Kentucky Regulatory Program

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: May 7, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 88)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30549-30553]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07my02-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 917
[KY-229-FOR]

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Kentucky permanent regulatory
program (the Kentucky program) under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Kentucky proposed revisions
to the State regulations pertaining to subsidence control. The
amendment is intended to render the Kentucky program consistent with
the corresponding Federal regulations and to provide additional
specificity.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 7, 2002.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Kentucky Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director'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 conditions of
approval in the May 18, 1982 Federal Register (47 FR 21404). You can
also find later actions concerning Kentucky's program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 917.11, 917.13, 917.15, 917.16, and 917.17.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

By letter dated January 25, 2001 (Administrative Record No. KY-
1502), the Kentucky Department of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement sent us an amendment to the Kentucky program. In its
letter, Kentucky noted that on December 22, 1999, we suspended and
modified portions of 30 CFR 784.20 and 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) through
(iv) pursuant to an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Kentucky proposed to amend its rules in
the same manner that we modified our regulations. The amendment, at
Title 405 of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR) Chapter
18:210, deleted the provision that required presubsidence surveys of
structures at Section 1(4) and the rebuttable presumption of causation
of subsidence damage at Section 3(4).
Kentucky also submitted changes to Section 2(2) of 405 KAR 18:210,
deleting references to the presubsidence survey of structures and
adding a provision allowing property owners to waive the 30-day mining
moratorium following the emergency notice. With the exception of the
deletion of the references to presubsidence structural surveys, the
changes to Section 2(2) do not correspond to any federal regulatory
changes.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 5,
2001, Federal Register (66 FR 13275). 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 (Administrative Record
No. KY-1519). The public comment period ended on April 4, 2001.
By letter dated June 8, 2001 (Administrative Record No. KY-1513),
Kentucky submitted the final version of the proposed amendment.
We reopened the public comment period in the August 15, 2001,
Federal Register (66 FR 42815) and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the revised amendment.
(Administrative Record No. KY-1515). We did not hold a public hearing
or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period
ended on August 30, 2001. We received comments from one industry group,
one Federal agency, and two private citizens.

Procedural History of Suspended Federal Rules

The Energy Policy Act was enacted October 24, 1992, Pub. L. 102-
486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992) (hereinafter, The Energy Policy Act or
EPAct). Section 2504 of that Act, 106 Stat. 2776, 3104, amends SMCRA,
30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. Section 2504 of EPAct added a new section 720 to
SMCRA. Section 720(a)(1) requires that all underground coal-mining
operations conducted after October 24, 1992, promptly repair or
compensate for material damage to non-commercial buildings and occupied
residential dwellings and related structures as a result of subsidence
due to underground coal mining operations. Repair of damage includes
rehabilitation, restoration, or

[[Page 30550]]

replacement of the structures identified by section 720(a)(1), and
compensation must be provided to the owners in the full amount of the
diminution in value resulting from the subsidence. Section 720(a)(2)
requires prompt replacement of certain identified water supplies, which
have been adversely affected by underground coal mining operations.
Under section 720(b), the Secretary of the Interior was required to
promulgate final regulations to implement the provisions of section
720(a).
On September 24, 1993 (58 FR 50174), OSM published a proposed rule
to amend the regulations applicable to underground coal mining and
control of subsidence-caused damage to lands and structures through the
adoption of a number of permitting requirements and performance
standards. We adopted final regulations on March 31, 1995 (60 FR
16722).
The rules were challenged by the National Mining Association in the
District Court for the District of Columbia and in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On April 27, 1999, the
U.S. Court of Appeals issued a decision vacating certain portions of
the regulatory provisions of the subsidence regulations. See National
Mining Association v. Babbitt, 173 F.3d 906 (1999). We suspended those
regulatory provisions that are inconsistent with the rationale provided
in the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision. The following Federal
provisions were suspended.

