[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27455-27459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

[ND-040-FOR; North Dakota State Program Amendment XXIX]


North Dakota Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 
is approving a proposed amendment to the North Dakota regulatory 
program (hereinafter, the ``North Dakota program'') under the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The amendment 
consists of changes to North Dakota's revegetation policy document, 
Standards for Evaluation of Revegetation Success and Recommended 
Procedures for Pre- and Postmining Vegetation Assessments. Many of the 
changes are the result of rule changes that were submitted as 
amendments to the North Dakota regulatory program and approved by OSM 
in the April 28, 1997, and March 16, 1999, Federal Registers (62 FR 
22889, and 64 FR 12896), giving mining companies options for proving 
reclamation success and revising requirements for tree and shrub 
standards. The corresponding changes are now being incorporated into 
the policy document. Other changes include clarifications, adjusting 
crop yield data, adding factors for adjusting yield standards, 
requiring plant species to be predominantly native, providing 
consistency for diversity and seasonality, prescribing the number of 
species for tame pastureland and clarifying sampling procedures. North 
Dakota intended to revise its policy document to reflect changes to its 
statute and regulations and make it consistent with corresponding 
Federal regulations and SMCRA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy Padgett, Telephone: (307) 261-
6550, Internet address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the North Dakota 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 of the North Dakota Program

    On December 15, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally 
approved the North Dakota program. You can find background information 
on the North Dakota program, including the Secretary's findings, the 
disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in the December 15, 
1980, Federal Register (45 FR 82214). North Dakota's ``Standards for 
Evaluation of Revegetation Success and Recommended Procedures for Pre- 
and Postmining Vegetation Assessments,'' hereafter referred to as the 
``policy document'' was submitted to OSM on June 1, 1988. The policy 
document was submitted to satisfy the requirements of 30 CFR 
816.116(a)(1). The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) require 
that regulatory authorities select revegetation success standards and 
statistically valid techniques for determining revegetation success and 
include them in its approved regulatory program. The policy document 
satisfies both these requirements. OSM's approval of the policy 
document was published in the March 10, 1989, Federal Register (46 FR 
10141). Subsequent revisions to the policy document were approved by 
OSM on February 17, 1994, and January 8, 1999.
    The North Dakota regulatory program contains specific rules 
governing standards for success of various postmining land uses in NDAC 
69-05.2-22-07. These rules have been approved by OSM as being 
consistent with 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. North Dakota's policy 
document must be consistent with these State requirements.
    You can find other actions concerning North Dakota's program and 
program amendments at 30 CFR 934.15 and 934.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated March 16, 2000, North Dakota sent us an amendment 
to its program (North Dakota State Program Amendment XXIX), 
administrative record No. ND-DD-01) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et 
seq.). The amendment revises North Dakota's revegetation policy 
document. Many of the changes are made to incorporate rule changes that 
were approved by OSM on April 28, 1997, and March 16, 1999, pertaining 
to the new option of proving reclamation success for three out of five 
years, starting no sooner than the eighth year of the responsibility 
period and revised reclamation success standards for woodlands and 
shelter belts.
    In addition to revisions that are made as a result of rule changes 
previously approved by OSM, numerous other changes are also proposed. 
These changes include (1) clarifying the objectives section, (2) adding 
provisions to adjust North Dakota Agricultural Statistic Service crop 
yield data to reflect certain management practices, (3) including other 
factors, in addition to precipitation and temperature, in developing a 
cropland and/or tame pastureland regression equation to climatically 
adjust yield standards, (4) adding a statement to the native grassland 
section that established plant species must be predominantly native, 
(5) providing more consistency for species that must be present on tame 
pastureland, and (7) clarifying sampling procedures regarding when 
plant growth forms must be weighed separately. Some example 
calculations were also revised to better reflect premine conditions 
found at most of the mines. Editorial changes were made to correct 
errors in statistical formulas and revisions were made to the 
objectives section to clarify when certain requirements became 
effective.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 31, 
2000, Federal Register (65 FR 17211). In the same document, we opened 
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public 
hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy (administrative record 
No. ND-DD-04). We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no 
one requested one. The public comment period ended at 4 pm m.d.t. May 
1, 2000.

