Illinois Regulatory Program, 17014-17018 [05-6601]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17014
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
• Should this claim be limited to
single-serving containers, or is it
appropriate on multi-serving packages?
Explain why or why not.
• If claims are permitted on multiserving packages, should these claims
be limited to products that have
portioned pieces, such as cookies or
slices of bread, or should they be
allowed on products that are not portion
controlled, such as pies or bulk sodas?
For example, might this claim be
extended to ‘‘bulk’’ products such as
pizza suggesting that if you cut a smaller
slice, you will get a caloric savings?
• What comparative terms are
appropriate? Because ‘‘reduced’’ has
always been used to signal some type of
reformulation (i.e., special processing,
alteration, formulation, or reformulation
to lower the nutrient content), is it
appropriate to use the term ‘‘reduced’’
on products that have not been so
altered? Is ‘‘less than,’’ which has been
used more broadly to signal differences
in nutrient levels derived through a
variety of means, a more appropriate
term?
• Currently all comparative calorie
claims are limited to reductions of at
least 25 percent. Should these
comparisons (e.g., reduced or fewer
calories) continue to be limited to
reductions of at least 25 percent, and if
not, what justification is there that a
smaller reduction of calories would be
meaningful and significant? Please
provide data.
• What other requirements may be
necessary to ensure that the claim is not
confusing or misleading to consumers?
• If manufacturers are permitted to
make such label comparisons of
different portion sizes of food, what is
the likely change in the distribution of
package sizes that will become available
to consumers?
• What other labeling changes, if any,
would encourage a broader range of
package sizes?
III. Future Analysis of Benefits and
Costs
If the agency proposes regulatory
changes based on the initiatives
outlined in this ANPRM, we will
estimate the costs of labeling changes
and other potential costs (such as the
costs of reformulating products) should
the regulations create incentives for new
products. The comments on this
ANPRM may identify other costs as
well. The benefits of the regulatory
options depend on how consumers
respond to the changes in label serving
sizes or package sizes. We will use the
information from comments to help
determine ways to estimate the possible
consumer responses to various changes.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:01 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
The comments will also contribute to
our estimates of the effects of regulatory
options on small entities.
IV. References
Dated: March 25, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 05–6644 Filed 4–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
The following references have been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES)
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. FDA has verified the
Web site addresses but is not
responsible for subsequent changes to
the Web sites after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.
1. Report of the Working Group on Obesity,
‘‘Calories Count’’ (Internet address: https://
www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/owg-toc.html),
March 12, 2004.
2. Food and Drug Administration, Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, ‘‘2002
Health and Diet Survey—Preliminary
Topline Frequencies (Weighted),’’ March
2004.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institutes of Health,
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,
‘‘Portion Distortion! Do You Know How Food
Portions Have Changed in 20 Years?’’
(Internet address: https://hin.nhlbi.nih.gov/
portion/index.htm).
4. Young, L. R. and M. Nestle, ‘‘Expanding
Portion Sizes in the U.S. Marketplace:
Implications for Nutrition Counseling,’’
Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 231–234, February 2003.
5. Smiciklas-Wright, H., D. C. Mitchell, S.
J. Mickle, J. D. Goldman, A. Cook, ‘‘Foods
Commonly Eaten in the United States, 1989–
1991 and 1994–1996, Are Portion Sizes
Changing?’’ Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 41–47,
January 2003.
6. Nielsen, S. J. and B. M. Popkin,
‘‘Patterns and Trends in Food Portion Sizes,
1977–1998,’’ Journal of the American
Medical Association, Vol. 289, No. 4, pp.
450–453, January 22/29, 2003.
7. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, National Center for Health
Statistics, NHANES 1999–2000 Data Files
(Internet address: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
about/major/nhanes/NHANES99_00.htm)
and NHANES 2001–2002 Data Files (Internet
address: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/
major/nhanes/nhanes01–02.htm).
V. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic
comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic
comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that
individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 913
[Docket No. IL–103–FOR]
Illinois Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment
period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are announcing receipt of a
proposed amendment to the Illinois
regulatory program (Illinois program)
under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the
Act). Illinois proposes to revise its
regulations about revegetation success
standards, to update statutory citations,
to correct regulatory citations, and to
clarify language in various provisions.
Illinois intends to revise its program to
clarify ambiguities and to improve
operational efficiency.
