[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26801-26825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13267]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 913

[SPATS No. IL-089-FOR]


Illinois Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 
Interior.


[[Page 26802]]


ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with certain exceptions and additional 
requirements, 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 proposed 
revisions to and additions of regulations pertaining to termination of 
jurisdiction, permit fees, definitions, coal exploration, permitting, 
environmental resources, reclamation plans, special categories of 
mining, small operator assistance, bonding, performance standards, 
revegetation, inspection, enforcement, civil penalties, administrative 
and judicial review, and certification of blasters. The amendment is 
intended to revise the Illinois program to be consistent with the 
corresponding Federal regulations, incorporate the additional 
flexibility afforded by recently revised Federal regulations, clarify 
ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Indianapolis Field Office, Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal 
Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, 
Indiana 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.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated February 3, 1995 (Administrative Record No. IL-
1615), Illinois submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant 
to SMCRA. Illinois submitted the proposed amendment in response to an 
August 5, 1993, letter (Administrative Record No. IL-1400) that OSM 
sent to Illinois in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c), in response to 
required program amendments at 30 CFR 913.16(s), (t), and (u), and at 
its own initiative. Illinois proposed to revise or add provisions to 
the following parts or sections of its program: 62 IAC 1700, general; 
62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, definitions; 62 IAC 1761.11, areas where mining 
is prohibited or limited; 62 IAC 1772, requirements for coal 
exploration; 62 IAC 1773, requirements for permits and permit 
processing; 62 IAC 1774.13, permit revisions; 62 AC 1778.15, right of 
entry information; 62 IAC 1779, surface mining permit applications--
minimum requirements for information on environmental resources; 62 IAC 
1780.23, reclamation plan--premining and postmining information; 62 IAC 
1783, underground mining permit applications: minimum requirements for 
information on environmental resources; 62 IAC 1784.15, reclamation 
plan--premining and postmining information; 62 IAC 1785, requirements 
for permits for special categories of mining; 62 IAC 1795, small 
operator assistance; 62 IAC 1800, bonding and insurance requirements 
for surface coal mining and reclamation operations; 62 IAC 1816, 
permanent program performance standards--surface mining activities; 62 
IAC 1817, permanent program performance standards--underground mining 
activities; 62 IAC 1825.14, high capability lands--soil replacement; 62 
IAC 1840, department inspections; 62 IAC 1843, state enforcement; 62 
IAC 1845.12, when penalty will be assessed; 62 IAC 1847, notice of 
hearing; and 62 IAC 1850, training, examination and certification of 
blasters.
    OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 27, 
1995, Federal Register (60 FR 19522), and in the same document opened 
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public 
hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment 
period closed on March 29, 1995. A public hearing was requested and was 
held on March 24, 1995, as scheduled.
    During its review of the amendment, OSM identified concerns 
relating to 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, definition of wetlands; 62 IAC 
1773.20, general procedures for improvidently issued permits; 62 IAC 
1773.23, review of ownership of control and violation information; 62 
IAC 1773.24, procedures for challenging ownership or control shown in 
the Applicant Violator System; 62 IAC 1774.13(d)(6), incidental 
boundary revisions; 62 IAC 1785.17, prime farmlands; 62 IAC 1816/
1817.13 and 1816/1817.46(e)(2), siltation structures; 62 IAC 1816/
1817.116(a)(3)(F) and 62 IAC 1816(a)(4)(A)(ii), revegetation standards 
for small isolated areas; 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(D), revegetation 
standards for hay production; 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(D), revegetation 
standards for hay production; 62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(5), wetlands 
revegetation; 62 IAC 1816/1817.116(c), revegetation reference areas; 
and 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A, permit specifics yield standards. OSM 
notified Illinois of the 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 additional 
explanatory information and revisions to its proposed program 
amendment. Based upon the additional explanatory information and 
revisions to the proposed program amendment submitted by Illinois, OSM 
reopened the public comment period in the December 5, 1995, Federal 
Register (60 FR 62229) and provided an opportunity for a public hearing 
on the adequacy of the revised amendment. The public comment period 
closed on January 4, 19996. The public hearing scheduled for January 2, 
1996, was not held because no one requested an opportunity to testify.

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.

A. Revisions to Illinois' Regulations That Are Not Substantive in 
Nature

    Revisions not specifically discussed in this final rule concern 
nonsubstantive wording changes, corrected typographical errors, or 
revised cross-references and paragraph notations to reflect 
organizational changes within the amended regulations.
    Throughout its revised regulations, Illinois proposed to change 
specific references of the ``Illinois Department of Mines and 
Minerals'' to the ``Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of 
Mines and Minerals'' in order to reflect a reorganization change which 
was effective July 1, 1995; to change its citation references of the 
``Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 96\1/2\, pars. 7901.01 et seq.'' to ``225 
ILCS 720'' to reflect recodification of the Illinois Surface Coal 
Mining Land

[[Page 26803]]

Conservation and Reclamation Act (State Act) that occurred in 1992; and 
to change its references of the ``Soil Conservation Service'' and 
``S.C.S.'' to the ``Natural Resources Conservation Service'' and 
``NRCS'' to reflect that Federal agency's change in name.
    The above proposed revisions do not alter the substance of the 
previously approved provisions in the Illinois regulations. Therefore, 
the Director finds that they will not render the Illinois regulations 
less effective than the Federal regulations.

B. Revisions to Illinois' Regulations That Are Substantively Identical 
to the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations

1. Revisions to Existing Regulations and New Regulations
    62 IAC 1700.11(f), Termination of jurisdiction (30 CFR 700.11(d)); 
62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, Definition of ``Applicant Violator System or 
AVS'' (30 CFR 773.5); 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, Definition of ``Federal 
violation notice'' (30 CFR 773.5); 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, Definition 
of ``Historic lands'' (30 CFR 762.5); 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, 
Definition of ``Land eligible for remining'' (30 CFR 701.5); 62 IAC 
1701.Appendix A, Definition of ``Ownership or control link'' (30 CFR 
773.5); 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, Definition of ``State violation 
notice'' (30 CFR 773.5); 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, Definition of 
``Substantially disturb'' (30 CFR 701.5); 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, 
Definition of ``Violation notice'' (30 CFR 773.5); 62 IAC 
1761.11(a)(4)(B), Areas where mining is prohibited or limited (30 CFR 
761.11(d)(2)); 62 IAC 1773.15 (b)(1) and (b)(2), Review of violations 
(30 CFR 773.15 (b)(1) and (b)(2)); 62 IAC 1773.20(b), Improvidently 
issued permits review criteria (30 CFR 773.20(b)); 62 IAC 
1773.20(c)(4), Improvidently issued permits remedial measures (30 CFR 
773.20(c)(2)); 62 IAC 1773.21(a), Automatic suspension and rescission 
(30 CFR 773.21(a)); 62 IAC 1773.22, Verification of ownership or 
control application information (30 CFR 773.22); 62 IAC 1773.23, Review 
of ownership or control and violation information (30 CFR 773.23); 62 
IAC 1773.24(a), procedures for challenging ownership or control links 
shown in the Applicant Violator System (30 CFR 773.24(a)); 62 IAC 
1773.25, Standards for challenging ownership or control links and the 
status of violations (30 CFR 773.25); 62 IAC 1780.23(a) (1)-(2), 
Reclamation plan premining information for surface mining permit 
applications (30 CFR 780.23(a) (1)-(2)); 62 IAC 1780.23 (b) and (c), 
Reclamation plan postmining information for surface mining permit 
applications (30 CFR 780.23 (b) and (c)); 62 IAC 1784.15(a) (1)-(2), 
Reclamation plan premining information for underground mining permit 
applications (30 CFR 784.15(a) (1)-(2)); 62 IAC 1784.15 (b) and (c), 
Reclamation plan postmining information for underground mining permit 
applications (30 CFR 784.15 (b) and (c)); 62 IAC 1795.4(b), Definition 
of ``Qualified laboratory'' (30 CFR 795.3); 62 IAC 1795.6 (b), (b)(1), 
and (b)(2), Small operator assistance--eligibility for assistance (30 
CFR 795.6 (a)(2), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(2)(ii)); 62 IAC 1795.9 (b)(1)-
(b)(5), Small operator assistance--program services and data 
requirements (30 CFR 795.9 (b)(1)-(b)(5)); 62 IAC 1795.12(a)(2), Small 
operator assistance--applicant liability (30 CFR 795.12(a)(2)); 62 IAC 
1816.79, Protection of underground mining (30 CFR 816.79); 62 IAC 
1816.97(b), Endangered and threatened species--surface mining (30 CFR 
816.97(b)); 62 IAC 1817.97(b), Endangered and threatened species--
underground mining (30 CFR 817.97(b)); 62 IAC 1840.11 (g) and (h), 
Inspections by the Department--abandoned sites (30 CFR 840.11 (g) and 
(h)); 62 IAC 1843.13(a)(3), Suspension or revocation of permits (30 CFR 
843.13(a)(3)); 62 IAC 1843.13(a)(4)(B), Suspension or revocation of 
permits (30 CFR 843.13(a)(4)(ii)); 62 IAC 1843.13(b), Suspension or 
revocation of permits (30 CFR 843.13(d)); and 62 IAC 1843.23, 
Enforcement actions at abandoned sites (30 CFR 843.22).
    Because the above proposed revisions and/or additions are identical 
in meaning to the corresponding Federal regulations, shown in brackets, 
the Director finds that Illinois' proposed regulations are no less 
effective than the Federal regulations.
2. Deletions of Existing Regulations
    62 IAC 1773.21(c), Improvidently issued permits--appeals of 
rescission notices (30 CFR 773.21(c), 59 FR 54306, October 28, 1994); 
62 IAC 1779.22, Surface coal mining application requirements for 
premining land use information (30 CFR 779.22, 59 FR 27932, May 27, 
1994); 62 IAC 1779.25(a)(11), Surface coal mining application 
requirements for premining slope measurements (30 CFR 779.25(a)(11), 59 
FR 27932, May 27, 1994); 62 IAC 1783.22, Underground coal mining 
application requirements for premining land use information (30 CFR 
783.22, 59 FR 27932, May 27, 1994); and 62 IAC 1783.25(a)(11), 
Underground coal mining application requirements for premining slope 
measurements (30 CFR 783.25(a)(11), 59 FR 27932, May 27, 1994).
    The above proposed deletions are consistent with OSM's repeal of 
the Federal counterpart regulations, shown in brackets. Therefore, the 
Director finds that the proposed deletions will not render the Illinois 
regulations less effective than the Federal regulations.

C. Revisions to Illinois' Regulations That Are Substantive in Nature

1. 62 IAC 1700.16(a)  Fees
    Illinois proposed a revision to 62 IAC 1700.16(a) that requires 
fees collected under the provisions of the Surface Coal Mining Land 
Conservation and Reclamation Act (State Act) be deposited in the Coal 
Mining Regulatory Fund instead of the general revenue fund. This 
revision implements the requirements at 225 ILCS 720/9.07 of the State 
Act that OSM approved on November 21, 1994 (59 FR 59918). The Coal 
Mining Regulatory Fund was established to receive money for 
administration of the Illinois program. There is no direct Federal 
counterpart to 62 IAC 1700.16(a). However, the proposed amendment is 
not inconsistent with the general requirements for permit fees at 
section 507(a) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 777.17 of the Federal regulations. 
Therefore, the Director finds that the proposed revision to 62 IAC 
1700.16(a) is not inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA or the 
Federal regulations.
2. 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A  Wetland Definition
    Illinois proposed to add the definition of ``wetland'' from the 
Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 (20 ILCS 830/I-6(a)) to 
its regulations at 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A. Illinois proposed the 
definition because it had proposed standards for wetland revegetation 
in its regulations at 62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(5). Illinois defined 
wetland to mean ``land that has a predominance of hydric soils (soils 
which are usually wet and where there is little or no free oxygen) and 
that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency 
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances 
does support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation (plants typically 
found in wet habitats) typically adapted for life in saturated soil 
conditions. Areas which are restored or created as the result of 
mitigation or planned construction projects and which function as a 
wetland are included within this definition even when all three wetland 
parameters are not present.''

[[Page 26804]]

    In its letter dated April 28, 1995 (Administrative Record No. 
1649), OSM requested Illinois to provide a statement which explains the 
meaning of the last sentence of the ``wetlands'' definition (Areas 
which are restored or created as the result of mitigation or planned 
construction projects and which function as a wetland are included 
within this definition even when all three wetland parameters are not 
present). At the May 31, 1995, meeting (Administrative Record No. 
1654), Illinois explained that generally the ``hydric'' soil profile 
may not be fully developed in a newly created wetland. This concept is 
consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetlands 
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1 (Administrative Record No. 
IL-1616). In the manual, the Corps states that ``Although wetland 
indicators of all three parameters (i.e. vegetation, soils, and 
hydrology) may be found in some man-induced wetlands, indicators of 
hydric soils are usually absent. Hydric soils require long periods 
(hundreds of years) for development of wetness characteristics, and 
most man-induced wetlands have not been in existence or a sufficient 
period to allow development of hydric soil characteristics * * *.''
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Chapter VII do not contain a 
counterpart wetland definition. However, the Illinois definition is not 
inconsistent with the provisions of section 515(b)(24) of SMCRA or the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.97(f) pertaining to wetlands and 
habitats of unusually high value for fish and wildlife. These 
provisions require the operator to minimize disturbances and adverse 
impacts to fish and wildlife and to enhance wherever practical or 
restore habits or high value for fish and wildlife, including wetlands.
    Based on the above discussion, the Director finds that Illinois' 
proposed definition of wetland is not inconsistent with SMCRA or the 
Federal regulations.
3. 62 IAC 1772.11(b)(5)  Notice Requirements for Exploration Removing 
250 Tons of Coal or Less
    At 62 IAC 1772.11(b)(5), Illinois proposed to clarify that forms 
OG-7 and OG-8 are required to be submitted with a coal exploration 
notice only if such forms are required by the Department's Oil and Gas 
Division.
    There is no direct Federal regulation counterpart. However, the 
Director finds the proposed regulation is not inconsistent with the 
general provisions governing coal exploration notice requirements at 30 
CFR 772.11.
4. 62 IAC 1772.12(d)(2)  Decision on an Application for Exploration 
Removing More Than Two Hundred and Fifty (250) Tons of Coal
    Illinois proposed to revise 62 IAC 1772.12(d)(2) by replacing the 
word ``operation'' with the word ``permit'' in the phrase ``application 
for a coal exploration operation.'' The Director finds the revised 
language is substantively identical to the language in the Federal 
counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 772.12(d)(2); and it is, therefore, no 
less effective than the Federal regulation.
    At 62 IAC 1772.12(d)(2)(C), Illinois proposed to delete its 
reference to the ``agency with jurisdiction over State Historic 
Preservation'' and replace it with the name of the agency, ``Illinois 
Historic Preservation Agency,'' that has jurisdiction over cultural and 
historical resources in Illinois. The Director finds that referencing 
the actual agency that has jurisdiction adds clarity to this provision 
and does not render the previously approved regulation less effective 
than the Federal counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 772.12(d)(2)(iii).
5. 62 IAC 1773.15(a)(1)  Review of Permit Applications
    Illinois offers the opportunity for both an informal conference and 
a public hearing on the decision to issue deny, or modify a permit 
application. Illinois is proposing to revise 62 IAC 1773.15(a)(1) by 
removing reference to its informal conference at section 1773.13(c) and 
adding a reference to its public hearing at section 1773.14. This is 
consistent with the Illinois Attorney General's legal opinion dated 
June 13, 1980, which was required by OSM in accordance with 30 CFR 
731.14(c) prior to State program approval. In the Illinois Attorney 
General's opinion, the public hearing at 62 IAC 1773.14 met the 
requirements of the informal conference in the Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 773.13(c). Illinois' informal conference at section 1773.13(c) 
was considered an optional, additional step for public participation in 
permit processing. Therefore, the Director finds that the Illinois 
regulation at 62 IAC 1773.15(a)(1), as amended, is no less effective 
than the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.15(a)(1).
6. 62 IAC 1773.24  Procedures for Challenging Ownership or Control 
Shown in the Applicant Violator System
    Illinois proposed new provisions at 62 IAC 1773.24 (b) through (d) 
that provide procedures for challenges concerning the status of State 
violations to which persons shown on the Applicant Violation System 
(AVS) have been linked. These proposed procedures are substantively 
identical to the procedures in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.24 
(b) through (d) for challenges concerning an ownership or control link 
shown in the AVS or the status of a Federal violation. Therefore, the 
Director finds that Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1773.24 (b) through 
(d) for challenging the status of State violations are no less 
effective than 30 CFR 773.24 (b) through (d) of the Federal regulations 
for challenging the status of Federal violations.
7. 62 IAC 1774.13  Application Requirements and Procedures for Permit 
Revisions
    a. Section 1774.13(b)(2)(E). At subsection (b)(2)(E), Illinois is 
proposing that a significant revision be required for land use changes 
involving greater than 5 percent of the ``Total permit acreage'' 
instead of the ``original total permit acreage.'' This proposed change 
in language allows adjustment to the previously approved 5 percent 
cumulative total limitation. The proposed addition of subsection 
1774.13(b)(2)(E)(i) would allow the accumulation of the 5 percent limit 
to restart upon issuance of a significant revision that addresses all 
previous land use changes approved via insignificant revisions. The 
proposed addition of subsection 1774. 13(b)(2)(E)(ii) would allow 
acreage added by incidental boundary revisions to be included in the 
total permit acreage used to determine the 5 percent limit if the 
acreage has been addressed previously in a significant revision. 
Changing the land use on more than an accumulated 5 percent of the 
permit area through the insignificant revision process without giving 
the public an opportunity for review and comment through the 
significantly revision process would still not be allowed under the 
proposed revision. It is also noted that Illinois requires all 
alternative land use revisions, both significant and insignificant, to 
comply with its postmining land capability requirements at 62 IAC 
1816.133 or 1817.133 and requires consultation with the landowner or 
the land management agency with jurisdiction over the lands before 
approval of either type of revision.
    The Federal counterpart regulation for permit revisions at 30 CFR 
774.13(b) requires the regulatory authority to establish guidelines for 
the scale or extent of revisions for which all the permit application 
requirements will apply. OSM determined in the September 28, 1983, 
Federal Register

