RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 25--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
[25 PA. CODE CH. 83]
Nutrient Management
[36 Pa.B. 2636]
[Saturday, June 3, 2006]The State Conservation Commission (Commission) amends Chapter 83, Subchapter D (relating to nutrient management). This final-form rulemaking makes various changes to existing regulations to improve environmental protection at agricultural operations subject to 3 Pa.C.S. §§ 501--522 (relating to nutrient management and odor management) (act).
These amendments were adopted by the Commission at the meeting on January 19, 2006.
Effective Date
This final-form rulemaking will go into effect October 1, 2006.
Contact Person
For further information, contact Karl G. Brown, Executive Secretary, State Conservation Commission, Suite 407, Agriculture Building, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, (717) 787-8821. Persons with a disability may use the AT&T Relay Service by calling (800) 654-5984 (TDD users) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users). This final-form rulemaking is available on the Commission's website at www.agriculture.state.pa.us (Choose ''Commissions & Councils'' and ''State Conservation Commission'').
Statutory Authority
This final-form rulemaking is promulgated under the authority of sections 504 and 506(a) of the act (relating to powers and duties of commission; and nutrient management plans), which authorize the Commission to promulgate regulations to make appropriate changes to the criteria used to define a concentrated animal operation (CAO) and to establish minimum criteria for nutrient management plans (NMP) and other requirements necessary to implement the act. This final-form rulemaking is promulgated under section 4 of the Conservation District Law (3 P. S. § 852), which authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out its functions. This final-form rulemaking is promulgated under section 503(d) of the Conservation and Natural Resources Act (71 P. S. § 1340.503(d)), which modified the authority and responsibilities of the Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of Agriculture (Department).
Background and Summary
This final-form rulemaking is the culmination of several years' work administering the act across this Commonwealth, advances in the sciences of agronomics and manure management and revisions to the former Nutrient Management Act, as well as legislative hearings voicing public concerns with livestock agriculture and changes in the industry. Currently, 901 operations are subject to the existing nutrient management regulations in Chapter 83, Subchapter D and an additional 1,325 farms have voluntarily complied with the requirements.
The predecessor to the act, the Nutrient Management Act, was enacted in May 1993 to provide for the management of nutrients on certain agricultural operations to abate nonpoint source pollution. It required the Commission, in conjunction with the Department, the DEP, the Penn State Cooperative Extension, the Nutrient Management Advisory Board (Advisory Board) and county conservation districts to develop a program for the proper utilization and management of nutrients. The act did not change that basic approach. Accordingly, Commission staff has worked closely with these organizations in developing this final-form rulemaking.
Nitrogen is identified in section 504(1)(i) of the act as the nutrient of primary concern, but it allows for the Commission to address other nutrients under specific criteria established by the Commission. This final-form rulemaking adds another nutrient--phosphorus--to be considered within the development of NMPs under the act. This change, along with various provisions regarding the export of manure off of the farms governed by these regulations, were two central issues with the current program identified to the Commission by the House Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs, following public hearings in 2001.
The Commission is also required to provide education, technical assistance and financial assistance to the agricultural community regarding proper nutrient management. To date, the Commission has administered over $12 million in financial assistance to farmers subject to these regulations.
The Commission developed this final-form rulemaking in conjunction with the Advisory Board, as required by the act. The Advisory Board, which represents a wide range of agricultural, academic, governmental, environmental and private interests, provided extensive assistance to the Commission over the past several years in an effort to develop workable and effective amendments to the existing regulations. The development of this final-form rulemaking was also done with regular assistance and guidance from county conservation districts, the Department, the DEP, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, the USDA Agricultural Research Service, and the Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences.
This final-form rulemaking directly regulates CAOs that are required to develop and implement NMPs under the act, as well as agricultural operations that volunteer to meet the requirements under the act, referred to as volunteer agricultural operations (VAOs). In addition, the final-form rulemaking requirements for CAOs and VAOs also apply to agricultural operations found to be in violation of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. §§ 691.1--691.1001) if they are required to submit a plan that meets the requirements of the act. These operations will be collectively referred to as ''NMP operations'' in this preamble. Further, this final-form rulemaking affects operations that agree to import manure from NMP operations, and others involved in that export such as commercial haulers and brokers. Finally, the DEP's concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations in Chapter 92 (relating to National pollutant discharge elimination system permitting, monitoring and compliance) requires permittees to meet the requirements of this final-form rulemaking.
The Commission has been successful in obtaining voluntary participation of VAOs in the nutrient management program, as envisioned by the act. The Commission believes that a strong voluntary program can operate simultaneously with the mandated regulatory program to further protect water quality in this Commonwealth.
Various nutrient management planning responsibilities are set forth in detail in this final-form rulemaking. These include requirements to prevent pollution from land application of manure and other nutrient sources, and minimum standards for the construction, location, storage capacity and operation of animal manure storage facilities.
NMPs are required by the act to be developed by nutrient management specialists who meet rigorous technical qualifications, and who are certified by the Department. Additionally, plans are to be submitted to the Commission or the delegated county conservation district for approval. The final actions by the Commission and delegated county conservation districts are subject to appeal to the Environmental Hearing Board.
Agricultural operations may apply for financial assistance to develop and to implement NMPs. In accordance with the act, Commission responsibilities for administering the act and regulations can be delegated to county conservation districts and this is being done in 60 of the 67 counties across this Commonwealth to ensure timely and effective implementation of the program.
Numerous public comments were received on the proposed rulemaking published at 34 Pa.B. 4361 (August 7, 2004). This final-form rulemaking contains revisions to the proposed rulemaking based on those comments, as well as interaction with the Advisory Board and various State and Federal agencies involved with implementation. The changes from the proposed rulemaking are described in the following section, followed by a description of comments and the Commission's responses to the comments.
E. Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rulemaking
General
Clarifying and stylistic changes to the existing regulations are made throughout these revisions. Many changes are intended to address changes requested by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) to conform to the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. §§ 745.1--745.15). Some of these changes are described in the following sections.
Phosphorus management
Phosphorus is one of the two nutrients of concern in managing nutrients to protect water resources. The other is nitrogen, which was already expressly addressed in the prior regulations. A decision of the Environmental Hearing Board in April 2004 determined that the law requires NMPs to specifically address phosphorus as well as nitrogen. The proposed rulemaking contained a requirement in § 83.293(b) (relating to determination of nutrient application rates) to address phosphorus runoff by restricting land application of nutrients based on a ''Phosphorus Index'' methodology developed by Pennsylvania State University.