This document gives the times and
locations that the Illinois program and
proposed amendment to that program
are available for your inspection, the
comment period during which you may
submit written comments on the
amendment, and the procedures that we
will follow for the public hearing, if one
is requested.
DATES: We will accept written
comments on this amendment until 4
p.m., e.s.t., May 4, 2005. If requested,
we will hold a public hearing on the
amendment on April 29, 2005. We will
accept requests to speak at a hearing
until 4 p.m., e.s.t. on April 19, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. IL–103–FOR,
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.
Include Docket No. IL–103–FOR in the
subject line of the message.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Andrew R.
Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division—
Indianapolis Area Office, Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal
Building, 575 North Pennsylvania
Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana
46204
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
• Fax: (317) 226–6182
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
review copies of the Illinois program,
this amendment, a listing of any
scheduled public hearings, and all
written comments received in response
to this document, you must go to the
address listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays. You may receive
one free copy of the amendment by
contacting OSM’s Indianapolis Area
Office.
Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton
Field Division—Indianapolis Area
Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, MintonCapehart Federal Building, 575 North
Pennsylvania Street, Room 301,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone:
(317) 226–6700, E-mail:
IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.
In addition, you may review a copy of
the amendment during regular business
hours at the following location: Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, Office
of Mines and Minerals, Land
Reclamation Division, One Natural
Resources Way, Springfield, Illinois
62701, Telephone: (217) 782–4970.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division—Indianapolis Area Office.
Telephone: (317) 226–6700. E-mail:
IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Illinois Program
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
III. Public Comment Procedures
IV. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Illinois Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:01 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Illinois
program on June 1, 1982. You can find
background information on the Illinois
program, including the Secretary’s
findings, the disposition of comments,
and the conditions of approval of the
Illinois program in the June 1, 1982,
Federal Register (47 FR 23858). You can
also find later actions concerning the
Illinois program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 913.10, 913.15,
913.16, and 913.17.
II. Description of the Proposed
Amendment
By letter dated February 1, 2005
(Administrative Record No. IL–5088),
Illinois sent us an amendment to its
program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq.). Illinois sent the amendment at
its own initiative. Illinois is proposing
to amend its regulations at 62 Illinois
Administrative Code (IAC) Parts 1816,
1817, and 1823. Below is a summary of
the changes proposed by Illinois. The
full text of the program amendment is
available for you to read at the locations
listed above under ADDRESSES.
A. 62 IAC 1816.116 Revegetation
Success Standards
Illinois proposes to amend its
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116 to (1)
incorporate a new productivity
alternative to the Agricultural Lands
Productivity Formula (ALPF), for
determining success of revegetation of
cropland, pasture land, hayland, and/or
grazing land; (2) to update references to
and requirements in existing regulations
concerning the new productivity
alternative; (3) to update requirements
pertaining to adjustment for abnormal,
catastrophic, growing conditions when
the ALPF or the new productivity
alternative is used for determining
success of revegetation, (4) to remove
references to oats as a crop that may be
used to prove productivity success; (5)
to update information in the soil master
file, county average yield file, the
agricultural lands productivity formula
sampling methods, and Exhibit A in the
ALPF, and (6) to delete Tables A
through D from the ALPF.
1. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(C) and (E).
At subsections (a)(3)(C) and (E), Illinois
proposes to add a reference to new
subsection (a)(6) and to add the
following requirement at the end of each
of the subsections:
Once chosen by the permittee, the
productivity alternative in subsection
(a)(6) may not be modified without
approval from the Department.
2. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4). At
subsection (a)(4), Illinois proposes to
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17015
reference the new productivity
alternative in subsection (a)(6); to
update requirements pertaining to
adjustment for abnormal, catastrophic,
growing conditions when the ALPF or
the new productivity alternative is used
for determining success of revegetation;
and to remove a reference to oat crops
from several provisions.
a. In the introductory paragraph of
subsection (a)(4), Illinois proposes to
add a reference to the new productivity
alternative at subsection (a)(6).
b. Illinois proposes to change the
requirements of subsection (a)(4)(C)
concerning adjustments for abnormal
growing conditions to read as follows:
(C) Adjustments for abnormal growing
conditions shall be accepted by the
Department if such adjustments are certified
by a qualified professional (American Society
of Agronomy certified) or National
Association of State Departments of
Agriculture crop enumerators used under
this Section, whose ability to perform such
adjustments has been previously approved by
the Department.
c. At subsection (a)(4)(D), Illinois
proposes to remove a reference to ‘‘oats’’
as a type of crop commonly grown on
surrounding unmined cropland and as a
crop that may be used for one year to
demonstrate productivity on prime
farmland and other cropland areas.
