[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17094-17098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9174]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 913

[SPATS No. IL-089-FOR]


Illinois Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed amendment to the Illinois 
regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as the ``Illinois 
program'') under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA). Illinois requested that OSM reconsider two regulations 
disapproved in a previously proposed amendment to the Illinois program 
and submitted explanatory information in support of its request. These 
regulations concern the determination of revegetation success for non-
contiguous surface disturbance areas less than or equal to four acres. 
The additional explanatory information is intended to clarify the 
regulations by providing an interpretation statement and specifying 
procedures and evaluation criteria that would be used in the 
implementation of the regulations. The amendment is intended to improve 
operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Director, 
Indianapolis Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania 
Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1521, Telephone: (317) 226-
6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Illinois Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Illinois Program

    On June 1, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally 
approved the Illinois program. Background information on the Illinois 
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of 
comments, and the conditions of approval can be found in the June 1, 
1982, Federal Register (47 FR 23883). Subsequent actions concerning the 
conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 
913.15, 913.16, and 913.17.
    By letter dated February 3, 1995 (Administrative Record No. IL-
1615), Illinois submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant 
to SMCRA. OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the 
February 27, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 19522). The public comment 
period ended March 29, 1995. A public hearing was requested, and it was 
held on March 24, 1995. OSM identified concerns relating to the 
proposed amendment, and notified Illinois of these concerns by letters 
dated April 28 and August 3, 1995 (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1649 
and IL-1660, respectively). By letter dated November 1, 1995 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1663), Illinois responded to OSM's 
concerns by submitting revisions to its proposed amendment. OSM 
reopened the public comment period in the December 5, 1995, Federal 
Register (60 FR 62229). The public comment period closed on January 4, 
1996. OSM approved the proposed amendment with certain exceptions and 
additional requirements on May 29, 1996 (61 FR 26801). The exceptions 
were the Director's decision not to approve some of the proposed 
regulations. This amendment addresses two of those regulations.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated August 5, 1997 (Administrative Record No. IL-1670), 
the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and 
Minerals (OMM) requested that OSM reconsider its May 29, 1996, decision 
not to approve Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 
1817.116(a)(3)(F). Illinois resubmitted the regulations with an 
interpretation statement, program procedures, and evaluation criteria 
for implementation of them. These regulations concern the determination 
of revegetation success for non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas 
less than or equal to four acres. By letters dated September 26 and 
November 3, 1997 (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1671 and IL-1672), OMM 
provided additional explanatory information to clarify the procedures 
and evaluation criteria that would be used in the implementation of the 
proposed regulations.
    Based upon its request for reconsideration and the additional 
explanatory information submitted by Illinois, OSM reopened the public 
comment period in the December 23, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 
67014). The public comment period closed on January 7, 1998.

III. Director's Findings

    Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the 
proposed amendment.
    Illinois proposed the following regulatory language at 62 IAC 
1816.116(a)(3)(F) for surface coal mining and 62 IAC 1817.116(a)(3)(F) 
for underground coal mining.

    Non-contiguous areas less than or equal to four acres which were 
disturbed from activities such as, but not limited to, signs, 
boreholes, power poles, stockpiles and substations shall be 
considered successfully revegetated if the operator can demonstrate 
that the soil disturbance was minor, i.e., the majority of the 
subsoil remains in place, the soil has been returned to its original 
capability and the area is supporting its approved post-mining land 
use at the end of the responsibility period.

    Illinois' proposal would exclude non-contiguous, surface 
disturbance areas of less than or equal to four acres from productivity 
testing to prove revegetation success. In OSM's May 29, 1996, decision 
not to approve Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 
1817.116(a)(3)(F), the practicality of excluding the need to test for 
revegetation success for small areas such as signs, boreholes, power 
poles, and other small and minimally disturbed areas was recognized. 
OSM explained that in order for it to approve this type of proposal, 
Illinois would need to provide additional language that would more 
closely correlate the maximum acreage to the types of activities which 
would qualify for the exemption. Also, Illinois would need to provide 
additional language as to what would constitute a satisfactory 
demonstration of minimum disturbance, achievement of original 
capability, and achievement of postmining land use. As discussed below, 
OMM provided additional information to meet each of OSM's conditions 
for reconsideration of

[[Page 17095]]

its proposed regulations by providing an interpretation statement, 
program procedures, and evaluation criteria that would be used in the 
implementation of the regulations.