In the final-form rulemaking, several changes were made. First, the basic criteria required for phosphorus management, and a preferred approach, are now described in the final-form rulemaking. These reflect various source and transport factors which influence phosphorus runoff, and include phosphorus soil levels and distance to surface waters. These criteria, factors and methodology are based on extensive study of phosphorus runoff from farms in this Commonwealth and elsewhere in the country.
Second, agricultural operations are given the option of following either the Phosphorus Index or other methods approved by the Commission to meet those criteria. The Phosphorus Index is preferred by the Commission due to the extensive work done in this Commonwealth by Pennsylvania State University, the USDA and others to develop it.
Third, a 5-year phase-in period for implementation of the full scope of the phosphorus management regimen is allowed. This will give the industry time to find alternative means of addressing the excess nutrients generated by NMP operations while still imposing new restrictions on phosphorus application that are protective of surface waters. The phase-in applies to existing NMP operations and importers that elect to use the Phosphorus Index methodology. The phase-in does not apply in certain circumstances, such as when fields drain into Special Protection waters. Importantly, the phase-in still requires that basic phosphorus control measures are taken by limiting land application to the phosphorus removal rate.
Finally, § 83.293 has been reorganized to better reflect the interaction between phosphorus and nitrogen considerations for determining proper nutrient application rates.
Phosphorus is also addressed at manure import sites, discussed next.
Manure export
Another significant concern with the prior Chapter 83 regulations was management of manure that is exported away from NMP operations, particularly CAOs. For instance, 28% of manure generated by CAOs is exported, while only 3% of manure from VAOs is exported.
The proposed rulemaking addressed this in two main ways--by requiring commercial manure haulers and brokers involved in manure export from NMP operations to meet certain qualifications and to require that phosphorus runoff be managed at the import sites through either a 150-foot manure application setback or use of the Phosphorous Index. The proposed rulemaking also required brokers to develop nutrient balance sheets (NBSs).
This final-form rulemaking addresses the qualifications of commercial haulers and brokers in § 83.301(d) and (h) (relating to excess manure utilization plans) by simply referring to the Commercial Manure Hauler and Broker Certification Act (Act 49) (3 P. S. §§ 2010.1--2010.12) instead of the criteria in the proposed rulemaking. The statute addresses the same issue targeted in the proposed rulemaking. Section 83.282(d) (relating to summary of plan) and § 83.301(c)(5), (d) and (e)(1) of the final-form rulemaking also requires that the name of the broker be listed in the plan, but names of haulers do not need to be listed.
Phosphorus management is addressed in the final-form rulemaking by giving importing operations several options, all of which address phosphorus risks more specifically than the 150-foot setback option in the proposed rulemaking. These options in § 83.301(c) require: (1) application of nutrients according to the phosphorus removal rate and using a 150-foot setback from streams, lakes and ponds; (2) application using the nitrogen removal rate as long as the application is outside a 150-foot setback and only if the soil test level for phosphorus is below 200 parts per million; (3) use of the Commission-approved Phosphorus Index; or (4) use of an NMP approved under this final-form rulemaking. In addition, the exporter or broker must prepare an NBS for use by the importer which incorporates the restrictions in § 83.301.
The final-form rulemaking deletes the requirement for brokers to develop NBSs, but it does require in § 83.301(e)(2) that the broker ensure that an NBS, or alternatively an approved NMP, exists for all the lands where the exported manure will be applied. Finally, § 83.301(i) exempts from these requirements export of de minimis quantities manure.
Manure application setbacks
Proposed § 83.294(f) (relating to nutrient application procedures) contained a number of setbacks from vulnerable areas such as open sinkholes, drinking water sources and concentrated water flow areas, as well as from streams, springs, lakes and ponds. The setback distances varied depending on the slope of the field. Special setback provisions were proposed for land application during fall and winter.
The final-form rulemaking makes several changes to the proposed provisions. First, a general setback of 100 feet is required for all perennial and intermittent streams with a defined bed and bank, lakes and ponds. Instead of a setback, a 35-foot vegetated buffer may be used. This is the setback/buffer requirement in the act.
Second, setbacks from concentrated water flow areas were deleted, as were increased setbacks on steep slope fields. Third, details were added to the general setbacks for fall application when there is less than 25% plant cover or crop residue. Fourth, more specifics were added for land application during winter. For instance, § 83.294(g) includes a new setback from wetlands identified on the National Wetlands Inventory map that are in floodplains for Exceptional Value streams, and requires minimum plant cover or residue on fields where manure is applied during winter.
Plan development funding and other financial assistance
Under the proposed rulemaking, there was no funding program to address the new phosphorus planning requirement. Section 83.214 (relating to eligible costs) of the final-form rulemaking authorizes a new funding program to support farmers' efforts to maintain and update their NMPs annually, as may be necessary for phosphorus planning.
In addition, the final-form rulemaking adds a category of funding recipients by specifying that the Commission can support multi-partner manure processing facilities. The final-form rulemaking limits plan implementation funding to operations having over 8 AEUs.
Control of E & S from plowing and tilling
Erosion and sediment (E & S) control is an important component of addressing phosphorus impacts to surface waters because the main threat from phosphorus loss comes from surface runoff of phosphorus bound up with the sediment. The proposed rulemaking required that a certified planner verify that a current Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E & S Plan) was developed for the operation, as required by Chapter 102 (relating to erosion and sediment control), which is administered by the DEP.
Section 83.361(f) (relating to initial plan review and approval) of the final-form rulemaking requires that this verification be done by either the delegated county conservation district or the DEP. This requirement is not effective until October 1, 2009, on existing operations, due to current efforts by the DEP to provide more detailed guidance to the industry on its E & S requirement. This provision does not affect the legal requirement to comply with Chapter 102; it only addresses verification during the NMP approval process under the act.
Field stacking
In certain circumstances it is important for farmers to temporarily stack dry manure in fields where it will be applied. The proposed rulemaking allowed field stacking as long as the stacks meet certain shaping, location and timing criteria. Section 83.294(h) of the final-form rulemaking includes a similar provision and adds more detail. It also more explicitly establishes the time period allowed for these stacks to meet those criteria, to 120 days, after which the manure must meet more stringent storage requirements. Finally, it clarifies that the temporary stacking requirements apply to importing operations.