Illinois also proposes to add the
following requirement concerning deep
tillage of prime farmland and other
cropland areas:
If deep tillage has been completed to a
minimum depth of 36 inches prior to bond
release, the applicant may use more than one
successful year of hay or wheat as a crop to
be used for the productivity demonstration.
The requirement for one successful year of
corn remains unchanged under this
provision.
3. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). Illinois
proposes a new productivity alternative
at new subsection (a)(6). It reads as
follows:
(6) In order to use the alternative to the
Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula,
Appendix A, to determine success of
revegetation, the following shall apply: use of
this alternative is contingent that the
permittee can demonstrate for the entire field
that the soil strength of the entire soil profile
will average <= 200 psi or has been deep
tilled to a minimum depth of 36 inches prior
to bond release, and soil fertility will average
Optimum Management for pH, P and K
values as defined under the current Illinois
Agronomy Handbook, and intensive land
leveling is implemented, as needed, for the
entire field. Areas to be tested are allowed
under the provisions of subsections (a)(4)(B)
or (C).
(A) The following substitution of Column
F—Appendix A—County Average Yield File
shall read:
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
17016
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Column F is a derived optimum
management production (Figure) obtained by
multiplying the figures in Column D times
the figures in Column E. This production
figure will normally exceed actual
production because the optimum level
management yield is used. The purpose of
using the optimum management production
is to derive a weighted average optimum
management yield which is the total
optimum management production (Column
F) divided by the total grain acres in the
county (Column D). The weighted optimum
management yield figure will be used to
derive a ‘‘factor’’ as described below:
Factor = Average of Official County Crop
Yield for the Five Previous Years ) Average
of Weighted Optimum Management Yield for
the Five Years
(B) When the above ‘‘factor’’ and hand
sampling is used, the harvest loss will be
calculated by averaging the harvest loss of
the five previous years for the crop being
tested.
4. 62 IAC 1816. Appendix A—ALPF.
Illinois proposes to update information
in the soil master file, county cropped
acreage file, county average yield file,
the agricultural lands productivity
formula sampling methods, and Exhibit
A in the ALPF and to delete Tables A
through D from the ALPF.
a. Citation Corrections. In the soil
master file and the county cropped
acreage file, Illinois is changing a
citation reference to the Illinois
Department of Agriculture from ‘‘20
[Illinois Compiled Statutes] ILCS 205/
40.38’’ to ‘‘20 ILCS 205–115.’’
b. Soil Master File. Illinois proposes to
revise the introductory paragraph by
changing the word ‘‘high’’ to the word
‘‘optimum’’ in its reference to the ‘‘high
level of management yields’’ and by
adding the following sentence at the end
of the paragraph:
The reference document for information
contained in the soil master file shall be
Bulletin 811, ‘‘Optimum Crop Productivity
Ratings for Illinois Soil,’’ University of
Illinois, College of Agricultural, Consumer
and Environmental Sciences, Office of
Research, August 2002.
Illinois also proposes to remove the
information on additional components
of the soil master file.
c. County Average Yield File. In the
fifth paragraph, Illinois proposes to
remove its reference to ‘‘oats’’ as a grain
crop. In the seventh paragraph, Illinois
proposes to change the word ‘‘high’’ to
the word ‘‘optimum’’ in the phrase
‘‘high management yield.’’ In the eighth
paragraph, Illinois proposes to change
the word ‘‘high’’ to the word
‘‘optimum’’ in the phrase ‘‘high
management yield’’ and to add the
following new information:
If official county crop yields are
unavailable for a specific crop in a given
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:01 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
year, the Department, in consultation with
the permittee, and with the concurrence of
the Illinois Department of Agriculture, will
substitute a county crop yield from an
adjacent county with similar soils, if it can
be determined that similar weather
conditions occurred in that year.
d. Agricultural Lands Productivity
Formula Sampling Methods. In the
introductory paragraph, Illinois
proposes to remove its reference to
‘‘oats’’ as a grain crop. Illinois proposes
to revise Step 10 under the section
heading ‘‘Corn Sampling Technique’’ by
removing the existing information on
the row factor and replacing this
information with ‘‘average row width in
feet × 15 feet of row ÷ 43560 square feet/
acre.’’ Illinois also proposes to remove
the sections ‘‘Oats Sampling Technique
(Rows <8″)’’ and ‘‘Oats Sampling
Technique (Discernible Rows)’’ from the
ALPF.
e. Exhibit A, County Crop Yields by
Soil Mapping Unit. Illinois proposes to
change the word ‘‘high’’ to the word
‘‘optimum’’ in columns E and F and to
remove a reference to oats.
f. Illinois proposes to delete tables A
through D from the ALPF.
