[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17094-17098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9174]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 913
[SPATS No. IL-089-FOR]
Illinois Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed amendment to the Illinois
regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as the ``Illinois
program'') under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA). Illinois requested that OSM reconsider two regulations
disapproved in a previously proposed amendment to the Illinois program
and submitted explanatory information in support of its request. These
regulations concern the determination of revegetation success for non-
contiguous surface disturbance areas less than or equal to four acres.
The additional explanatory information is intended to clarify the
regulations by providing an interpretation statement and specifying
procedures and evaluation criteria that would be used in the
implementation of the regulations. The amendment is intended to improve
operational efficiency.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Director,
Indianapolis Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania
Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1521, Telephone: (317) 226-
6700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Illinois 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 Illinois Program
On June 1, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Illinois program. Background information on the Illinois
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval can be found in the June 1,
1982, Federal Register (47 FR 23883). Subsequent actions concerning the
conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR
913.15, 913.16, and 913.17.
By letter dated February 3, 1995 (Administrative Record No. IL-
1615), Illinois submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant
to SMCRA. OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the
February 27, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 19522). The public comment
period ended March 29, 1995. A public hearing was requested, and it was
held on March 24, 1995. OSM identified concerns relating to the
proposed amendment, and notified Illinois of these concerns by letters
dated April 28 and August 3, 1995 (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1649
and IL-1660, respectively). By letter dated November 1, 1995
(Administrative Record No. IL-1663), Illinois responded to OSM's
concerns by submitting revisions to its proposed amendment. OSM
reopened the public comment period in the December 5, 1995, Federal
Register (60 FR 62229). The public comment period closed on January 4,
1996. OSM approved the proposed amendment with certain exceptions and
additional requirements on May 29, 1996 (61 FR 26801). The exceptions
were the Director's decision not to approve some of the proposed
regulations. This amendment addresses two of those regulations.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated August 5, 1997 (Administrative Record No. IL-1670),
the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and
Minerals (OMM) requested that OSM reconsider its May 29, 1996, decision
not to approve Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and
1817.116(a)(3)(F). Illinois resubmitted the regulations with an
interpretation statement, program procedures, and evaluation criteria
for implementation of them. These regulations concern the determination
of revegetation success for non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas
less than or equal to four acres. By letters dated September 26 and
November 3, 1997 (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1671 and IL-1672), OMM
provided additional explanatory information to clarify the procedures
and evaluation criteria that would be used in the implementation of the
proposed regulations.
Based upon its request for reconsideration and the additional
explanatory information submitted by Illinois, OSM reopened the public
comment period in the December 23, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR
67014). The public comment period closed on January 7, 1998.
III. Director's Findings
Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the
proposed amendment.
Illinois proposed the following regulatory language at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(3)(F) for surface coal mining and 62 IAC 1817.116(a)(3)(F)
for underground coal mining.
Non-contiguous areas less than or equal to four acres which were
disturbed from activities such as, but not limited to, signs,
boreholes, power poles, stockpiles and substations shall be
considered successfully revegetated if the operator can demonstrate
that the soil disturbance was minor, i.e., the majority of the
subsoil remains in place, the soil has been returned to its original
capability and the area is supporting its approved post-mining land
use at the end of the responsibility period.
Illinois' proposal would exclude non-contiguous, surface
disturbance areas of less than or equal to four acres from productivity
testing to prove revegetation success. In OSM's May 29, 1996, decision
not to approve Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and
1817.116(a)(3)(F), the practicality of excluding the need to test for
revegetation success for small areas such as signs, boreholes, power
poles, and other small and minimally disturbed areas was recognized.
OSM explained that in order for it to approve this type of proposal,
Illinois would need to provide additional language that would more
closely correlate the maximum acreage to the types of activities which
would qualify for the exemption. Also, Illinois would need to provide
additional language as to what would constitute a satisfactory
demonstration of minimum disturbance, achievement of original
capability, and achievement of postmining land use. As discussed below,
OMM provided additional information to meet each of OSM's conditions
for reconsideration of
[[Page 17095]]
its proposed regulations by providing an interpretation statement,
program procedures, and evaluation criteria that would be used in the
implementation of the regulations.
