Illinois Regulatory Program, 71394-71401 [05-23401]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71394
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Dated: September 29, 2005.
Allen D. Klein,
Director, Western Region.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 902
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
I
Original amendment submission
date
*
*
May 11, 2004 .................................
§ 902.16
§ 902.15 Approval of Alaska regulatory
program amendments.
PART 902—ALASKA
*
*
*
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 902
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
Citation/description
*
*
*
*
*
November 29, 2005 ....................... 11 AAC 90.043(b); 90.045(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e); 90.057;
90.085(a)(5) and (c); 90.089(a)(1); 90.101(a) and (b); 90.173(a)(2),
(b)(2) and (3); 90.179(a)(3), (b)(1) through (4) and (c); 90.185(a)(4)
and (5); 90.201(d) and (f); 90.211(a); 90.331(d)(1); deletion of
90.311(g); 90.321(e); 90.323(a) through (c); 90.325(b) and (c);
90.327(b)(2); 90.331(e) and (h); 90.336(a), (b)(1) and (2), and (g);
90.337(a); 90.345(e); 90.349(l); 90.375(f) and (g); 90.391(b), (c),
(h)(2), (l), and (n); 90.395(a); 90.397(a); 90.401(a), (d), and (e);
90.407(c) and (f); 90.443(a), (k)(2), (i), and (m); 90.447(c)(1);
90.461(b), (g), (h) and (i); 90.491(f)(1), (3) and (4); 90.601(h) and
(i); 90.629(a); 90.631(a); 90.635(a) and (b); 90.637(a) and (b);
90.639(a) through (c); 90.641(a) through (d); 90.650 through
90.658; 90.701(a), (b), (c)(1) and (2), and (d)(1) and (2);
90.901(a)(2); and 90.911.
3. Section 902.16 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs
902.16(a)(2) through (13); removing
paragraphs 902.16(a)(16) and (17); and
removing and reserving paragraph (b).
I
[FR Doc. 05–23400 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
regarding revegetation success
standards, to update statutory citations,
to correct regulatory citations, and to
clarify language in various provisions.
Illinois is revising its program to clarify
ambiguities and to improve operational
efficiency.
DATES: Effective November 29, 2005.
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. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
30 CFR Part 913
[Docket No. IL–103–FOR]
Illinois Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to
the Illinois regulatory program (Illinois
program) under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). The Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, Office
of Mines and Minerals (Department or
Illinois) is revising its regulations
14:11 Nov 28, 2005
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 902 is amended
as set forth below:
I
Date of final
publication
[Amended]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
2. Section 902.15 is amended in the
table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final
Publication’’ to read as follows:
I
Jkt 208001
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 State 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
(Secretary) 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, 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. Submission of the 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 proposed to
amend its regulations at 62 Illinois
Administrative Code (IAC) parts 1816
(Surface Mining Operations), 1817
(Underground Mining Operations), and
1823 (Prime Farmland).
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the April 4,
2005, Federal Register (70 FR 17014). In
the same document, we opened the
public comment period and provided an
opportunity for a public hearing or
meeting on the adequacy of the
amendment. We did not hold a public
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
hearing or meeting because no one
requested one. The public comment
period ended on May 4, 2005. We
received comments from one Federal
agency.
During our review of the amendment,
we identified concerns about some
editorial-type errors. We notified Illinois
of these concerns by letters dated March
3 and April 6, 2005 (Administrative
Record Nos. IL–5092 and IL–5095).
By e-mail dated August 3, 2005
(Administrative Record No. IL–5099),
Illinois sent us revisions to its proposed
program amendment. Because the
revisions merely corrected the editorialtype errors that we identified in Illinois’
amendment, we did not reopen the
public comment period.
III. OSM’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 as described
below.
A. Minor Revisions to Illinois’
Regulations
Illinois proposed minor wording,
editorial, punctuation, grammatical, and
recodification changes to the following
previously-approved regulations:
1. 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A,
Agricultural Lands Productivity
Formula (ALPF); 62 IAC 1817.42,
Hydrologic Balance—Water Quality
Standards and Effluent Limitations; 62
IAC 1817.43, Diversions; and 62 IAC
1817.116, Revegetation: Standards for
Success
Illinois proposed to correct citation
references at 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A,
1817.42, 1817.43, and 1817.116.
2. 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A
Illinois proposed minor wording
changes in the corn and soybean
sampling technique sections.
3. 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A,
1817.43(b)(3) and (c)(3), and
1823.15(b)(3)
At 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A,
1817.43(b)(3) and (c)(3), and
1823.15(b)(3), Illinois proposed to
simplify its use of numbers by
eliminating numbers that are in words
and retaining the numbers that are in
figures. For example, Illinois changed a
numerical reference from ‘‘ten (10) year,
six (6) hour’’ to ‘‘10 year, 6 hour.’’