Plan amendments
The final-form rulemaking includes several changes to former § 83.371 (relating to plan amendments), such as the need to possibly amend the plan during the triennial review to reflect consideration of phosphorus under § 83.293, and to reflect plan updates. See § 83.262(c)(2) (relating to identification of CAOs). It provides flexibility for minor changes and provides more clarity on what those are, although notice to the district is required. For instance, whenever adding new importers, the final-form rulemaking allows the operator to send certain documentation to the plan review authority (for example, a delegated county conservation district) prior to transport. Other clarifications to § 83.371 are included, such as an express prohibition on implementing any significant changes in the operation before the amendment is approved.
Nutrients to be addressed
The proposed rulemaking simply referred to ''nutrients.'' Sections 83.201, 83.272(e) and 83.291(a) (relating to definitions; content of plans; and determination of available nutrients) of the final-form rulemaking clarify that nitrogen and phosphorus are the only two nutrients to be addressed by best management practices (BMPs) under the final-form rulemaking. This is based on the wealth of scientific opinion that these are the only two nutrients from agricultural operations affecting water quality. This is also consistent with the act, which authorizes the Commission to determine which nutrients must be considered under the act.
Use of outside reference documents
The proposed rulemaking continued the use of several reference documents developed by external sources, such as Pennsylvania State University, to meet the regulatory requirements that were contained in the original regulations. The final-form rulemaking changes this approach throughout by setting performance standards and then identifying reference documents that can be used to meet those standards. Alternative reference sources, data and methods may be used in plans if they are approved by the Commission. For example, see § 83.291(c)(3).
Special protection waters
The proposed rulemaking made no distinction in the level of protection to be given to surface waters potentially affected by NMP operations. Section 83.293(c)(4) of the final-form rulemaking contains additional requirements and protections for waters classified as Special Protection under Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards). It also contains special protections for wetlands identified on the National Wetlands Inventory map that are in floodplains for exceptional value streams. For example, see § 83.294(g).
Signature requirements
The proposed rulemaking required that the plan be signed by the operator ''which meets the signature requirements of the Commission.'' The final-form rulemaking details the requirements in § 83.261(9) (relating to general). For instance, if a plan is signed by a corporation, the signature must indicate what office the signatory holds in the corporation. Plans signed by a corporation must include a formal document from the corporation, as an appendix to the plan, indicating that the signatory has legal authority to sign the plan for the corporation.
Definitions
A number of the existing and proposed definitions were amended, new definitions were added and definitions were deleted.
(1) Existing definitions amended. The following existing definitions are amended in this final-form rulemaking: ''AEU-animal equivalent unit,'' ''fund'' and ''manure storage facility.''
(2) Proposed definitions amended. The following proposed definitions are amended in this final-form rulemaking.
''Farming resources'' was revised to clarify that horses are included in the scope of the final-form rulemaking.
''Nutrient'' was revised to clarify that the final-form rulemaking only requires BMPs for nitrogen and phosphorus.
The following definitions are also amended in this final-form rulemaking: ''in-field stacking,'' ''manure group,'' ''nutrient balance sheet,'' ''Phosphorus Index,'' ''plan'' and ''VAO--voluntary agricultural operation.''
(3) New definitions.
The definition of ''act'' reflects the recently enacted act, which replaces the Nutrient Management Act.
''Act 49'' defines the Commercial Manure Hauler and Broker Certification Act.
''Animal unit'' was added, along with a revision to the definition of ''AEU--animal equivalent unit,'' to clarify the difference between the two.
''Agricultural erosion and sediment control plan'' clarifies the type of E & S Plan referred to in the final-form rulemaking and its relationship to a conservation plan.
''National Wetlands Inventory'' describes a new term used in § 83.294(c)(4) regarding the scope of setbacks for land application during winter months and § 83.351 (relating to minimum standards for the design, construction, location, operation, maintenance and removal from service of manure storage facilities) regarding location of manure storage facilities.
''Manure'' clarifies this important term used in the final-form rulemaking. Redundant language was also deleted. For example, see § 83.291(c)(2)(ii).
The following definitions were also added to the final-form rulemaking: ''broker,'' ''buffer or vegetated buffer,'' ''commercial manure hauler,'' ''intermittent stream,'' ''soil test level'' and ''winter.''
(4) Definitions deleted.
''Conservation Plan'' and ''Erosion and Sediment Control Plan'' were deleted and replaced with the new definition of ''agricultural erosion and sediment control plan.''
The final-form rulemaking also deletes the following definitions: ''Department,'' ''existing agricultural operation,'' ''surface water and groundwater'' and ''temporary manure stacking areas.''
Other changes
One planning standard. The proposed rulemaking contained two virtually identical sets of provisions, one for CAOs and one for volunteers or VAOs. The final-form rulemaking merges the two. For example, see § 83.261.
Required plan format. The final-form rulemaking adds a requirement in § 83.272(b) to use a standard format developed by the Commission for plans submitted for approval under the act.
Manure storage setbacks. The scope of the setbacks for manure storage facilities is expanded from the proposed rulemaking to include intermittent streams and, similar to the setbacks for land application in § 83.294, wetlands identified on the National Wetlands Inventory map that are in floodplains for exceptional value streams. See § 83.351(a)(2)(v)(B) and (vi)(B).
Bare ground application restrictions in the fall. The proposed rulemaking allowed for fall application ''according to standards contained in the Pennsylvania Technical Guide.'' Section 83.294(f)(5) of the final-form rulemaking requires control of runoff until the next growing season and specifies two BMPs which will be allowed instead of a cover crop--manure injection and manure incorporation--under certain specified circumstances.
Manure spreader calibration. The proposed rulemaking contained some ambiguity on the requirement for calibrating manure spreaders, which helps ensure proper application rates. Section 83.294(c) of the final-form rulemaking contains added details to clarify the requirement.
Pastures. The proposed rulemaking required that pastures meet the same phosphorus planning requirements as crop fields. Section 83.294(j) of the final-form rulemaking provides for additional alternative measures unique to pastures to protect against phosphorus runoff, in lieu of outright prohibition of their use.
Manure testing. Section 83.291(c)(3) of the final-form rulemaking creates an exception for the annual testing requirement in the proposed rulemaking for minor manure groups. It also allows combining similar manure groups, and use of book values for pastures.
Notification of owners of rented/leased land. The proposed rulemaking did not have any requirements regarding owners of rented and leased land. Section 83.261(10) of the final-form rulemaking requires a statement in the plan that indicates that the owner has been notified that a plan is being submitted which will allow for the application of manure on his land.