1. Interpretation Statement
OMM provided the following interpretation for the proposed
regulatory language at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F):
Non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas, with an approved land
use of cropland or pasture/hayland, less than or equal to four acres
which:
1. Have minor soil disturbances from activities such as signs,
boreholes, power poles, stockpiles and substations;
2. Have the majority of the subsoil remaining in place; and
3. Were not affected by coal or toxic material handling, may use
the following procedures for determination of revegetation success,
in lieu of Section (a)(4).
(i) The operator must document the required three criteria of
(F) above have been met.
(ii) The affected area is successfully supporting its approved
post mining land use when compared to the similar, adjacent
unaffected areas at the end of the responsibility period.
The Department will evaluate areas requested by the operator,
using qualified individuals, and determine them successfully
revegetated, if it finds subsection (i) and (ii) have been met. The
Department will require the area to be tilled with conventional
agricultural subsoiler or deeper as it deems necessary.
Illinois' interpretation clarifies that only those non-contiguous
areas of less than or equal to four acres that have been subject to
surface disturbance only and have an approved land use of cropland or
pasture/hayland will qualify under the proposed regulations. It
clarifies that these areas are only exempt from the requirements of 62
IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and 1817.116(a)(4) concerning the use of
Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula (ALPF) at 62 IAC 1816.Appendix
A to measure production. The ALPF contains the approved sampling
methods used by Illinois to determine success of revegetation for areas
designated in the approved reclamation plan as cropland, pasture,
hayland, or grazing land. The interpretation statement clarifies that
areas affected by coal or toxic material handling will not be eligible
under the proposed regulations. It clarifies that OMM will require the
areas to be tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, when
warranted, a deep tiller and that OMM will use qualified individuals to
evaluate the revegetated areas. The Director finds that Illinois'
interpretation of its proposed regulations provides the necessary
clarification that is lacking in the language of the regulations.
2. Correlation of the Maximum Acreage to the Types of Activities and
Demonstration of Minimum Disturbance
OMM proposed a four acre maximum under the recommendation of the
Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA). OMM enclosed a letter dated
September 10, 1997, from the IDOA which supports the proposed amendment
(Administrative Record No. IL-1671). The IDOA agreed that small
isolated areas of four acres or less should not be subject to the full
sampling procedures under the Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula.
The IDOA stated that based on its experience with cropland restoration
under the ALPF, it firmly believed the four-acre threshold is practical
and represents a reasonable approach to the evaluation of cropland and
hayland at Illinois mines. The IDOA in cooperation with the OMM
implements the Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula.
OMM explained that the proposed regulation language describes minor
disturbance as an area where the majority of the subsoil remains in
place. It also is intended to include areas where topsoil removal was
not required. OMM would ensure all non-toxic contaminants are either
prevented from mixing with the subsoil or are adequately removed
without significant loss of in-place subsoil. It would require the use
of techniques such as engineering fabrics to be placed prior to rock
placement where it deems it appropriate. Areas affected by coal or
toxic material handling would not be eligible under the proposed
regulation. OMM would differentiate the minor disturbances into three
main types.
(1) Areas where topsoil was left in place. Signs, markers and power
poles are common examples. A disturbed area is generally less than .25
acres. The type of disturbance is so minor and small that sampling of
these areas is impractical.
(2) Areas where topsoil was removed and stockpiled and the subsoil
was left in place. Common examples include rock dust holes and
electrical substations. The disturbed area rarely exceeds one acre.
Typically a bulldozer is used to remove and stockpile the topsoil for
these areas. Bulldozers possess a ground pressure less than or equal to
conventional farm equipment. In order to alleviate any soil compaction,
OMM will require the area to be tilled with a conventional agricultural
subsoiler or, if necessary, a deep tiller.
(3) Areas where the topsoil was removed and stockpiled and portions
of the area were excavated for foundations or for shaft construction.
Subsoils were stockpiled where necessary and later replaced during
reclamation of the site. A disturbed area may approach four acres.
Scrapers and excavators may be used in preparing these areas for use.