Because these changes are minor, we
find that they will not make Illinois’
regulations less effective than the
corresponding Federal regulations at 30
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:11 Nov 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
71395
CFR 816.116, 817.42, 817.43, 817.116,
and 823.15.
69E Mumford Hall, 1301 West Gregory Drive,
Urbana, Illinois 61801.
B. 62 IAC 1816.116 (Surface Mining)
and 1817.116 (Underground Mining)
Revegetation: Standards for Success
The removed language was replaced
by information in Illinois’ new reference
to the Illinois Agronomy Handbook.
Illinois proposed these changes as a
result of comments received from the
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Because these editorial and
reference changes are minor, we find
that they will not make Illinois’
regulations less effective than the
corresponding Federal regulations at 30
CFR 816.116 and 817.116.
Illinois proposed to amend its
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116 to (1)
Incorporate at new subsection (a)(6), an
alternative method for determining
success of revegetation for cropland and
pasture land and/or hayland or grazing
land; (2) update requirements pertaining
to adjustment for abnormal,
catastrophic, growing conditions when
the ALPF or the new alternative method
is used for determining success of
revegetation; (3) remove references to
oats as a crop that may be used to prove
success of revegetation; (4) update
information in the soil master file,
county average yield file, the
agricultural lands productivity formula
sampling method, and Exhibit A in the
ALPF; and (5) delete Tables A through
F from the ALPF. Illinois proposed to
amend its regulation at 62 IAC 1817.116
to reference the new alternative method
for determining success of revegetation
for cropland and pasture land and/or
hayland or grazing land at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6). Illinois proposed to
amend 62 IAC 1816.116 and 1817.116 to
update references to and requirements
in existing regulations concerning the
new alternative method.
1. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and
1817.116(a)(2)(C)
a. At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and
1817.116(a)(2)(C), Illinois proposed to
change its references from the ‘‘Illinois
Agronomy Handbook (1999–2000)’’ to
the ‘‘Illinois Agronomy Handbook, 23rd
Edition (University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana, College of
Agriculture, Consumer and
Environmental Science, 1917 Wright St.,
Champaign, IL 61820 (2001–2002; this
incorporation includes no later
amendment or editions)).’’
b. At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and
1817.116(a)(2)(C), Illinois also proposed
to change its references from the old
Federal conservation plan act, ‘‘Food,
Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.),’’ to
the new Federal conservation plan act,
‘‘Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–171; 116 Stat.
134).’’
c. Finally, at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C),
Illinois proposed to remove the
following language:
The Illinois Agronomy Handbook is
published by the University of Illinois
Cooperative Extension Service, Office of
Agricultural Communications and Education,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(C) and (E) and
1817.116(a)(3)(C) and (E)
a. At subsection (a)(3)(C) and (E),
Illinois proposed to add a reference to
new 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). Subsection
(a)(3)(C) concerns areas, in the approved
reclamation plan, designated as
cropland, except those prime farmland
cropland areas subject to 62 IAC
1823.15. Subsection (a)(3)(E) concerns
areas, in the approved reclamation plan,
designated as pasture and/or hayland or
grazing land, except for erosion control
devices and other structures. As revised,
subsection (a)(3)(C) requires that the
determination of success of revegetation
for cropland areas be made in
accordance with 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)
or (a)(6). Also, revegetation will be
considered successful if it is 90 percent
of the crop production required in 62
IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or (a)(6) with 90
percent statistical confidence. As
revised, subsection (a)(3)(E) requires
that the determination of success of
revegetation (tons of grasses and/or
legumes per acre) for pasture and/or
hayland or grazing land be made in
accordance with 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)
or (a)(6). Also, revegetation will be
considered successful if it is 90 percent
of the crop production required in 62
IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or (a)(6) with 90
percent statistical confidence. Currently
approved 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)
references the ALPF, which includes the
standards and sampling techniques to
be used to evaluate success of
revegetation for cropland and pasture
and/or hayland or grazing land.
Proposed new 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) is
an alternative to using the ALPF and
includes an optional method for
determining the standard to be used to
evaluate success of revegetation for
cropland and pasture and/or hayland or
grazing land. The currently approved
method in the ALPF for calculating the
standard for determining success of
revegetation is based on the current
level of yield for a soil type within the
county. At proposed 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6), the alternative method
for calculating the standard for
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
71396
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
determining success of revegetation, is
based on an average of the last five years
of yield for a specific crop for a specific
soil type in the county.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(1) and 817.116(a)(1) require
that standards for success of
revegetation and statistically valid
sampling criteria for measuring success
must be selected by the regulatory
authority and included in an approved
regulatory program. The Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and
817.116(a)(2) require that standards for
success of revegetation must include
criteria representative of unmined lands
in the area being reclaimed to evaluate
the appropriate vegetation parameters of
ground cover, production, or stocking.