B. 62 IAC Part 1817 Permanent
Program Performance Standards—
Underground Mining Operations
Illinois proposes to update statutory
citations, to correct regulation
references, and to add clarifying
language to several regulations.
1. 62 IAC 1817.42 Hydrologic
Balance-Water Quality Standards and
Effluent Limitations. Illinois proposes to
change the statutory citation for the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
from ‘‘(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 1111⁄2,
pars. 1001 et seq.)’’ to ‘‘[415 ILCS 5].’’
2. 62 IAC 1817.43 Diversions:
a. At subsection (a)(2)(D) Illinois
proposes to change the statutory citation
for the Illinois Rivers, Lakes, and
Streams Act from ‘‘(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991,
ch. 19, pars. 52–79)’’ to ‘‘[615 ILCS 5].’’
b. At subsections (b) and (c), Illinois
is proposing to simplify its use of
numbers.
3. 62 IAC 1817.116 Revegetation
Success Standards:
a. At subsections (a)(3)(C) and (E),
Illinois proposes to add a reference to
the newly proposed productivity
alternative at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) and
to add the following requirement at the
end of each subsection:
Once chosen by the permittee, the
productivity alternative in subsection
(a)(6) may not be modified without
approval from the Department.
b. At subsection (a)(4), Illinois
proposes to add a reference to the newly
proposed productivity alternative at 62
IAC 1816.116(a)(6).
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
c. At subsection (b)(2), Illinois
proposes to correct a regulation citation
reference by changing it from ‘‘62 IAC
1785.15’’ to ‘‘62 IAC 1823.15.’’
4. 62 IAC 1817.121 Subsidence
Control:
a. At subsection (c), Repair of Damage,
Illinois proposes to add the following
new introductory paragraph:
The requirements of this subsection
apply only to subsidence-related
damage caused by underground coal
extraction conducted after February 1,
1983, except as noted in Section
1817.41(j).
b. At subsection (c)(2), Illinois
proposes to remove the last sentence.
C. 62 IAC Part 1823.15 Prime
Farmland-Revegetation
a. At subsection (b)(2), Illinois
proposes to add a reference to the newly
proposed productivity alternative under
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6).
b. At subsection (b)(3), Illinois
proposes to add a reference to the newly
proposed productivity alternative under
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6), to simplify its
use of numbers, and to add the
following new requirement:
Once chosen by the permittee, the
productivity alternative in subsection
(a)(6) may not be modified without
approval from the Department.
III. Public Comment Procedures
Under the provisions of 30 CFR
732.17(h), we are seeking your
comments on whether the amendment
satisfies the applicable program
approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we
approve the amendment, it will become
part of the State program.
Written Comments
Send your written or electronic
comments to OSM at the address given
above. Your written comments should
be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and
include explanations in support of your
recommendations. We will not consider
or respond to your comments when
developing the final rule if they are
received after the close of the comment
period (see DATES). We will make
every attempt to log all comments into
the administrative record, but comments
delivered to an address other than the
Indianapolis Area Office may not be
logged in.
Electronic Comments
Please submit Internet comments as
an ASCII or Word file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of
encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn:
Docket No. IL–103–FOR’’ and your
name and return address in your
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Internet message. If you do not receive
a confirmation that we have received
your Internet message, contact the
Indianapolis Area Office at (317) 226–
6700.
listed under ADDRESSES. We will make
a written summary of each meeting a
part of the administrative record.
Availability of Comments
We will make comments, including
names and addresses of respondents,
available for public review during
normal business hours. We will not
consider anonymous comments. If
individual respondents request
confidentiality, we will honor their
request to the extent allowable by law.
Individual respondents who wish to
withhold their name or address from
public review, except for the city or
town, must state this prominently at the
beginning of their comments. We will
make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public review in their entirety.