Amny foundations existing on site will be removed from the rooting
zone. In order to alleviate any soil compaction, OMM will require the
area to be tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, if
necessary, a deep tiller.
Most surface coal mining permits in Illinois are issued for several
hundred acres or more, with some issued for over 1,000 acres. A common
occurrence at surface mines is a fringe of surface disturbance only
areas adjacent to the mined areas. These surface disturbance only areas
are surrounded by unaffected land and usually have been used for signs,
markers, power poles, or electrical substations. Most non-contiguous,
minor disturbance areas associated with underground mines are permitted
under Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1785.23 for minor underground
mine facilities not at or adjacent to the processing or preparation
facility or area. The types of facilities permitted under these
regulations include air shafts, fan and ventilation buildings, small
support buildings or sheds, access power holes, other small
miscellaneous structures and associated roads. These small isolated
areas are surrounded by unaffected land. The Director finds that
Illinois has provided adequate information to correlate the maximum
acreage to the types of activities that would qualify under the
proposed regulations and has provided a satisfactory explanation of
what constitutes minimum disturbance.
3. Achievement of Original Capability. In its letter of September
26, 1997, OMM stated that the process of the permittee planting of the
crop and OMM's evaluating the crop is the ``demonstration of
capability,'' if it is determined the crops are successful.
On May 2, 1994 (finding 16.C, 59 FR 22513, 22514), OSM made the
following applicable findings concerning the achievement of original
capability in the preamble discussion of a proposed amendment submitted
by the State of Ohio.
Section 515(b)(2) of SMCRA requires that land affected by
surface coal mining operations be restored to a condition capable of
supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any
mining or to higher or better uses of which there is a reasonable
likelihood. However, this capability demonstration is independent of
the
[[Page 17096]]
revegetation requirements of paragraphs (b)(19) and (b)(20) of
section 515(b) of SMCRA * * * Indeed, in the preamble to 30 CFR
816.133(a) as revised on September 1, 1983 (48 FR 39892, 39897), the
Secretary states that:
[T]he final rule emphasizes the land's capability, both with
regard to premining uses and higher or better uses, in this
implementation of Section 515(b)(2) of the Act. This requirement is
distinct from the revegetation or prime farmland rules, which under
some circumstances may require actual production on the reclaimed
land as a measure of successful reclamation.
Furthermore, section 508(a) of SMCRA and its legislative history
(S. Rep. No. 128, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 77 (1977)) provide that the
demonstration that premining capability can and will be restored
must be made as part of the reclamation plan submitted with the
permit application. Thus, the land use restoration requirements of
section 515(b)(2) are addressed primarily through the permit
application review process, and compliance is achieved by adherence
to the reclamation plan and other performance standards such as
those pertaining to toxic materials, topsoil, and backfilling and
grading. No separate capability demonstration is necessary upon the
completion of mining and reclamation.
The permits which contain the non-contiguous, surface disturbance
areas of four acres or less are subject to all of the permit
application review processes of the approved Illinois program. These
areas also must adhere to the approved reclamation plans and the toxic
materials, topsoil, and backfilling and grading performance standards
of the approved Illinois program. The minor disturbances, discussed in
the above finding under item 2, should have minimal impact on the pre-
mining soil capability. Also, Illinois' requirement that the area be
tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, if necessary, a
deep tiller would alleviate what impact did occur. Therefore, based
upon this discussion and OSM's May 2, 1994, policy finding regarding
the demonstration of pre-mining capability, the Director finds that the
approved Illinois program will assure the achievement of original
capability for non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas of less than
or equal to four acres.
Achievement of Postmining Land Use. OMM would assess the success of
the area by the determination the area is supporting its post mining
use and there were no observable differences between these areas and
adjacent unaffected areas. OMM would not use this testing procedure if
coal or other toxic material were to be handled in the immediate
affected area. OMM would require at a minimum the area to be tilled
with an agricultural subsoiler, preferably before topsoil replacement.