[[Page 26805]]

948 FR 44344) that this requirement provided flexibility to the 
regulatory authority to establish guidelines suitable to the operation 
of individual State programs. Therefore, the Director finds that the 
proposed revisions represent a reasonable application by Illinois of 
the requirement in 30 CFR 774.13(b) and that 62 IAC 1774.13(b), as 
amended, is no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulation 
for permit revisions.
    b. Section 1774.13(d)(6). Illinois is proposing to amend its 
regulations pertaining to incidental boundary revisions as a partial 
response to an August 5, 1993, letter (Administrative Record No. IL-
1400) that was sent to Illinois in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c) and 
(e)(3). OSM had determined that Illinois' administration of its 
incidental boundary revision regulations appeared inconsistent with the 
approved regulatory program. At subsection (d)(6), Illinois originally 
proposed to require public notice and a ten-day comment period for 
incidental boundary revision applications which propose new surface 
acreage or planned subsidence shadow area to the original permit 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1615). During a May 31, 1995, public 
meeting (Administrative Record NO. 1654), Illinois and OSM discussed 
reducing the comment period from ten days to seen days because of time 
restrictions in processing incidental boundary revisions (90 days). 
Subsequent to this meeting, Illinois submitted revised language which 
reduced the comment period to seven days. Illinois had previously 
submitted a letter dated September 14, 1993 (Administrative Record No. 
IL-1402), that specified the internal control and management practices 
implemented to identify potential patterns of incidental boundary 
revision abuse and to prevent abuse.
    The Director finds that the proposed amendment to Illinois' 
regulations at 62 AC 1774.13(d)(6) to allow public involvement in this 
incidental boundary revision review and approved process is consistent 
with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.13(d). Furthermore, 
Illinois' proposed amendment and its implementation of internal 
management control measures for its incidental boundary revision review 
and approval process resolves the issues associated with OSM's August 
5, 1993, 30 CFR part 732 action.
8. 62 IAC 1778.15  Right for Entry Information
    a. Section 1778.15(a). At subsection (a), Illinois is proposing to 
remove the requirement for underground coal mining applications to 
contain a description of the documents upon which the applicant bases 
his or her legal right to enter and begin surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations in the shadow area, including the right to 
subside within the shadow area. Right of entry information would still 
be required to enter and begin surface coal mining and reclamation 
operations in the permit area. The language in the revised provision is 
substantively identical to the counterpart Federal provision at 30 CFR 
778.15(a), which requires such a description only for the permit area. 
On April 5, 1983 (48 FR 14814), OSM revised the definition of ``permit 
area'' and associated terms to exclude areas overlying underground 
workings (shadow area). Therefore, the Director finds 62 IAC 177815(a), 
as revised, is no less effective than the counterpart Federal 
regulation.
    b. Section 1778.15(e). At subsection (e), Illinois is proposing to 
clarify that underground mining applications in which the applicant 
claims to have valid existing rights to conduct planned subsidence 
operations within an area where mining is prohibited or limited, 
contain the necessary information and meet the requirements of 62 IAC 
1778.16. (Relationship to Areas Designed Unsuitable for Mining) and 62 
IAC 1761.12 (Procedures for determining whether mining operations are 
limited or prohibited). The existing provision specified this 
information for applications to conduct surface coal mining operations 
only. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.15 pertaining to right of 
entry information contain no comparable requirement. However, the 
proposed additional requirement at 62 IAC 1778.15(e) is not 
inconsistent with the Federal regulation provisions at 30 CFR 761.12 
pertaining to procedures for determining whether mining operations are 
limited or prohibited, Sec. 778.16 pertaining to the proposed permit 
area relationship to areas designed unsuitable for mining, or 
Sec. 784.20 pertaining to the requirement for an underground mining 
application to contain a substance control plan. Therefore the Director 
finds that the revised provision at subsection (e) does not render the 
Illinois regulations at 62 IAC 1778.15 less effective than the 
counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.15, and he is approving 
it.
    c. Section 1778.15(f). Illinois is proposing to add new subsection 
(f) to require applications for underground mining area (shadow area) 
to contain a notarized statement by a responsible official of the 
applicant attesting that all necessary mining rights, including the 
right to subside, if applicable, have been or will be obtained prior to 
mining. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.15 pertaining to right of 
entry information contain no comparable requirements for underground 
mining shadow area. However, the proposed requirements at 62 IAC 
1778.15(f) are not inconsistent with the Federal regulation provisions 
at 30 CFR 78.10 pertaining to the requirement for subsidence control 
plans for undergrounds mining applications. Therefore, the Director 
finds that the new provision at subsection (f) does not render the 
Illinois regulations at 62 IAC 1778.15 less effective than the 
counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 778.18, and he is approving 
it.
9. 62 IAC 1780.23(a)(3) and 62 IAC 1784.15(a)(3)  Reclamation Plan: 
Premining Information
    Because the cited regulations governing surface mining permit 
application requirements at 62 IAC 1780.23(a) are identical to 
counterpart regulations governing underground mining permit application 
requirements at 62 IAC 1784.15(a), the discussion of changes are 
consolidated.
    Illinois is proposing to add new subsection (a)(3) at 62 IAC 
1780.23 and 1784,15. This is a recodification of the provisions deleted 
from existing 62 IAC 1779.25(a)(11)(D) for surface mines and 1783.25 
(a)(11)(D) for underground mines with one minor exception. The 
recodified provisions pertain to a requirement for a premining soils 
map or contoured aerial photo of the proposed permit area. Both the 
current provisions and the recodified provisions, as originally 
proposed (Administrative Record No. IL-1663), require ``a solid map of 
medium intensity'' to be submitted with the permit application, while 
the revised recodified provisions require ``an intensive soil map'' to 
be submitted. This change in language was proposed because of a comment 
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, during the State's own 
rulemaking process, that the terminology ``medium intensity'' was not 
consistent with the terminology of the National Cooperative Soil Survey 
for the State of Illinois. There are no Federal counterpart provisions. 
However, the Director finds that the addition of these previously 
approved requirements, including the change in terminology at 62 IAC 
1780.23(a)(3) and 1784.15(a)(3), is not inconsistent with the Federal 
regulations.
10. 63 IAC 1785.17(a)  Prime Farmlands
    In subsection (1)(1), Illinois is proposing to delete the following 
language: ``Nothing in this Section shall

[[Page 26806]]

apply to any permit issued period to the date of enactment of the 
Federal Act, or to any revisions or renewals thereof, or to any 
existing surface mining operations for which a permit was issued prior 
to the date of enactment of the Federal Act, as determined by the 
Department prior to September 29, 1981. For lands for which a request 
for exemption was initially made or pending on or after September 29, 
1981.'' Illinois also proposed to delete existing subsections (a)(5) 
and (a)(6) pertaining to an acreage limitation on the amount of 
exempted prime farmland and (a)(7)(B) pertaining to a preliminary 
exemption review. Illinois proposed to redesignate existing subsection 
(a)(1) to (a)(2)(A); (a)(2) to (a)(2)(B); (a)(3) to (a)(2)(C); (a)(4) 
to (a)(3); and (a)(7)(A) to (a)(4).
    The Federal regulations do not contain counterpart provisions to 
the deleted language in subsections (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(6), and 
(a)(7)(B). The proposed revisions at 62 IAC 1785.17(a) render Illinois' 
regulation requirements substantively identical to the counterpart 
Federal regulation requirements at 30 CFR 785.17(a) with one exception. 
At redesignated subsection (a)(4), Illinois retained an additional 
requirements for a scale map of the area proposed to be exempted. 
Therefore, the Director finds the revised provisions of 62 IAC 
1785.17(a) are no less effective than the Federal regulation provisions 
at 30 CFR 785.17(a).
11. 63 IAC 1785.23  Minor Underground Mine Facilities Not at or 
Adjacent to the Processing or Preparation Facility or Area
    Illinois originally adopted section 1785.23 to take into account 
the distinct differences between surface and underground mining. This 
category of facilities, which includes air shaft, fan and ventilation 
buildings, small support buildings or sheds, access power holes, and 
other small structures and associated roads, would be subject to an 
abbreviated permit application and review period on the basis that 
these types of structures have a very minimal impact on the land and 
the environment. There is no Federal counterpart to these previously 
approved provisions. In this amendment, Illinois proposed to clarify 
the public notice and opportunity to comment provisions at subsection 
(d) by revising paragraph (3) to require written comments from persons 
with an interest which is or may be adversely affected be filed within 
the 30-day public comment period and by revising paragraph (4) to 
require the Interagency Committee to submit review comments within 30 
days of the date of receipt of the application. A proposed revision to 
subsection (e)(1) requires the Department to make its final decision to 
approve, deny, or modify the complete application for a permit within 
20 days, rather than 10 days, following the close of the public comment 
period. Subsection (g)(1) is proposed to be amended to require the 
Department to notify persons who filed comments or objections to the 
application of its final decision, to replace the word ``disapprove'' 
with the word ``deny'' for consistency with other sections of the 
Illinois regulations dealing with approval and denial of permit 
applications, and its final action. Subsection (g)(2) is proposed to be 
revised by correcting the administrative and judicial review regulation 
citation.
    While there are no direct Federal counterparts to these proposed 
revisions, the Director finds that the proposed revisions to 62 IAC 
1785.23 will enhance the public participation and review process 
provisions for a minor underground mine facility permit application and 
that the proposed revisions are not inconsistent with the public 
participation and review provisions of section 510(a) of SMCRA and 30 
CFR 773.13 and 773.15(a) of the Federal regulations.
12. 62 IAC 1795  Small Operator Assistance Program
    On November 5, 1990, and October 24, 1992, the President signed 
into law the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-
508 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, 
respectively. Included in these laws were amendments to the Small 
Operator Assistance Program (SOAP) authorized at section 507(c) of 
SMCRA. On May 31, 1994 (59 FR 28136), OSM published a final rule to 
amend the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 795 to reflect these 
amendments.
    In this amendment, Illinois proposed changes to its regulations to 
be consistent with and incorporate the additional flexibility afforded 
by the revised provisions of SMCRA and the Federal regulations. 
Illinois had previously proposed enabling statutory revisions 
pertaining to its SOAP at 225 ILCS 720/2.02 of the Illinois Surface 
Coal Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Act (State Act), and 
these revisions were approved by OSM on November 21, 1994 (59 FR 
59918). The Illinois SOAP regulations that contain revised provisions 
substantively identical to the counterpart Federal regulations are 
noted in finding B.1., and those that contain revised provisions that 
are not substantively identical to the counterpart Federal regulations 
are discussed below.

a. Section 1795.1  Scope and Purpose

    Illinois proposed to amend the purpose statement at subsection (b) 
to reference the new and enhanced technical permitting services that 
can be provided to eligible operators under its SOAP program. Although 
the purpose statement in the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
795.1 was not changed to reflect these new and enhanced technical 
permitting services, the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 795.9(b) does 
list the specific technical services authorized for the SOAP by the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992. Therefore, the Director finds that the 
revised purpose statement at 62 IAC 1795.1 is no less effective than 
the counterpart Federal regulation purpose statement at 30 CFR 795.1.

b. Section 1795.9  Program Services and Data Requirements

    At 62 IAC 1795.9(b)(6), Illinois proposed substantively identical 
language to that contained in the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 
CFR 795.9(b)(6), including the listing of its counterpart regulation 
citations at 62 IAC 1780.16 and 1784.21, but also authorized the 
collection of information and production of plans for the information 
required under its regulations at 62 IAC 1779.19 and 1783.19. Sections 
1779.19 for surface mines and 1783.19 for underground mines require a 
permit application to contain a map or aerial photograph that 
delineates existing vegetative types and a description of the plant 
communities within the proposed permit areas that include sufficient 
adjacent areas to allow evaluation of vegetation as important habitat 
for fish and wildlife for those species of fish and wildlife identified 
under 62 IAC 1780.16 and 1784.21, respectively. The Federal regulation 
at 30 CFR 795.9(b)(6) authorizes the collection of site-specific 
resources information and production of protection and enhancement 
plans for fish and wildlife habitats required by 30 CFR 780.16 and 
784.21 and information and plans for any other environmental values 
required by the regulatory authority under SMCRA.
    Since the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 795.9(b)(6) 
allows a regulatory authority to authorize assistance for the 
collection of information and production of plans for any other 
environmental value required under SMCRA, the Director finds the 
revised provisions of 62 IAC 1795.9(b)(6) are no less effective than 
the Federal regulation provisions.

[[Page 26807]]

c. Section 1795.12  Applicant Liability

    At 62 IAC 1795.12(a)(3), Illinois proposed language which is 
substantively identical to the language in the Federal regulation at 30 
CFR 795.12(a)(3) with the following exceptions. Illinois is requiring 
reimbursement if the ``original permittee's and transferee's'' total 
actual and attributed production exceeds 300,000 tons during the 
specified 12-month period, while the Federal regulation requires 
reimbursement if the ``transferee's'' total actual and attributed 
production exceeds 300,000 tons during the specified 12-month period. 
Illinois further clarified its requirement by proposing the following 
additional language. ``If the permit is transferred during the twelve 
(12) month period immediately following the permit issuance date, the 
determination of adherence to the twelve (12) month-300,000 tons limit 
shall be performed by combining the actual and attributed production of 
both parties for the twelve (12) month period immediately following the 
date of original permit issuance.'' Both the Illinois and Federal 
regulations contain the provision that holds the applicant and its 
successor jointly and severally obligated to reimburse the regulatory 
authority. The Director finds that since the attributed tonnage in 
Illinois' proposed revision does not exceed the 300,000 ton limit for 
the same time period specified in the Federal regulation, the revised 
regulation at 62 IAC 1795.12(a)(3) is no less effective than the 
counterpart Federal regulation.
    At 62 IAC 1795.12(b), Illinois proposed to delete its definition of 
good faith. There is no Federal counterpart to this definition. 
Therefore, the Director finds this deletion is not inconsistent with 
the Federal regulations.
13. 62 IAC 1800  Bonding and Insurance Requirements for Surface Coal 
Mining and Reclamation Operations

a. Section 1800.5  Definitions

    Illinois proposed to revise subsection (b)(4) to allow acceptance 
of irrevocable letters of credit from banks organized or authorized in 
other states and from banks organized or authorized in the United 
States by national charter rather than from only those organized or 
authorized to transact business in Illinois. Illinois is requiring a 
confirming bank be designated with an office in Illinois that is 
authorized to accept, negotiate, and pay the letter upon presentment in 
Illinois if the bank does not have an office for collection in 
Illinois. This is consistent with the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
800.5(b)(4) which requires the banks to be organized or authorized to 
transact business in the United States. Therefore, the Director finds 
the revised regulation at 62 IAC 1800.5(b)(4) is no less effective than 
the counterpart Federal regulation.

b. Section 1800.20  Surety Bonds

    Illinois is proposing to remove subsections (b)(2) through (b)(5), 
which contained surety bond conditions. The counterpart Federal 
regulation at 30 CFR 800.20(b) does not contain the provisions proposed 
for removal. Therefore, the Director finds the removal of these 
provisions is not inconsistent with the Federal regulations.

