[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 63 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17014-17018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6601]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 913
[Docket No. IL-103-FOR]
Illinois Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Illinois
regulatory program (Illinois program) under the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Illinois proposes to
revise its regulations about revegetation success standards, to update
statutory citations, to correct regulatory citations, and to clarify
language in various provisions. Illinois intends to revise its program
to clarify ambiguities and to improve operational efficiency.
This document gives the times and locations that the Illinois
program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your
inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written
comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for
the public hearing, if one is requested.
DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m.,
e.s.t., May 4, 2005. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the
amendment on April 29, 2005. We will accept requests to speak at a
hearing until 4 p.m., e.s.t. on April 19, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. IL-103-
FOR, by any of the following methods:
E-mail: [email protected]. Include Docket No. IL-103-FOR
in the subject line of the message.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division--Indianapolis Area Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575
North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
[[Page 17015]]
Fax: (317) 226-6182
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the ``Public Comment Procedures'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to review copies of the Illinois
program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings,
and all written comments received in response to this document, you
must go to the address listed below during normal business hours,
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free
copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Indianapolis Area Office.
Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division--Indianapolis Area
Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-
Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone: (317) 226-6700, E-mail:
[email protected].
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular
business hours at the following location: Illinois Department of
Natural Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals, Land Reclamation
Division, One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, Illinois 62701,
Telephone: (217) 782-4970.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division--Indianapolis Area Office. Telephone: (317) 226-6700. E-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Illinois Program
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
III. Public Comment Procedures
IV. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Illinois Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its program includes, among other things, ``a State law which provides
for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in
accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and
regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis
of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved
the Illinois program on June 1, 1982. You can find background
information on the Illinois program, including the Secretary's
findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval
of the Illinois program in the June 1, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR
23858). You can also find later actions concerning the Illinois program
and program amendments at 30 CFR 913.10, 913.15, 913.16, and 913.17.
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated February 1, 2005 (Administrative Record No. IL-
5088), Illinois sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Illinois sent the amendment at its own
initiative. Illinois is proposing to amend its regulations at 62
Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) Parts 1816, 1817, and 1823. Below is
a summary of the changes proposed by Illinois. The full text of the
program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed
above under ADDRESSES.
A. 62 IAC 1816.116 Revegetation Success Standards
Illinois proposes to amend its regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116 to
(1) incorporate a new productivity alternative to the Agricultural
Lands Productivity Formula (ALPF), for determining success of
revegetation of cropland, pasture land, hayland, and/or grazing land;
(2) to update references to and requirements in existing regulations
concerning the new productivity alternative; (3) to update requirements
pertaining to adjustment for abnormal, catastrophic, growing conditions
when the ALPF or the new productivity alternative is used for
determining success of revegetation, (4) to remove references to oats
as a crop that may be used to prove productivity success; (5) to update
information in the soil master file, county average yield file, the
agricultural lands productivity formula sampling methods, and Exhibit A
in the ALPF, and (6) to delete Tables A through D from the ALPF.
1. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(C) and (E). At subsections (a)(3)(C) and
(E), Illinois proposes to add a reference to new subsection (a)(6) and
to add the following requirement at the end of each of the subsections:
Once chosen by the permittee, the productivity alternative in
subsection (a)(6) may not be modified without approval from the
Department.
2. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4). At subsection (a)(4), Illinois proposes
to reference the new productivity alternative in subsection (a)(6); to
update requirements pertaining to adjustment for abnormal,
catastrophic, growing conditions when the ALPF or the new productivity
alternative is used for determining success of revegetation; and to
remove a reference to oat crops from several provisions.
a. In the introductory paragraph of subsection (a)(4), Illinois
proposes to add a reference to the new productivity alternative at
subsection (a)(6).
b. Illinois proposes to change the requirements of subsection
(a)(4)(C) concerning adjustments for abnormal growing conditions to
read as follows:
(C) Adjustments for abnormal growing conditions shall be
accepted by the Department if such adjustments are certified by a
qualified professional (American Society of Agronomy certified) or
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture crop
enumerators used under this Section, whose ability to perform such
adjustments has been previously approved by the Department.