1. 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv)

This regulation provided that if damage to any non-commercial
building or occupied residential dwelling or structures related thereto
occurred as a result of earth movement within an area determined by
projecting a specific angle of draw from the outer-most boundary of any
underground mine workings to the surface of the land, a rebuttable
presumption would exist that the permittee caused the damage. The
presumption typically would have applied to a 30-degree angle of draw.
Once the presumption was triggered, the burden of going forward shifted
to the mine operator to offer evidence that the damage was attributable
to another cause. The purpose of this regulatory provision was to set
out a procedure under which damage occurring within a specific area
would be subject to a rebuttable presumption that subsidence from
underground mining was the cause of any surface damage to non-
commercial buildings or occupied residential dwellings and related
structures.
The Court of Appeals vacated, in its entirety, this rule that
established an angle of draw and that created a rebuttable presumption
that damage to EPAct protected structures within an area defined by an
``angle of draw'' was in fact caused by the underground mining
operation. 173 F.3d at 913.
In reviewing the regulation, the Court rejected the Secretary's
contention that the angle of draw concept was reasonably based on
technical and scientific assessments and that it logically connected
the surface area that could be damaged from earth movement to the
underground mining operation. The angle of draw provided the basis for
establishing the surface area within which the rebuttable presumption
would apply. The Secretary had explained that the rebuttable
presumption merely shifted the burden of document production to the
operator in evaluating whether the damage was actually caused by the
underground mining operation within the surface area defined by the
angle of draw. The Court nevertheless held that the angle of draw was
irrationally broad and that the scientific facts presented did not
support the logical inference that damage to the surface area would be
caused by earth movement from underground mining within the area.
Based on the conclusion that there was no scientific or technical
basis provided for establishing a rational connection between the angle
of draw and surface area damage, the Court further concluded that the
rebuttable presumption failed. In reviewing the rebuttable presumption
requirement, the Court held ``an evidentiary presumption is `only
permissible if there is sound and rational connection between the
proved and inferred facts, and when proof of one fact renders the
existence of another fact so probable that it is sensible and
timesaving to assume the truth of [the inferred]
fact * * * until the
adversary disproves it.' '' That is to say, for the presumption to be
permissible, the facts would have to demonstrate that the earth
movement from the underground mining operation ``more likely than not''
caused the damage at the surface. See National Mining Association, 173
F.3d at 906-910. In compliance with the Court of Appeals' decision of
April 27, 1999, we suspended 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv).
Paragraph (v) within this section applies generally to the types of
information that must be considered in determining the cause of damage
to an EPAct protected structure and is not limited to or expanded by
the area defined by the angle of draw. Therefore, paragraph (v) remains
in force.

2. Section 784.20(a)(3)

This regulatory provision required, unless the owner denied the
applicant access for such purposes, a survey, which identified certain
features. First, the survey had to identify the condition of all non-
commercial buildings or occupied residential dwellings and related
structures, which were within the area, encompassed by the applicable
angle of draw and which might sustain material damage, or whose
reasonably foreseeable use might be diminished, as a result of mine
subsidence. Second, the survey had to identify the quantity and quality
of all drinking, domestic, and residential water supplies within the
proposed permit area and adjacent area that could be contaminated,
diminished, or interrupted by subsidence. In addition, the applicant
was required to notify the owner in writing that denial of access would
remove the rebuttable presumption that subsidence from the operation
caused any post mining damage to protected structures that occurred
within the surface area that corresponded to the angle of draw for the
operation. (See discussion of angle of draw above). This regulatory
provision was challenged insofar as it required a specific structural
condition survey of all EPAct protected structures. The Court of
Appeals vacated the specific structural condition survey regulatory
requirement in its decision on April 27, 1999. In reviewing the
Secretary's requirement, the Court clearly upheld the Secretary's
authority to require a pre-subsidence structural condition survey of
all EPAct protected structures. The Court accepted the Secretary's
explanation that this specific structural condition survey was
necessary, among other requirements, in order to determine whether a
subsidence control plan would be required for the mining operation.
However, because of the Court's ruling on the ``angle of draw''
regulation discussed above, it vacated the requirement for a specific
structural condition survey because it was tied directly to the area
defined by the ``angle of draw.''
In compliance with the Court of Appeals'' decision, we suspended
that portion of 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3) which required a specific
structural condition survey of all EPAct protected structures. The
remainder of this section continues in force to the extent that it
applies to the EPAct protected water supplies survey and any technical
assessments or engineering evaluations necessarily related thereto.

[[Page 30551]]

III. Director's Findings

Following are the findings we made concerning Kentucky's amendment
under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. As
discussed below, we are approving the amendment.