c. Section 1800.21  Collateral Bonds

    Illinois proposed to revise subsection (b)(1) to clarify that 
irrevocable letters of credit may be issued by banks organized or 
authorized to do business in Illinois, in another state of the United 
States or in the United States by national charter. Illinois is 
requiring a confirming bank be designated with an office in Illinois 
that is authorized to accept, negotiate, and pay the letter upon 
presentment in Illinois if the issuing bank does not have an office for 
collection in Illinois. This is consistent with the Federal regulation 
at 30 CFR 800.21(b)(1) which requires the banks issuing letters of 
credit to be organized or authorized to transact business in the United 
States. Therefore, the Director finds the revised regulation at 62 IAC 
1800.21(b)(1) is no less effective than the counterpart Federal 
regulation.
14. 62 IAC 1816 and 62 IAC 1817  Permanent Program Performance 
Standards for Surface and Underground Mining Activities
    The Illinois permanent program performance standard regulations for 
surface mining activities at 62 IAC 1816 and underground mining 
activities at 62 IAC 1817 that contain revised provisions substantively 
identical to the counterpart Federal regulations are noted in finding 
B.1., and those that contain revised provisions that are not 
substantively identical to the counterpart Federal regulations are 
discussed below. Since most of the surface mining and underground 
mining regulations are identical, the revisions are being combined for 
discussion purposes, unless otherwise noted.

a. Sections 1816.22(b) and 1817.22(b)  Topsoil and Subsoil: Substitutes 
and Supplements

    Illinois is proposing to remove subsection (b)(2) to eliminate the 
requirement that topsoil plans for substitutes or supplements be 
considered a significant revision unless specified circumstances apply. 
Existing subsection (b)(1) is redesignated subsection (b) because of 
the removal. The counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.22(b) 
and 817.22(b) do not contain the removed language, and the revised 
provisions in 62 IAC 1816.22(b) and 1817.22(b) are substantively 
identical to these Federal counterparts. Therefore, the Director finds 
the removal of subsection (b)(2) will not render Illinois' regulations 
at 62 IAC 1816.22(b) and 1817.22(b) less effective than the Federal 
counterpart regulations.

b. Sections 1816.41(c) and 1817.41(c)  Hydrologic Balance Protection: 
Ground Water Monitoring

    At 62 IAC 1816.41(c)(2) and 1817.41(c)(2), Illinois proposed to 
revise subsection (c)(2) by specifying that the ground water monitoring 
reports, that are required to be submitted every three months, shall be 
submitted by the first day of the second month following the reporting 
period, unless the Department specifies an alternative reporting 
schedule. The Federal counterpart regulations at 30 CFR 816.41(c)(2) 
and 817.41(c)(2) require reports to be submitted every three months or 
more frequently as prescribed by the regulatory authority without 
specifying exact reporting schedules. Since Illinois has retained its 
requirement that ground water monitoring data be submitted every three 
months or more frequently if necessary, the Director finds the addition 
of a specific reporting schedule will not render the Illinois 
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.41(c)(2) and 1817.41(c)(2) less effective 
than the counterpart Federal regulations.

c. Section 1816.41(e) and 1817.41(e)  Hydrologic Balance Protection: 
Surface Water Monitoring

    Illinois proposed to revise subsection (e)(2) by removing the 
requirement to send NPDES reports to the Department concurrently with 
those sent to the Illinois EPA and adding the requirement that NPDES 
reports are to be sent to the Department by the first day of the second 
month following the reporting period. The Federal counterpart 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.41(e)(2) and 817.41(e)(2) require surface 
water monitoring reports to be submitted

[[Page 26808]]

every three months or more frequently as prescribed by the regulatory 
authority without specifying exact reporting schedules. Since Illinois 
has retained its requirement that surface water monitoring data be 
submitted every three months or more frequently if necessary, the 
Director finds the addition of a specific reporting schedule for 
submitting Illinois' required NPDES report will not render the Illinois 
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.41(e)(2) and 1817.41(e)(2) less effective 
than the counterpart Federal regulations.

d. Sections 1816.46(e) and 1817.46(e)  Hydrologic Balance: Siltation 
Structures: Exemptions

    Illinois proposed to revise the language in subsection (e) and 
incorporate the language from existing subsection (e)(1) to read as 
follows: ``Exemptions to the requirements to pass all drainage from 
disturbed areas through a siltation structure may be granted if the 
disturbed drainage area within the total disturbed area is small . . 
.'' Illinois added an additional exemption provision at new subsection 
(e)(1) that will allow the use of the alternate sediment control 
measures described in Secs. 1816.45(b) and 1817.45(b) instead of 
siltation structures in instances where the disturbed drainage area 
within the total disturbed area is small and the permittee demonstrates 
that siltation structures are not necessary for drainage to meet the 
effluent limitations and water quality standards for the receiving 
waters. Sections 1816.45 for surface mining activities and 1817.45 for 
underground mining activities require that sediment control measures be 
designed, constructed, and maintained using the best technology 
currently available (BTCA). Furthermore, Illinois stated in the comment 
section of its revised amendment submittal dated November 1, 1995 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1663), that ``the Department will require 
that any alternative sediment control measures be shown to be the best 
technology currently available.''
    The Federal regulations do not contain a counterpart to the 
proposed exemption at 30 CFR 816.46(e)(1) and 817.46(e)(1). However, 
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.45(a)(1) and 817.45(a)(1) require 
that BTCA be used to ``prevent, to the extent possible, additional 
contributions of sediment to streamflow or to runoff outside the permit 
area.'' Also, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.46(b)(2) and 
817.46(b)(2) which required all surface drainage from a disturbed area 
be passed through a siltation structure were remanded by the District 
Court in 1985 in In re: Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation 
(III), 620 F. Suppl. 1519 (D.D.C. 1985). Subsequently, OSM suspended 
these rules on November 20, 1986 (51 FR 41957). The effect of this 
suspension is that State regulatory authorities may determine on a case 
by case basis what is BTCA rather than requiring, in every situation, 
that drainage be passed through siltation structures. The use of BTCA 
is required by sections 515(b)(10)(B) and 516(b)(9)(B) of SMCRA. In the 
preamble of the 1986 suspension notice (51 FR 41957-41958), OSM stated 
that ``in situations where sediment control measures other than 
siltation structures are determined as BTCA, the performance standards 
of Secs. 816.45 and 817.45 will control.'' The referenced sections are 
the Federal counterparts to Illinois regulations at 62 IAC 1816.45 and 
1817.45. Therefore, since Illinois requires alternate sediment control 
measures be designed, constructed, and maintained using BTCA, the 
Director finds the proposed revisions will not render 62 IAC 1816.46(e) 
and 1817.46(e) less effective than the Federal regulations for sediment 
control for small disturbed drainage areas.

e. Sections 1816.116(a)(2)(B) and 1817.116(a)(2)(B)  Revegetation 
Standards for Success: Success of Revegetation

    The State Act was amended at 225 ILCS 720/3.15 to change the 
revegetation responsibility period from five years to two years for 
areas eligible for remining consistent with section 515(b)(20)(B) of 
SMCRA. At sections 1816.116(a)(2)(B) for surface mining and 
1817.116(a)(2)(B) for underground mining, Illinois proposed to 
implement this statutory provision by revising the first sentence of 
each section to read: ``The period of extended responsibility shall 
continue for a period of not less than five (5) full years, except that 
on lands eligible for remining, the period of responsibility (until 
September 30, 2004) shall be two (2) full years.'' The counterpart 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2) and 817.116(c)(2), as 
amended on November 27, 1995 (60 FR 58480), require the period of 
responsibility for lands eligible for remining included in permits 
issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof, to continue 
for a period of not less than two full years. The amended Federal 
regulations also require that ``to the extent that the success 
standards are established by paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the 
lands shall equal or exceed the standards during the growing season of 
the last year of the responsibility period.'' Illinois' counterparts to 
30 CFR 816.116(b)(5) and 817.116(b)(5) at sections 1816.116 (a)(3)(A) 
and 1817.116(a)(3)(A) require remined areas to meet the specified 
standards in those sections during the last year of the responsibility 
period. Therefore, the Director finds that the revised regulations at 
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(B) and 1817.116(a)(2)(B) are no less effective 
than the counterpart Federal regulations.

f. Sections 1816.116(a)(2)(F) and 1817.116(a)(2)(F)  Revegetation 
Standards for Success: Augmentation

    (1) Existing provisions at subsection (a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), and (iii) 
concerning augmentation requirements for high capability land areas are 
proposed to be deleted. Illinois' provisions for high capability lands, 
including the provisions proposed for deletion, have no direct Federal 
counterparts. Therefore, the Director finds the deletion of these 
provisions is not inconsistent with the Federal regulations concerning 
revegetation success standards.
    (2) Illinois is proposing to add the following augmentation 
provision for pasture, hayland, and grazing land at new subsection 
(a)(2)(F)(i): ``The five (5) year period of responsibility shall not 
recommence after deep tillage on areas where the operator has met the 
revegetation success standards of subsection (a)(3)(E) below.'' 
Subsection (a)(3)(E) pertains to the revegatation success standards for 
pasture, hayland, and grazing land areas. Illinois' proposed provision 
would allow augmentation, in the form of deep tillage, without 
restarting the period of extended responsibility for revegetation 
success and bond liability. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(c)(1) and 817.116(c)(1) do not allow augumentation without 
restarting the period of extended responsibility. Although the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) and 817.116(c)(4) allow regulatory 
authorities to approve selective husbandry practices without extending 
the period of responsibility for revegetation success and bond 
liability, they must first obtain approval for the practices from OSM. 
The regulatory authorities must provide proof that the proposed 
practices are normal husbandry practices within the region for unmined 
lands having land uses similar to the approved postmining land use of 
the disturbed areas. Illinois has neither proposed nor obtained 
approval for use of deep tillage as a normal husbandry practice in 
Illinois. Therefore, the Director finds the

[[Page 26809]]

proposed provisions at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(F)(i) and 
1817.116(a)(2)(F)(i) are inconsistent with and less effective than the 
Federal regulation requirements at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(1) and 
817.116(c)(1), and he is not approving them. Furthermore, he is 
requiring Illinois to remove 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(F)(i) and 
1817.116(a)(2)(F)(i) from its program.
    (3) Illinois proposed to add augmentation provisions for wetlands 
at new subsection (a)(2)(F)(ii). A portion of the proposed provisions 
identify and clarify those actions which constitute augmentative 
practices. Augmentative practices include significant alterations to 
the size or character of the watershed, pumping used to maintain water 
levels, and applying neutralizing agents, chemical treatments or 
fertilizers to the wetland area. The Director finds that the augmented 
practices proposed by Illinois that would restart the period of 
extended responsibility for successful revegetation and bond liability 
on wetlands are not inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(c)(1) and 817.116(c)(1).
    The proposed provisions also identify and clarify those actions 
which constitute non-augmentative (normal husbandry) practices and 
management techniques for wetland areas. Non-augmentative practices and 
management techniques include normal agricultural husbandry practices, 
such as routine liming and fertilization, and wetlands managed as 
wildlife food plot areas and water management using permanent water 
control structures.
    On September 3, 1993 (Administrative Record No. IL-1219), OSM 
approved Illinois' designation of the agricultural practices described 
in the Illinois Agronomy Handbook (Administrative Record No. IL-1192A) 
and those practices which are a part of an approved conservation plan 
subject to the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) as normal agricultural husbandry practices for the 
State of Illinois. The approved practices include normal routine liming 
and fertilization of lands used for the production of food and/or 
forage. Therefore, in the State of Illinois, these approved 
agricultural practices would be used for the management of wildlife 
food plot areas.
    Illinois in its submission dated February 3, 1995 (Administrative 
Record No. IL-1615), addresses the use of permanent water control 
structures as a normal husbandry practice to manage water levels in 
wetlands. Illinois supports this designation by citing two publications 
which indicate that this type of water level management is necessary to 
create suitable aerobic/anaerobic conditions for the germination of 
hyrophytic plants.
    As shown above, the information and literature contained in the 
Illinois administrative record provide adequate documentation that 
agricultural techniques, such as routine liming and fertilization, are 
normal husbandry practices in the State of Illinois for lands used in 
the production of food and/or forage and that the use of permanent 
water control structures for managing the water levels of wetlands is a 
normal husbandry practice. These proposed practices should assist in 
ensuring the effectiveness of fish and wildlife management areas by 
providing regulation and guidelines for the enhancement of wetland and 
riparian vegetation areas as required by 30 CFR 816.97(f) and 817.97(f) 
of the Federal regulations. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(c)(4) and 817.116(c)(4) allow the regulatory authority to 
approve selective husbandry practices with prior approval from OSM. 
Therefore, the Director finds the proposed regulations at new 62 IAC 
1816.116(a)(2)(f)(ii) and 1817.116(a)(2)(F)(ii) are no less effective 
than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) and 817.116(c)(4).

g. Sections 1816.116(a)(3)(E) and 1817.116(a)(3)(E)  Ground Cover and 
Production for Pasture, Hayland, and Grazing Land

    In response to the required amendment at 30 CFR 913.16(s), 
subsection (a)(3)(E) is proposed to be amended to clarify that pasture 
and/or hayland or grazing land on non-previously disturbed areas are 
subject to a 90 percent ground cover standard for a minimum of any two 
years of a ten (10) year period prior to the release of the performance 
bond, except the first year of the five (5) year extended 
responsibility period. The counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(b)(1) and 817.116(b)(1) require that for areas developed for 
use as grazing land or pasture land, ground cover and production of 
living plants on the revegetated area meet certain success standards 
approved by the regulatory authority. With Illinois' proposed revision, 
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(E) and 1817.116(a)(3)(E) now contain both ground 
cover and production success standards for pasture, hayland, and 
grazing land. Therefore, the Director finds the proposed regulation 
provisions pertaining to production and ground cover success standards 
for pasture, hayland, and grazing land are no less effective than the 
counterpart Federal regulations, and he is removing the required 
amendment at 30 CFR 913.16(s).
    Illinois proposed to revise subsection (a)(3)(E) by removing the 
provision that limited the substitution of corn production for hay 
production on high capability pasture land to one attempt. The Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116 do not contain specific 
standards for high capability pasture land. However, the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and 817.116(a)(2) require that 
standards for success include criteria representative of unmined lands 
in the area being reclaimed to evaluate the appropriate vegetation 
parameters for production. The Illinois administrative record contains 
sufficient proof that high capability land is suitable for cropland and 
that crop/hay rotations are common practices in cropland areas 
surrounding mines (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1164 and IL-1192A). 
Therefore, since corn production standards are generally accepted to be 
more difficult to meet than hay production standards, the Director 
finds that the removal of this limitation provision will not render 62 
IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(E) and 1817.116(a)(3)(E) less effective than the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(1) and 817.116(b)(1).
    Illinois also proposed to revise subsection (a)(3)(E) to allow one 
year substitution of crops in lieu of hay on limited capability land, 
provided the Department determines that the practice is proper 
management in accordance with its regulations at 62 IAC 
1816.116(a)(2)(C) and 1817.116(a)(2)(C). The Illinois regulations at 
subsection (a)(2)(C) contain provisions pertaining to normal husbandry 
practices. In the amendment submittal dated February 3, 1995 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1615), Illinois noted that it has 
required limited capability land to be returned to a land use other 
than cropland as a normal practice. However, Illinois explained that 
some operators have reclaimed limited capability land to a higher 
quality when all prime and high capability land acreage obligations 
have been met. The capabilities described in the Illinois program 
include limited capability (non-cropland capable land), high capability 
(cropland capable land), and prime farmland (cropland capable land). 
Therefore, the Director interprets the reference Illinois made to ``a 
higher quality'' to mean that the limited capability land had been 
reclaimed to either prime farmland or high capability standards. To the 
extend that Illinois will consider the quality of the soils when making 
its determination and will restrict its approval to limited capability

[[Page 26810]]

lands that are reclaimed to a higher quality, the Director finds the 
proposed provision does not render the Illinois regulations less 
effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(1) and 
817.116(b)(1).

h. Section 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F)  Revegetation 
Success Standards for Non-Contiguous Areas Less Than or Equal to Four 
Acres

    Illinois proposes to add new subsection (a)(3)(F) as follows: 
``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 postmining land use at the end of the 
responsibility period.''
    Although OSM recognizes the practicality to excluding the need to 
test for revegetation success for small areas such as signs, boreholes, 
powerpoles, and other small and minimally disturbed areas, this 
proposal cannot be approved. The provision does not limit the type of 
disturbance that could occur on such areas. It does not clarify the 
type of demonstration the operator is to make at the end of the 
responsibility period to prove that the soil has been returned to its 
original capability and to prove that the postmining land use has been 
achieved. Illinois' proposed revision would allow bond release without 
adequate proof of productivity on disturbed areas of four acres or 
less.
    In order for OSM to approve this type of proposal, Illinois would 
need to provide additional regulatory language which would more closely 
correlate the maximum acreage to the types of activities which would 
qualify for the exemption. Illinois would also have to provide 
additional regulatory language as to what would constitute a 
satisfactory demonstration of minimum disturbance, achievement of 
original capability, and achievement of postmining land use. Absent 
this information, the Director finds that the proposed regulations at 
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F) are less effective than 
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a) and 817.116(a), and he is 
not approving them. Furthermore, he is requiring Illinois to remove 
these regulations from its program.