III. Director's Findings

    Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under 
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 
approving the amendment revising

[[Page 27456]]

North Dakota's Revegetation Policy Document (``Standards for Evaluation 
of Revegetation Success and Recommended Procedures for Pre- and 
Postmining Vegetation Assessments'') as described below.

1. Numerous Revisions To Reflect Changes to Rules Governing 
Requirements for Tree and Shrub Standards and Options for Proving 
Reclamation Success, Previously Approved by OSM as Amendments to the 
North Dakota Regulatory Program

    a. OSM approved amendments to the North Dakota regulatory program 
in the April 28, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 22889) revising NDAC 69-
05.2-22-07. Revegetation standards for reclaimed woodlands and 
shelterbelts require that at least eighty percent of the trees, shrubs 
and half-shrubs counted for meeting standards to be in place for at 
least six years. New rule language states this standard will be deemed 
satisfied if the mine operator demonstrates that no tree, shrub or 
half-shrub replanting has occurred during the last six years of the 
responsibility period. This new language allows mining companies to 
count all shrubs on reclaimed lands that are established by natural 
regeneration during the entire revegetation responsibility period. The 
policy document is revised to reflect these approved changes.
    b. OSM approved an amendment to the North Dakota regulatory program 
in the March 16, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 12896) revising NDAC 69-
05.2-22-07. This change gave mining companies the option of proving 
reclamation success for three out of five consecutive years, starting 
no sooner than the eighth year of the responsibility period. The 
responsibility period runs for at least ten years from the date 
reclaimed lands are seeded. Mining companies still have the option of 
proving reclamation success by meeting standards for the last two 
consecutive growing seasons of the responsibility period. The policy 
document is revised to reflect this approved change.

2. Minor Editorial Revisions to the Policy Document

    a. Changing Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS)
    b. Citing both NRCS and SCS regarding consultation,
    c. Updating the title of the NRCS National Range and Pasture 
Handbook (1997),
    d. Correcting rule citations,
    e. Changing the document to reflect that three years required for 
crop production on prime farmlands need not necessarily be consecutive 
years.
    These changes are minor and will not make North Dakota's 
revegetation policy document less effective than the Federal provisions 
contained in 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116.

3. Adding Clarification or Improving Examples Given

    a. Improving the examples provided, by reformatting and adding a 
standard t-test formula for convenience,
    b. Clarifying when to use North Dakota Agricultural Service annual 
county yield data for alfalfa hay yield versus all other hay yield 
information when evaluating hayland/tame pastureland vegetation 
production,
    c. Clarifying sampling of representative cropland strips, and
    d. Clarifying that hand clipped production samples must be 
separated by growth forms only when used for assessing seasonality.
    These changes are mostly clarifications, added explanations, or 
changes to improve existing examples. We find that they will not make 
North Dakota's revegetation policy document less effective than the 
Federal provisions contained in 30 CFR 816.116.

4. Approved Grazing on Native Grasslands

    North Dakota proposed adding a statement to Section D. Native 
Grasslands encouraging the use of approved grazing on native grasslands 
during the responsibility period. However, initial grazing plans must 
be approved by the State in accordance with NDAC 69-05.2-22-06. This 
statement is consistent with State regulations.

5. Native Grasslands Must Be Predominantly Native Cool and Warm Season 
Grasses

    North Dakota proposed adding a statement that native grasslands 
must be predominantly native cool and warm season grasses and other 
appropriate plant species in the approved seed mixtures. This statement 
is consistent with 30 CFR 816.111 which requires the use of species 
native to the area, or of introduced species where desirable and 
necessary to achieve the approved postmining land use.

6. Effective Date of Rules That Required Vegetation Measurements

    In the Objectives section, North Dakota proposes clarifying the 
applicability of the revegetation success standards and time frames for 
evaluation to lands disturbed under the State program both prior to and 
following the passage SMCRA. This includes language that August 1, 
1980, was the effective date of rules that required vegetation 
measurements to be taken in the last two growing seasons of the 
revegetation responsibility period. The effective date of the option to 
prove reclamation success for three out of five consecutive years 
starting in the eighth year of the revegetation liability period was 
also added. These dates are the effective dates contained in the 
existing North Dakota regulations.