Temporary manure stacking areas. This terminology has been changed in the final-form rulemaking to ''emergency manure stacking areas.'' In addition, these stacks are limited to 60 days unless the district or the Commission authorizes a longer period of time for the operation, and the operator is required to inform the district when the emergency manure stacking allowance is to be used. For example, see § 83.311(e) (relating to manure management).
Soil tests. The proposed rulemaking required that soil test results be submitted for soil phosphorus levels. Section 83.281(e) (relating to identification of agricultural operations and acreage) of the final-form rulemaking clarifies that soil test results in summary form, not the actual laboratory reports, can be submitted. This is to be done as an appendix to the plan. The appendix will be in the form of a chart providing field number, P, K and pH soil levels, date of test and name of the lab that provided the analysis.
Scope of the final-form rulemaking. Several sections now clarify that the final-form rulemaking is directed at CAOs, volunteers and agricultural operations required to develop compliance plans as stated in section 506(j) of the act. For example, see § 83.202 (relating to scope). Collectively, these are called ''NMP operations'' in the final-form rulemaking because they develop and implement NMPs.
Potassium. The proposed rulemaking did not require reporting on soil levels of potassium even though most plans now contain that information. Several sections of the final-form rulemaking require the plan to list potassium crop needs and application rates, based on soil fertility issues. Potassium runoff does not affect water quality, but management of potassium is important to ensure that adequate soil fertility levels are addressed to meet crop production goals. For example, see § 83.272(e).
Plan summary information. Some new requirements are included in the final-form rulemaking, such as the names and addresses of the owners of leased and rented land, and details on BMPs. For example, see §§ 83.281(a)(6)(i) and 83.282(b).
Irrigation systems. Section 83.294(d) of the final-form rulemaking includes more detailed requirements, such as the need for computations for application rates and depth, and an additional restriction for irrigation.
Winter application. The proposed rulemaking had special requirements for winter application in different portions of the regulation. The final-form rulemaking consolidates them into § 83.294(g) and adds several new requirements, such as the need for additional details in the plan, setbacks from certain wetlands and minimum ground cover.
Animal concentration areas. The existing provisions in § 83.321 (relating to stormwater control) are now in § 83.311(c) and several changes were made, such as the addition of details for controlling access to surface waters. Alternatives for compliance are now included.
Emergency stacking areas. Formerly called ''temporary stacking areas,'' several new requirements are added to protect water quality in § 83.311(e), including a 60 day time limit. These are different from ''in-field stacking areas'' described in § 83.294(h).
Plan reviews. The process of plan reviews and approvals is clarified in § 83.361.
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rulemaking
Phosphorus
Numerous comments were directed at the proposed amendment regarding phosphorus in § 83.293(b). There was significant support for the idea of phosphorus management, and a Phosphorus Index, but conflicting comments on how to implement it.
Some commentators stated that this requirement would impose a severe financial burden on farms in this Commonwealth because of the lack of options for use of the manure. Some commentators, including the Advisory Board and the House and Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees, requested additional flexibility in the provision for existing operations, such as a phase-in period. Other commentators asserted that the phosphorus provisions were not stringent enough to protect water quality and suggested use of ''phosphorus balancing.''
Many commentators requested more details regarding the Phosphorus Index. Commentators who reviewed the current Phosphorus Index developed by Pennsylvania State University, and approved by the Commission, had various comments suggesting improvements which tracked the tenor of the general comments previously described.
IRRC requested that the rationale behind use of the Phosphorus Index be explained. IRRC also questioned the legality of requiring compliance with a methodology not prepared by the Commission or detailed in the regulations.
The final-form rulemaking contains new requirements for phosphorus management, as required by the act under the April 2004 decision of the Environmental Hearing Board. Based on the public comments, this final-form rulemaking contains several changes to the proposed rulemaking. These changes are reflected in current § 83.293, which has been revised and reorganized based on the comments.
First, the basic criteria required for phosphorus management, and a preferred approach, are now described in the final-form rulemaking. These reflect various source and transport factors which influence phosphorus runoff, and include phosphorus soil levels and distance to surface waters. These criteria, factors and methodology are based on extensive study of phosphorus runoff from farms in this Commonwealth and elsewhere in the country.
Second, agricultural operations are given the option of following either the Phosphorus Index or other methods approved by the Commission to meet those criteria. The Phosphorus Index is preferred by the Commission due to the extensive work done in this Commonwealth by Pennsylvania State University, the USDA and others to develop it.
Third, a 5-year phase-in period for implementation of the full scope of the phosphorus management regimen is allowed. This will give the industry time to find alternative means of addressing the excess nutrients generated by NMP operations, while still imposing new restrictions on phosphorus application that are protective of surface waters. The phase-in would apply to existing NMP operations, and importers that elect to use the Phosphorus Index methodology. The phase-in would not apply in certain circumstances, such as when fields drain into Special Protection waters. Importantly, the phase-in would still require that basic phosphorus control measures are taken by limiting land application to the phosphorus removal rate.
Phosphorus is also addressed in the following section regarding manure import sites.
Manure export
The export of manure from NMP operations was another source of many of the comments received on the proposed rulemaking. Some commentators recommended less restrictions on manure export so that the export market would not be disrupted. Others raised questions about the impact these new requirements would have on that market. Several recommended establishment of a minimum threshold for the increased requirements.
However, the majority of the comments supported the additional requirements, including the use of NBSs and setback requirements. Others recommended additional requirements, such as including phosphorus in the NBS. Among these commentators, there were varying opinions on how to address phosphorus at import sites. Some were satisfied with the proposed rulemaking, while others, including the Advisory Board, recommended giving import sites several options. The Advisory Board also recommended making changes which reflect the requirements of Act 49.
There were also a number of comments regarding haulers and brokers. The comments generally recommended that haulers not be named in the plan to allow for flexibility for the exporting farm. The comments generally favored the additional requirements on brokers.
Finally, several comments recommended various ways to facilitate the export market, such as dedicating staff for this purpose at county conservation districts.
This final-form rulemaking includes new requirements on manure export to help close ''the manure export loophole'' similar to the proposed rulemaking. However, a number of changes were made to the proposed rulemaking as a result of the comments.
First, the final-form rulemaking retains the basic approach of requiring NBSs (or NMPs) and signed agreements with importers. The Commission feels that these are essential components to addressing manure export issues, along with the new requirements under Act 49.