i. Section 1816.116(a)(4)(A)(ii)  Use of the Agricultural Lands 
Productivity Formula, Section 1816.Appendix; Fields

    Illinois proposed to add the following provision at subsection 
(a)(4)(A)(ii): ``The Department may approve a field to represent non-
contiguous areas less than or equal to four acres of the same 
capability if it determines that the field is representative of 
reclamation of such areas. The small isolated areas shall be managed 
and vegetated in the same manner as the representative field.''
    This proposal would allow the approval of the success of 
revegetation for non-contiguous disturbed areas based on the testing of 
a representative field of the same soil capability that had also been 
disturbed. The current Illinois program requires that fields of four 
acres or less be sampled in their entirety with yields determined by 
harvest weight. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.116(a)(1) 
require that revegetation standards for success and statistically valid 
sampling techniques for measuring success be utilized by the regulatory 
authority and that the sampling techniques for measuring success use a 
90 percent statistical confidence interval (i.e., one-sided test with a 
0.10 alpha level). The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(2) 
requires that prime farmland soil productivity be measured on a 
representative sample or on all of the mined and reclaimed prime 
farmland area using the reference crop determined under paragraph 
(b)(6) of this section. It also requires that a statistically valid 
sampling techniques at a 90 percent or greater confidence level be used 
as approved by the regulatory authority in consultation with the U.S. 
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    Illinois has not provided sufficient regulatory language as to how 
the determination that a field is representative of the small areas to 
be exempt from testing would be made and what information would be 
needed for a satisfactory demonstration of representation. Therefore, 
the Director finds that the proposed provisions at 62 IAC 
1816.116(a)(4)(A)(ii) are less effective than the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR 823.15, 816.116, and 817.116, and he is not approving them. 
Furthermore, he is requiring Illinois to remove these regulations from 
its program.

j. Section 1816.116(a)(4)(D)  Use of the Agricultural Lands 
Productivity Formula, Section 1816.Appendix; Crops

    Illinois is proposing to add oat crops to the list of crops that 
may be grown on prime farmland and other cropland areas to prove 
productivity. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(6) pertaining 
to prime farmland requires reference crops for proving soil 
productively be selected from the crops most commonly produced on the 
surrounding prime farmland. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(a) and 817.116(a) pertaining to other cropland areas require 
the use of criteria representative of unmined lands in the area being 
reclaimed. Proof exists in the Illinois administrative record that oats 
is a commonly grown crop in Illinois and that it is one of the crops 
that is rotated with corn on unmined cropland areas. This use is 
described in a section of the Illinois Agronomy Handbook concerning 
crop rotations. Therefore, the Director finds the revised regulation 
requirement is not inconsistent with the Federal regulations.

k. Sections 1816.116(a)(5) and 1817.116(a)(5)  Wetland Revegetation 
Success Standards

    Illinois proposed to add provisions at subsection (a)(5)(A) that 
specify the criteria and sampling procedures in the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual which will be used to determine 
wetland revegetation success. New subsection (a)(5)(B) further requires 
that areas designed to support vegetation in the approved plan have a 
minimum areal coverage of 30 percent. The testing procedures in 
Sections 1816.117(d) (1) through (3) and 1817.117(d) (1) through (3) 
shall be used to evaluate the extent of cover in conjunction with other 
specified procedures. In OSM's letter to the State dated April 28, 1995 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1649), Illinois was asked to provide a 
statement and technical support which justifies why a minimum areal 
coverage of 30 percent for wetlands will be consistent with the 
revegetation standards for ground cover for areas to be developed for 
fish and wildlife habitat at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(3) and 817.116(a)(3). As 
technical support for the 30 percent standard, Illinois provided a copy 
of a Michigan State University study (Journal of Wildlife Management 
45(1):1-15) that compared dabbling duck and aquatic macroinvertebrate 
responses to manipulated wetlands under 30:70, 50:50, and 70:30 percent 
of cover to percent of water treatments and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Biological Services Program, publication on the qualitative 
values of wetlands with various degrees of emergent vegetation at the 
20 percent to 70 percent levels (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1650B 
and IL-1653). Illinois provided a

[[Page 26811]]

statement that indicated the Michigan State University study determined 
that the 50:50 treatment was the most desirable vegetative cover. 
However, with the recognition that the percent of vegetative cover 
increases with time as open water decreases during wetlands 
development, Illinois determined use of the 30:70 as a minimum standard 
would provide more incentive for the industry to create wetlands.
    There are no direct counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116 and 817.116 for determining wetland revegetation success. 
However, OSM's internal policy and procedures for construction of 
wetlands to supplement and enhance fish and wildlife habitat as a 
postmining land use (Directives System No. TSR-14, Transmittal Number 
828) provide that wetland areas must meet the Federal definition of a 
wetland as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands 
Delineation Manual prior to bond release. Illinois' requirement that 
the wetland vegetation criteria in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Wetlands Delineation Manual be achieved as proof of productivity should 
assure that the wetland areas meet the Federal definition of a wetland 
as defined by the Corps. Therefore, the Director finds that 62 IAC 
1816.116(a)(5) and 1817.116(a)(5) are no less effective than the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3) and 817.116(b)(3) for areas 
to be developed for fish and wildlife habitat.

l. Sections 1816.117(a)(1) and 1817.117(a)(1)  Revegetation: Tree and 
Shrub Vegetation; Lands Eligible for Remining

    Illinois proposed to revise subsection (a)(1) by requiring the 
period of responsibility (until September 30, 2004) be two full years 
for trees and shrubs on lands eligible for remining. Also, until 
September 30, 2004, trees and shrubs planted on lands eligible for 
remining need not have been in place for three years prior to bond 
release and shall not be counted in determining success during the same 
calendar year in which they were planted.
    The counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(ii) and 
817.116(b)(3)(ii) do not contain the proposed provisions. However, the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2)(ii) and 817.116(c)(2)(ii) 
were amended November 27, 1995 (60 FR 58480), to require a period of 
responsibility of two full years for lands eligible for remining 
included in permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals 
thereof. This responsibility period requirement would apply to all 
applicable postmining land uses, including areas to be developed for 
fish and wildlife habitat. Also, a two year responsibility period 
effectively eliminates the requirement that trees and shrubs be left in 
place for three years. Therefore, the Director finds the Illinois 
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.117(a)(1) and 1871.117(a)(1), as revised, 
are no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations.

m. Sections 1816.117(a)(3) and 1817.117(a)(3)  Revegetation: Tree and 
Shrub Vegetation; Erosion Control Structures

    Illinois proposed to amend subsection (a)(3) to clarify that 
erosion control structures, including pond embankments within an 
approved land use of fish and wildlife, forest, or recreation shall not 
require the planting of trees and shrubs. A herbaceous ground cover 
will be required, and the ground cover requirements of subsection 
(a)(2) are still applicable to erosion control structures. Illinois 
determined that tree and shrub growth on embankments is detrimental to 
their maintenance, and submitted an Illinois Department of 
Transportation (IDOT) booklet entitled ``Guidelines and Forms for 
Inspection of Illinois Dams'' to support this determination 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1617). The Director finds that prudent 
engineering practices dictate that large rooted plants should not be 
planted on erosion control structures because they can cause 
instability. Illinois has provided adequate support for its exemption 
of erosion control structures from the planting of trees and shrubs for 
the State of Illinois. Therefore, Illinois' proposed regulation 
provisions at 62 IAC 1816.117(a)(3) and 1817.117(a)(3) are not 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(ii) 
and 817.116(b)(3)(ii).

n. Sections 1816.117(b) and 1817.117(b)  Revegetation: Tree and shrub 
Vegetation; Woody Plants

    Illinois proposed to revise subsection (b) to clarify that planting 
arrangements such as hedgerows, border plantings, clump plantings, 
shelterbelts, and open herbaceous areas which increase diversity and 
edge effect within wildlife areas may be approved by the Department on 
a case-by-case basis prior to planting such areas. The Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i) require 
minimum stocking and planting arrangements be specified by the 
regulatory authority on the basis of local and regional conditions. 
Therefore, the Director finds that the proposed revision will not 
render Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1816.117(b) and 1817.117(b) 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations.

o. Sections 1816.117(c)(1),(c)(7) and 1817.117(c)(1),(c)(7)  
Revegetation: Tree and Shrub Vegetation; Sampling Procedure

    Illinois proposed to revise subsection (c)(1) to establish a field 
system for trees and shrubs similar to that already adopted for 
agricultural areas by replacing the word ``area'' with the word 
``field.'' This subsection is also revised by adding a requirement that 
once field boundaries are established in a submittal, the boundaries 
shall not be changed unless the Department approves a request in 
accordance with its permit revision regulations at 62 IAC 1774.13. At 
subsection (c)(7), Illinois proposed to remove the reference to 
``Illinois Department of Conservation'' and change the word ``conduct'' 
to ``administer.'' The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) and 
817.116(a)(1) require that the regulatory authority select 
statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring success and 
include them in its program. The Director finds that the revised 
provisions at 62 IAC 1816.117 (c)(1) and (c)(7) 1817.117 (c)(1) and 
(c)(7) will not render Illinois' previously approved sampling 
procedures for measuring tree and shrub vegetation less effective than 
the Federal regulations.

15. 62IAC 1817.121(c)(3)  Subsidence Control; Water Replacement

    Illinois proposes to add new subsection (c)(3) to require operators 
to promptly replace any drinking, domestic, or residential water supply 
from a well or spring in existence prior to the application for a 
surface coal mining and reclamation operations permit, which has been 
affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption resulting from 
underground coal mining operations.
    The proposed language is consistent with section 720(a)(2) of 
SMCRA, which was added October 24, 1992, by the Energy Policy Act. It 
is also consistent with the counterpart Federal regulation provision at 
30 CFR 817.41(j), with one exception. The Federal provision specifies 
``underground mining activities conducted after October 24, 1992.'' 
Whereas the Illinois provision will apply to activities conducted after 
adoption. However, by letter dated April 25, 1995 (Administrative 
Record No. IL-1533), Illinois indicated that its current regulations 
codified at 62 IAC 1817.121(c)(2) require repair or

[[Page 26812]]

compensation for subsidence-related material damage, including damage 
from activities conducted after October 24, 1992, to any structures or 
facilities, and this would include repair of or compensation for damage 
to water delivery systems such as well, cisterns, and water lines. 
Furthermore, on July 28, 1995 (60 FR 38677), OSM announced its decision 
on initial enforcement of the water replacement requirements for 
Illinois for activities conducted after October 24, 1992. It was 
decided that initial enforcement of the water replacement requirements 
in Illinois is not reasonably likely to be required and that 
implementation will be accomplished through the State program amendment 
process. Therefore, the Director finds 62 IAC 1817.121(c)(3) is no less 
effective than the Federal counterpart provision for subsidence-related 
water replacement.
    However, it should be noted that the July 28, 1995, decision 
addressed only the initial enforcement schemes for water replacement 
(30 CFR 817.41(j)) and subsidence damage repair/compensation (30 CFR 
817.121(c)(2)) provided for under section 720 of SMCRA, as amended by 
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992). 
In addition to the basic water supply replacement requirement and the 
related subsidence damage repair requirement, the implementing Federal 
regulations that became effective March 31, 1995, contain other related 
supporting and permitting provisions. OSM anticipates that these other 
requirements will become effective in the same way as other revisions 
to the permanent program regulations; i.e., in primacy states such as 
Illinois, upon adoption of counterpart State regulatory program 
provisions (60 FR 16722). This process will be initiated separately by 
OSM under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(d).
16. 62 IAC 1816.151 and 1817.151  Primary Roads
    At subsection (a), Illinois proposes to specify that the 
certification of the construction or reconstruction of primary roads 
shall be submitted within 30 days after completion of construction. 
Illinois defines ``completion of construction'' to mean that the road 
is being used for its intended purpose as determined by the Department. 
The counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.151 and 817.151 do 
not set a time for submittal of primary road construction 
certifications or define ``completion of construction.'' However, the 
Director finds that the proposed revisions to 62 IAC 1816.151(a) and 
1817.151(a) clarify the existing provisions and do not render the 
Illinois regulations less effective than the Federal counterparts.
17. 62 IAC 1816.190 (a), (b) and (c) and 1817.190 (a), (b) and (c)  
Affected Acreage Map
    At subsection (a), Illinois proposed to require submittal of 
reports and maps of affected areas to the Department only by removing 
the phrase ``and to the county clerk.'' At subsection (b), Illinois is 
requiring the permittee to submit two copies of the reports and maps, 
plus an additional copy for each county in which the permit is located, 
which the Department will then forward to the county clerks. Illinois 
is also requiring that one of the copies contain the original signature 
of a company official. Also, statutory citations are being updated in 
subsections (b) and (c). There are no direct counterpart Federal 
regulations pertaining to an annual submittal of affected acreage 
reports and maps. However, the Director finds the proposed revisions to 
62 IAC 1816.190 (a), (b), and (c) and 1817.190 (a), (b), and (c) would 
clarify and simplify the administration of Illinois' requirements for 
these annual submittals and would not render the Illinois regulations 
inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
18. 62 IAC 1816. Appendix A  Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula--
Permit Specifics Yield Standard
    a. Illinois proposed revisions to the two existing paragraphs and 
reorganized them into subsections (a) and (b), respectively. Language 
is proposed at redesignated subsection (a) to clarify that yield 
standards must be calculated for each capability class in the disturbed 
area in the pit and that high capability and limited capability lands 
will be calculated in a manner similar to prime farmland. At 
redesignated subsections (a) and (b), Illinois proposed to replace the 
terms ``permit area and/or mining permit area'' with the term ``pit.''
    Illinois has proposed to substitute the term ``pit'' for ``permit 
area'' in determining specific crop yield standards. The change 
proposed would alter the specific land area that would be included in 
the computation of the target yield utilizing the Illinois Agricultural 
Lands Productivity Formula (Illinois Productivity Formula). The 
counterpart Federal regulation for the establishment of yield standards 
on prime farmland is 30 CFR 823.15(b)(5). It requires that restoration 
of soil productivity shall be considered achieved when the average 
yield during the measurement period equals or exceeds the average yield 
of the reference crop established for the same period for nonmined 
soils of the same or similar texture or slope phase of the soil series 
in the surrounding area under equivalent management practices.
    OSM initially had a major concern with the proposed revisions 
pertaining to how the ``pit'' area was to be utilized in calculations 
of the Illinois Productivity Formula. This concern was raised in public 
meetings held on May 31 and August 16, 1995. During these meetings 
representatives of Illinois explained how the area of the ``pit'' would 
be determined in a variety of circumstances. During the August 16, 
1995, public meeting, Illinois stated that it would submit further 
clarification to OSM. Based on the State's clarification in the public 
meetings held on May 31 and August 16, 1995 (Administrative Record Nos. 
IL-1654 and IL-1662), and the subsequent submittal to OSM of additional 
clarification, including maps defining pit areas (Administrative Record 
No. IL-1663), the Director finds that the proposed revisions are no 
less effective than the Federal regulations and is approving the 
revisions.
    This approval is based upon Illinois defining the use of the term 
``pit'' in the following circumstances:
    (1) Single pit within a single permit--The pit area is the same as 
the permit area.
    (2) Multiple pits within a single permit--Each pit area will be 
clearly marked on the permit map that has been subjected to public 
review prior to approval.
    (3) Single pit within several permits that have been consolidated 
into a single permit--The pit area will be the same as the area of the 
consolidated permit.
    (4) Multiple pits within several permits that are consolidated into 
one permit--Each pit area will be clearly marked on the consolidated 
permit map that has been subjected to public review prior to approval.
    In all circumstances, Illinois must assure that the crop yield 
standard is representative of the average yield of the reference crop 
established for the same period for nonmined soils of the same or 
similar texture or slope phase of the soil series in the surrounding 
area under equivalent management practices.
    b. New subsection (c) was added and reads as follows:

    After mining operations have ceased, the Department shall 
recalculate the yield standards for the pit based solely on the 
soils which were disturbed. Recalculated targets shall be applicable 
to all areas tested for productivity subsequent to the 
recalculation.

[[Page 26813]]

Approved significant revisions after permanent cessation of mining 
shall cause the targets to be recalculated and applied to 
productivity fields tested after the recalculation.