7. Vegetative Composition Requirements for Tame Pasturelands at Bond 
Release

    North Dakota proposes to revise Section II-E to establish 
percentages for the vegetative composition requirements for tame 
pasturelands at bond release, consistent with the fish and wildlife 
habitat requirements, (previously there was no defined percentage for 
individual species). This ensures that the seeded species are present 
at the time of final bond release consistent with 30 CFR 816.111.

8. Predicting Estimated Summer Fallow or Continuous Cropping Yields

    North Dakota proposes to revise the Cropland Section to include 
county-specific regression/correlation equations to predict the 
estimated summer fallow or continuous cropping yields based on annual 
county yields. The regression/correlation equations are based on long 
term county data. The equations were developed for the years of 1996 
and later because the NDASS discontinued reporting individual yield 
values for summer fallow or continuous cropping after 1995.
    The existing Cropland Section of the policy document, which applies 
to both prime farmland and non-prime farmland, allows the use of North 
Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service (NDASS) county cropland yields. 
This is consistent with 30 CFR 816.116(b)(2) which requires that for 
areas developed for use as cropland, crop production on the revegetated 
area shall be at least equal to that of a reference area or such other 
success standards approved by the regulatory authority.
    For prime farmland only, 30 CFR 823.15(b)(7) states that Reference 
crop yields for a given crop season are to be determined from--(i) The 
current yield records of representative local farms in the surrounding 
area, with concurrence by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (now the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); or (ii) The average 
county yields recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which 
have been adjusted by the U.S. (NRCS) for local yield variation within 
the

[[Page 27457]]

county that is associated with differences between nonmined prime 
farmland soil and all other soils that produce the reference crop.
    The prime farmland regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(8) state that 
under either procedure in Paragraph (b)(7) of this Section, the average 
reference crop yield may be adjusted, with the concurrence of the U.S. 
Soil Conservation Service (NRCS), for--(i) Disease, pest, and weather-
induced seasonal variations; or (ii) Differences in specific management 
practices where the overall management practices of the crops being 
compared are equivalent.
    North Dakota's proposed county-specific regression/correlation 
equations to predict the estimated summer fallow or continuous cropping 
yields based on annual county yields are appropriate for creating 
technical standards. In accordance with 30 CFR 823.15(b)(8)(ii) for 
prime farmland standards (which are included under this section of the 
guidelines) the NRCS must concur with the proposed adjustment of 
average reference crop yields for differences in specific management 
practices where the overall management practices of the crops being 
compared are equivalent. In response to this requirement North Dakota 
provided a letter dated April 6, 2000, documenting the NRCS's 
concurrence with the proposed method for adjusting county yield data 
for summer fallow or continuous cropping.

9. Revise Correction Method 3 (Cropland) and 2 (Tame Pastureland)

    North Dakota proposes to revise Correction Method 3 in Section II-
C, Cropland, and Correction Method 2 in Section II-E, Tame Pastureland, 
to allow the use of other pertinent data, as well as precipitation and 
temperature to calculate a correction factor. It also allows the use of 
other formulas developed by the State besides regression equations.
    30 CFR 816.116(b)(2) requires that for areas developed for use as 
cropland, crop production on the revegetated area shall be at least 
equal to that of a reference area or such other success standards 
approved by the regulatory authority. The approved policy document, 
sections II-C, Cropland, and II-E, Tame Pastureland, contain correction 
methods that allow the use of NDASS data in conjunction with 
precipitation and temperature data to calculate a correction factor. 
The regression equations will be developed or updated by the State. 
They would predict a deviation from the long term average NDASS yields 
based on current precipitation and growing season temperature.
    For prime farmlands, 30 CFR 823.15(b)(7) states that Reference Crop 
yields for a given crop season are to be determined from--(i) The 
current yield records of representative local farms in the surrounding 
area, with concurrence by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (NRCS); or 
(ii) The average county yields recognized by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, which have been adjusted by the U.S. Soil Conservation 
Service (NRCS) for local yield variation within the county that is 
associated with differences between nonmined prime farmland soil and 
all other soils that produce the reference crop.
    The prime farmland regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(8) require that 
under either procedure in Paragraph (b)(7) of this Section, the average 
reference crop yield may be adjusted, with the concurrence of the U.S. 
Soil Conservation Service (NRCS), for--(i) Disease, pest, and weather-
induced seasonal variations; or (ii) Differences in specific management 
practices where the overall management practices of the crops being 
compared are equivalent.
    In support of the proposed language to allow the use of other 
pertinent data in developing correction factors for any regression 
equations that are developed, North Dakota has stated that pertinent 
data includes other factors such as number of days during critical 
parts of the growing season where the maximum temperature exceeds a 
certain level, the incidence of widespread crop disease and/or insect 
damage. Based on the information provided and the NRCS concurrence 
discussed below the proposed revision of the two correction methods is 
appropriate.
    Pursuant to 30 CFR 823.15(b)(8) for prime farmland standards (which 
are included under the Cropland section of the guidelines) North Dakota 
has provided a letter dated April 6, 2000 (administrative record No. 
ND-DD-05), documenting the NRCS's concurrence with the proposed changes 
to the correction methods.