We find that Illinois’ proposed
alternative method at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) for calculating the
standard for determining success of
revegetation is no less effective than the
requirements of the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR 816.116(a) and 817.116(a).
Therefore, we are approving the
addition of a reference to 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(3)(C) and (E) and
817.116(a)(3)(C) and (E).
b. Illinois also proposed to add the
following requirement at the end of
subsections (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E):
‘‘Once chosen by the permittee, the
productivity alternative in 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) may not be modified
without approval from the Department.’’
In accordance with the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 774.13(c), no
permit revision can be approved unless
the application demonstrates and the
regulatory authority finds that
reclamation as required by the Act and
regulatory program can be
accomplished. Because, Illinois requires
that the productivity alternative under
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6), once chosen by
the permittee, may not be modified
without approval of the Department, we
find that the proposed requirement is no
less effective than the requirement of
the Federal regulation at 30 CFR
774.13(c), and we are approving it.
3. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and 62 IAC
1817.116(a)(4)
At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and
1817.116(a)(4), Illinois proposed to
reference the new alternative method at
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) for determining
success of revegetation. At 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4), Illinois also proposed to
update requirements pertaining to
adjustment for abnormal, catastrophic,
growing conditions when the ALPF or
the new alternative method is used for
determining success of revegetation and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:11 Nov 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
to remove a reference to oat crops from
several provisions.
a. At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and
1817.116(a)(4), Illinois proposed to
reference the new alternative method at
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). As revised,
subsections (a)(4) provide that in order
to use the ALPF, 62 IAC 1816.Appendix
A, or the alternative method at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) to determine success of
revegetation, the requirements of 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4) apply.
At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A), the
permittee is required to submit annually
a scale drawing or aerial photograph
delineating field boundaries, a field
numbering scheme, the total acreage for
each field, and the crop that will be
grown on each field to demonstrate
proof of productivity for the coming
crop year. Once approved by the
Department, the information required by
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A) cannot be
changed without restarting the
responsibility period, unless the
submittal is amended in accordance
with Illinois’ permit revision regulation
at 62 IAC 1774.13(b)(2). Illinois’
regulation at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(B)
requires the permittee to use the
sampling methods of the ALPF for
measuring success of revegetation. At 62
IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(C), the permittee
may make adjustments to crop yields
due to abnormal growing conditions by
meeting specified requirements. Illinois’
regulation at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(D)
specifies the kind of crops that must be
grown to determine success of
revegetation.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(1) and 817.116(a) require that
standards for success of revegetation
and statistically valid sampling criteria
for measuring success must be selected
by the regulatory authority and included
in an approved regulatory program. The
Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2) and 817.116(a)(2) require
that standards for success of
revegetation must include criteria
representative of unmined lands in the
area being reclaimed to evaluate the
appropriate vegetation parameters of
ground cover, production, or stocking.
We find that Illinois’ proposed
alternative method at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) for calculating the
standard for determining success of
revegetation is no less effective than the
requirements of the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR 816.116(a) and 817.116(a).
Therefore, we are approving the
addition of a reference to new 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)
and 1817.116(a)(4). Also, the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 780.18(b)(5)(vi)
and 784.13(b)(5)(vi) require the
reclamation plan to contain a plan for
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
revegetation as required in 30 CFR
816.111 through 816.116 and 817.111
through 817.116 including, but not
limited to, measures proposed to be
used to determine the success of
revegetation as required by 30 CFR
816.116 and 817.116. We find that
Illinois’ requirement that the permittee
must meet the requirements of 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4)(A) through (D) in order to
use the ALPF or the alternative method
in 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) to determine
success of revegetation, is no less
effective than the requirements of 30
CFR 780.18(b)(5) and 784.13(b)(5).
b. Illinois proposed to revise the
requirements of 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4)(C) concerning
adjustments for abnormal growing
conditions to read as follows:
‘‘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.’’ Currently
approved 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(C)
requires adjustments for abnormal
growing conditions to be certified by a
crop adjuster certified to perform
adjustments by the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation (FCIC). Because
FCIC crop adjusters in Illinois are no
longer available to certify adjustments
for abnormal growing conditions,
Illinois proposed to allow such
adjustments to be certified by a
qualified professional (American
Society of Agronomy certified) or
National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture crop
enumerators. Illinois provided a letter
dated December 17, 2004, from the
NRCS State Conservationist, which
stated that the NRCS concurred with the
proposed change (Administrative
Record No. IL–5088).