Deletion of 405 KAR18:210 Section 1(4)(a)-(d)

Section 1(4)(a) of 405 KAR 18:210 requires presubsidence surveys of
the specific structural conditions of protected structures within the
projected angle of draw. Section 1(4)(b) provides for filing of written
objections to the survey by property owners. Section 1(4)(c) prohibits
mining within 1,500 feet horizontally of a structure for which a survey
is required, unless the permittee submits the survey or demonstrates
that the property owner refused access to the site for purposes of
conducting the survey. Section 1(4)(d) allows the permittee to request
an alternative to the temporary 1,500-foot buffer zone, based upon the
angle of draw.
Paragraph (a) of Section 1(4) is substantively identical to the
suspended portion of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3).
Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Section 1(4) have no direct Federal
counterparts. However, they relate only to the presubsidence structural
survey requirement of paragraph (a). Because these State regulations
are either substantively identical to or related only to the suspended
portion of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 784.20(a)(3), we find that
their deletion will not render the Kentucky program inconsistent with
SMCRA or the Federal regulations. Therefore, the deletions are
approved.

Deletion of 405 KAR 18:210 Section 3(4)

Section 3(4) of 405 KAR 18:210 establishes a rebuttable presumption
that damage to protected structures resulting from earth movement
within the projected angle of draw was caused by the permittee. This
provision is substantively identical to the suspended Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 817.121(c)(4)(i) through (iv). Therefore, we find
that its deletion will not render the Kentucky program inconsistent
with SMCRA or the Federal regulations. We are approving the deletion.

Revision of 405 KAR 18:210 Section 2(2)

Kentucky also proposes to amend 405 KAR 18:210, Section 2(2), which
requires notice to surface owners before mining beneath their property.
Section 2(1) requires the permittee to notify, in writing, all
residents and occupants of surface properties and structures within the
area above underground workings that mining will occur beneath their
property or structures. The notification must be by mail, and must be
sent to the owners or occupants at least 90 days prior to mining
beneath the property or structures. Section 2(2) provides an exception
to the minimum notification time in Section 2(1) if ``subsequent
emergencies or other unforeseen conditions in underground mining
necessitate mining beneath such property or residence sooner than
ninety (90) days after such notice.'' If an emergency or other
unforeseen condition exists, the State rule requires an additional
written notice to the owner or resident that mining will occur. It also
provides that ``in no case shall mining be conducted beneath the
property or residence sooner than thirty (30) days after such
additional notice is given.''
Kentucky proposes to amend Section 2(2) to allow the property owner
to waive the 30-day moratorium on mining. The waiver must be expressly
given, in writing, and ``shall be granted after the initial notice
required under subsection (1) of this section has been given, and shall
be separate from any other waiver, lease, deed, easement, agreement, or
other conveyance of property or rights.'' Kentucky has stated that both
the initial notice under Section 2(1) and subsequent notice under
Sections 2(2) are not waivable. Rather, the property owner may waive
only the 30-day mining moratorium that commences after the subsequent
notice. (See April 11, 2001, Statement of Consideration, Administrative
Record No. KY-1513).
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.122 require underground mine
operators to provide written notice by mail, at least 6 months prior to
mining, to all owners and occupants of surface property and structures
above underground workings. The regulatory authority may, however,
approve a notice period of less than 6 months after considering whether
the chosen notice period is sufficient to ``allow surface owners to
take steps to protect their property.'' (48 FR 24638, 24647, June 1,
1983).
Because Kentucky does not propose to allow waiver of either the
initial or subsequent, i.e., ``emergency'' notice, a property owner
will have at least 30 days warning, if he wants it, of the impending
underground mining. As such, the owner will have an opportunity, if he
so desires, to take steps necessary to protect that property.
Therefore, the allowance of a waiver, so long as it is expressly given
in writing, does not frustrate the purpose of this regulation, which is
to provide a landowner with sufficient time to protect his property if
he wishes to do so. For this reason, the proposed amendment does not
render Section 2(2) inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
817.122, and it is therefore approved. However, for the reasons
discussed below in our responses to the comments of the National
Citizens' Coal Law Project, we are approving the waiver provision only
to the extent that, where more than one entity owns the land or mineral
resources, all such owners must sign express waivers of the 30-day
period before the regulatory authority may grant the waiver.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the amendment. One public comment
was received from National Citizen's Coal Law Project in a letter dated
August 30, 2001 (Administrative Record No. KY-1517). The commenter
stated that the regulation, at 405 KAR 18:210, Section 2(2), is
inconsistent with and less effective than the corresponding Federal
counterpart requirement at 30 CFR 817.122 because it provides for a 30-
day notice period prior to mining in some instances, whereas the
federal regulation requires at least 6 months notice. Specifically, the
commenter charged that ``Kentucky's regulatory approach has been
eroding the timeframe set by Congress from six months to three months,
to one month, and now proposes to eliminate entirely the waiting
period.'' Therefore, the commenter stated that the amendment must be
disapproved.
We disagree. First, we previously approved the 30-day emergency
notice period in our original approval of the Kentucky program (47 FR
at 21412, Finding 13.21, in which we approved 405 KAR 18:210E, Section
2). Second, Kentucky does not propose to eliminate the notice period
entirely, as the commenter alleges, unless the property owner waives
his right to use that period to take steps necessary to protect his
property from mining. Therefore, as explained in the finding above, the
purpose of the regulation is still served.
The commenter also objected to the allowance of a waiver of the 30-
day notice period prior to mining. Specifically, the commenter stated
the following: (1) Where the landowner who resides in the dwelling
refuses to sign a waiver or lease but a non-resident co-tenant signs
such a lease and a waiver of the 30-day notice, this regulation