Executive Order 12630—Takings
Public Hearing
If you wish to speak at the public
hearing, contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4
p.m., e.s.t. on April 19, 2005. If you are
disabled and need special
accommodations to attend a public
hearing, contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will arrange the location and time of the
hearing with those persons requesting
the hearing. If no one requests an
opportunity to speak, we will not hold
a hearing.
To assist the transcriber and ensure an
accurate record, we request, if possible,
that each person who speaks at the
public hearing provide us with a written
copy of his or her comments. The public
hearing will continue on the specified
date until everyone scheduled to speak
has been given an opportunity to be
heard. If you are in the audience and
have not been scheduled to speak and
wish to do so, you will be allowed to
speak after those who have been
scheduled. We will end the hearing after
everyone scheduled to speak and others
present in the audience who wish to
speak, have been heard.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an
opportunity to speak, we may hold a
public meeting rather than a public
hearing. If you wish to meet with us to
discuss the amendment, please request
a meeting by contacting the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. All such meetings are open to
the public and, if possible, we will post
notices of meetings at the locations
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:01 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
IV. Procedural Determinations
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the
counterpart Federal regulation.
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform
The Department of the Interior has
conducted the reviews required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and
has determined that this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a)
and (b) of that section. However, these
standards are not applicable to the
actual language of State regulatory
programs and program amendments
because each program is drafted and
promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the
submittal is consistent with SMCRA and
its implementing Federal regulations
and whether the other requirements of
30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
Executive Order 13132—Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism
implications. SMCRA delineates the
roles of the Federal and State
governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations. One of the
purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a
nationwide program to protect society
and the environment from the adverse
effects of surface coal mining
operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of
SMCRA requires that State laws
regulating surface coal mining and
reclamation operations be ‘‘in
accordance with’’ the requirements of
SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires
that State programs contain rules and
regulations ‘‘consistent with’’
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to SMCRA.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17017
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, we have evaluated the potential
effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have
determined that the rule does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This determination is based on the fact
that the Illinois program does not
regulate coal exploration and surface
coal mining and reclamation operations
on Indian lands. Therefore, the Illinois
program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211—Regulations
That Significantly Affect The Supply,
Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 which requires
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for a rule that is (1)
considered significant under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because
this rule is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866 and is not
expected to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects
is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an
environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory
program provisions do not constitute
major Federal actions within the
meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal,
which is the subject of this rule, is based
upon counterpart Federal regulations for
which an economic analysis was
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
17018
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
prepared and certification made that
such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a
substantial number of small entities. In
making the determination as to whether
this rule would have a significant
economic impact, the Department relied
upon the data and assumptions for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule: (a) Does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and (c) Does not
have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. This
determination is based upon the fact
that the State submittal, which is the
subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulation was not considered a major
rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of $100 million or more in any given
year. This determination is based upon
the fact that the State submittal, which
is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulation did not impose an unfunded
mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 1, 2005.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional
Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 05–6601 Filed 4–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:01 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[E–Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0079, FRL–
7895–3]
RIN 2060–AJ99
Nonattainment Major New Source
Review Implementation Under 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard: Reconsideration
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public
hearing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is requesting
comment on issues raised in a petition
for reconsideration of EPA’s rule to
implement the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
8-hour standard). On April 30, 2004,
EPA took final action on key elements
of the program to implement the 8-hour
standard. In that final action, we (the
EPA) addressed certain implementation
issues related to the 8-hour standard,
including aspects of implementation of
the nonattainment major New Source
Review (NSR) program mandated by
part D of title I of the Act (CAA or Act).
Following this action, on June 29,
2004 and September 24, 2004, three
different parties each filed a petition for
reconsideration concerning
implementation of the 8-hour standard,
including both major NSR and other
issues. By letter dated September 23,
2004, EPA granted reconsideration of
three issues raised in the petition for
reconsideration filed by Earthjustice on
behalf of several environmental
organizations. On February 3, 2005, we
published a proposed rule providing
additional information and soliciting
comment on two of the issues on which
we granted reconsideration. Today, we
provide additional information and seek
comment on the third issue, which
relates to two aspects of the major NSR
provisions in the April 30, 2004 final
rules. Specifically, we request comment
on whether we should interpret the Act
to require areas to retain major NSR
requirements that apply to certain 1hour ozone nonattainment areas in
implementing the 8-hour standard, and
whether EPA properly concludes that a
State’s request to remove 1-hour major
NSR programs from its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement within the meaning of
Section 110(l) of the Act.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before May 4, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will convene at 9 a.m. and will end at
5 p.m. on April 18, 2005. All
individuals who have registered to
speak before the date of the public
hearing will be given an opportunity to
speak. Because of the need to resolve
the issues raised in this in a timely
manner, EPA will not grant requests for
extension of the public comment period.