In the event of poor crop performance on areas being evaluated,
Illinois will require tillage to greater depths as deemed appropriate,
based on timing, soil handling techniques, and equipment used for
reclamation. If mitigation efforts are still unsuccessful, Illinois
would require soil penetrometer testing and deeper tillage if deemed
appropriate. Areas topsoiled to date will be evaluated in their current
state, if a subsoiler has already been through the soil. OMM explained
that all determinations of the success of these small areas will be
done by qualified individuals experienced in the field of agronomy and
soils. OMM's staff currently includes an individual certified under
ARCPACS. ARCPACS: A Federation of Certifying Boards in Agriculture,
Biology, Earth and Environmental Sciences is a certification program
that certifies professionals in agronomy and soils, who possess
sufficient education and experience in these fields. Certified
individuals are bound by a code of ethics, regarding their professional
opinion and conduct. Illinois has persons other than ARCPACS certified
persons available for crop evaluations. They include persons who are
currently involved in the ALPF testing program such as IDOA personnel
and U.S. Department of Agriculture crop enumerators.
The evaluation of the crop would be done near the time of the
harvest of the crop grown. Hay would be required in a pasture land use
and corn or soybeans would be required in a crop land use. The
observation would be done for a minimum of two years of the
responsibility period, excluding the first year. No phase III bonds
would be released before the fifth year of the responsibility period.
OSM notes that an inspection and evaluation of the reclamation work
involved would also be conducted upon receipt of a bond release request
in accordance with Illinois' regulation at 62 IAC 1800.40(b). The
Director finds that Illinois has adequate procedures and qualified
individuals to determine whether the small, minimally distributed areas
have achieved their postmining land use.
In accordance with section 101(f) of SMCRA, OSM has always
maintained that the primary responsibility for developing, authorizing,
issuing and enforcing regulations for surface coal mining and
reclamation operations should rest with the States. The absence of
minimum standards in portions of the Federal rules is not a weakening
of revegetation requirements but reflects that the rules are designed
to account for regional diversity in terrain, climate, soils, and other
conditions under which mining occurs. OMM in its implementation of the
Illinois program has found that it is impracticable to test crop
productivity on small isolated areas. Several of these non-contiguous,
minimally disturbed areas have been reclaimed for several years. From a
practical standpoint, it is usually difficult to identify precisely
where such areas are located in the field once revegetation is
established in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. As
discussed earlier, OSM recognizes the practicality of excluding the
need to test for revegetation success for small minimally disturbed
areas. Although OSM provided exceptions in the Federal regulations from
the full performance standards for soil removal and prime farmland for
minor disturbance areas at 30 CFR 816.22(a)(3), 817.22(a)(3),
823.11(a), 823.12(c)(2), and 823.14(d), OSM did not consider the
eventual need for exceptions from the full requirements of the Federal
revegetation standards for success at 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116 for
minimally disturbed areas. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816.22(a)(3) and 817.22(a)(3) authorize the regulatory authority to
approve an exception from the requirement to remove topsoil for
minimally disturbed areas for surface and underground mines, including
operations on prime farmland, for minor disturbances which occurs at
the site of small structures, such as power poles, signs, or fence
lines. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.11(a) authorizes the
regulatory authority to approve an exemption from prime farmland
performance standards for coal preparation plants, support facilities,
and roads of underground mines that are actively used over extended
periods of time and where such uses effect a minimal amount of land.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.12(c)(2) and 823.14(d) authorize
the regulatory authority to approve an exception from the requirement
to remove and reconstruct B and C soil horizons when the B and C
horizons would not otherwise be removed by mining activities and where
soil capability can be retained, such as areas beneath surface mine and
underground mine support facilities. OSM recognizes that standards
sampling methods may not be practical for the small minimally disturbed
areas that will be eligible under Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F). These areas will still subject
to the general revegetation requirements of Illinois' counterparts to
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111 and 817.111. With the
exception of the
[[Page 17097]]
sampling methods approved of measuring revegetation success for
cropland and pastureland at 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A, these areas will
also be subject to the applicable revegetation standards for success
and responsibility periods contained in Illinois' counterparts to 30
CFR 816.116 and 817.116. Disturbance of the limited types referenced by
Illinois for these small areas should have minimal impact on soil
productivity, if any. Also, areas this small would have a negligible
impact on the overall production of the surrounding non-mined cropland
or pastureland. Illinois has established that qualified individuals
experienced in the fields of agronomy and soils that have the
experience and ability to make valid determinations as to whether a
diverse, effective permanent vegetative cover has been successfully
established will evaluate these small areas. The interpretation,
program procedures, and evaluation criteria provided in Illinois'
letter of August 5, 1997, as modified by its letters of September 26
and November 3, 1997, should ensure that these minimally disturbed
areas are capable of achieving a productivity level compatible with the
approved postmining land uses and that crop production will be at least
equal to that of the surrounding unmined lands. Therefore, the Director
finds that requiring these areas to be evaluated by the statistically
valid sampling methods approved in the Illinois program would be
impractical.