However, the final-form rulemaking provides flexibility for addressing phosphorus by giving importing operations several options. The options in § 83.301(c) require one of the following: (1) application of nutrients according to the phosphorus removal rate and using a 150-foot setback from streams, lakes and ponds; (2) application using the nitrogen removal rate as long as the application is outside a 150-foot setback and only if the soil test level for phosphorus is below 200 parts per million; (3) use of the Commission-approved Phosphorus Index; or (4) use of an NMP approved under this final-form rulemaking. These options address phosphorus risks more specifically than the 150-foot setback option in the proposed rulemaking.
In addition, the exporter or broker must prepare an NBS for use by the importer, which incorporates the restrictions in § 83.301. The final-form rulemaking adds some new provisions which clarify the requirements for NBSs and the responsibilities of brokers. Moreover, the final-form rulemaking requires that the same setbacks applicable to NMP operations apply to importers for the exported manure.
Further, the final-form rulemaking exempts from these requirements export of de minimis quantities of manure, and haulers do not need to be named in the plan, as suggested by several commentators.
Finally, the final-form rulemaking addresses the qualifications of commercial haulers and brokers by simply referring to Act 49. Act 49 addresses the same issue targeted in the proposed rulemaking.
Manure application setbacks
There were a number of comments on the issue of setbacks from water resources and land application of manure. First, however, it is important to note that the act added, for the first time, a specific statutory requirement for setbacks.
While some commentators opposed the regulatory setbacks because, for example, they do not take into account site-specific conditions, many others supported the proposed provisions on setbacks. Many of the commentators supporting the setbacks also recommended that they apply throughout the year, not just when the ground is snow-covered, frozen or saturated. There also were a number of comments and suggestions on the details and scope of the setbacks. For instance, several commentators suggested that the setbacks should be the same as those for CAFOs, and others recommended clarification of ''wetlands.'' This latter issue was of particular concern to the Advisory Board.
The Commission agrees that setbacks are an important part of the regulations, so the final-form rulemaking contains many of the same setbacks as in the proposed rulemaking. However, some setbacks were deleted and others added and several other changes were made, as recommended in the comments. It is important to note that the phosphorus assessment required in § 83.293 also addresses surface runoff issues.
First, a general setback of 100 feet is required for all perennial and intermittent streams with a defined bed and bank, lakes and ponds. Instead of a setback, a 35-foot vegetated buffer may be used. This is the statutory setback/buffer requirement in the act.
Second, setbacks from concentrated water flow areas were deleted, as were increased setbacks on steep slope fields. Third, details were added to the general setbacks for fall application when there is less than 25% plant cover or crop residue.
Fourth, more specifics were added for land application during winter. For instance, § 83.294(g) clarifies that wetlands are those identified on the National Wetlands Inventory map that are in floodplains for exceptional value streams. In addition, the other requirements for winter application are contained in that subsection, including requirements for minimum plant cover or residue.
Plan development funding and other financial assistance
Many comments were received on the expected financial impacts of the final-form rulemaking. Commentators recommended that additional funding be made available to CAOs to meet the new requirements of the final-form rulemaking, both for planning and for plan implementation. Some commentators opposed this new funding. A number of commentators suggested that the Commission develop new programs to address alternative uses of manure.
The Advisory Board recommended that the Plan Development Incentives Program provide for an annual payment to support maintenance and recordkeeping efforts.
Section 83.214 of the final-form rulemaking authorizes a new funding program to support farmers' efforts to maintain and update their NMPs annually, as may be necessary for phosphorus planning.
In addition, the final-form rulemaking authorizes the funding of alternative manure technology projects to address phosphorus imbalances on farms. The Commission has added a category of funding recipients for alternative projects and specified that the Commission can support multi-partner manure processing facilities.
The final-form rulemaking authorizes funding of a cover crop implementation program to assist farms in meeting the fall manure application restrictions in § 83.294(f).
Control of E & S from plowing and tilling
Several comments were received which raised questions and made recommendations regarding the requirement to verify that a current E & S Plan is being implemented on the NMP operation. Many of the comments focused on the question of what is an acceptable E & S Plan and how a conservation plan could be used to meet the requirement.
A number of commentators questioned whether planners were qualified to do the verification since the E & S requirement is administered by the DEP and not the Department, which certifies those planners. Some commentators expressed concern that there is not enough technical support being made available to farmers to even develop E & S Plans and that districts will need additional resources to do these reviews. One commentator asked what happens if the farm does not have an E & S Plan and is therefore out of compliance with DEP regulations in Chapter 102.
The Commission has retained the requirement to verify that an E & S Plan is being implemented, but it has also made several changes in light of the comments. The fundamental concepts behind this approach are: (1) because control of E & S is so important to phosphorus management it is useful to utilize the existing legal requirement administered by the DEP instead of developing a new one; and (2) the final-form rulemaking is not creating a new requirement, nor does the Commission intend to enforce the DEP's regulations in Chapter 102.
The final-form rulemaking now requires that this verification be done by either the delegated county conservation district or the DEP, not the planner. In addition, this requirement is not effective for existing operations until October 1, 2009, due to current efforts by the DEP to provide more detailed guidance to the industry on its E & S requirement. This effective date provision does not affect the legal requirement to comply with Chapter 102; it only addresses verification during the NMP approval process under the act.
Field stacking
A number of commentators discussed in-field stacking of manure. Most commentators felt that the time allowed for this in the proposed rulemaking was too long and offered various maximum time periods. Several commentators pointed out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency takes the position that any operation that stacks dry manure in a field uncovered for longer than 2 weeks may be a CAFO if it meets certain animal number thresholds (for example, 30,000 chickens). The Advisory Board recommended deferring action until Pennsylvania-specific data could be compiled and studied. The Advisory Board also voiced concern over a possible conflict between this final-form rulemaking and the DEP CAFO regulations on this issue.
The Commission feels that in certain circumstances it is important for farmers to temporarily stack dry manure in fields where it will be applied, although the Commission agrees that more details are needed in the regulations. Therefore, the final-form rulemaking clarifies the requirement by describing the types of BMPs needed. It allows stacking for longer than 2 weeks, but it more explicitly establishes the time period allowed for these stacks to meet those criteria, to 120 days, after which the manure must meet more stringent storage requirements. Finally, it clarifies that the temporary stacking requirements apply to importing operations.
Manure storage
Most of the comments on manure storage focused on setbacks for storage facilities. The comments uniformly recommended stricter requirements than those proposed by the Commission, although there was disagreement on the ability of county conservation districts to grant waivers.