    This proposal provides that after mining has ceased in any pit, the 
yield standard would be recalculated for the pit utilizing only those 
soils actually disturbed. These recalculated yield standards would be 
applicable only to those areas not already tested. Again, the standard 
to which OSM must compare the change is the Federal requirement that 
the yield standard be developed from lands representative of the lands 
mined and reclaimed. This proposal should improve the accuracy of the 
calculated yield standard as it represents the soils actually disturbed 
by mining. Therefore, the Director finds that the proposed revisions 
are no less effective than the Federal regulations.
19. 62 IAC 1816. Appendix A  Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula; 
Sampling Method
    Illinois proposed a revision to the sampling method section of its 
productivity formula to require the Department and the Illinois 
Department of Agriculture to jointly request the operator to verify 
yields by harvest weight for specified reasons, including but not 
limited to verification of random sampling results and availability of 
sample enumerators. Prior to this revision, only the Department could 
make this request. However, as referenced in other sections, the 
Illinois Department of Agriculture works with the Department in 
implementing the Illinois Productivity Formula. Therefore, the Director 
finds the revision is not inconsistent with the Federal regulations.
20. 62 IAC 1825.14  High Capability Lands: Soil Replacement
    Illinois added new subsection (e)(1)(E) to specify that excessive 
compaction is also indicated by other diagnostic methods approved by 
the Department, in consultation with the Illinois Department of 
Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service. At subsection (e)(2), Illinois is proposing an 
additional method for the Department to evaluate excessive compaction. 
The permittee will have a choice between the existing provision and the 
new provision which specifies that compaction alleviation is required 
unless the permittee can demonstrate that the requirements of 62 IAC 
1816.116 or 1816.117, as applicable, have been met without compaction 
alleviation on areas reclaimed in a similar manner. A second new 
provision in subsection (e)(2) requires the Department to retain 
sufficient bond at the time of Phase II bond release if it determines 
that compaction alleviation may be needed to achieve the revegetation 
success requirements.
    There are no direct counterpart Federal regulations to Illinois' 
regulations for high capability lands at 62 IAC 1825. However, the 
Director finds that the revisions proposed at 62 IAC 1825.14(e) 
pertaining to soil compaction alleviation do not adversely affect other 
aspects of the Illinois program and are not inconsistent with the 
topsoil and subsoil provisions of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.22 and 817.22.
21. 62 IAC 1840.17  Review of Decision Not to Inspect or Enforce
    Illinois proposed to revise subsection (a) by allowing affected 
persons to request from the ``Director or his or her designee'' a 
review of a decision not to inspect or enforce. The Director finds that 
the proposed language at 62 IAC 1840.17(a) is consistent with the 
counterpart Federal regulation language at 30 CFR 842.15(a).
    Illinois also proposed to revise subsection (a) by adding a new 
provision that requires the request for review to be submitted within 
30 days from the date the citizen is notified of the decision and that 
specifies failure to file a request for informal review within this 
time period would result in a waiver of the right to such review. 
Although the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 842.15(a) does 
not include a deadline for filing a review request, the Illinois 
requirement at 62 IAC 1840.17(a) that such requests be filed within 30 
days of the State's decision is not unreasonable. Using this approach, 
Illinois can ensure administrative efficiency by setting a firm 
deadline for appeals, without undue prejudice to the interest of 
citizens who may be adversely affected by the decisions not to inspect 
or enforce. Illinois affirmed that persons will be notified of this 
requirement via certified mail as part of the decision documents. 
Therefore, the Director finds the State's requirement that requests be 
filed within a specified time period ensures administrative efficiency 
in a manner that is not inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal 
regulations. However, this approval is made with the understanding that 
notification of the 30-day time period within which to request, or else 
waive, the right to informal review will be included in the notice of 
decision not to inspect or enforce and that failure to include the 
notification will not limit the right for review.
    Subsection (b) is proposed to be amended by changing the reviewing 
official for reviews of the authorized representative's decision not to 
inspect or enforce from the ``Supervisor of the Land Reclamation 
Division'' to the ``Director or his or her designee.'' This change is 
in line with a recent reorganization of the Illinois regulatory 
authority into a Department of Natural Resources, and it elevates the 
review level to the Director of the Department of Natural Resources. 
The Director finds the revised language at 62 IAC 1840.17(b) is 
consistent with the counterpart Federal regulation language at 30 CFR 
842.15(b).
    Subsection (c) is proposed to be amended to reference 62 IAC 1847.3 
of the Illinois regulations for formal review, rather than Section 8.07 
of the State Act. The Director finds that 62 IAC 1847.3 is the correct 
citation since this section contains the State's procedures for seeking 
administrative and judicial review of formal decisions not to inspect 
or enforce under 62 IAC 1840.17.
22. 62 IAC 1843.13  Suspension or Revocation of Permits
    At existing subsections (a)(1), (a)(3) and (b) language was deleted 
in order to eliminate the mandatory determination that a pattern of 
violations exists under specified conditions and to eliminate an 
exception which allowed Illinois to decline to issue a show cause order 
if it determined that to issue the order would be ``demonstrably 
unjust.'' Existing subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) were redesignated 
as (b), (c), (d), and (e), respectively. The Director finds that the 
deletion of the mandatory determination and exception provision 
language at 62 IAC 1843.13 (a)(1), (a)(3), and (b) is consistent with 
changes made to the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 843.13 on 
August 16, 1982 (47 FR 35630).
23 62 IAC 1845.12  When Penalty Will Be Assessed
    As required by 30 CFR 913.16(t), Illinois proposed to amend 
subsection (d) by adding language which assures that the Department 
will consider the factors set forth in Section 1845.13 in determining 
whether to assess a penalty below $1,100. Illinois also proposed to 
codify its long-standing policy of assessing a penalty when a violation 
is the permittee's second or more related violation within a 12-month 
period. The director finds that the proposed language is not 
inconsistent with the intent of the counterpart Federal

[[Page 26814]]

regulation at 30 CFR 845.12(c), and he is removing the required 
amendment at 30 CFR 913.16(t).
24. 62 IAC 1847  Administrative and Judicial Review

a. Section 1847.3  Hearings

    (1) At subsection (a), Illinois is specifying that administrative 
review under this section also applies to decisions not to inspect or 
enforce under 62 IAC 1840.17, to decisions on minor underground mine 
facility permit applications pursuant to 62 IAC 1785.23, and to 
decisions on challenges to ownership or control links at 62 IAC 
1773.24. The regulations at 62 IAC 1847.3 consolidate the procedures 
for most of the formal reviews provided for in the Illinois program. 
The proposed revision clarifies what additional portions of the 
Illinois program are covered under the administrative review procedures 
at 62 IAC 1847.3.
    The Federal regulations provide for administrative hearings at 43 
CFR 4.1360-1369 for permitting issues and at 43 CFR 4.1380-1387 for 
challenges to ownership or control links. The Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 842.15 do not provide for a formal adjudicatory administrative 
hearing for decisions pertaining to review of decisions not to inspect 
or enforce, but do provide for a right of appeal under 43 CFR 4.1280-
1286. The Director finds the regulations at 62 IAC 1847.3 are 
consistent with 43 CFR part 4 for purposes of administrative hearings 
on minor underground mine facility permit applications and challenges 
to ownership or control links. He also finds that allowing a formal 
adjudicatory administrative hearing for decisions pertaining to review 
of a decision not to inspect or enforce is not inconsistent with the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 842.15.
    (2) Illinois is proposing revisions at subsections (f), (i), and 
(j) to clarify that the final decision of the Department in 
administrative review hearings held under 62 IAC 1847.3 is made by the 
Hearing Officer. At subsection (f), Illinois is replacing the word 
``Director's'' with the word ``final.'' At subsection (i), Illinois is 
changing the time period from 15 to 10 days for filing of written 
exceptions and responses and requiring exceptions to be filed with the 
hearing officer instead of the Director. At subsection (j), Illinois is 
specifying that if no exceptions are filed pursuant to the hearing 
officer's proposed decision, the decision becomes final within 10 days 
rather than 15 days. The revision also adds language which provides 
that the hearing officer can affirm or modify his proposed decision or 
remand and rehear the issue in response to any exceptions filed.
    The Federal regulations relative to appeals of a variety of 
administrative decisions, including 30 CFR 775.11 for decision on 
permits, require that administrative hearings under Federal programs be 
governed by 43 CFR part 4, which requires requests for review be filed 
with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the 
Interior. An Administrative Law Judge is assigned by the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals and he or she issues a written decision. A 
petition for discretionary review of the written decision can then be 
filed with the Board of Land Appeals. States do not have the same 
hierarchy available to them and must attempt to create an appeal 
process which is as effective as that provided in the Federal 
regulations. The Federal regulations specify general adjudicatory 
provisions that States must include in their administrative review 
hearing procedures, but allow the States discretion in how to implement 
these provisions. This would include the determination of who shall 
make final administrative hearing decisions. Therefore, the Director 
finds that the designation of a hearing officer to make final 
administrative hearing decisions does not render the Illinois 
regulations less effective than the Federal regulations. The Federal 
regulations contain no comparable provisions to those being revised 
concerning filing of written exceptions to a hearing officer's 
decision, time limits for filing written exceptions and responses to 
exceptions, and time limits for issuance of a final administrative 
decision. However, the Director finds that these proposed revisions 
will not render the regulations at 62 IAC 1847.3 inconsistent with 
SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
    (3) In response to a required amendment, Illinois proposed to 
revise 62 IAC 1847.3(1)(2) to specify that judicial review of an 
administrative review decision may be requested if the hearing officer 
or the Department fail to act within specified time limits. The Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 775.13(a)(2) also require that judicial review be 
granted if the regulatory authority or the hearing officer for 
administrative review fail to act within applicable time limits. 
Therefore, the Director finds that Illinois' revised regulation is no 
less effective than the counterpart Federal regulation, and he is 
removing the required amendment at 30 CFR 913.16(u).

b. Section 1847.4  Citation Hearings

    Illinois is proposing revisions at subsections (g), (j), and (k) to 
clarify that the final decision of the Department in administrative 
review hearings pertaining to citations is made by the Hearing Officer. 
At subsection (g), Illinois is replacing the word ``Director's'' with 
the word ``final.'' At subsection (j), Illinois is proposing to change 
the time period from 15 to 10 days for filing of written exceptions and 
responses. Also, they are to be filed with the hearing officer instead 
of the Director. At subsection (k), Illinois is proposing to have the 
proposed decision become final in 10 days instead of 15 if no written 
exceptions are filed. Illinois is also proposing that the hearing 
officer instead of the Director issue the final administrative decision 
affirming or modifying or vacating the proposed decision if written 
exceptions are filed. These revisions are substantively identical to 
those proposed for 62 IAC 1847.3 (f), (i), and (j). Therefore, the 
Director is approving the proposed revisions at 62 IAC 1847.4 (g), (j), 
and (k) for the same reasons discussed in finding C.24.a.(2) for 62 IAC 
1847.3 (f), (i), and (j).

c. Section 1847.5  Civil Penalty Assessment Hearings

    Illinois is proposing revisions at subsections (j), (m), and (n) to 
clarify that the final decision of the Department in administrative 
review hearings pertaining to civil penalty assessments is made by the 
Hearing officer. At subsection (j), Illinois is changing the reference 
from the decision of the Director to the final decision. At subsection 
(m), Illinois is proposing to change the time period from 15 to 10 days 
for filing of written exceptions and responses. Also, they are to be 
filed with the hearing officer instead of the Director. At subsection 
(n), Illinois is proposing to have the proposed decision become final 
in 10 days instead of 15 if no written exceptions are filed. Illinois 
is also proposing that the hearing officer instead of the Director 
issue the final administrative decision affirming, modifying, or 
vacating the proposed decision if written exceptions are filed. These 
revisions are substantively identical to those proposed for 62 IAC 
1847.3 (f), (i), and (j). Therefore, the Director is approving the 
proposed revisions at 62 IAC 1847.5 (j), (m), and (n) for the same 
reasons discussed in finding C.24.a.(2) for 62 IAC 1847.3 (f), (i), and 
(j).

[[Page 26815]]

d. Section 1847.6  Show Cause Hearings

    Illinois is proposing revisions at subsections (i), (k), and (l) to 
clarify that the final decision of the Department in administrative 
review hearings pertaining to show cause orders is made by the hearing 
officer. At subsection (i), Illinois is replacing the word 
``Director's'' with the word ``final.'' At subsection (k), Illinois is 
proposing to change the time period from 15 to 10 days for filing to 
written exceptions and responses. Also, they are to be filed with the 
hearing officer instead of the Director. At subsection (1), Illinois is 
proposing to have the proposed decision become final in 10 days instead 
of 15 if no written exceptions are filed. Illinois is also proposing 
that the hearing officer instead of the Director issue the final 
administrative decision affirming, modifying, or vacating the proposed 
decision if written exceptions are filed. These revisions are 
substantively identical to those proposed for 62 IAC 1847.3 (f), (i), 
and (j). Therefore, the Director is approving the proposed revisions at 
62 IAC 1847.6 (i), (k), (l) for the same reasons discussed in finding 
C.24.a.(2) for 62 IAC 1847.3 (f), (i), and (j).

e. Section 1847.7  Bond Forfeiture Hearings

    Illinois is proposing revisions at subsections (h), (j), and (k) to 
clarify that the final decision of the Department in administrative 
review hearings pertaining to bond forfeiture is made by the hearing 
officer. At subsection (h), Illinois is replacing the word 
``Director's'' with the word ``final.'' At subsection (j), Illinois is 
proposing to change the time period from 15 to 10 days for filing of 
written exceptions and responses. Also, they are to be filed with the 
hearing officer instead of the Director. At subsection (k), Illinois is 
proposing to have the proposed decision become final in 10 days instead 
of 15 if no written exceptions are filed. Illinois is also proposing 
that the hearing officer instead of the Director issue the final 
administrative decision affirming, modifying, or vacating the proposed 
decision if written exceptions are filed. These revisions are 
substantively identical to those proposed for 62 IAC 1847.3 (f), (i), 
and (j). Therefore, the Director is approved the proposed revisions at 
62 IAC 1847.7 (h), (j), and (k) for the same reasons discussed in 
finding C.24.a.(2) and 62 IAC 1847.3 (f), (i), and (j).
25. 62 IAC 1848.5  Notice of Hearing
    Illinois proposed new subsection (f) to implement a July 7, 1993, 
amendment to Section 2.11 of the State Act pertaining to permit hearing 
notices. If the hearing concerns review of a permit decision under 62 
IAC 1847.3, a notice containing specified information in a specified 
format shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation 
published in each county in which any part of the area of the affected 
land is located. The notice cannot be placed where legal notices and 
classified advertisements appear. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
775.11 for administrative review hearings of permitting actions do not 
contain this specific requirement for a public notice. However, the 
Director finds that the addition of this new provision will not render 
62 IAC 1848.5 less effective than the Federal regulations.
26. 62 IAC 1850  Training, Examination and Certification of Blasters

a. Section 1850.14  Examination

    Illinois proposed to amend subsections (a) and (b) to allow 
notification of examinations to be done by telephone in those cases 
where it is not possible to give such notice in writing within the time 
specified in the regulations by removing references to written 
notification and notification by letter. The Director finds that the 
counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 850.14 do not contain any 
specific requirements for notification of blaster certification 
examinations and that the proposed revisions do not alter the 
effectiveness of Illinois' previously approved blaster examination 
provisions. Therefore, the revised regulations at 62 IAC 1850.14 and no 
less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations.

b. Section 1850.15  Application and Certification

    Subsection (a) is proposed to be amended by shortening the deadline 
for receipt of applications for certification from 45 days to 30 days 
and by shortening the deadline for review of applications from 30 to 15 
days. Illinois also proposed a revision that will allow the option of 
including any applicant with an application received less than 15 days 
before a regularly scheduled session in that session or in the next 
session. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 850.15(a) does 
not contain specific procedures governing applications for 
certification. The Director finds the proposed revisions will allow 
Illinois more flexibility in scheduling and administering its blaster 
certification examinations and will not alter the effectiveness of 
Illinois' previously approved provisions. Therefore, the revised 
regulations at 62 IAC 1850.15 are no less effective than the 
counterpart Federal regulations.

c. Section 1850.16 Denial, Issuance of Notice of Infraction, 
Suspension, Revocation, and Other Administrative Actions

    Illinois proposed several nonsubstantive revisions at 62 IAC 
1850.16: Subsection (b) is proposed to be entitled ``Notice of 
Infraction'' and subsection (c) is proposed to be entitled ``Notice to 
Show Cause; at subsections (b)(1) (A) and (D), various regulatory and 
statute citations are corrected, including the reference to SMCRA; and 
it subsections (b)(3) and (c)(2) and (c)(3), the hearing regulation 
reference is corrected to reference the State's new section for 
administrative review of blasting infractions at 62 IAC 1847.4 (e) and 
(g) through (p).
    Subsection (b)(3) is proposed to be revised by clarifying the 
blaster is to file a request for review and hearing of a notice of 
infraction with the Department. The specific address listed in this 
subsection is removed since it is subject to change. The blaster's 
request for review is simplified by removing a requirement to include 
specified information, which would already be available to the 
Department. In subsections (b) and (c), the hearings for a notice of 
infraction and a notice to show cause are proposed to be held at one of 
the Department's offices, and the existing language, which limited the 
hearings to two locations, is removed. These changes will provide for 
greater opportunity to hold hearings in the locale of the requestors. 
The Director finds that the proposed revisions at 62 IAC 1850.16 
simplify, clarify, and strengthen the Illinois provisions for 
administrative review of blaster certifications and are not 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 850.15.

d. Section 1850.17  Judicial Review

    Illinois proposed to repeal 62 IAC 1850.17 concerning judicial 
review for final administrative decisions on blaster certifications. 
The Director finds that since the provision for judicial review of 
these administrative decisions is contained in previously approved 62 
IAC 1847.4(p) and section 1847.4 is referenced in all applicable 
sections of 62 IAC 1850, this repeal will not render the Illinois 
blaster certification regulations less effective than the counterpart 
Federal regulations.