Based on the above discussions, the Director is approving Illinois'
proposed regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F)
in combination with its August 5, 1997, interpretation statement,
program procedures, and evaluation criteria as modified by its letters
dated September 26, 1997, and November 3, 1997. Also, since approval of
these regulations will satisfy the required amendment codified at 30
CFR 913.16(x), it is being removed. The Director wants to emphasize
that this method for determining revegetation success is only being
approved for small, minimally disturbed areas.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
OSM solicited public comments on the proposed amendment, but none
were received.
Federal Agency Comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited
comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with
an actual or potential interest in the Illinois program during its
review of Illinois' February 3, 1995, proposed amendment
(Administrative Record Nos. IL-1618 and IL-1664). The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) was the only agency to comment on Illinois'
proposed regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F).
Although it did comment on aspects of the proposed language, the NRCS
concurred with the State's objective in proposing the rules
(Administrative Record Nos. IL-1657, June 7, 1995, and IL-1661, July
20, 1995). The concerns expressed by the NRCS were that compaction
alleviation be required, eligible activities be identified, a maximum
size area be designated, and minimum soil disturbance be defined. As
shown above in the preamble discussion, OSM took the NRCS concerns into
consideration during its evaluation of Illinois' request for
reconsideration of its May 29, 1996, decision on the proposed
regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the
written concurrence of the EPA with respect to those provisions of the
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality
standards promulgated 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.).
None of the revisions that Illinois proposed to make in this amendment
pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not
request the EPA's concurrence.
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM is required to solicit
comments on proposed amendments which may have an effect on historic
properties from the SHPO and ACHP. OSM solicited comments from the SHPO
and ACHP during its review of Illinois' February 3, 1995, proposed
amendment (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1618 and IL-1664). The SHPO
concurred with Illinois' proposed amendment on March 3, 1995
(Administrative Record No. IL-1624(A)). The proposed regulations
addressed in this final rule have no effect on historic properties.
Therefore OSM did not solicit additional comments from the SHPO or
ACHP.
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above findings, the Director approves Illinois'
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F) as
submitted on February 3, 1995, and as revised on November 1, 1995, in
combination with the interpretation statement, program procedures, and
evaluation criteria to be used in the implementation of the regulations
as submitted on August 5, 1997, and as revised on September 26, 1997,
and November 3, 1997.
The Director approves the regulations as proposed by Illinois with
the provision that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the
regulations submitted to and review by OSM and the public and that the
interpretation statement, program procedures, and evaluation criteria
proposed by Illinois be used in the implementation of the regulations.
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 913, codifying decisions
concerning the Illinois program, are being amended to implement this
decision.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12988
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
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)).
[[Page 17098]]
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 has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.
Unfunded Mandates
OSM has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a
cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, state, or
tribal governments or private entities.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 27, 1998.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 913 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 913--ILLINOIS
1. The authority citation for part 913 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 913.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 913.15 Approval of Illinois regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment Date of final
submission date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
August 5, 1997......... April 8, 1998.......... 62 IAC
1816.116(c)(3)(F);
1817.116(a)(3)(F);
Interpretation
Statement, Program
Procedures, and
Evaluation Criteria
for 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(3)(F) and
1817.116(a)(3)(F).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 913.16 [Amended]
3. Section 913.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(x).
[FR Doc. 98-9174 Filed 4-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M