Based on the discussion above, we
find that the proposed change to this
previously approved provision will not
alter our original approval of Illinois’
regulation at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(C) to
allow adjustments for abnormal growing
conditions, and we are approving the
change.
c. Illinois proposed to make the
following changes to 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4)(D):
(1) Illinois proposed 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
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
other cropland areas. Oats is being
removed because it is not grown enough
in Illinois to have agricultural statistics
upon which to establish a standard of
yield. With the removal of oats, the
types of crops commonly grown on
surrounding unmined cropland in
Illinois include corn, soybeans, hay,
sorghum, and wheat. The Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(a)(6)
requires that the reference crop on
which restoration of soil productivity is
proven shall be selected from the crops
most commonly produced on the
surrounding prime farmland. The
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2) requires standards for
success to include criteria
representative of unmined lands in the
area being reclaimed to evaluate the
appropriate vegetation parameters of
ground cover, production, or stocking.
We find that the deletion of oats as a
reference crop meets the requirements
of 30 CFR 823.15(a)(6) and
816.116.(a)(2), and we are approving it.
(2) Illinois proposed 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.
Currently, if the Department approves
a hay crop use, subsection (a)(4)(D)
requires operators to grow a minimum
of one successful year of corn and
allows operators to grow one year of hay
and one year of wheat to demonstrate
revegetation success on prime farmland
and other cropland areas. Illinois’
proposed change would allow operators
to grow two years of hay or two years
of wheat if deep tillage has been
completed to a minimum depth of 36
inches, while retaining the requirement
for one successful year of corn. The
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(1) requires that standards for
success of revegetation and statistically
valid sampling criteria for measuring
success must be selected by the
regulatory authority and included in an
approved regulatory program. We find
that Illinois’ proposal is no less effective
than the requirements of the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1), and
we are approving this change.
4. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6)
Illinois proposed a new productivity
alternative at new subsection (a)(6). It
reads as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:11 Nov 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
(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)(3)(C)
or (E ).
(A) The following substitution of Column
F—Appendix A—County Average Yield File
shall read:
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.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(1) requires that standards for
success and statistically valid sampling
criteria for measuring success be
selected by the regulatory authority and
included in an approved regulatory
program. The Federal regulation at 30
CFR 816.116(a)(2) requires that
standards for success include criteria
representative of unmined lands in the
area being reclaimed to evaluate the
appropriate vegetation parameters of
ground cover, production, or stocking.
The previously approved regulation at
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) that references
the Agricultural Lands Productivity
Formula at Appendix A includes both
the standards and sampling techniques
to be used to evaluate revegetation
success for cropland. The proposed
regulation to allow the use of 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) would allow the operator
the option of an alternative method for
determining the cropland standard
when the field has been determined to
have a maximum soil strength and a
minimum fertility. The current
approved program calculates the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71397
standard on the current level of yield for
a soil type within the county. The
alternative method would allow the use
of a standard based on an average of the
last five years of yield for a specific crop
for a specific soil type in the county. We
find that the optional method at 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) reduces the annual
variability of the productivity standard
while maintaining the representative
character of the standard. Therefore, the
revised regulation is no less effective
than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a), and we are approving it.
5. 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A—ALPF
Illinois proposed to update
information in the soil master file,
county cropped acreage file, county
average yield file, the agricultural lands
productivity formula sampling method,
and Exhibit A in the ALPF. Illinois also
proposed to delete Tables A through F
from the ALPF.
a. Illinois proposed to remove its
reference to ‘‘oats’’ as a grain crop used
for evaluation of success of revegetation
from the Soil Master File; the County
Average Yield File; the Agricultural
Lands Productivity Formula Sampling
Method; and Exhibit A, County Crop
Yields by Soil Mapping Unit. Illinois
also proposed to remove the sections
‘‘Oats Sampling Technique (Rows >8″)’’
and ‘‘Oats Sampling Technique
(Discernible Rows)’’ from the
Agricultural Lands Productivity
Formula Sampling Method.
For the reasons discussed in finding
III.B.3.c.(1), we find that the proposed
revisions to remove a reference to a
grain crop that is no longer commonly
grown in Illinois is no less effective than
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
823.15(a)(6) and 816.116(a)(2), and we
are approving them. We also find that
the proposed revision to remove the
sampling techniques for a crop that is
no longer commonly grown in Illinois is
no less effective than the Federal
regulations, and we are approving it.
b. Soil Master File. Illinois proposed
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 to add
a reference to Bulletin 811, ‘‘Optimum
Crop Productivity Ratings for Illinois
Soil,’’ University of Illinois, College of
Agricultural, Consumer and
Environmental Sciences, Office of
Research, August 2000. Bulletin 811 is
the reference document for information
contained in the soil master file. Illinois
also proposed to remove the information
regarding additional components of the
soil master file.