1. Interpretation Statement

    OMM provided the following interpretation for the proposed 
regulatory language at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F):

    Non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas, with an approved land 
use of cropland or pasture/hayland, less than or equal to four acres 
which:
    1. Have minor soil disturbances from activities such as signs, 
boreholes, power poles, stockpiles and substations;
    2. Have the majority of the subsoil remaining in place; and
    3. Were not affected by coal or toxic material handling, may use 
the following procedures for determination of revegetation success, 
in lieu of Section (a)(4).
    (i) The operator must document the required three criteria of 
(F) above have been met.
    (ii) The affected area is successfully supporting its approved 
post mining land use when compared to the similar, adjacent 
unaffected areas at the end of the responsibility period.
    The Department will evaluate areas requested by the operator, 
using qualified individuals, and determine them successfully 
revegetated, if it finds subsection (i) and (ii) have been met. The 
Department will require the area to be tilled with conventional 
agricultural subsoiler or deeper as it deems necessary.

    Illinois' interpretation clarifies that only those non-contiguous 
areas of less than or equal to four acres that have been subject to 
surface disturbance only and have an approved land use of cropland or 
pasture/hayland will qualify under the proposed regulations. It 
clarifies that these areas are only exempt from the requirements of 62 
IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and 1817.116(a)(4) concerning the use of 
Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula (ALPF) at 62 IAC 1816.Appendix 
A to measure production. The ALPF contains the approved sampling 
methods used by Illinois to determine success of revegetation for areas 
designated in the approved reclamation plan as cropland, pasture, 
hayland, or grazing land. The interpretation statement clarifies that 
areas affected by coal or toxic material handling will not be eligible 
under the proposed regulations. It clarifies that OMM will require the 
areas to be tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, when 
warranted, a deep tiller and that OMM will use qualified individuals to 
evaluate the revegetated areas. The Director finds that Illinois' 
interpretation of its proposed regulations provides the necessary 
clarification that is lacking in the language of the regulations.

2. Correlation of the Maximum Acreage to the Types of Activities and 
Demonstration of Minimum Disturbance

    OMM proposed a four acre maximum under the recommendation of the 
Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA). OMM enclosed a letter dated 
September 10, 1997, from the IDOA which supports the proposed amendment 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1671). The IDOA agreed that small 
isolated areas of four acres or less should not be subject to the full 
sampling procedures under the Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula. 
The IDOA stated that based on its experience with cropland restoration 
under the ALPF, it firmly believed the four-acre threshold is practical 
and represents a reasonable approach to the evaluation of cropland and 
hayland at Illinois mines. The IDOA in cooperation with the OMM 
implements the Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula.
    OMM explained that the proposed regulation language describes minor 
disturbance as an area where the majority of the subsoil remains in 
place. It also is intended to include areas where topsoil removal was 
not required. OMM would ensure all non-toxic contaminants are either 
prevented from mixing with the subsoil or are adequately removed 
without significant loss of in-place subsoil. It would require the use 
of techniques such as engineering fabrics to be placed prior to rock 
placement where it deems it appropriate. Areas affected by coal or 
toxic material handling would not be eligible under the proposed 
regulation. OMM would differentiate the minor disturbances into three 
main types.
    (1) Areas where topsoil was left in place. Signs, markers and power 
poles are common examples. A disturbed area is generally less than .25 
acres. The type of disturbance is so minor and small that sampling of 
these areas is impractical.
    (2) Areas where topsoil was removed and stockpiled and the subsoil 
was left in place. Common examples include rock dust holes and 
electrical substations. The disturbed area rarely exceeds one acre. 
Typically a bulldozer is used to remove and stockpile the topsoil for 
these areas. Bulldozers possess a ground pressure less than or equal to 
conventional farm equipment. In order to alleviate any soil compaction, 
OMM will require the area to be tilled with a conventional agricultural 
subsoiler or, if necessary, a deep tiller.
    (3) Areas where the topsoil was removed and stockpiled and portions 
of the area were excavated for foundations or for shaft construction. 
Subsoils were stockpiled where necessary and later replaced during 
reclamation of the site. A disturbed area may approach four acres. 
Scrapers and excavators may be used in preparing these areas for use. 
Amny foundations existing on site will be removed from the rooting 
zone. In order to alleviate any soil compaction, OMM will require the 
area to be tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, if 
necessary, a deep tiller.
    Most surface coal mining permits in Illinois are issued for several 
hundred acres or more, with some issued for over 1,000 acres. A common 
occurrence at surface mines is a fringe of surface disturbance only 
areas adjacent to the mined areas. These surface disturbance only areas 
are surrounded by unaffected land and usually have been used for signs, 
markers, power poles, or electrical substations. Most non-contiguous, 
minor disturbance areas associated with underground mines are permitted 
under Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1785.23 for minor underground 
mine facilities not at or adjacent to the processing or preparation 
facility or area. The types of facilities permitted under these 
regulations include air shafts, fan and ventilation buildings, small 
support buildings or sheds, access power holes, other small 
miscellaneous structures and associated roads. These small isolated 
areas are surrounded by unaffected land. The Director finds that 
Illinois has provided adequate information to correlate the maximum 
acreage to the types of activities that would qualify under the 
proposed regulations and has provided a satisfactory explanation of 
what constitutes minimum disturbance.
    3. Achievement of Original Capability. In its letter of September 
26, 1997, OMM stated that the process of the permittee planting of the 
crop and OMM's evaluating the crop is the ``demonstration of 
capability,'' if it is determined the crops are successful.
    On May 2, 1994 (finding 16.C, 59 FR 22513, 22514), OSM made the 
following applicable findings concerning the achievement of original 
capability in the preamble discussion of a proposed amendment submitted 
by the State of Ohio.