10. Diversity and Seasonality Standards for Native Grassland

    North Dakota proposes to revise its diversity and seasonality 
standards contained in Section II-D, for Native Grassland. As proposed 
the State would add an introduction to the diversity standard that the 
presence of adequate plant species diversity in the reclaimed native 
grasslands is of much importance because it reflects environmental/
community stability and ensures some degree of sustainability under the 
intended land use. Both cool and warm season grass species are 
important and needed in native grasslands. Therefore, reclaimed native 
grasslands must be established predominantly with both cool and warm 
season native grass species and other appropriate plant species in the 
approved seed mixtures. The diversity and seasonality standards that 
follow require that either production or cover data be used to show 
that the standards have been achieved.
    The diversity and seasonality standards can be based on the range 
sites that occurred in the premine native grassland tract or they can 
be based on the range sites that are expected to develop on the 
reclaimed tract. However, the same methodology must be used when 
measuring both diversity and seasonality in each of the years these 
measurements are taken on a given tract. That is if the diversity 
standard is based on the premine range sites, the seasonality standard 
must also be based on the premine range sites.
    If the diversity and seasonality standards will be based on the 
range sites that are expected to develop on the reclaimed tract, the 
discussion of this method in the permit application must address the 
projected native grassland topsoil and subsoil respread thicknesses and 
the maximum postmining slopes, with a reference to the postmining area 
slope map provided in another section of the permit. Soils of the 
reclaimed tract may be characterized by evaluating the premine soil 
survey data and the expected mixing that will occur. Following 
revegetation, a field assessment will be needed to verify the site 
types on the reclaimed native grassland.
    In addition, all the examples for calculating diversity have been 
revised to reflect the revised diversity standards.
    The seasonality standard is also being revised. Seasonality will be 
based on the percentage of warm season grasses because cool season 
grasses are very competitive and generally dominate a seeded stand in 
the Northern Great Plains. To evaluate seasonality of reclaimed native 
grassland, one of two following standards may be used. Both standards 
allow the use of either the pre-mine range sites or the range sites 
that are expected to develop on the reclaimed tract. As previously 
noted, the same methodology used to measure diversity must be used to 
measure seasonality. Both standards are based on the percent 
composition of warm season grasses relative to total species 
composition. The example seasonality calculations have also been 
revised to reflect the revised standard.

[[Page 27458]]

    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111(a)(1) require that the 
permittee shall establish on regraded areas and on all other disturbed 
areas except water areas and surface areas of roads that are approved 
as part of the postmining land use, a vegetative cover that is in 
accordance with the approved permit and reclamation plan and that is 
diverse, effective, and permanent. 30 CFR 816.111(b)(2) requires that 
the reestablished plant species shall have the same seasonal 
characteristics of growth as the original vegetation. Beyond this 
language no specific success standards are provided for diversity or 
seasonality. This is left to the discretion of the regulatory 
authority. North Dakota's proposed diversity and seasonality standards 
are consistent with the Federal regulations and are no less effective.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment (administrative 
record No. ND-DD-03), but did not receive any.