The level of management applied for
the productivity standard needs to be
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
71398
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
representative of the unmined lands in
the area. Bulletin 811 applies a
recognized standard of crop
productivity as determined by the
University of Illinois, College of
Agriculture. Because of the change to
new Bulletin 811, the deleted additional
components of the soil master file are no
longer necessary. The Federal regulation
at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) requires that the
standards for success must include
criteria representative of unmined lands
in the area being reclaimed to evaluate
the appropriate vegetation parameters of
ground cover, production, or stocking.
We find that Illinois’ proposal to
eliminate outdated information and to
use a contemporary University
agricultural publication to support its
standard is consistent with the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2), and
we are approving it.
c. County Average Yield File. Illinois
proposed to change the word ‘‘high’’ to
the word ‘‘optimum’’ in the phrase
‘‘high management yield.’’ Illinois also
proposed to add the following new
provision:
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.
For the reasons discussed above in
finding III.B.5.b, we find that Illinois’
proposal to change the word ‘‘high’’ to
‘‘optimum’’ is consistent with the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR
823.15(a)(6) and 816.116(a)(2), and we
are approving the word change. Illinois
provided a letter dated December 17,
2004, from the NRCS State
Conservationist that concurs with the
new provision proposed by Illinois
regarding the substitution of a county
crop yield from an adjacent county if
official county crop yields are
unavailable for a specific crop in a given
year under specified conditions
(Administrative Record No. IL–5088).
Illinois has determined that hay and
wheat are grown so little in some
counties that data from adjacent
counties must be used as the standard.
For prime farmland, the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(7)(i)
requires that reference crop yields for a
given crop season are to be determined
from the current yield records of
representative local farms in the
surrounding area, with the concurrence
by the NRCS. For other cropland, the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2) requires that the standards
for success shall include criteria
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:11 Nov 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
representative of unmined lands in the
area being reclaimed to evaluate the
appropriate vegetation parameters of
ground cover, production, or stocking.
We find that Illinois has provided the
necessary concurrence of the NRCS for
prime farmland and the proposed
revision is no less effective than the
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
823.15(b)(7)(i). We also find that
because the soils and weather
conditions must be similar in the
adjacent county and the concurrence of
the Illinois Department of Agriculture is
required, the proposed revision for other
cropland is no less effective than the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2). Therefore, we are
approving the new provision.
d. Agricultural Lands Productivity
Formula Sampling Method.
Corn Sampling Technique. Illinois
proposed to delete the current row
factor information under step 10 of its
corn sampling technique and replace it
with ‘‘average row width in feet × 15
feet of row ÷ 43560 square feet/acre and
.845 = the standard moisture content
conversion factor of corn per bushel
(1.0¥(15.5%/100).’’ The existing table
provides a row factor for four row
spacing widths of 30, 36, 38, and 40
inches. The table is being replaced by a
formula for calculating a row factor for
any row width. The Federal regulation
at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) requires that
standards for success and statistically
valid sampling criteria for measuring
success shall be selected by the
regulatory authority and included in an
approved regulatory program. We find
that Illinois’ revision meets the
requirements of the Federal regulation,
and we are approving it.
e. Exhibit A County Crop Yields by
Soil Mapping Unit. Illinois proposed to
change the word ‘‘high’’ to the word
‘‘optimum’’ in columns E and F.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2) requires that the standards
for success shall include criteria
representative of unmined lands in the
area being reclaimed to evaluate the
appropriate vegetation parameters of
ground cover, production, or stocking.
The Illinois proposal is the result of
replacing the obsolete soil master file
with Bulletin 811 that references
optimum rather than high levels of
production for the State of Illinois.
Bulletin 811 applies a recognized
standard of crop productivity as
determined by the University of Illinois,
College of Agriculture and is consistent
with the Federal regulations. We find
that the proposal to eliminate outdated
information and use a contemporary
University agricultural publication to
support its standard is consistent with
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Federal regulations, and we are
approving it.
f. Illinois proposed to delete Tables A
through F from the ALPF. The
information in Tables A, B, and D is
redundant of other information found in
the ALPF and the information in Tables
C, E, and F are no longer needed.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(1) requires that standards for
success and statistically valid sampling
criteria for measuring success shall be
selected by the regulatory authority and
included in an approved regulatory
program. Because these tables are
redundant or no longer needed, we find
that the proposed deletions are not
inconsistent with the Federal
regulations.