    Section 515(b)(2) of SMCRA requires that land affected by 
surface coal mining operations be restored to a condition capable of 
supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any 
mining or to higher or better uses of which there is a reasonable 
likelihood. However, this capability demonstration is independent of 
the

[[Page 17096]]

revegetation requirements of paragraphs (b)(19) and (b)(20) of 
section 515(b) of SMCRA * * * Indeed, in the preamble to 30 CFR 
816.133(a) as revised on September 1, 1983 (48 FR 39892, 39897), the 
Secretary states that:
    [T]he final rule emphasizes the land's capability, both with 
regard to premining uses and higher or better uses, in this 
implementation of Section 515(b)(2) of the Act. This requirement is 
distinct from the revegetation or prime farmland rules, which under 
some circumstances may require actual production on the reclaimed 
land as a measure of successful reclamation.
    Furthermore, section 508(a) of SMCRA and its legislative history 
(S. Rep. No. 128, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 77 (1977)) provide that the 
demonstration that premining capability can and will be restored 
must be made as part of the reclamation plan submitted with the 
permit application. Thus, the land use restoration requirements of 
section 515(b)(2) are addressed primarily through the permit 
application review process, and compliance is achieved by adherence 
to the reclamation plan and other performance standards such as 
those pertaining to toxic materials, topsoil, and backfilling and 
grading. No separate capability demonstration is necessary upon the 
completion of mining and reclamation.

