrase, ``grid
intervals.''
We find that Louisiana's use of the term ``axes'' as a reference
line to a coordinate system is acceptable.
J. The NRCS points out that the example found in Appendix F:
Example Use of Sample Adequacy Formula for Ground Cover Measurements
shows only ten transects sampled, when the minimum required by D.4.a.
is 100. The NRCS states Louisiana should consider reducing the number
of minimum samples for transects to between 15 and 30. The NRCS also
expressed concern that the calculations shown in the example are
incorrect.
We agree with this comment. As stated above in the response to
comment G., we informed Louisiana in our August 20, 2001, letter, that
the example calculations for determining sample adequacy for ground
cover in the appendices need to reflect the appropriate required
minimum sample size. We further informed Louisiana that in Appendix F,
the mean value in the last calculation of sample adequacy needs to be
changed from 72.48 to 74.8.
In its October 10, 2001, letter, Louisiana revised the provision at
redesignated D.3. to specify that the minimum sample size depends upon
the results of the first stage of a multi-staged sampling procedure.
Louisiana further revised the mean value in the last calculation of
sample adequacy. We find that the revisions to section D.3. and
Appendix F are appropriate, and resolve the NRCS's concerns.
K. Finally, the NRCS recommends that Louisiana change the names of
several species found in Appendix L.
We agree with this comment. In our August 20, 2001, letter, we
recommended that Louisiana correct several of the scientific and common
names found in Appendix L. In its October 10, 2001, letter, Louisiana
made the revisions we recommended. We find that the revisions Louisiana
made are appropriate, and resolve the NRCS's concerns.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to obtain the
written concurrence of 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.). However, none of the revisions
that Louisiana proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or
water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask the EPA for its
concurrence.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the
amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record No. LA-365.05). 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 amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. On June 12, 2001, we requested comments on Louisiana's
amendment (Administrative Record No. LA-365.05), but neither responded
to our request.
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive
any.
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment as sent to us
by Louisiana on June 1, 2001, and as revised on October 10, 2001.
We approve the revegetation success standards for pastureland that
Louisiana proposed with the provision that they be published in
identical form to the revegetation success standards for pastureland
sent to and reviewed by OSM and the public.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR Part 918, which codify decisions concerning the Louisiana
program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to
make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA
requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that
process.
VI. Procedural Determinations
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 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal
regulations.
[[Page 64749]]
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 under SMCRA.
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, 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 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 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 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 because it 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
Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a
decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not
constitute a major Federal action within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)). A determination has been made that such decisions are
categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget 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
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. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated 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 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.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal
which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal
regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made
that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 918
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
November 14, 2001.
Ervin J. Barchenger,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Part 918 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 918--LOUISIANA
1. The authority citation for Part 918 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 918.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 918.15 Approval of Louisiana regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
June 1, 2001............................ 12/14/01................... Revegetation Success Standards for
Pastureland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64750]]
[FR Doc. 01-30895 Filed 12-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P