For additional information on the public
hearing and requesting to speak, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this proposed rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
OAR–2003–0079, by one of the
following methods to the docket. If
possible, also send a copy of your
comments to Ms. Lynn Hutchinson by
either mail or e-mail as identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Agency Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
3. E-mail: A-and-R-Docket@EPA.gov.
Attention E-Docket No. OAR–2003–
0079.
4. Fax: The fax number of the Air
Docket is (202) 566–1741. Attention EDocket No. OAR–2003–0079.
5. Mail: Air Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Attention E-Docket
No. OAR–2003–0079, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In addition,
please mail a copy of your comments on
the information collection provisions to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
6. Hand Delivery: Air Docket,
Attention E-Docket No. OAR–2003–
0079, Room B–102, Environmental
Protection Agency West, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0079. The
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket, including any
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 63 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17014-17018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6601]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 913
[Docket No. IL-103-FOR]
Illinois Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Illinois
regulatory program (Illinois program) under the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Illinois proposes to
revise its regulations about revegetation success standards, to update
statutory citations, to correct regulatory citations, and to clarify
language in various provisions. Illinois intends to revise its program
to clarify ambiguities and to improve operational efficiency.
This document gives the times and locations that the Illinois
program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your
inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written
comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for
the public hearing, if one is requested.
DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m.,
e.s.t., May 4, 2005. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the
amendment on April 29, 2005. We will accept requests to speak at a
hearing until 4 p.m., e.s.t. on April 19, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. IL-103-
FOR, by any of the following methods:
E-mail: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov. Include Docket No. IL-103-FOR
in the subject line of the message.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division--Indianapolis Area Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575
North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
[[Page 17015]]
Fax: (317) 226-6182
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the ``Public Comment Procedures'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to review copies of the Illinois
program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings,
and all written comments received in response to this document, you
must go to the address listed below during normal business hours,
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free
copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Indianapolis Area Office.
Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division--Indianapolis Area
Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-
Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone: (317) 226-6700, E-mail:
IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular
business hours at the following location: Illinois Department of
Natural Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals, Land Reclamation
Division, One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, Illinois 62701,
Telephone: (217) 782-4970.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division--Indianapolis Area Office. Telephone: (317) 226-6700. E-mail:
IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Illinois Program
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
III. Public Comment Procedures
IV. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Illinois Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its program includes, among other things, ``a State law which provides
for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in
accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and
regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis
of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved
the Illinois program on June 1, 1982. You can find background
information on the Illinois program, including the Secretary's
findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval
of the Illinois program in the June 1, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR
23858). You can also find later actions concerning the Illinois program
and program amendments at 30 CFR 913.10, 913.15, 913.16, and 913.17.
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated February 1, 2005 (Administrative Record No. IL-
5088), Illinois sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Illinois sent the amendment at its own
initiative. Illinois is proposing to amend its regulations at 62
Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) Parts 1816, 1817, and 1823. Below is
a summary of the changes proposed by Illinois. The full text of the
program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed
above under ADDRESSES.
A. 62 IAC 1816.116 Revegetation Success Standards
Illinois proposes to amend its regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116 to
(1) incorporate a new productivity alternative to the Agricultural
Lands Productivity Formula (ALPF), for determining success of
revegetation of cropland, pasture land, hayland, and/or grazing land;
(2) to update references to and requirements in existing regulations
concerning the new productivity alternative; (3) to update requirements
pertaining to adjustment for abnormal, catastrophic, growing conditions
when the ALPF or the new productivity alternative is used for
determining success of revegetation, (4) to remove references to oats
as a crop that may be used to prove productivity success; (5) to update
information in the soil master file, county average yield file, the
agricultural lands productivity formula sampling methods, and Exhibit A
in the ALPF, and (6) to delete Tables A through D from the ALPF.
1. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(C) and (E). At subsections (a)(3)(C) and
(E), Illinois proposes to add a reference to new subsection (a)(6) and
to add the following requirement at the end of each of the subsections:
Once chosen by the permittee, the productivity alternative in
subsection (a)(6) may not be modified without approval from the
Department.
2. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4). At subsection (a)(4), Illinois proposes
to reference the new productivity alternative in subsection (a)(6); to
update requirements pertaining to adjustment for abnormal,
catastrophic, growing conditions when the ALPF or the new productivity
alternative is used for determining success of revegetation; and to
remove a reference to oat crops from several provisions.
a. In the introductory paragraph of subsection (a)(4), Illinois
proposes to add a reference to the new productivity alternative at
subsection (a)(6).
b. Illinois proposes to change the requirements of subsection
(a)(4)(C) concerning adjustments for abnormal growing conditions to
read as follows:
(C) Adjustments for abnormal growing conditions shall be
accepted by the Department if such adjustments are certified by a
qualified professional (American Society of Agronomy certified) or
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture crop
enumerators used under this Section, whose ability to perform such
adjustments has been previously approved by the Department.
c. At subsection (a)(4)(D), Illinois proposes to remove a reference
to ``oats'' as a type of crop commonly grown on surrounding unmined
cropland and as a crop that may be used for one year to demonstrate
productivity on prime farmland and other cropland areas. Illinois also
proposes to add the following requirement concerning deep tillage of
prime farmland and other cropland areas:
If deep tillage has been completed to a minimum depth of 36
inches prior to bond release, the applicant may use more than one
successful year of hay or wheat as a crop to be used for the
productivity demonstration. The requirement for one successful year
of corn remains unchanged under this provision.
3. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). Illinois proposes a new productivity
alternative at new subsection (a)(6). It reads as follows:
(6) In order to use the alternative to the Agricultural Lands
Productivity Formula, Appendix A, to determine success of
revegetation, the following shall apply: use of this alternative is
contingent that the permittee can demonstrate for the entire field
that the soil strength of the entire soil profile will average <=
200 psi or has been deep tilled to a minimum depth of 36 inches
prior to bond release, and soil fertility will average Optimum
Management for pH, P and K values as defined under the current
Illinois Agronomy Handbook, and intensive land leveling is
implemented, as needed, for the entire field. Areas to be tested are
allowed under the provisions of subsections (a)(4)(B) or (C).
(A) The following substitution of Column F--Appendix A--County
Average Yield File shall read:
[[Page 17016]]
Column F is a derived optimum management production (Figure)
obtained by multiplying the figures in Column D times the figures in
Column E. This production figure will normally exceed actual
production because the optimum level management yield is used. The
purpose of using the optimum management production is to derive a
weighted average optimum management yield which is the total optimum
management production (Column F) divided by the total grain acres in
the county (Column D). The weighted optimum management yield figure
will be used to derive a ``factor'' as described below:
Factor = Average of Official County Crop Yield for the Five
Previous Years ) Average of Weighted Optimum Management Yield for
the Five Years
(B) When the above ``factor'' and hand sampling is used, the
harvest loss will be calculated by averaging the harvest loss of the
five previous years for the crop being tested.
4. 62 IAC 1816. Appendix A--ALPF. Illinois proposes to update
information in the soil master file, county cropped acreage file,
county average yield file, the agricultural lands productivity formula
sampling methods, and Exhibit A in the ALPF and to delete Tables A
through D from the ALPF.
a. Citation Corrections. In the soil master file and the county
cropped acreage file, Illinois is changing a citation reference to the
Illinois Department of Agriculture from ``20 [Illinois Compiled
Statutes] ILCS 205/40.38'' to ``20 ILCS 205-115.''
b. Soil Master File. Illinois proposes to revise the introductory
paragraph by changing the word ``high'' to the word ``optimum'' in its
reference to the ``high level of management yields'' and by adding the
following sentence at the end of the paragraph:
The reference document for information contained in the soil
master file shall be Bulletin 811, ``Optimum Crop Productivity
Ratings for Illinois Soil,'' University of Illinois, College of
Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, Office of
Research, August 2002.