    The permits which contain the non-contiguous, surface disturbance 
areas of four acres or less are subject to all of the permit 
application review processes of the approved Illinois program. These 
areas also must adhere to the approved reclamation plans and the toxic 
materials, topsoil, and backfilling and grading performance standards 
of the approved Illinois program. The minor disturbances, discussed in 
the above finding under item 2, should have minimal impact on the pre-
mining soil capability. Also, Illinois' requirement that the area be 
tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, if necessary, a 
deep tiller would alleviate what impact did occur. Therefore, based 
upon this discussion and OSM's May 2, 1994, policy finding regarding 
the demonstration of pre-mining capability, the Director finds that the 
approved Illinois program will assure the achievement of original 
capability for non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas of less than 
or equal to four acres.
    Achievement of Postmining Land Use. OMM would assess the success of 
the area by the determination the area is supporting its post mining 
use and there were no observable differences between these areas and 
adjacent unaffected areas. OMM would not use this testing procedure if 
coal or other toxic material were to be handled in the immediate 
affected area. OMM would require at a minimum the area to be tilled 
with an agricultural subsoiler, preferably before topsoil replacement. 
In the event of poor crop performance on areas being evaluated, 
Illinois will require tillage to greater depths as deemed appropriate, 
based on timing, soil handling techniques, and equipment used for 
reclamation. If mitigation efforts are still unsuccessful, Illinois 
would require soil penetrometer testing and deeper tillage if deemed 
appropriate. Areas topsoiled to date will be evaluated in their current 
state, if a subsoiler has already been through the soil. OMM explained 
that all determinations of the success of these small areas will be 
done by qualified individuals experienced in the field of agronomy and 
soils. OMM's staff currently includes an individual certified under 
ARCPACS. ARCPACS: A Federation of Certifying Boards in Agriculture, 
Biology, Earth and Environmental Sciences is a certification program 
that certifies professionals in agronomy and soils, who possess 
sufficient education and experience in these fields. Certified 
individuals are bound by a code of ethics, regarding their professional 
opinion and conduct. Illinois has persons other than ARCPACS certified 
persons available for crop evaluations. They include persons who are 
currently involved in the ALPF testing program such as IDOA personnel 
and U.S. Department of Agriculture crop enumerators.
    The evaluation of the crop would be done near the time of the 
harvest of the crop grown. Hay would be required in a pasture land use 
and corn or soybeans would be required in a crop land use. The 
observation would be done for a minimum of two years of the 
responsibility period, excluding the first year. No phase III bonds 
would be released before the fifth year of the responsibility period.
    OSM notes that an inspection and evaluation of the reclamation work 
involved would also be conducted upon receipt of a bond release request 
in accordance with Illinois' regulation at 62 IAC 1800.40(b). The 
Director finds that Illinois has adequate procedures and qualified 
individuals to determine whether the small, minimally distributed areas 
have achieved their postmining land use.
    In accordance with section 101(f) of SMCRA, OSM has always 
maintained that the primary responsibility for developing, authorizing, 
issuing and enforcing regulations for surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations should rest with the States. The absence of 
minimum standards in portions of the Federal rules is not a weakening 
of revegetation requirements but reflects that the rules are designed 
to account for regional diversity in terrain, climate, soils, and other 
conditions under which mining occurs. OMM in its implementation of the 
Illinois program has found that it is impracticable to test crop 
productivity on small isolated areas. Several of these non-contiguous, 
minimally disturbed areas have been reclaimed for several years. From a 
practical standpoint, it is usually difficult to identify precisely 
where such areas are located in the field once revegetation is 
established in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. As 
discussed earlier, OSM recognizes the practicality of excluding the 
need to test for revegetation success for small minimally disturbed 
areas. Although OSM provided exceptions in the Federal regulations from 
the full performance standards for soil removal and prime farmland for 
minor disturbance areas at 30 CFR 816.22(a)(3), 817.22(a)(3), 
823.11(a), 823.12(c)(2), and 823.14(d), OSM did not consider the 
eventual need for exceptions from the full requirements of the Federal 
revegetation standards for success at 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116 for 
minimally disturbed areas. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.22(a)(3) and 817.22(a)(3) authorize the regulatory authority to 
approve an exception from the requirement to remove topsoil for 
minimally disturbed areas for surface and underground mines, including 
operations on prime farmland, for minor disturbances which occurs at 
the site of small structures, such as power poles, signs, or fence 
lines. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.11(a) authorizes the 
regulatory authority to approve an exemption from prime farmland 
performance standards for coal preparation plants, support facilities, 
and roads of underground mines that are actively used over extended 
periods of time and where such uses effect a minimal amount of land. 
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.12(c)(2) and 823.14(d) authorize 
the regulatory authority to approve an exception from the requirement 
to remove and reconstruct B and C soil horizons when the B and C 
horizons would not otherwise be removed by mining activities and where 
soil capability can be retained, such as areas beneath surface mine and 
underground mine support facilities. OSM recognizes that standards 
sampling methods may not be practical for the small minimally disturbed 
areas that will be eligible under Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 
1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F). These areas will still subject 
to the general revegetation requirements of Illinois' counterparts to 
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111 and 817.111. With the 
exception of the

[[Page 17097]]