The Commission considers the existing manure storage requirements to be protective of the environment for the most part. Some changes were made to the manure storage provisions to improve that protection. For instance, the scope of the setbacks for manure storage facilities is expanded from the proposed rulemaking to include intermittent streams and, similar to the setbacks for land application in § 83.294, wetlands identified on the National Wetlands Inventory map that are in floodplains for exceptional value streams. In addition, the waiver provision was narrowed.
Plan amendments
Virtually all of the comments on the plan amendment provisions recommended providing more flexibility to the operator, and the district, when relatively minor changes are made.
In response to comments, the final-form rulemaking clarifies the circumstances under which a plan amendment is required. The final-form rulemaking provides flexibility for minor changes and provides more clarity on what are minor changes, although notice to the district is required. For instance, whenever adding new importers, the final-form rulemaking allows the operator to send certain documentation to the plan review authority (for example, a delegated county conservation district) prior to transport. The documentation becomes a part of the plan and the additional importers are formally approved during the 3-year plan review.
Section 83.293 requires a possible plan amendment during the triennial review to reflect consideration of phosphorus, consistent with this important issue in the final-form rulemaking. The final-form rulemaking also contains an express prohibition on implementing any significant changes in the operation before a required plan amendment is approved.
Recordkeeping
Commentators expressed opposing views on the level of recordkeeping that should be required. Some offered that the existing recordkeeping is either adequate or excessive, while others argued for more records and more public access to those records.
The Commission believes that sufficient recordkeeping is already in place, so the final-form rulemaking does not differ substantially from the proposed rulemaking. The changes involve pastures and manure export.
Public involvement
There were conflicting comments about the ability of the public to be involved oversight of the nutrient management program under the act. For instance, some commentators wanted more information published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, such as receipt of NMPs by the districts, while others wanted less information available to the public, such as the records of manure export.
The issues addressed by the comments are outside the scope of the final-form rulemaking. Publication of various stages of the NMP development is a matter of policy for the Commission. The Commission is continuing to evaluate this policy. The accessibility of records is a matter of State law under the act of June 21, 1957 (P. L. 390, No. 212), known as the Right-to-Know Law (65 P. S. §§ 66.1--66.4).
Special protection and impaired waters
There were several comments regarding sensitive surface waters. First, these commentators pointed out the special protections required under Chapter 93 for High Quality and Exceptional Value surface waters, and asserted that the proposed rulemaking did not recognize this. Second, the commentators recommended that special consideration be given to NMPs for farms draining into surface waters determined by the DEP to be ''impaired'' from agriculture.
Section 83.293(c)(4) of this final-form rulemaking contains additional requirements and protections for waters classified as ''Special Protection'' under Chapter 93. Section 83.294(g) contains special protections for wetlands identified on the National Wetlands Inventory map that are in floodplains for exceptional value streams. However, there are no special provisions for impaired waters because the actions which need to be taken in these situations are very location-specific, are developed by the DEP under its Total Maximum Daily Load program, and therefore do not lend themselves to general requirements in the Commission's regulation.
General
There were a number of comments about the nutrient management program under the act generally. They reflected the differing views described in the other comments listed here, and their responses. These comments are not described here where they do not address the proposed rulemaking. These include issues such as enforcement, staffing in districts and various Commission guidance issues.
Other Categories of Comments and Responses
Manure testing. Some comments addressed the annual testing requirement and other details. The final-form rulemaking retains the annual testing, clarifies certain aspects of the requirement, adds some flexibility for test analyses, pastures and similar animal types and excludes small manure groups.
Livestock management. A number of commentators supported the proposed provision restricting animal access to streams in animal concetration areas, and most supported the restrictions on animal concentration areas. The final-form rulemaking contains provisions similar to the proposed rulemaking, with some clarifications.
Soil testing. Several commentators agreed with the proposed requirement that soil tests be submitted with the NMP. One commentator requested that the tests also include nitrogen. The final-form rulemaking contains the proposed soil test provision, with some modifications as suggested by some of the commentators. The final-form rulemaking does not require testing for nitrogen, because it is not generally useful due to soil types and climate conditions in this Commonwealth.
Horses. The commentators discussing the proposed rulemaking's new provisions on horses endorsed this change. The definition of ''farming resources'' was revised in the final-form rulemaking to ensure clarity in the Commission's intent to include horses.
Maps. Several suggestions were made concerning the requirement to submit maps with the proposed NMP. The final-form rulemaking contains several changes, such as inclusion of road names. Topographic maps are still required and no scale is specified.
Nutrients of concern. Several commentators recommended clarifying that phosphorus and nitrogen are the two nutrients being addressed in the regulations. The Commission, in consultation with various water quality experts, agrees and the final-form rulemaking makes this clarification.
Definitions. Concerns were raised in the comments about several definitions. A number of definitions were changed from the proposed rulemaking, as described previously in this preamble.
Plan review/approval. Commentators requested some more flexibility, and clarity, in this area. The final-form rulemaking retains the flexibility in the proposed rulemaking, and clarifies the process of review and approval of NMPs.
Fertilizers. Several commentators recommended that application of commercial fertilizer be subject to the same setbacks as manure. One commentator requested no restrictions on starter fertilizer. The final-form rulemaking does not adopt these approaches.
Volunteers. Several commentators recommended consolidating the CAO and VAO provisions. Other commentators stated concerns over loss of volunteers due to the new requirements. The final-form rulemaking consolidates the two separate sets of provisions.
Pastures. Several commentators requested flexibility on phosphorus management in pastures. The final-form rulemaking contains added flexibility.
Liquid manure. Several comments expressed concern over consideration of infiltration rates and holding capacity of soils, requesting more detailed requirements. The final-form rulemaking contains added clarity in this area, such as the factors to be considered, the need for records with computations and an express reference to both infiltration rates and water holding capacity.
Calibration. Several commentators requested clarification on calibration of manure spreading equipment. The final-form rulemaking contains more clarity on the requirements, such as a compliance statement by the operator and records to support it and a clear provision requiring commercial applicators to meet the requirements.
Benefits, Costs and Paperwork
Benefits
The intended result of the final-form rulemaking is to strengthen the Commonwealth's current efforts to oversee NMP operations to protect this Commonwealth's water quality. The final-form rulemaking is necessary to addressthe Commission's evolving understanding of nutrient management issues discussed in recent scientific research, as well as over 8 years of experience implementing the nutrient management laws.