Illinois also proposes to remove the information on additional
components of the soil master file.
c. County Average Yield File. In the fifth paragraph, Illinois
proposes to remove its reference to ``oats'' as a grain crop. In the
seventh paragraph, Illinois proposes to change the word ``high'' to the
word ``optimum'' in the phrase ``high management yield.'' In the eighth
paragraph, Illinois proposes to change the word ``high'' to the word
``optimum'' in the phrase ``high management yield'' and to add the
following new information:
If official county crop yields are unavailable for a specific
crop in a given year, the Department, in consultation with the
permittee, and with the concurrence of the Illinois Department of
Agriculture, will substitute a county crop yield from an adjacent
county with similar soils, if it can be determined that similar
weather conditions occurred in that year.
d. Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula Sampling Methods. In the
introductory paragraph, Illinois proposes to remove its reference to
``oats'' as a grain crop. Illinois proposes to revise Step 10 under the
section heading ``Corn Sampling Technique'' by removing the existing
information on the row factor and replacing this information with
``average row width in feet x 15 feet of row / 43560 square feet/
acre.'' Illinois also proposes to remove the sections ``Oats Sampling
Technique (Rows <8'')'' and ``Oats Sampling Technique (Discernible
Rows)'' from the ALPF.
e. Exhibit A, County Crop Yields by Soil Mapping Unit. Illinois
proposes to change the word ``high'' to the word ``optimum'' in columns
E and F and to remove a reference to oats.
f. Illinois proposes to delete tables A through D from the ALPF.
B. 62 IAC Part 1817 Permanent Program Performance Standards--
Underground Mining Operations
Illinois proposes to update statutory citations, to correct
regulation references, and to add clarifying language to several
regulations.
1. 62 IAC 1817.42 Hydrologic Balance-Water Quality Standards and
Effluent Limitations. Illinois proposes to change the statutory
citation for the Illinois Environmental Protection Act from ``(Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 111\1/2\, pars. 1001 et seq.)'' to ``[415 ILCS
5].''
2. 62 IAC 1817.43 Diversions:
a. At subsection (a)(2)(D) Illinois proposes to change the
statutory citation for the Illinois Rivers, Lakes, and Streams Act from
``(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 19, pars. 52-79)'' to ``[615 ILCS 5].''
b. At subsections (b) and (c), Illinois is proposing to simplify
its use of numbers.
3. 62 IAC 1817.116 Revegetation Success Standards:
a. At subsections (a)(3)(C) and (E), Illinois proposes to add a
reference to the newly proposed productivity alternative at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) and to add the following requirement at the end of each
subsection:
Once chosen by the permittee, the productivity alternative in
subsection (a)(6) may not be modified without approval from the
Department.
b. At subsection (a)(4), Illinois proposes to add a reference to
the newly proposed productivity alternative at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6).
c. At subsection (b)(2), Illinois proposes to correct a regulation
citation reference by changing it from ``62 IAC 1785.15'' to ``62 IAC
1823.15.''
4. 62 IAC 1817.121 Subsidence Control:
a. At subsection (c), Repair of Damage, Illinois proposes to add
the following new introductory paragraph:
The requirements of this subsection apply only to subsidence-
related damage caused by underground coal extraction conducted after
February 1, 1983, except as noted in Section 1817.41(j).
b. At subsection (c)(2), Illinois proposes to remove the last
sentence.
C. 62 IAC Part 1823.15 Prime Farmland-Revegetation
a. At subsection (b)(2), Illinois proposes to add a reference to
the newly proposed productivity alternative under 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6).
b. At subsection (b)(3), Illinois proposes to add a reference to
the newly proposed productivity alternative under 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6), to simplify its use of numbers, and to add the
following new requirement:
Once chosen by the permittee, the productivity alternative in
subsection (a)(6) may not be modified without approval from the
Department.
III. Public Comment Procedures
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your
comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program
approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it
will become part of the State program.
Written Comments
Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address
given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to
the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in
support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to
your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after
the close of the comment period (see DATES). We will make every attempt
to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments
delivered to an address other than the Indianapolis Area Office may not
be logged in.
Electronic Comments
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or Word file avoiding
the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also
include ``Attn: Docket No. IL-103-FOR'' and your name and return
address in your
[[Page 17017]]
Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have
received your Internet message, contact the Indianapolis Area Office at
(317) 226-6700.
Availability of Comments
We will make comments, including names and addresses of
respondents, available for public review during normal business hours.
We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents
request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent
allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their
name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must
state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.
Public Hearing
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., e.s.t. on April
19, 2005. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend
a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the
hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests
an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we
request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing
provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public
hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to
speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the
audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you
will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will
end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in
the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a
public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with
us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings
are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of
meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a
written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule
meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that
section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual
language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because
each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the
potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This determination is based on the fact that the Illinois program does
not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Illinois program has no
effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect The
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that
agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
[[Page 17018]]
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would
have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data
and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a
major rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 1, 2005.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 05-6601 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