C. 62 IAC 1817.121 Subsidence
Control
At subsection (c) entitled ‘‘Repair of
damage,’’ Illinois proposed to remove
the last sentence from paragraph (2) and
to make it the new introductory
paragraph to subsection (c). Illinois also
proposed to add a new exception clause
to the end of the relocated sentence. The
new introductory paragraph reads as
follows:
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).
Illinois removed the last sentence
from paragraph (2) and made it the
introductory paragraph to subsection (c)
in order to clarify that all parts of
subsection (c) are subject to the
February 1, 1983, date. Illinois added
the exception clause because the
replacement of water supplies was
effective January 19, 1996, the date that
62 IAC 1817.41(j) was promulgated,
rather than the February 1, 1983, date.
We find that Illinois’ proposed revisions
are appropriate and will not make the
Illinois regulation at 62 IAC 1817.121(c)
less effective than the counterpart
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 817.121(c),
and we are approving the revisions.
D. 62 IAC 1823.15 Prime Farmland:
Revegetation
1. At subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3),
Illinois proposed to add a reference to
new 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). As revised,
subsection (b)(2) requires that success of
revegetation be measured in accordance
with 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or (a)(6). As
revised, subsection (b)(3) now requires
that revegetation be considered a
success when crop production is
equivalent to or exceeds the production
standards of 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or
(a)(6) with 90 percent statistical
confidence. Currently approved 62 IAC
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
1816.116(a)(4) references the ALPF,
which includes the yield standards and
sampling techniques to be used to
evaluate success of revegetation for
cropland, including prime farmland,
and pasture and/or hayland or grazing
land. As revised, 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)
will also reference the alternative
method at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6).
Proposed new 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) is
an alternative to using the ALPF and
includes an optional method for
determining the standard to be used to
evaluate success of revegetation for
cropland and pasture and/or hayland or
grazing land. The currently approved
method in the ALPF for calculating the
standard for determining success of
revegetation is based on the current
level of yield for a soil type within the
county. The alternative method at
proposed 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) for
calculating the standard for determining
success of revegetation is based on an
average of the last five years of yield for
a specific crop for a specific soil type in
the county.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
823.15(b)(2) requires that soil
productivity be measured on a
representative sample or on all of the
mined and reclaimed prime farmland
area using the reference crop
determined under 30 CFR 823.15(b)(6).
A statistically valid sampling technique
at a 90 percent or greater statistical
confidence that has been approved by
the regulatory authority in consultation
with the NRCS must be used. The
Federal regulation at 30 CFR
823.15(b)(6) requires that the reference
crop that will be used to prove soil
productivity must be selected from the
crops most commonly produced on the
surrounding prime farmland. Illinois
provided documentation of the NRCS
consultation process. In a letter dated
December 17, 2004, the NRCS stated
that it concurs with the proposed rule
changes and the revised reference crop
yield determinations and procedures
will make for a better rule
(Administrative Record No. IL–5088).
Therefore, we find that Illinois’ revised
regulations at 62 IAC 1823.15(b)(2) and
(b)(3) are no less effective than the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR
823.15(b)(2) and (b)(3), and we are
approving them.
2. Illinois also proposed to add the
following requirement at the end of
subsection (b)(3): ‘‘Once chosen by the
permittee, the productivity alternative
in 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) may not be
modified without approval from the
Department.’’
In accordance with the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 774.13(c), no
permit revision can be approved unless
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:11 Nov 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
the application demonstrates and the
regulatory authority finds that
reclamation as required by the Act and
regulatory program can be
accomplished. Because, Illinois requires
that the productivity alternative under
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6), once chosen by
the permittee, may not be modified
without approval of the Department, we
find that the proposed requirement is no
less effective than the requirement of
the Federal regulation at 30 CFR
774.13(c), and we are approving it.
IV. Summary and Disposition of
Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the
amendment, but did not receive any.
Federal Agency Comments
On February 8, 2005, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of
SMCRA, we requested comments on the
amendment from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential
interest in the Illinois program
(Administrative Record No. IL–5090).
We received comments from the NRCS.
The NRCS responded on February 28,
2005 (Administrative Record No. IL–
5091), that it recommended that Illinois’
reference to the ‘‘1999–2000 Illinois
Agronomy Handbook’’ be changed to
‘‘current Illinois Agronomy Handbook’’
and questioned whether the reference to
‘‘the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990’’ needs to be
updated to the ‘‘Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002.’’
These references that the NRCS
wanted to change are found in Illinois’
regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C)
and 1817.116(a)(2)(C). As discussed in
findings III.B.1, Illinois revised these
regulations in accordance with the
NRCS comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we
are required to get a written concurrence
from EPA for those provisions of the
program amendment that relate to air or
water quality standards issued 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 those air
or water quality standards. Therefore,
we did not ask EPA to concur on the
amendment.