c. At subsection (a)(4)(D), Illinois proposes to remove a reference
to ``oats'' as a type of crop commonly grown on surrounding unmined
cropland and as a crop that may be used for one year to demonstrate
productivity on prime farmland and other cropland areas. Illinois also
proposes to add the following requirement concerning deep tillage of
prime farmland and other cropland areas:
If deep tillage has been completed to a minimum depth of 36
inches prior to bond release, the applicant may use more than one
successful year of hay or wheat as a crop to be used for the
productivity demonstration. The requirement for one successful year
of corn remains unchanged under this provision.
3. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). Illinois proposes a new productivity
alternative at new subsection (a)(6). It reads as follows:
(6) In order to use the alternative to the Agricultural Lands
Productivity Formula, Appendix A, to determine success of
revegetation, the following shall apply: use of this alternative is
contingent that the permittee can demonstrate for the entire field
that the soil strength of the entire soil profile will average <=
200 psi or has been deep tilled to a minimum depth of 36 inches
prior to bond release, and soil fertility will average Optimum
Management for pH, P and K values as defined under the current
Illinois Agronomy Handbook, and intensive land leveling is
implemented, as needed, for the entire field. Areas to be tested are
allowed under the provisions of subsections (a)(4)(B) or (C).
(A) The following substitution of Column F--Appendix A--County
Average Yield File shall read:
[[Page 17016]]
Column F is a derived optimum management production (Figure)
obtained by multiplying the figures in Column D times the figures in
Column E. This production figure will normally exceed actual
production because the optimum level management yield is used. The
purpose of using the optimum management production is to derive a
weighted average optimum management yield which is the total optimum
management production (Column F) divided by the total grain acres in
the county (Column D). The weighted optimum management yield figure
will be used to derive a ``factor'' as described below:
Factor = Average of Official County Crop Yield for the Five
Previous Years ) Average of Weighted Optimum Management Yield for
the Five Years
(B) When the above ``factor'' and hand sampling is used, the
harvest loss will be calculated by averaging the harvest loss of the
five previous years for the crop being tested.
4. 62 IAC 1816. Appendix A--ALPF. Illinois proposes to update
information in the soil master file, county cropped acreage file,
county average yield file, the agricultural lands productivity formula
sampling methods, and Exhibit A in the ALPF and to delete Tables A
through D from the ALPF.
a. Citation Corrections. In the soil master file and the county
cropped acreage file, Illinois is changing a citation reference to the
Illinois Department of Agriculture from ``20 [Illinois Compiled
Statutes] ILCS 205/40.38'' to ``20 ILCS 205-115.''
b. Soil Master File. Illinois proposes to revise the introductory
paragraph by changing the word ``high'' to the word ``optimum'' in its
reference to the ``high level of management yields'' and by adding the
following sentence at the end of the paragraph:
The reference document for information contained in the soil
master file shall be Bulletin 811, ``Optimum Crop Productivity
Ratings for Illinois Soil,'' University of Illinois, College of
Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, Office of
Research, August 2002.
Illinois also proposes to remove the information on additional
components of the soil master file.
c. County Average Yield File. In the fifth paragraph, Illinois
proposes to remove its reference to ``oats'' as a grain crop. In the
seventh paragraph, Illinois proposes to change the word ``high'' to the
word ``optimum'' in the phrase ``high management yield.'' In the eighth
paragraph, Illinois proposes to change the word ``high'' to the word
``optimum'' in the phrase ``high management yield'' and to add the
following new information:
If official county crop yields are unavailable for a specific
crop in a given year, the Department, in consultation with the
permittee, and with the concurrence of the Illinois Department of
Agriculture, will substitute a county crop yield from an adjacent
county with similar soils, if it can be determined that similar
weather conditions occurred in that year.
d. Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula Sampling Methods. In the
introductory paragraph, Illinois proposes to remove its reference to
``oats'' as a grain crop. Illinois proposes to revise Step 10 under the
section heading ``Corn Sampling Technique'' by removing the existing
information on the row factor and replacing this information with
``average row width in feet x 15 feet of row / 43560 square feet/
acre.'' Illinois also proposes to remove the sections ``Oats Sampling
Technique (Rows <8'')'' and ``Oats Sampling Technique (Discernible
Rows)'' from the ALPF.
e. Exhibit A, County Crop Yields by Soil Mapping Unit. Illinois
proposes to change the word ``high'' to the word ``optimum'' in columns
E and F and to remove a reference to oats.
f. Illinois proposes to delete tables A through D from the ALPF.