[[Page 26816]]

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    The Director solicited public comments and provided on an 
opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed amendment on two 
separate occasions. A public hearing was held on March 24, 1995, in 
Galesburg, Illinois (Administrative Record No. IL-1636). Comments on 
the proposed revisions to Illinois' regulations were received from 
Janis King, President of the Citizens Organizing Project; Dennis 
Sullivan, Vice-president of the Sauk Trail Organization for 
Preservation; Roger Holmes, President of the Knox County Farm Bureau; 
Robert L. Masterson, Zoning Administrator for the Knox County Zoning 
Department; Helen Pence; Anna Johnson and Patrick D. Shaw, Citizens 
Organizing Project; Tom Fitzgerald, Director of the National Citizens' 
Coal Law Project (NCCLP); Robert G. Darmody, Associate Professor of 
Pedology, University of Illinois, and Keith Shank.
    Following is a summary of the substantive comments received on the 
proposed amendment. Comments identifying errors of a purely 
typographical or editorial nature, comments voicing general support or 
opposition to the proposed amendment but devoid of any specific 
statements, and comments which do not specifically relate to 
requirements in the proposed regulations are not discussed. The 
summarized comments and responses to the comments are organized by the 
section of the amended regulations to which they pertain.

62 IAC 1700.11(f)  Termination of jurisdiction

    Comment: To the extent that the requirements of 62 Ill. Code 280 
incorporate all of the counterpart 30 CFR Subchapter B interim program 
performance standards and other requirements, the proposed adoption of 
the termination of jurisdiction regulations appear to conform to 30 CFR 
700.11(d).
    Response: The Illinois regulations at 62 IAC 280 incorporate by 
reference the applicable provisions of subchapter B of the Federal 
regulations.

62 IAC 1701.Appendix A  Definition of Wetland

    Comment 1: Two commenters expressed concern that not requiring all 
three of the wetland parameters to be present prior to bond release 
could result in environmental damage and incomplete reclamation.
    Response: As discussed in finding C.2, Illinois' explanation that 
the hydric soil profile may not be fully developed in an artificial 
wetland is consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
determination that indicators of hydric soils are usually absent in 
man-induced wetlands. Furthermore, as discussed in finding C.14.k, 
Illinois proposed and the Director approved wetland revegetation 
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(5) and 1817.116(a)(5) that require 
the use of the wetland vegetation criteria and sampling procedures 
specified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. Therefore, reclaimed areas must meet 
specified revegetation success standards prior to bond release.
    Comment 2: One commenter expressed concern regarding the 
requirement that a mitigated wetland area function as a wetland to be 
considered wetlands, and recommended that it be deleted because of the 
possible difficulties in applying the requirement. The commenter 
expressed the belief that all mitigation areas should be protected 
regardless as to whether they exhibit tangible wetlands functions.
    Response: The proposed definition does not conflict with any 
existing Federal regulation. OSM interprets the requirement for a 
functioning wetland to be applicable to areas reclaimed as planned 
wetlands which have attained that land use as determined by a trained 
professional of the State's staff, but may not clearly meet each of the 
three parameters contained in the definition. As discussed in finding 
C.2, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recognizes that man-induced 
wetlands (restored or created wetland) may not contain all three 
parameters.
    Pre-existing wetlands mitigation requirements and conditions 
relating to surface coal mining activities are determined by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In 
accordance with section 702(a)(3) of SMCRA, Federal and State program 
requirements cannot supersede, amend, modify, or repeal requirements 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including mitigation plans 
for those wetlands which existed in the premining landscape and are 
being replaced in accordance with a Section 404 permit. If mitigation 
of pre-existing wetlands is required, the mine operator must meet the 
requirements and conditions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    However, section 515(b)(24) of SMCRA requires surface coal mining 
operations ``to the extent possible using the best technology currently 
available, minimize disturbances and adverse impacts of the operation 
on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values, and achieve 
enhancement of such resources where practicable.'' Furthermore, the 
Illinois program implements this SMCRA requirement at 62 IAC 1816.97 
and 1817.97 by requiring the protection of fish, wildlife, and related 
environmental values, including wetlands.
    Comment 3. One commenter believed that the State should be 
requested to commit to permit, require bonds, and apply all reclamation 
to wetland mitigation areas.
    Response: As discussed above, mitigation of pre-existing wetlands 
is conducted under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Pursuant to the requirements 
of section 702(a)(3) of SMCRA, OSM does not have the authority to 
require States to permit, require bonds, and apply all reclamation 
standards to off-site wetland mitigation areas. Furthermore, on-site 
wetland mitigation areas are subject only to those requirements of a 
Federal or State program that do not supersede, amend, modify, or 
repeal requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

62 IAC 1701.Appendix A  Definition of Violation Notice

    Comment: Two commenters were concerned that the definition of 
violation notice would not include violations involving underground 
mining operations because of its reference to ``surface coal mining 
operations'' only .
    Response: Illinois' defines ``surface coal mining operations'' at 
62 IAC 1701.Appendix A to mean ``activities conducted on the surface of 
lands in connection with a surface coal mine or subject to the 
requirements of Section 516 of the Federal Act, surface operations and 
surface impacts incident to an underground coal mine, the products of 
which enter commerce, or the operations of which directly or indirectly 
affect interstate commerce.'' Therefore, the proposed definition of 
``violation notice'' requires Illinois to consider violations in 
connection with both surface and underground coal mines.

62 IAC 1761.11(d)(12)  [Recodfied 1761.11(a)(4)(B)] Areas Where Mining 
is Prohibited or Limited

    Comment: Two commenters were concerned with the deletion of the 
phrase ``including surface areas impacted by planned subsidence'' from 
this provision. One commenter believed that the deletion ``could be 
construed to mean an intent to prohibit any planned

[[Page 26817]]

subsidence within 100 feet of a public road, or an intent to completely 
eliminate from consideration the location of planned or unplanned 
subsidence relative to public roads.'' This commenter supported the 
application to public roads.'' This commenter supported the application 
of the 30 CFR 761.11 prohibitions to underground mining that has the 
potential to cause direct or indirect surface impacts, and believed 
that unless it can be demonstrated that material damage will not occur 
from the underground operation (planned or room and pillar), the permit 
should not be issued.
    Response: The language in the revised regulation at existing 62 IAC 
1761.11(d)(2) [recodified 1761.11(a)(4)(B)] is substantively identical 
to the corresponding Federal regulation at 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2); and, 
therefore, is not inconsistent with the Federal requirements.

62 IAC 1773.15(b)  Review of Violations

    Comment 1: Two commenters were concerned that the phrase ``surface 
coal mining and reclamation operations'' restricted the provision at 62 
IAC 1773.15(b)(1) for evaluating violator status of permit applicants 
to violations in connection with surface coal mines.
    Response: Illinois' definition of ``surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations'' at 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A includes its 
definition of ``surface coal mining operations.'' As discussed above, 
under 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, definition of ``violation notice,'' 
Illinois must consider violations in connection with both surface and 
underground coal mines.
    Comment 2: One commenter objected to the provision at 62 IAC 
1773.15(b)(2) that allows a permit to be conditionally issued if an 
outstanding violation is in the process of being corrected.
    Response: The proposed regulation at 62 IAC 1773.15(b)(2) is 
substantively identical to the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
773.15(b)(2), and, therefore, is not inconsistent with the Federal 
requirements.
    Comment 3: One commenter acknowledged that the State rule and the 
Federal rule are identical, but expressed the opinion that both rules 
are inconsistent with the Federal Act.
    Response: The appropriateness of the Federal rule is not at issue 
in this rulemaking.

62 IAC 1773.24 (b) Through (d)  Procedures for Challenging Ownership or 
Control Links Show in the AVS

    Comment: It is not clear from the proposed revision to 62 IAC 
1773.24 (b) through (d), that the phrase ``other person'' in the 
context of who beyond the applicant may appeal a decision concerning 
whether an ownership and control link has been demonstrated or 
rebutted, includes persons (such as neighbors of the proposed mining 
operation) who have an interest which is or may be adversely affected 
by the decision to lift an ownership and control link and permit block.
    Response: The Illinois regulation at 62 IAC 1773.24(b), as revised 
on November 1, 1995, specifically states that the ``other person'' must 
be eligible under the provisions of subsection (a)(3). To be eligible 
under the provisions of subsection (a)(3). To be eligible under the 
provisions of subsection (a)(3), the ``other person'' must be shown in 
the AVS in an ownership or control link to any person cited in a state 
violation notice.

62 IAC 1773.25(c)(1)(B)  Standards for Challenging Ownership or Control 
Links

    Comment: How can a person who ``owns or controls'' not have 
authority to determine manner in which surface mining operations are 
conducted? The criteria for exclusion from responsibility for a 
violation is contrary to the liability of ownership.
    Response: Illinois' regulation at 62 IAC 1773.25(c)(1)(B) is 
substantively identical to the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
773.25(c)(1)(ii). These regulations refer to a person who is subject to 
a presumption of ``ownership or control.'' This presumption is 
refutable under the definition of ``owned or controlled'' or ``owns or 
controls'' at 30 CFR 773.5.

62 IAC 1774.13(b)(2)(E)  Permit Revisions

    Comment 1: The proposed change in this rule, to the extent that it 
allows an increase in the acreages for which the postmining land use 
may be changed without public notice and comment, is opposed as being 
arbitrary and inconsistent with the purpose of the Act of enfranchising 
the public in permitting matters.
    The proposal would allow a ``rolling'' 5% limit, that would restart 
whenever the prior land use changes had been subject to public review, 
rather than cumulating such changes. The concern is that a 5% limit is 
unrelated to the significance of the land use change, which, depending 
on the type of land and pre- and post-mining land use, could be locally 
significant (i.e. high quality farmland to hayland/pasture, 
agricultural to industrial or commercial, etc.) The NCCLP suggests that 
an abbreviated public comment period should be provided in all cases 
where the post-mining land use is to be changed, as is apparently 
provided with all incidental boundary revisions.
    Response: Neither SMCRA nor the Federal regulations require a 
public comment period for all postmining land use changes. Section 
511(b)(2) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.13(b) 
require the regulatory authority to establish guidelines for the scale 
or extent of revisions for which all the permit application 
requirements will apply, including public notice. As discussed in 
finding C.7.a, the Director found that the proposed change represents a 
reasonable application by Illinois of this requirement.
    Since Illinois requires all alternative land use revisions, both 
significant and insignificant, to comply with 62 IAC 1816.133 or 
1817.133, the concern that Illinois would approve a proposal to allow a 
disturbed area to be restored to a lower or a lesser land use is 
unfounded. These sections of the Illinois program pertain to postmining 
land capability requirements, including the requirement that the 
disturbed areas be restored to a condition capable of supporting prior 
uses or higher or better uses. Illinois also requires consultation with 
the landowner or the land management agency with jurisdiction over the 
lands before approval of either type of revision.
    Comment 2: One comment questioned whether Illinois had a definition 
for ``insignificant change'' with relation to its proposed provisions 
for land use changes.
    Response: Illinois does not have a specific definition for 
``insignificant change'' in its regulations at 62 IAC 1774.13. However, 
subsections 1774.13(b)(2) (A) through (E) specify departures from the 
methods or conduct of mining or reclamation operations which would not 
be considered significant, including changes in land use. Subsection 
1774.13(b)(2)(E) contains the criteria used to determine whether a land 
use change is significant or insignificant. This final determination 
must be made on a case-by-case basis. As discussed in finding C.7.a, 
the Federal counterpart regulation for permit revisions at 30 CFR 
774.13(b) requires the regulatory authority to establish guidelines for 
the scale or extent of revisions.

[[Page 26818]]

62 IAC 1774.13(d)(6)  Incidental Boundary Revisions

    Comment: The NCCLP further cautions against increasing the acreage 
that can be added to permits under IBRs without full-scale public 
review as would attach to a permit or permit amendment, since the use 
of IBRs on the scale contained in the existing Illinois state program 
is arguably inconsistent with the federal Act. The commenter believed 
that the addition of as much as 20 acres of area to existing permits 
under the State's incidental boundary revision regulations went beyond 
the intent of Congress.
    Response: The Director previously approved the existing Illinois 
provisions pertaining to the size and scope of incidental boundary 
revisions, and no changes to these provisions are proposed in this 
amendment. As discussed in finding C.7.b, the Director is approving a 
new provision at subsection (d)(6) that requires public notice and 
comment for all additions to permit areas and planned subsidence areas 
that are requested pursuant to Illinois' incidental boundary revision 
regulations at 62 IAC 1774.13(d).

62 IAC 1778.15  Right of Entry Information

    Comment: The proposal to delete the requirement of right-of-entry 
information for areas overlying underground workings is inconsistent 
with the federal Act and Secretary of Interior's regulations and the 
original requirement must be reinstated. The requirement, hardly a 
``burdensome'' matter, is a mandate for all areas within the permit 
area, and the Secretary's regulations require that areas overlying 
tunnels, shafts and underground operations, be bonded, thus those areas 
are within the permit area under 30 CFR 701.5. The commenter provided 
additional argument in support of the belief that areas overlying 
underground shafts, tunnels and operations should be subject to right-
of-entry requirements, should be included within the permit area, and 
should be bonded (Administrative Record No. IL-1643).
    Response: As discussed in finding C.8.a, OSM revised the Federal 
definition of ``permit area'' and associated terms to exclude areas 
overlying underground workings (48 FR 14814, April 5, 1983). Also, the 
preamble to the July 19, 1983, revisions to the Federal bonding rules 
clarifies that no bond is needed for areas overlying underground 
workings (48 FR 32947-48). Therefore, the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 
778.15(a) does not require a description of right-of-entry documents 
for areas overlying underground workings (shadow area). The Illinois 
regulation at 62 IAC 1778.15(a) is substantively identical to the 
Federal counterpart, and, therefore, is not inconsistent with the 
Federal requirements.

62 IAC 1785.17(a)  Prime Farmlands

    Comment: Three commenters objected to the proposed deletion of 
provisions that required a preliminary prime farmland exemption review 
and that limited the amount of prime farmland to be exempted in the 
State.
    Response: The Federal regulations do not contain counterpart 
provisions to the language deleted from the State regulations. As 
discussed in finding C.10, the revised regulation provisions at 62 IAC 
1785.17(a) are substantively identical to the counterpart Federal 
regulation provisions at 30 CFR 785.17(a), and, therefore, they are not 
inconsistent with the Federal requirements.

62 IAC 1785.17(d)(1)  Consultation With the State Conservationist

    Comment: Four commenters objected to the proposed deletion of the 
phrase ``The State recognizes that the permit cannot be issued without 
the required consultation with the USDA'' from 62 IAC 1785.17(d)(1).
    Response: Illinois withdrew its proposed deletion, and reinstated 
the phrase at the end of 62 IAC 1785.17(d)(1).

62 IAC 1795.6(b)  Eligibility for Assistance

    Comment: Eligibility for ``Small Operators Assistance Program'' is 
based on yearly productivity from an operation covered by a single 
permit as per the wording of the proposed rule. The proposed 300,000 
Tons per year eligibility should be reduced to 100,000 Tons. The reason 
for this is that 300,000 Tons is too close to the following 
productivity as per the Department's 1993 Statistical Report: ASARCO 
Knox County--428,546 Tons, Freeman-United Industry, McDonough County--
431,103 Tons, and Consolidated Burning Star #2--324,555 Tons. Surely, 
not any of these companies need assistance.
    Response: The commenter has misinterpreted the proposed rule. As 
described in 62 IAC 1785.6 (b)(1) through (b)(4), coal produced by 
other mines and other companies in which the applicant has an interest 
must be added to the applicant's anticipated production. The revised 
regulation is substantively identical to the Federal regulation at 30 
CFR 795.6(a)(2).

62 IAC 1795.12(b)  Applicant Liability

    Comment: The elimination of the objective standard for what 
constitutes ``good faith'' for purposes of waiver of the reimbursement 
obligation makes it unclear whether the standard will be one of 
reasonable prudence or ``good heart, empty head.''
    Response: The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 795.12(b) does not 
contain a definition of ``good faith.'' Therefore, the proposed 
deletion does not render the State regulation less effective than the 
Federal counterpart. The phrase ``good faith'' can be reasonably 
applied within its normal meaning, and a definition is not needed.