sampling methods approved of measuring revegetation success for 
cropland and pastureland at 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A, these areas will 
also be subject to the applicable revegetation standards for success 
and responsibility periods contained in Illinois' counterparts to 30 
CFR 816.116 and 817.116. Disturbance of the limited types referenced by 
Illinois for these small areas should have minimal impact on soil 
productivity, if any. Also, areas this small would have a negligible 
impact on the overall production of the surrounding non-mined cropland 
or pastureland. Illinois has established that qualified individuals 
experienced in the fields of agronomy and soils that have the 
experience and ability to make valid determinations as to whether a 
diverse, effective permanent vegetative cover has been successfully 
established will evaluate these small areas. The interpretation, 
program procedures, and evaluation criteria provided in Illinois' 
letter of August 5, 1997, as modified by its letters of September 26 
and November 3, 1997, should ensure that these minimally disturbed 
areas are capable of achieving a productivity level compatible with the 
approved postmining land uses and that crop production will be at least 
equal to that of the surrounding unmined lands. Therefore, the Director 
finds that requiring these areas to be evaluated by the statistically 
valid sampling methods approved in the Illinois program would be 
impractical.
    Based on the above discussions, the Director is approving Illinois' 
proposed regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F) 
in combination with its August 5, 1997, interpretation statement, 
program procedures, and evaluation criteria as modified by its letters 
dated September 26, 1997, and November 3, 1997. Also, since approval of 
these regulations will satisfy the required amendment codified at 30 
CFR 913.16(x), it is being removed. The Director wants to emphasize 
that this method for determining revegetation success is only being 
approved for small, minimally disturbed areas.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    OSM solicited public comments on the proposed amendment, but none 
were received.

Federal Agency Comments

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited 
comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with 
an actual or potential interest in the Illinois program during its 
review of Illinois' February 3, 1995, proposed amendment 
(Administrative Record Nos. IL-1618 and IL-1664). The Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) was the only agency to comment on Illinois' 
proposed regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F). 
Although it did comment on aspects of the proposed language, the NRCS 
concurred with the State's objective in proposing the rules 
(Administrative Record Nos. IL-1657, June 7, 1995, and IL-1661, July 
20, 1995). The concerns expressed by the NRCS were that compaction 
alleviation be required, eligible activities be identified, a maximum 
size area be designated, and minimum soil disturbance be defined. As 
shown above in the preamble discussion, OSM took the NRCS concerns into 
consideration during its evaluation of Illinois' request for 
reconsideration of its May 29, 1996, decision on the proposed 
regulations.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the 
written concurrence of the EPA with respect to those provisions of the 
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality 
standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). 
None of the revisions that Illinois proposed to make in this amendment 
pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not 
request the EPA's concurrence.

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

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM is required to solicit 
comments on proposed amendments which may have an effect on historic 
properties from the SHPO and ACHP. OSM solicited comments from the SHPO 
and ACHP during its review of Illinois' February 3, 1995, proposed 
amendment (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1618 and IL-1664). The SHPO 
concurred with Illinois' proposed amendment on March 3, 1995 
(Administrative Record No. IL-1624(A)). The proposed regulations 
addressed in this final rule have no effect on historic properties. 
Therefore OSM did not solicit additional comments from the SHPO or 
ACHP.

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, the Director approves Illinois' 
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F) as 
submitted on February 3, 1995, and as revised on November 1, 1995, in 
combination with the interpretation statement, program procedures, and 
evaluation criteria to be used in the implementation of the regulations 
as submitted on August 5, 1997, and as revised on September 26, 1997, 
and November 3, 1997.
    The Director approves the regulations as proposed by Illinois with 
the provision that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the 
regulations submitted to and review by OSM and the public and that the 
interpretation statement, program procedures, and evaluation criteria 
proposed by Illinois be used in the implementation of the regulations.
    the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 913, codifying decisions 
concerning the Illinois program, are being amended to implement this 
decision.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

    This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 
Review).

Executive Order 12988

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has 
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the 
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. 
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of 
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such 
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. 
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State 
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must 
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is 
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and 
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have 
been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

    No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since 
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not 
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)).

[[Page 17098]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Unfunded Mandates

    OSM has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a 
cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, state, or 
tribal governments or private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: March 27, 1998.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 913 is amended 
as set forth below:

PART 913--ILLINOIS

    1. The authority citation for part 913 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

    2. Section 913.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 913.15  Approval of Illinois regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Original amendment         Date of final                             
    submission date            publication         Citation/description 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                                                                        
*                  *                  *                  *              
                  *                  *                  *               
August 5, 1997.........  April 8, 1998..........  62 IAC                
                                                   1816.116(c)(3)(F);   
                                                   1817.116(a)(3)(F);   
                                                   Interpretation       
                                                   Statement, Program   
                                                   Procedures, and      
                                                   Evaluation Criteria  
                                                   for 62 IAC           
                                                   1816.116(a)(3)(F) and
                                                   1817.116(a)(3)(F).   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 913.16  [Amended]

    3. Section 913.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(x).
[FR Doc. 98-9174 Filed 4-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M