B. 62 IAC Part 1817 Permanent Program Performance Standards--
Underground Mining Operations
Illinois proposes to update statutory citations, to correct
regulation references, and to add clarifying language to several
regulations.
1. 62 IAC 1817.42 Hydrologic Balance-Water Quality Standards and
Effluent Limitations. Illinois proposes to change the statutory
citation for the Illinois Environmental Protection Act from ``(Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 111\1/2\, pars. 1001 et seq.)'' to ``[415 ILCS
5].''
2. 62 IAC 1817.43 Diversions:
a. At subsection (a)(2)(D) Illinois proposes to change the
statutory citation for the Illinois Rivers, Lakes, and Streams Act from
``(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 19, pars. 52-79)'' to ``[615 ILCS 5].''
b. At subsections (b) and (c), Illinois is proposing to simplify
its use of numbers.
3. 62 IAC 1817.116 Revegetation Success Standards:
a. At subsections (a)(3)(C) and (E), Illinois proposes to add a
reference to the newly proposed productivity alternative at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) and to add the following requirement at the end of each
subsection:
Once chosen by the permittee, the productivity alternative in
subsection (a)(6) may not be modified without approval from the
Department.
b. At subsection (a)(4), Illinois proposes to add a reference to
the newly proposed productivity alternative at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6).
c. At subsection (b)(2), Illinois proposes to correct a regulation
citation reference by changing it from ``62 IAC 1785.15'' to ``62 IAC
1823.15.''
4. 62 IAC 1817.121 Subsidence Control:
a. At subsection (c), Repair of Damage, Illinois proposes to add
the following new introductory paragraph:
The requirements of this subsection apply only to subsidence-
related damage caused by underground coal extraction conducted after
February 1, 1983, except as noted in Section 1817.41(j).
b. At subsection (c)(2), Illinois proposes to remove the last
sentence.
C. 62 IAC Part 1823.15 Prime Farmland-Revegetation
a. At subsection (b)(2), Illinois proposes to add a reference to
the newly proposed productivity alternative under 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6).
b. At subsection (b)(3), Illinois proposes to add a reference to
the newly proposed productivity alternative under 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6), to simplify its use of numbers, and to add the
following new requirement:
Once chosen by the permittee, the productivity alternative in
subsection (a)(6) may not be modified without approval from the
Department.
III. Public Comment Procedures
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your
comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program
approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it
will become part of the State program.
Written Comments
Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address
given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to
the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in
support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to
your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after
the close of the comment period (see DATES). We will make every attempt
to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments
delivered to an address other than the Indianapolis Area Office may not
be logged in.
Electronic Comments
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or Word file avoiding
the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also
include ``Attn: Docket No. IL-103-FOR'' and your name and return
address in your
[[Page 17017]]
Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have
received your Internet message, contact the Indianapolis Area Office at
(317) 226-6700.
Availability of Comments
We will make comments, including names and addresses of
respondents, available for public review during normal business hours.
We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents
request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent
allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their
name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must
state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.
Public Hearing
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., e.s.t. on April
19, 2005. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend
a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the
hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests
an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we
request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing
provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public
hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to
speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the
audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you
will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will
end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in
the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a
public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with
us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings
are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of
meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a
written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule
meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that
section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual
language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because
each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This determination is based on the fact that the Illinois program does
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Illinois program has no
effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect The
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that
agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
[[Page 17018]]
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would
have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data
and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a
major rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 1, 2005.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 05-6601 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P