62 IAC 1800.5(b)(4)/1800.21(b)(1)  Irrevocable Letter of Credit

    Comment: The proposal to allow irrevocable letters of credit to be 
posted by institutions chartered outside of Illinois must retain the 
requirement that there be a bank within the state authorized to pay the 
letter on presentation, since under the ``full faith and credit'' 
doctrine, courts in sister states will entertain defenses to penal 
judgments obtained from a court or agency in another state.
    Response: Both 62 IAC 1800.5(b)(4) and 1800.21(b)(1) contain a 
requirement for a designated confirming bank with an office in Illinois 
that is authorized to accept, negotiate, and pay the letter upon 
presentment in Illinois.

62 IAC 1800.20(b)  Surety Bonds

    Comment: By removing required conditions for surety, you are 
removing standards by which to determine whether corporate surety is 
``good and sufficient'' as required by the Surface Coal Mining Land 
Conservation and Reclamation Act. 225ILCS 720/6.01(a). This increases 
the chance that the Illinois taxpayers will be the ones ultimately 
required to pick up the tab if reclamation is not completed.
    Response: The counterpart Federal regulations do not contain the 
provisions proposed for deletion. Therefore, the proposed removal of 62 
IAC 1800.20(b) (2) through (5) does not render the State regulations 
inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.20(b).

62 IAC 1816/1817.13 and 1816/1817.15  Casing and Sealing of Exposed 
Underground Openings

    Comment: The requirement to ``backfill'' drilled holes and exposed 
underground openings is less protective than casing, sealing and 
otherwise managing the holes. Depending on the circumstances, the 
backfilling of a hole with porous material can allow

[[Page 26819]]

migration of contaminants. On its face, the requirement is less 
protective than 30 CFR 816.13, 14 and 15.
    Response: Illinois withdrew its proposed revision to these 
sections.

62 IAC 1816/1817.22  Topsoil and Subsoil

    Comment: Three commenters expressed concern regarding the removal 
of the provisions at 62 IAC 1816(b)(2) and 1817(b)(2) that require 
topsoil plans for substitutes or supplements for prime farmland be 
considered a significant revision subject to public review. Their major 
concern was that Illinois would allow the use of non-prime soil for 
substitutes or supplements for prime farmland soils.
    Response: As discussed in finding C.14.a, the counterpart Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.22(b) and 817.22(b) do not contain the 
removed language. However, the Director notes that prime farmland 
reclamation plans, including topsoil plans, must meet the special 
environmental protection reclamation standards for prime farmland soils 
at 62 IAC 1823. This includes the requirement at Sec. 1823.12(a) that 
reconstructed soils have equal or greater productive capacity than what 
existed before mining.

62 IAC 1816/1817.41(c)(2)  Ground Water Monitoring

    Comment: To submit groundwater monitoring data every three months 
is not often enough to allow remedial action to a problem.
    Response: As discussed in finding C.14.b, the Illinois regulations 
are consistent with the Federal counterpart regulations at 30 CFR 
816.41(c)(2) and 817.41(c)(2) that require reports to be submitted 
every three months or more frequently as prescribed by the regulatory 
authority.

62 IAC 1816/1817.41(e)(2)  Surface Water Monitoring

    Comment: Keep requirement that NPDES reports be sent to the 
Department concurrent with those sent to Illinois EPA.
    Response: The Federal regulations do not require that National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) reports be submitted to 
State regulatory authorities. Therefore, the proposed revisions to this 
section are not inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816/817.41(e)(2). As discussed in finding C.14.c, Illinois has retained 
its requirement that surface water monitoring data be submitted every 
three months or more frequently if necessary.

62 IAC 1816/1817.46(e)(1)  Siltation Structures; Exemptions

    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern regarding the new 
exemption at 62 IAC 1816.46(e)(1) and 1817.46(e)(1) that would allow 
use of the alternative sediment control measures described in 62 IAC 
1816.45(b) and 1817.45(b) in lieu of a siltation structure for control 
of drainage from disturbed areas. One commenter expressed the belief 
that ``the use of siltation structures remains the BTCA for the coal 
mining point source category, and allowing alternative sediment control 
measures in lieu of siltation structures for areas defined only as 
`small' is not consistent with the Secretary's regulations.'' One 
commenter questioned: ``When is the use of straw bales to filter pit 
pumpage better than a sediment pond?''
    Response: As discussed in finding C.14.d, the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR 816.46(b)(2) and 817.46(b)(2) which require all surface 
drainage from a disturbed area to be passed through a siltation 
structure were suspended on November 20, 1986 (51 FR 41957-41958). 
Therefore, State regulatory authorities may determine on a case-by-case 
basis what is BTCA rather than requiring that drainage be passed 
through siltation structures in all cases. As discussed in the 
referenced finding, Illinois is requiring permittees to demonstrate 
that drainage from the disturbed area will meet effluent limitation and 
water quality standards without the use of siltation structures and 
will require that any alternative sediment control measures be shown to 
be the BTCA.

62 IAC 1816/1817.97  Protectio of Fish, Wildlife, and Related 
Environmental Values

    Comment: Four commenters expressed concern that the elimination of 
the reference to the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act (520 
ILCS 10/1) would remove state-listed species from protection. Two of 
the commenters were concerned that elimination of the reference would 
violate the State Act and ``would be misleading as to the obligations 
of mining operations.''
    Response: Section 505(a) of SMCRA provides that: ``No State law or 
regulation in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, or which may 
become effective thereafter, shall be superseded by any provision of 
this Act or any regulation issued pursuant thereto except insofar as 
such State law or regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of 
this Act.'' Therefore, if mining operation activities are covered under 
the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act (520 ILCS 10/1), the 
removal of the reference will not affect an operator's obligations 
under this Act. Furthermore, the State regulations at 62 IAC 1816.97(b) 
and 1817.97(b) and the Federal counterpart regulations at 30 CFR 
816.97(b) and 817.97(b) still require the operator to report any state- 
or federally-listed endangered or threatened species within the permit 
area and require consultation with appropriate State and Federal fish 
and wildlife agencies before allowing the operator to proceed with 
mining activity. Therefore, state endangered species are still 
protected under the Illinois program.

62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(2)(B)  Success of Revegetation; Extended 
Responsibility Period

    Comment: In the OSM publication of the Surface Mining Act which 
includes all revisions through December 31, 1993, there is at section 
515(b)(20)(B) of the Federal Act a note that this section was added 
October 24, 1992. However, in that 1993 addition there is no mention of 
the date September 30, 2004. Hence, the year 2004 should be eliminated 
from the proposed rule.
    Response: The commenter is correct that in section 515(b)(20)(B) of 
SMCRA the date September 30, 2004, is not mentioned. However, section 
510(e) of SMCRA specifies that the authority of section 515(b)(20)(B) 
shall terminate on September 30, 2004. Therefore, the date should not 
be eliminated from the proposed regulation.

62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(2)(F) (i), (ii), and (iii)  Success of 
Revegetation; Augmentation; High Capability Land

    Comment: Two commenters were concerned that the deletion of the 
provisions concerning augmentation of high capability land areas would 
lower the State's standards for reclamation of high capability cropland 
areas.
    Response: The deletion of these provisions does not alter the 
requirement that reclaimed high capability cropland areas meet the 
success of revegetation standards set forth in 62 IAC 1816/
1817.116(a)(3)(C) and (a)(4).

62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(2)(F)(i)  Success of Revegetation; 
Augmentation; Pasture and Hayland

    Comment: Two commenter expressed concern with the proposed language 
in this section which stated that the period of responsibility shall 
not recommence after deep tillage on areas where the

[[Page 26820]]

revegtation success standard has been met.
    Response: OSM is not approving the proposed language. Deep tillage 
has not been approved as a normal husbandry practice in Illinois. 
Therefore, its use would restart the responsibility period as required 
by 30 CFR 816.116(c)(1).

62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(3)(E)  Revegetation Success; Ground Cover and 
Production for Pasture, Hayland, and Grazing land

    Comment 1: One commenter disagreed with the proposed deletion of 
the provision that limited the substitution of corn production for hay 
production on high capability land to one year.
    Response: As discussed in finding C.14.g, the Illinois 
administrative record contains sufficient proof that high capability 
land is suitable for crops and that crop/hay rotations are common 
practices in cropland areas surrounding mines.
    Comment 2: One commenter disagreed with the proposed provision that 
would allow the substitution of one year of crop production for hay 
production on limited capability land. He was concerned that there 
would be no available yield data that could be factored into the 
State's productively formula to project a reliable yield standard for 
grain crops grown on limited capability lands.
    Response: As discussed in finding C.14.g, Illinois indicated in the 
preamble to its February 3, 1995, amendment (Administrative Record No. 
IL-1615) that the proposed provision would be applied to those limited 
capability land areas that were reclaimed to a higher quality (such as 
prime farmland or high capability standards). As noted in the 
referenced finding, the Director approved this provision to the extent 
that Illinois restricts its approval to limited capability lands that 
are reclaimed to a higher quality.

62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(3)(F)  Revegetation Success; Non-Contiguous 
Areas Less Than or Equal to Four Acres

    Comment: Two commenters objected to the language in this section 
which would exempt, under certain conditions, areas up to four acres 
from any type of testing for revegetation success.
    Response: OSM is not approving the proposal. The merit of some type 
of exemption for small areas is recognized by OSM. However, the 
Illinois proposal lacks the requirements OSM believes are necessary to 
implement such a proposal (see finding C.14.h).

62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A)(ii)  Success of Revegetation; Field to 
Represent Non-Contiguous Areas Less Than or Equal to Four Acres

    Comment: Six commenters objected to the Illinois proposal in this 
section which would exempt non-contiguous areas up to four acres in 
size from any type of revegetation success testing if the Department 
determines that another larger field is representative of the smaller 
four acre or less area.
    Response: OSM is not approving this proposal. The Federal 
regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) requires a statistically valid 
sampling technique for assessing the success of vegetation for all 
areas. Illinois has not demonstrated that its proposal would provide a 
statistically valid representative test field at a 90 percent 
confidence interval.

62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(5)  Success of Revegetation; Wetlands

    Comment: ``Aerial coverage'' for measurement of success of wetland 
revegetation is undefined. The success criteria for revegetation of 
wetlands should be identified in the post-mining land use plan, and 
should be sufficient to demonstrate the area is functioning as a 
wetland, (not merely a final cut impoundment) including the full range 
of functions and values sought to be replicated or restored for that 
wetland. The bond should not be released without coordination with the 
US Army Corps of Engineers, and an areal coverage of 30% is remarkably 
low, leaving 70% of the area either unvegetated or containing possibly 
incompatible species. Particularly where the wetland is a bottomland 
hardwood or other intermittently-inundated land, the vegetative success 
criteria should be comparable to the cover and revegetation 
requirements for other land uses.
    Response: Use of the term ``aerial coverage'' is consistent with 
its usage in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 
Manual. Although, ``aerial'' is a misspelling and it has been corrected 
to ``areal.'' In the past, Illinois determined the success for those 
fish and wildlife land use reclamation plans that contained wetland 
areas on a case-by-case basis. Illinois is proposing to replace the 
case-by-case approach with a consistent wetland reclamation standard. 
Most final-cut impoundments would not meet the criteria for a wetland, 
as these areas are considered deepwater habitat. However, the edges of 
final-cut impoundments where water is shallow can be developed as 
wetland areas.
    Wetland areas intended to mitigate pre-existing wetlands must meet 
the conditions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 404 permit. 
Pursuant to the requirements of section 702(a)(3) of SMCRA, Federal and 
State program requirements cannot supersede, amend, modify, or repeal 
requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including 
mitigation plans for those wetlands which existed in the premining 
landscape and are being replaced in accordance with a Section 404 
permit. Therefore, the revegetation standards for wetlands proposed by 
the State would not pertain to wetlands constructed to mitigate pre-
existing wetlands. They would pertain only to those wetlands 
constructed to supplement and enhance a postmining land use of fish and 
wildlife habitat. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5, 780.25, 
816.46, and 816.49 (Impoundments); 816.84(b)(1) (Coal Mine Waste 
Impounding Structures); 816.97 (Protection of Fish and Wildlife); 
816.102 (Backfilling and Grading); 816.111 and 816.116 (Revegetation); 
816.133 (Postmining Land Use) allow for the construction of wetlands 
that supplement and enhance fish and wildlife habitat.
    Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to bond 
release of wetlands that are not under the jurisdiction of the Corps is 
not required by SMCRA or the Federal regulations. As discussed in 
finding C.14.k, Illinois submitted adequate support for its use of a 
minimum 30 percent areal coverage standard.

62 IAC 1816/1817.116(c)  Success of Revegetation; Reference Area

    Comment: Six commenters objected to the use of reference areas in 
lieu of Illinois' Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula Sampling 
Method for determining the success of revegetation for cropland and 
hayland. Extensive comments were submitted in support of this 
objection.
    Response: Illinois withdrew its proposed regulations at 62 IAC 
1816.116(c) and 1817.116(c) pertaining to use of a reference area for 
determining the success of revegetation for cropland and hayland.

62 IAC 1816/1817.117(a)(3)  Tree and Shrub Vegetation on Erosion 
Control Structures

    Comment: One commenter was concerned that operators will not be 
required to plant trees and shrubs on erosion control structures, 
including pond embankments.
    Response: As discussed in finding C.14.m, the planting of trees and 
shrubs

[[Page 26821]]

on the embankments of erosion control structures is not a sound 
engineering practice. A herbaceous ground cover will be required for 
these areas.

62 IAC 1816/1817.117(b)  Tree and Shrub Vegetation, Woody Plants

    Comment: One commenter was concerned that the new provision 
pertaining to a case-by-case approval of planting arrangements for 
wildlife areas would eliminate the requirement that an operator must 
plant trees and shrubs on areas to be developed for fish and wildlife 
habitat or recreation areas.
    Response: Illinois' regulation at 62 IAC 1816/1817.117(b) still 
requires that these areas have a minimum population of 250 trees or 
shrubs per acre. The new provision allows operators to request approval 
for optional planting designs rather than requiring uniform planting 
arrangements for all mined wildlife and recreation areas.

62 IAC 1816/1817.190(a)  Affected Acreage Map

    Comment: This change would eliminate sending maps and reports on 
affected acreage to county clerks. We object to deletion of the phrase 
``and to the county clerk.'' This deletion would further deny local 
government its role in protecting natural resources, a role already 
deeply invaded by the fossil fuel preemption.
    Response: Illinois' proposed revision at subsection (b) requires 
the operator to submit an additional copy of the affected acreage 
report and maps for each county in which the permit is located and 
requires the Department to forward those additional copies to the 
county clerk(s). Therefore, Illinois is now assured that a copy of the 
affected acreage report and map goes to the county.

62 IAC 1816/1817.190(b)  Affected Acreage Map

    Comment: What do words, ``Also, statutory citations are being 
updated in subsection (b)'' as found in the Federal Register mean?
    Response: Citations to and titles of statutes have been updated to 
reflect Illinois' new statutory codification system.

62 IAC 1816. Appendix A  Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula Permit 
Specific Yield Standard; Subsections (a), (b), and (c)

    Comment 1: One commenter raised the concern that the proposed 
change from permit area to pit area will need to be ``fine turned'' and 
that the issue when a pit lies in more than one county should be 
addressed.
    Response: OSM has determined that the State's proposal to utilize 
pit area instead of permit area will meet the requirements of 30 CFR 
823.15 in providing a representative standard. Existing Illinois 
regulations require the State to utilize data from the county in which 
the area being tested is located.
    Comment 2: One commenter expressed several concerns with the 
Illinois proposal to utilize only the lands disturbed within the pit 
area in the Illinois productivity formula once mining has ceased. These 
concerns included the proposal not to apply the recalculated standard 
to areas previously tested.
    Response: The requirement under the Federal regulations is to 
obtain the most representative sample of the mined and reclaimed areas. 
OSM believes the Illinois proposal meets that requirement. Because the 
Illinois formula results in annual targets based upon year-specific 
climatological data and yield data, it would not be appropriate to 
apply the recalculated standard retroactively.
    Comment 3: One commenter raised the issue of landowner comment 
opportunities in relation to the change from permit area to put area. 
The concern was that the target yields could change because of the 
recalculation at the tie of cessation of mining and the landowner would 
not be offered the opportunity to comment at the time of the change.
    Response: OSM required Illinois to clarify how the pit area would 
be defined under a variety of circumstances. This was done to assure 
that the pit area was not only truly representative of the mined and 
reclaimed area, but also to assure the pit area was always a clearly 
defined area. Illinois provided the information needed to resolve these 
concerns. In finding C.18, OSM made it clear that Illinois must 
interpret the rule in a manner which assures the use of representative 
areas and results in a clear and consistent delineation of the pit 
area. The possible circumstances for which OSM sought clarification and 
the associated opportunities for public comment are listed below.
    (1) Single pit within a single permit. The pit area would be the 
same as the permit area, and thus the change from permit to pit would 
not affect the opportunity to comment.
    (2) Multiple pits within a single permit. Each pit area will be 
clearly marked on the permit map, and will be subject to public comment 
as part of the permitting process.
    (3) Single pit within several permits that have been consolidated 
into a single permit. Public review will occur at the time of 
consolidation.
    (4) Multiple pits within several permits that are consolidated into 
one permit Each pit area will be clearly marked on the consolidated 
permit map that will be subject to public review prior to approval.
    Thus the opportunity to comment should be available whenever a 
change in the pit area is made.
    Comment 4: One commenter was concerned with the provision at 
subsection (c) that requires yield targets to be recalculated if a 
significant revision is proposed after permanent cessation of mining. 
She wanted to know why Illinois would allow a ``significant revision'' 
after permanent cessation of mining.
    Response: Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1774.13(b)(2) require 
significant revisions to a permit be obtained for changes in 
reclamation operations when such changes constitute a significance 
departure from the method contemplated by the original permit. Since 
reclamation operations are on-going after permanent cessation of active 
coal mining, significant revisions to reclamation plans may be 
proposed.