Federal Agency Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested on March 30, 2000, 
comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual 
or potential interest in the North Dakota program (administrative 
record No. ND-DD-03).
    Thomas E. Jewett, State Conservationist for the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in 
addition to stating in his April 6, 2000 letter to North Dakota 
Reclamation Division Director James R. Deutsch, that ``We concur with 
all proposed changes. * * *'' further commented on recent changes to 
NRCS cropland productivity indexes that are used in North Dakota's 
revegetation document. In an April 11, 2000 letter to OSM Casper Field 
Office Director, Guy Padgett, North Dakota Reclamation Division 
Director James R. Deutsch stated, ``Please be advised we plan to 
incorporate the updated indexes into the document the next time some 
changes are made.''
    State Conservationist Thomas E. Jewett, further responded with a 
May 2, 2000 letter (administrative record No. ND-DD-06) to OSM Casper 
Field Office Director, Guy Padgett, thatNRCS is in the process of 
developing Ecological Site Descriptions to replace Range Site 
Descriptions. It also questioned what reference sites might be used if 
soil chemistry or other critical soil parameters were sufficiently 
altered on reclaimed areas.
    NRCS also raised the possibility that a native grassland reference 
area may be located on rangeland that is in poor condition. In 
addition, that NRCS references should be made to specific parts of the 
Field Office Technical Guide. Finally, that vegetation document text 
references should be to the current name of the agency, the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, and not to its former name, the Soil 
Conservation Service.
    In his June 23, 2000 response (administrative record No. ND-DD-07) 
to Mr. Jewett's May 2, 2000 letter, the director of the Reclamation 
Division of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, James R. 
Deutsch, stated that: (1) He was aware that Ecological Site 
Descriptions will be replacing Range Site Descriptions but that it 
would be several years at which time he would decide if it is necessary 
to revise the revegetation document accordingly; (2) that a reference 
area and a reclaimed tract must receive management that is equivalent 
in effect during the revegetation responsibility period; and (3) that 
North Dakota will review the bibliography and references for possible 
changes with the next revision to the revegetation document.
    OSM concurs with Mr. Deutsch's response to Mr. Jewett's concerns.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM requested comments on the 
amendment from EPA (administrative record No. ND-DD-03). EPA did not 
respond to our request.

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

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from 
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic 
properties. On March 30, 2000, we requested comments on North Dakota's 
amendment (administrative record No. XXIX), but neither responded to 
our request.

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment sent to us by 
North Dakota, as revised on March 16, 2000.
    We approve, as discussed in: finding No. 1, Minor Editorial 
changes, finding No. 2, concerning II-C, Cropland; finding No. 3, 
concerning II-C and II-E, Cropland and Tame Pastureland; and finding 
No. 4, concerning Native Grassland.
    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR part 934, which codify decisions concerning the North Dakota 
program. We are making his final rule effective immediately to expedite 
the State program amendment process and to encourage States to make 
their programs conform with the Federal standards. SMCRA requires 
consistency of State and Federal standards.

VI. Procedural Determinations

1. 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).

2. 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 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 the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 
732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory 
programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based 
solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with 
SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other 
requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule doe not require an environmental impact statement because 
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not 
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)).

4. 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.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a

[[Page 27459]]

substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal that is the subject of 
this rule is based upon counterpart 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 counterpart Federal 
regulations.

6. Unfunded Mandates

    OSM has determined and certifies under 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 any local, State, or Tribal 
governments or private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 934

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: May 3, 2001.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 934 is amended 
as set forth below:

PART 934--NORTH DAKOTA

    1. The authority citation for part 934 continues to read as 
follows:

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


    2. Section 934.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of Final Publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 934.15  Approval of North Dakota regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Original amendment submission    Date of final
             date                  publication      Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *
          *                  *                  *
March 16, 2000................  May 17, 2001.....  Standards for
                                                    Evaluation of
                                                    Revegetation Success
                                                    and Recommended
                                                    Procedures for Pre-
                                                    and Postmining
                                                    Vegetation
                                                    Assessments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-12456 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P