On February 8, 2005, under 30 CFR
732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested
comments on the amendment from EPA
(Administrative Record No. IL–5090).
EPA did not respond to our request.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71399
State Historical 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 February 8, 2005, we
requested comments on Illinois’
amendment (Administrative Record No.
IL–5090), but neither responded to our
request.
V. OSM’s Decision
Based on the above findings, we
approve the amendment Illinois sent us
on February 1, 2005, and as revised on
August 3, 2005.
To implement this decision, we are
amending the Federal regulations at 30
CFR part 913, which codify decisions
concerning the Illinois program. We
find that good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule
effective immediately. Section 503(a) of
SMCRA requires that the State’s
program demonstrate that the State has
the capability of carrying out the
provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective
immediately will expedite that process.
VI. 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 regulations.
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
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
71400
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and 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.
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.).
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.
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
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.
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
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,
Original amendment submission
date
*
*
February 1, 2005 ...........................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:11 Nov 28, 2005
Date of final
publication
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
regulations did not impose an unfunded
mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: September 21, 2005.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 30 CFR part 913 is amended
as set forth below:
I
PART 913—ILLINOIS
1. The authority citation for part 913
continues to read as follows:
I
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:
I
§ 913.15 Approval of Illinois regulatory
program amendments.
*
*
*
*
*
Citation/description
*
*
*
*
*
November 29, 2005 ....................... 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C), (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E), (a)(4), (a)(4)(C) and
(D), (a)(6); 1816. Appendix A; 1817.42; 1817.43(a)(2)(D), (b)(3),
(c)(3); 1817.116(a)(2)(C), (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E), (a)(4), (b)(2);
1817.121(c), (c)(2); 1823.15(b)(2) and (b)(3).
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 05–23401 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
PART 356—SALE AND ISSUE OF
MARKETABLE BOOK-ENTRY
TREASURY BILLS, NOTES, AND
BONDS (DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY CIRCULAR, PUBLIC DEBT
SERIES NO. 1–93)
Fiscal Service
I
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
1. The authority citation for part 356
continues to read as follows:
31 CFR Part 356
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3102 et
seq.; 12 U.S.C. 391.
Sale and Issue of Marketable BookEntry Bills, Notes, and Bonds;
Correction
2. In § 356.17, add paragraphs (d)(1)
and (d)(2), to read as follows:
I
Bureau of the Public Debt,
Fiscal Service, Treasury.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
§ 356.17 How and when do I pay for
securities awarded in an auction?
*
Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Public Debt
published a final rule in the September
30, 2005, Federal Register, amending
the Sale and Issue of Marketable BookEntry Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds
to permit Treasury bills, notes, and
bonds to be held in the TreasuryDirect
system. Several paragraphs were
inadvertently omitted. This correction
document corrects that omission.
DATES:
Effective November 29, 2005.
You can download this
correction at the following Internet
address: https://
www.publicdebt.treas.gov.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chuck Andreatta, Associate Director,
Government Securities Regulations
Staff, Bureau of the Public Debt, at (202)
504–3632 or govsecreg@bpd.treas.gov.
Susan Klimas, Attorney-Adviser,
Dean Adams, Assistant Chief Counsel,
or Edward Gronseth, Deputy Chief
Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Bureau of the Public Debt, at (304) 480–
8692 or susan.klimas@bpd.treas.gov.
The
Bureau of the Public Debt published in
the September 30, 2005, Federal
Register (70 FR 57437), a final rule that
amended 31 CFR part 356, the Sale and
Issue of Marketable Book-Entry Treasury
Bills, Notes, and Bonds, to permit
investors to hold Treasury bills, notes,
and bonds in the TreasuryDirect system.
In section 356.17, several alreadyexisting paragraphs were inadvertently
deleted. This document corrects the
deletion.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 356
Bonds, Federal Reserve System,
Government securities, Securities.
Accordingly, 31 CFR part 356 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:56 Nov 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) A submitter that does not have a
funds account at a Federal Reserve Bank
or that chooses not to pay by charge to
its own funds account must have an
approved autocharge agreement on file
with us before submitting any bids. Any
depository institution whose funds
account will be charged under an
autocharge agreement will receive
advance notice from us of the total par
amount of, and price to be charged for,
securities awarded as a result of the
submitter’s bids.