62 IAC 1816. Appendix A  Agriclutural Lands Productivity Formula Permit 
Specifics Yield Standard; Subsections (d) and (f)

    Comment: Extensive comments were received from five commenters 
opposing proposed provisions to be added at subsection (d) that 
required annual target yield adjustments to be based on the county with 
the greater permit acreage if a mining pit was present in more than one 
county and subsection (f) that allowed Illinois to consolidate prime 
farmland and high capability target yields.
    Response: These proposed provisions were withdrawn.

62 IAC 1817.121(c)(3)  Subsidence Control

    Comment: Subsidence from underground mining requires operators to 
supply any residential, etc. water lost from underground mining but for 
how long the operator is obligated for water replacement is not stated.
    Response: Although the Illinois regulation does not specifically 
state that its requirement is for permanent water replacement, the word 
``replace'' within the regulation indicates permanency. OSM's 
definition of ``Replacement of water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5 clarifies 
that permanent water replacement is required. ``Replacement of water 
supply means, with respect to protected water supplies

[[Page 26822]]

contaminated, diminished, or interrupted by coal mining operations, 
provisions of water supply on both a temporary and permanent basis 
equivalent to premining quantity and quality. Replacement includes 
provision of an equivalent water delivery system and payment of 
operation and maintenance costs in excess of customary and reasonable 
delivery costs for premining water supplies.'' (60 FR 16722, March 31, 
1995).
    As noted in finding C.15, primacy states, including Illinois, will 
be notified pursuant to the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(d) of the 
additional Federal water supply replacement requirements and related 
subsidence damage repair requirements that are not currently contained 
within their programs. This will include notification of a requirement 
for a definition consistent with the Federal definition at 30 CFR 701.5 
pertaining to water replacement.

62 IAC 1840.11(h)(2)  Inspections by the Department; Abandoned Site

    Comment: One commenter believed that Illinois should provide 
written notice to the county clerk(s) of the counties affected at the 
time public notice was provided of an alternate inspection frequency 
for an abandoned site.
    Response: The counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
840.11(h)(2) do not contain specific provision for written notice to 
the county clerk(s). However, both the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
840.14(c) and the Illinois regulations at 62 IAC 1840.14(c) provide 
that copies of all records, reports, inspection materials, and other 
subject information or a description of the information will be made 
available for public inspection at a Federal, State or local government 
office in the county where the mining is occurring. Illinois has 
historically sent this type of information to the county clerk(s).

62 IAC 1840.17(a)  Review of Decision Not To Inspect or Enforce

    Comment 1: The inclusion of a 30-day period in which to file a 
request for informal review of a decision not to inspect or enforce is 
more restrictive of the right of the public to administrative review 
procedures at the state level than is provided by the Secretary's 
regulations, and must be disapproved.
    Response: To require that requests for a review be filed within a 
specified time period assures administrative efficiency in a manner 
that is not inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal regulations. Using 
this approach, Illinois can ensure administrative efficiency by setting 
a firm deadline for appeals, without undue prejudice to the interests 
of citizens who may be adversely affected by decisions not to inspect 
or enforce.
    Comment 2: In order for this waiver to be fair, an addition to this 
section should be added which requires that the citizen be informed by 
certified mail that the right to appeal to the director for informal 
review must be made within 30 days or that right is waived. Without 
this requirement, the citizen could lose a right without that citizen 
knowing that their right was lost.
    Response: The 30 day period begins when the citizen is notified of 
Illinois' decision, which is done by certified mail. Illinois has 
indicated that this notification will include language informing the 
recipient of the 30-day time period within which to request, or else 
waive, the right to informal review. As discussed in finding C.21, the 
proposed revision is being approved with the understanding that 
notification of the 30-day time period will be included in the notice 
of decision not to inspect or enforce and that failure to include the 
notification will not limit the right for review.

62 IAC 1840.17(c)  Review of Decision Not To Inspect or Enforce; Formal 
Review

    Comment: Two commenters were concerned how the reference to formal 
review under 62 IAC 1847.3 would relate to formal review of a decision 
not to inspect or enforce since the current provisions of Sec. 1847.3 
pertained to permitting actions. They recommended that the subsection 
be rewritten without reference to specific provisions.
    Response: Illinois proposed a revision to its regulations at 62 IAC 
1847.3 that provides for administrative review of decisions not to 
inspect or enforce under 62 IAC 1840.17 (see finding C.21).

62 IAC 1843.23  Enforcement Actions at Abandoned Sites

    Comment: This provision does not promulgate a responsive action to 
the problems of violators who abandon mining sites. It appears geared 
towards allowing the Department to refrain from doing a useless thing, 
but does not state the Department's policy in enforcing violations of 
State and Federal law at abandoned sites.
    Response: The proposed regulation is substantively identical to the 
counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 843.22.

62 IAC 1847.3  Administrative and Judicial Review; Hearings

    Comment: The inclusion of formal review of decisions not to inspect 
or enforce in section 1847.3 is of concern because the section is 
triggered by notice to the permit applicant rather than notice to the 
party who requested the inspection and enforcement action. The right to 
informal and formal review of such decisions, as well as all other 
actions of the agency, are triggered by notice to the party rather than 
the applicant.
    Response: Section 1847.3 is not necessarily triggered by notice to 
the permit applicant. The Illinois regulation at 62 IAC 1840.17(b) 
requires the Director or his or her designee to inform the person, in 
writing, of the results of an informal review of an authorized 
representative's decision not to inspect or enforce. OSM has verified 
several times over the past years, through its oversight activities, 
that these letters are mailed via certified mail to the person who 
requested the action. It is the receipt of this decision which triggers 
the 30-day time limit within which to request formal review under the 
provisions of section 1847.3, as authorized by 62 IAC 1840.17(c).

62 Ill. Adm. Code 1847.3(i), (j); 1847.4(j), (k); 1847.5(m), (n); 
1847.6(k), (l); and 1847.7(j), (k)  Hearing Officer's Proposed Decision

    Comment 1: Two commenters were concerned that written exceptions to 
the hearing officer's proposed decision are to be filed with the 
hearing officer instead of the Director and that written exceptions and 
responses to exceptions are to be filed within 10 rather than 15 days.
    Response: As discussed in finding C.24.a.(2), the Federal 
regulations specify general adjudicatory provisions that States must 
include in their administrative review hearing procedures, but allow 
the States discretion in how to implement these provisions. The Federal 
regulations contain no comparable provisions for filing of written 
exceptions to a proposed decision, filing of responses to written 
exceptions, or time limitations for these filings. However, the 
proposed revisions are not inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal 
regulations.
    Comment 2: One commenter was concerned that the Illinois regulatory 
authority might be absolved of the responsibility for administrative 
decisions if a hearing officer was allowed to make the decisions.
    Response: The Illinois regulations at 62 IAC 1847 provide that the 
hearing officer's decision is the Department's final administrative 
decision. Pursuant to 62 IAC 1847, final administrative decisions are 
subject to judicial review in accordance with the Illinois

[[Page 26823]]

Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3).

62 IAC 1848.5(f)  Notice of Hearing

    Comment 1: One commenter was in agreement with the proposed 
provisions that would require certain specifications for legal notices 
of hearings, but questioned the prohibition in this proposed subsection 
against inclusion of hearing notices among other legal notices in the 
paper.
    Response: The prohibition against inclusion of these hearing 
notices in that portion of the paper where legal notices appear is a 
statutory prohibition which was requested by Knox County citizens when 
section 2.11(c) of the Surface Coal Mining Land Conservation and 
Reclamation Act, 225 ILCS 720, was amended in 1993. Neither SMCRA nor 
the Federal regulations specify the portion of the newspaper wherein 
the public notice of a hearing must appear.
    Comment 2: One commenter believed that Sec. 1848.5(f) should 
include a provision for notification of the country clerk of the county 
affected.
    Response: Neither SMCRA nor the Federal regulations require that a 
separate notice of an administrative hearing be sent to the county 
clerk of the county affected.
    Comment 3: One commenter objected to the last sentence of the 
provision that was proposed in the original amendment: ``Any deviations 
from the requirements of this subsection attributable to the publishing 
newspaper shall not be grounds for postponement of continuance of the 
hearing, nor will such errors necessitate that the notice be 
republished.''
    Response: In the revised amendment dated November 1, 1995, Illinois 
removed this sentence from Sec. 1848.5(f).

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 (Administrative 
Record Nos. IL-1618 and IL-1664). The Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS) commented on March 15, 1995 (Administrative Record No. 
IL-1631), that the State should withdraw its proposal to remove the 
language ``The state recognizes that the permit cannot be issued 
without the required consultation with USDA'' from section 
1785.17(d)(1). OSM notes that Illinois withdrew this proposed revision, 
and the indicated language was retained.
    On June 7, 1995 (Administrative Record No. IL-1657), and July 20, 
1995 (Administrative Record No. IL-1661), the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) offered comments on the following three 
sections:
    62 IAC 1816/1817.116(a)(3)(E) NRCS commented that the Service did 
not object to the substitution of one year of crop production for one 
year of hay production on limited capability lands if the Department 
determines the practice is proper management. OSM notes that Illinois 
included language in this section which requires such determination 
before the substitution can be made.
    62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) NRCS believed the proposed revision was 
not specific enough as to the types of activities which would qualify 
under this section, the maximum area of disturbance should be 
specified, and the term minimal soil disturbance should be defined. 
NRCS also commented that they concurred with the State's objective in 
proposing the rule. OSM is not approving this rule because it would 
exempt areas as large as four acres from any type of revegetation 
success testing. OSM does not agree that it would be possible to list 
all of the activities that may occur on these small areas. Should the 
State of Illinois resubmit language limiting the exemption to a smaller 
area, the demonstration required by the operator will have to be more 
thoroughly addressed. NRCS also commented that deep tillage should be 
required for any areas exempted under this section. OSM believes that 
the requirement for deep tillage should be made on a case by case 
basis. The State regulatory Authority would make the decision as part 
of its determination pertaining to the operator's demonstration.
    62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A)(ii). NRCS affirmed its support for the 
proposal to include small areas with representative larger fields if 
the terms ``representative,'' ``small,'' and ``isolated'' are better 
defined. The Service also pointed out the importance of a reliable 
sampling method. OSM is not approving this rule because Illinois has 
not demonstrated that the test plot would provide a statistically valid 
sample at a 90 percent confidence interval.
    62 IAC 1816. Appendix A NRCS raised the issue as to whether the 
proposal to base yield calculations on pit areas rather than permit 
areas would allow operators to ``shop'' for the best standard in terms 
of meeting the required yield. OSM had the same concern initially, but 
determined that, at any one time, the pit area will be a finite area 
defined by specific boundaries and that is the only area upon which 
calculations can be based. There can be no shopping. OSM is approving 
the change to pit area.

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 EPA's concurrence.
    Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the 
proposed amendment from EPA (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1618 and IL-
1664. EPA responded on February 24, 1995, that ``* * * the definition 
of hydric soils in the wetland definition can be interpreted, by some 
readers, to mean being inundated greater than 50 percent of the time. 
It would be clearer to adopt the definition used by the National 
Technical Committee on Hydric Soils and the Food Security Act Manual, 
Third Edition: `A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long 
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the 
upper part.' This would also be consistent with the definition of 
hydric soils in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual.'' 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1623).
    As discussed in finding C.2, OSM found that the proposed definition 
is not inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal regulations. Illinois 
clarified its meaning of hydric soil in the comment section of its 
November 1, 1995, revised amendment (Administrative Record No. IL-
1663): ``The explanation of hydric soil appearing in the wetlands 
definition is intended only as a supplemental explanation of the term 
`hydric soil' in layman's terms and is not intended to be a legal 
definition of the term. Any determination of hydric soils would be in 
accordance with the technical guidelines of the 1987 Corps Manual * * * 
*''

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 on the 
proposed amendment from the SHPO and ACHP (Administrative Record No. 
IL-1618 and IL-1664). The SHPO responded on

[[Page 26824]]

March 3, 1995, that ``In our opinion, this amendment is consistent with 
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and 
its implementing regulations 36 CFR part 800, Protection of Historic 
Properties'' (Administrative Record No. IL-1624(A).

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, the Director approves, with certain 
exceptions and additional requirements, the proposed amendment as 
submitted by Illinois on February 3, 1995, and as revised on November 
1, 1995.
    With the requirement that Illinois further revise its regulations, 
the Director does not approve, as discussed in: finding No. C.14.f.(2), 
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(F)(i) and 1817.116(a)(2)(F)(i), concerning 
augmentation of pasture, hayland, and grazing land; finding No. C.14.h, 
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F), concerning the 
revegetation success standards for non-contiguous areas less than or 
equal to four acres; and finding No. C.14.i, 62 IAC 
1816.116(a)(4)(A)(ii), concerning approval of the success of 
revegetation for a representative field being used in determining the 
success of revegetation on non-contiguous areas less than or equal to 
four acres.
    In accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(f)(1), the Director is also taking 
this opportunity to clarify in the required amendment section at 30 CFR 
913.16 that, within 60 days of the publication of this final rule, 
Illinois must either submit a proposed written amendment, or a 
description of an amendment to be proposed that meets the requirements 
of SMCRA and 30 CFR Chapter VII and a timetable for enactment that is 
consistent with Illinois' established administrative procedures.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 913, codifying decisions 
concerning the Illinois program, are being amended to implement this 
decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to 
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to 
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without 
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by 
SMCRA.

Effect of Director's Decision

    Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise 
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the 
Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any alteration of 
an approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program 
amendment. In the oversight of the Illinois program, the Director will 
recognize only the statutes, regulations and other materials approved 
by OSM, together with any consistent implementing policies, directives 
and other materials, and will require the enforcement by Illinois of 
only such provisions.

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)).

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

    This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any 
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: May 10, 1996.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII, 
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 by adding paragraph(s) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 913.15  Approval of regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *
    (s) With the exception of 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(F)(i) and 
1817.116(a)(2)(F)(i), concerning augmentation of pasture, hayland, and 
grazing land; 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F), 
concerning the revegetation success standards for non-contiguous areas 
less than or equal to four acres; and 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A)(ii), 
concerning use of a representative field to determine success of 
revegetation on non-contiguous areas less than or equal to four acres, 
the amendment submitted by Illinois to OSM by letter dated February 3, 
1995, and as revised and supplemented with explanatory information on 
November 1, 1995, is approved effective May 29, 1996.

    3. Section 913.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(s),

[[Page 26825]]

(t), and (u) and by adding paragraphs (w), (x), and (y) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 913.16  Required program amendments.

* * * * *
    (s)-(u) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (w) By July 29, 1996, Illinois shall submit either a proposed 
amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed, together 
with a timetable for adoption of proposed revisions to remove the 
regulation provisions at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(F)(i) and 
1817.116(a)(2)(f)(i), concerning the authority to approve augmentative 
practices without restarting the period of extended responsibility for 
revegetation success and bond liability for pasture, hayland, and 
grazing land, from Chapter I, Title 62 of the Illinois Administrative 
Code.
    (x) By July 29, 1996, Illinois shall submit either a proposed 
amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed, together 
with a timetable for adoption of proposed revisions to remove the 
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F), 
concerning the revegetation success standards for non-contiguous areas 
less than or equal to four acres that would not require statistically 
valid sampling techniques be used to evaluate success of revegetation, 
from Chapter I, Title 62 of the Illinois Administrative Code.
    (y) By July 29, 1996, Illinois shall submit either a proposed 
amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed, together 
with a timetable for adoption of proposed revisions to remove the 
provision at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A)(ii), concerning revegetation 
success for a larger field being representative of the revegetation 
success of a non-contiguous reclaimed area less than or equal to four 
acres, from Chapter I, Title 62 of the Illinois Administrative Code.

[FR Doc. 96-13267 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M