[[Page 30552]]

could allow immediate undermining despite the objection of the surface
owner; (2) The existence of past fraud in submission of waivers also
demands that a time period be allowed to assure that undermining does
not occur based on a fraudulent ``waiver'' of the 30-day period and;
(3) Once undermined, the aggrieved party who opposed mining cannot be
made ``whole.'' Their property and interests are irreparably altered.
Allowing the waiver of any time frame based on an ``owner'' waiver, the
commenter indicated, invites more mischief and more hardship for co-
tenants who are often subject to coal companies purchasing or leasing a
minor fractional interest and then mining the property.
We agree that the commenter's concerns have some historical
validity. Therefore, our approval of this waiver provision must not be
construed to allow the outcomes feared by the commenter. In other
words, as noted in the finding above, we are approving the waiver
provision only to the extent that, where more than one entity owns the
land or mineral resources, all such owners must sign express waivers of
the 30-day period before the regulatory authority may grant the waiver.
Moreover, we believe that safeguards in the proposal itself may assuage
the commenter's concern about fraudulent waivers. For example, the
regulation provides that the waiver may be granted only after the
permittee has made the initial notice as required, and the waiver must
be separate from any other waiver, lease, deed, easement, agreement, or
other conveyance of property or rights. These restrictions will help
insure that the owner is aware, at the time he grants the waiver, of
the current circumstances and the notice to which he is entitled.
Moreover, because the regulatory authority will receive copies of the
waivers, it can verify the names of the waiving property owners by
checking them against the names of surface and mineral owners provided
in the permit application. While these safeguards do not guarantee that
a fraudulent waiver will never be accepted, such a guarantee simply
does not exist. Indeed, regulatory authorities must rely to some degree
upon the veracity of the permittee in other instances, such as the
acceptance of information provided in a permit application itself.
Finally, we note again that the permittee must give the initial 90-day
notice and an additional notice as required when it wishes to undermine
a property sooner than 90 days after the initial notice. The owner
cannot waive the permittee's obligation to provide these notices.

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-1515). The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) responded in a letter dated August 27,
2001 (Administrative Record No. KY-1516). The commenter indicated that
the proposed changes should have no foreseeable impact concerning MSHA.

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 pertain
to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask the EPA
for concurrence.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the
amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. KY-1515). EPA did not
respond to our request.

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

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic
properties. On August 22, 2001, we requested comments on Kentucky's
amendment (Administrative Record No. KY-1515), but neither entity
responded to our request.

V. Director's Decision

Based on the above findings, we approve the Kentucky amendment, as
revised on June 8, 2001.
To implement this decision we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 917, which codifies 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 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 regulation effective immediately will expedite
that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State 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 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

[[Page 30553]]

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

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that
agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would
have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data
and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a
major rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 917

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 27, 2002.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR 917 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 by adding a new entry to the table in
chronological order to read as follows:

Sec. 917.15 Approval of Kentucky regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
January 25, 2001................... May 7, 2002................ 405 KAR 18:210, Sections 1(4), 2(2), and 3(4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-11212 Filed 5-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Kentucky Regulatory Program

Local Navigation