It also is a key component of the Commonwealth's efforts to ensure the industry trend toward higher intensity animal operations does not negatively impact this Commonwealth's water quality. The current program addresses approximately 13.3 million tons of manure, which is approximately 51% of all the manure generated in this Commonwealth. This equates to over 174 million pounds of nitrogen and 158 million pounds of phosphorus. The final-form rulemaking will help ensure that these manure nutrients are stored, handled and applied in an environmentally sound manner to protect water quality.
The final-form rulemaking will provide for much of the increased protection of water quality through specific provisions addressing potential phosphorus losses to surface waters from land application of manure and other nutrient sources and through a set of restrictions on the application of manure on importing sites. These are the two major issues of concern that have been expressed to the Commission in the implementation of the current program.
The Commission has developed the final-form rulemaking in close coordination with various Federal, State and local agencies and institutions. These include: the Advisory Board, the Pennsylvania State University College of Agriculture, the Department, the DEP, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and Agricultural Research Service, various county conservation districts and the Penn State Extension. The final-form rulemaking also applies the results of current scientific information about water quality impacts from agriculture. At the same time, the Commission was very careful to minimize possible negative impact on the regulated community when possible.
Farmers will benefit from this coordination. The final-form rulemaking will assist the current 901 CAO operations and the approximately 500 additional CAOs that will be brought into the program through this final-form rulemaking in enhancing their water quality protection efforts. At the same time, their compliance with the final-form rulemaking should increase local community acceptance of their operations by giving further credibility to their actions to protect local and regional water resources. The additional 1,325 farmers who have voluntarily participated under the prior regulations to protect water quality will capitalize from the similar water quality and environmental credibility benefits afforded to CAOs under this final-form rulemaking. These refined regulations will assist farmers in their efforts to effectively utilize nutrient resources on their operations. The final-form rulemaking also provides for enhanced financial assistance efforts to further assist the farm community in addressing manure management concerns.
Citizens in this Commonwealth will benefit from the increased environmental protection this final-form rulemaking will provide. Water resources potentially affected by NMP operations will be protected. Tourism is a major industry in this Commonwealth and many elements of tourism are dependent upon high quality water resources. The cost of purification of surface and groundwater by water users and suppliers should decrease as these increased water protection efforts are implemented.
The Commonwealth has worked hard over the past 8 years to ensure that the nutrient management planning program developed through the act (and its predecessor statute, the Nutrient Management Act) can be used as the singular planning process to meet both Federal and State nutrient management planning requirements. In so doing, the final-form rulemaking has the added benefit of allowing our state program for CAFOs to meet new Federal regulations.
Costs
Existing CAOs
Plan updates. This final-form rulemaking will affect the current regulated community (901 CAOs) by requiring them to update their current NMPs (consistent with their current plan update timeframe) to incorporate the new criteria included in this final-form rulemaking.
These updates are expected to result in an increase in the cost for developing an NMP. The average cost of a CAO plan prior to implementing the Phosphorus Index and NBS requirements was $938. Incorporating the new criteria into the updated CAO plans is estimated to cost an additional $850 per CAO.
The Commission is planning to provide cost share assistance to these CAOs to offset the additional cost. With the standard 75% State cost share, the additional cost to a farmer to update a current CAO plan would be $212 per CAO ($850 total cost, $638 State cost share, $212 farmer cost). There are currently 901 CAOs in this Commonwealth; therefore, this would calculate to a net increased cost of $191,000 for the existing 901 CAOs to develop their required plan updates over a 3-year time frame.
Plan maintenance. The criteria some included in the final-form rulemaking will necessitate some operators to make annual adjustments to their approved plan due to the shift to phosphorus management. This will add an additional plan maintenance cost to the operators, which is expected to cost approximately $400 a farm annually. The Commission will begin implementing the Plan Maintenance Program to assist operators in keeping their plans current. Assuming that 1,000 plans will be written on an annual basis and that this effort will be 75% cost shared, this will cost existing CAOs $100,000 a year. This requirement is expected to begin to affect existing CAOs in the second year after the final-form rulemaking goes into affect and take until the fourth year following the effective date to become fully implemented.
Commercial fertilizer. The final-form rulemaking will require an estimated 60% of existing CAOs (540 CAOs) to export some increased portion of their generated manure due to the phosphorus element of the final-form rulemaking and due to revised setback requirements as required in the act. They will likely need to purchase nitrogen chemical fertilizer to replace the nitrogen that used to be supplied by the manure that they are now required to ship off site because of the phosphorus limitations in their plans. Based on program records, the average CAO farm size is 94 acres. Based on a compilation of the data from the last 4 years' Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics books, 115 bushels of corn per acre is a reasonable average for corn grown across this Commonwealth. Assuming that 60% of the land on a CAO is corn ground and seeing that CAOs exporting all their manure will need to purchase chemical nitrogen to meet this corn need, a CAO exporting all of their manure will need to purchase 7,000 pounds of nitrogen to meet the nitrogen need of the corn crop on their individual farm. At the current price of 37¢ a pound for nitrogen, it will cost these CAOs approximately $2,600 per farm to purchase this nitrogen. This means a total cost to the industry of $1.4 million. That cost is likely to be reduced to $920,000, as described in the next subsection.
Manure export. The 540 existing CAOs will also need to find additional land to export their manure, or other alternative uses for the manure they produce, due to the phosphorus considerations in the final-form rulemaking.
Approximately 30% of these CAOs (162 CAOs) will be able to recoup the cost of transportation of the manure from those operators receiving the manure. The remaining farmers needing to transport additional manure from their farm sites (378 CAOs) will have to pay manure transportation costs to export the additional excess manure to appropriate sites.
The cost per operation needing to export additional excess manure is estimated to be $1,500 annually, with a total annual cost to the regulated community of $567,000. This expense will be phased in over the next 3 years due to the 3-year lifespan of existing NMPs (FY +1--$189,000; FY +2--$378,000; FY +3--$567,000).
The Commission is proposing to assist the existing regulated community to meet this financial burden by supporting alternative manure processing or utilization technologies which will economically utilize the manure onsite or at a manure processing facility in an environmentally sound manner. Therefore, starting in FY +4, the Commission would expect operators to begin to implement alternative technologies reducing this farmer expense at the rate of an additional 10% each year (that is, 10% reduction in FY +4, 20% in FY +5, and the like).
Fall and winter application; field stacking. The final-form rulemaking also includes additional restrictions on fall and winter application restrictions and field stacking criteria. To address these issues, some poultry farmers will find it necessary to construct manure storage facilities onsite to properly store their manure until it can be applied to fields consistent with the final-form criteria. Dry manure storage facilities are expected to be constructed on 250 farms at the cost of $40,000 per farm. Of this total cost, 50% is expected to be funded through the Nutrient Management Grants program, 25% from Federal funding programs, leaving 25% to be funded by the regulated CAOs. This equates to a total of $2.5 million to be spent by the CAO operators, spread out over the next 6 years.
E & S control. The final-form rulemaking will induce farmers to install conservation practices at a faster rate to reduce their Phosphorus Index values for their farm fields and to address the manure management controls required for animal concentration areas (barnyards and feedlots). This conservation work will be consistent with those practices in their current E & S Plans and the Pennsylvania Manure Management Manual, as required by existing DEP regulations. Therefore, no additional costs over what is currently required under existing regulations are anticipated for these efforts.
Newly-regulated CAOs
The final-form rulemaking will bring additional farms into the CAO category. These newly regulated farms will primarily be larger-scale horse operations. These new CAOs will be required to develop and implement NMPs. These operations are commonly less cropland extensive in nature and generally have less complexity relating to the management of manure on the farm; therefore, their planning costs are expected to be less than the cost of an average NMP.
Based on past program experience, the estimated cost of developing a plan for these newly defined operations will be approximately $800. This would translate into a total cost of $400,000 to develop NMPs for the 500 newly defined CAOs. This final-form rulemaking continues to provide a cost share program to offset the planning cost for CAOs. With 75% State cost share, the final cost per new CAO would be $200 ($800 total cost, $600 cost share, $200 farmer cost). This would calculate to a total cost of $100,000 for the 500 newly defined CAOs to develop their required plans over a 2-year time frame.
Paperwork Requirements
The final-form rulemaking has been written to minimize paperwork to the maximum extent while maintaining program integrity and tracking. Farmers are required to keep records, BMP designs, emergency response plans and E & S Plans on their farms, but are not required to submit those documents for Commission or conservation district filing.
The program relies on the conservation district onsite plan review visits and annual status reviews to confirm proper documentation and to ensure that proper application and export efforts are implemented on farms with approved plans. The final-form rulemaking reduces the amount of paperwork required by the operator to be submitted for program files by eliminating the need for the CAOs to submit exporting records for the program files where they are exporting for other than agricultural land application.
The program does recognize the importance of good recordkeeping for the protection of water quality and the implementation of the limited liability clause of the act. The program requires these necessary records but does not require them to be submitted for inclusion in the program files, but they are reviewed annually with the operator during the program's annual onsite status review.
Sunset Review
The Commission will evaluate the effectiveness of this final-form rulemaking, as it has done for the existing regulations, on an ongoing basis. Therefore, no sunset date is being established for the regulations.
Regulatory Review
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), on July 28, 2004, the Commission submitted a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, published at 34 Pa.B. 4361, to IRRC and the Chairpersons of the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees for review and comment.
Under section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC and the Committees were provided with copies of the comments received during the public comment period, as well as other documents when requested. In preparing the final-form rulemaking, the Department has considered all comments from IRRC, the House and Senate Committees and the public.
Under section 5.1(j.2) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(j.2)), on March 20, 2006, the final-form rulemaking was deemed approved by the House and Senate Committees. Under section 5.1(e) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC met on March 21, 2006, and approved the final-form rulemaking.
Findings
The Commission finds that:
(1) Public notice of proposed rulemaking was given under sections 201 and 202 of the act of July 31, 1968 (P. L. 769, No. 240) (45 P. S. §§ 1201 and 1202) and regulations promulgated thereunder, 1 Pa. Code §§ 7.1 and 7.2.
(2) A public comment period was provided as required by law, and all comments were considered.
(3) These regulations do not enlarge the purpose of the proposal published at 34 Pa.B. 4361.
(4) These regulations are necessary and appropriate for administration and enforcement of the authorizing laws.
Order
The Commission, acting under the authorizing statutes, orders that:
(a) The regulations of the Commission, 25 Pa. Code Chapter 83, are amended by amending §§ 83.201--83.203, 83.205, 83.206, 83.211--83.216, 83.221, 83.222, 83.224--83.226, 83.229, 83.231, 83.232, 83.241, 83.251, 83.261, 83.262, 83.272, 83.281, 83.282, 83.291--83.294, 83.301, 83.311, 83.321, 83.331, 83.341--83.344, 83.351, 83.361, 83.362, 83.371, 83.373 and 83.381; by deleting § 83.204; and by adding § 83.312 to read as set forth in Annex A.
(Editor's Note: The Commission has withdrawn the proposal to amend §§ 83.391, 83.392, 83.401--83.404, 83.411, 83.421, 83.431, 83.451--83.453, 83.461, 83.471, 83.472, 83.481 and 83.491 and to add §§ 83.422 and 83.454, included in the proposal at 34 Pa.B. 4361.)
(b) The Chairperson of the Commission shall submit this order and Annex A to the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Attorney General for review and approval as to legality and form, as required by law.
(c) The Chairperson of the Commission shall submit this order and Annex A to IRRC and the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees as required by the Regulatory Review Act.
(d) The Chairperson of the Commission shall certify this order and Annex A and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau as required by law.
(e) This order shall take effect October 1, 2006.
DENNIS C WOLFF,
Chairperson(Editor's Note: For the text of the order of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, relating to this document, see 36 Pa.B. 1555 (April 1, 2006).)
Fiscal Note: 7-390. (1) Nutrient Management Fund;
Education, Research and Technical Assistance Planning, Loans, Grants and Technical Assistance Nutrient
Management Administration(2) Implementing Year 2005-06 is $0 $0 $0 (3) 1st Succeeding Year 2006-07 is $200,000 $1,175,000 $120,000 2nd Succeeding Year 2007-08 is $200,000 $1,425,000 $120,000 3rd Succeeding Year 2008-09 is $200,000 $1,375,000 $120,000 4th Succeeding Year 2009-10 is $200,000 $1,283,000 $120,000 5th Succeeding Year 2010-11 is $200,000 $1,283,000 $120,000 (4) 2004-05 Program-- $2,201,000 $2,645,000 $231,000 2003-04 Program-- $1,788,000 $4,852,000 $254,000 2002-03 Program-- $1,245,000 $4,136,000 $248,000
(8) recommends adoption. The distribution of funding for the grant programs will be provided to the extent funds are available.
[Continued on next Web Page]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