(2) A submitter that is a member of a
clearing corporation may instruct that
delivery and payment be made through
the clearing corporation for securities
awarded to the submitter for its own
account. To do this, the following
requirements must be met prior to
submitting any bids:
(i) We must have acknowledged and
have on file an autocharge agreement
between the clearing corporation and a
depository institution. By entering into
such an agreement, the clearing
corporation authorizes us to provide
aggregate par and price information to
the depository institution whose funds
account will be charged under the
agreement. The clearing corporation is
responsible for remitting payment for
auction awards of the clearing
corporation member.
(ii) We must have acknowledged and
have on file a delivery and payment
agreement between the submitter and
the clearing corporation. By entering
into such an agreement, the submitter
authorizes us to provide award and
payment information to the clearing
corporation.
Dated: November 21, 2005.
Van Zeck,
Commissioner of the Public Debt.
[FR Doc. 05–23333 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–39–M
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71401
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[OPPT–2004–0111; FRL–7740–7]
RIN 2070–AJ12
2-ethoxyethanol, 2-ethoxyethanol
acetate, 2-methoxyethanol, and 2methoxyethanol acetate; Significant
New Use Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a significant
new use rule (SNUR) under section
5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) which requires persons to
notify EPA at least 90 days before
commencing the manufacture, import,
or processing of 2-ethoxyethanol (CAS
No. 110–80–5) (2-EE), 2-ethoxyethanol
acetate (CAS No. 111–15–9) (2-EEA), 2methoxyethanol (CAS No. 109–86–4) (2ME), or 2-methoxyethanol acetate (CAS
No. 110–49–6) (2-MEA) for domestic use
in a consumer product or the
manufacture or import of 2-MEA at
levels greater than 10,000 pounds per
year. This action finalizes the SNUR
proposed in the Federal Register of
March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9902) (FRL–7692–
8). EPA believes this action is necessary
because these chemicals may be
hazardous to human health and their
use in a consumer product may result in
human exposure. The required notice
will provide EPA with the opportunity
to evaluate intended new uses and
associated activities, and if necessary,
prohibit or limit those uses and
activities before they occur.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
December 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number OPPT–2004–
0111. All documents in the docket are
listed in the EDOCKET index at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed
in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will not be placed on the Internet and
will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71394-71401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23401]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Illinois regulatory program
(Illinois program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals (Department or Illinois) is
revising its regulations regarding revegetation success standards, to
update statutory citations, to correct regulatory citations, and to
clarify language in various provisions. Illinois is revising its
program to clarify ambiguities and to improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Effective November 29, 2005.
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. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. 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 State 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 (Secretary)
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, 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. Submission of the 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 proposed to amend its regulations at 62 Illinois
Administrative Code (IAC) parts 1816 (Surface Mining Operations), 1817
(Underground Mining Operations), and 1823 (Prime Farmland).
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the April 4,
2005, Federal Register (70 FR 17014). In the same document, we opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a
public
[[Page 71395]]
hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment
period ended on May 4, 2005. We received comments from one Federal
agency.
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns about
some editorial-type errors. We notified Illinois of these concerns by
letters dated March 3 and April 6, 2005 (Administrative Record Nos. IL-
5092 and IL-5095).
By e-mail dated August 3, 2005 (Administrative Record No. IL-5099),
Illinois sent us revisions to its proposed program amendment. Because
the revisions merely corrected the editorial-type errors that we
identified in Illinois' amendment, we did not reopen the public comment
period.
III. OSM'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 as described below.
A. Minor Revisions to Illinois' Regulations
Illinois proposed minor wording, editorial, punctuation,
grammatical, and recodification changes to the following previously-
approved regulations:
1. 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A, Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula
(ALPF); 62 IAC 1817.42, Hydrologic Balance--Water Quality Standards and
Effluent Limitations; 62 IAC 1817.43, Diversions; and 62 IAC 1817.116,
Revegetation: Standards for Success
Illinois proposed to correct citation references at 62 IAC
1816.Appendix A, 1817.42, 1817.43, and 1817.116.
2. 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A
Illinois proposed minor wording changes in the corn and soybean
sampling technique sections.
3. 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A, 1817.43(b)(3) and (c)(3), and 1823.15(b)(3)
At 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A, 1817.43(b)(3) and (c)(3), and
1823.15(b)(3), Illinois proposed to simplify its use of numbers by
eliminating numbers that are in words and retaining the numbers that
are in figures. For example, Illinois changed a numerical reference
from ``ten (10) year, six (6) hour'' to ``10 year, 6 hour.''
Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make
Illinois' regulations less effective than the corresponding Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116, 817.42, 817.43, 817.116, and 823.15.
B. 62 IAC 1816.116 (Surface Mining) and 1817.116 (Underground Mining)
Revegetation: Standards for Success
Illinois proposed to amend its regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116 to
(1) Incorporate at new subsection (a)(6), an alternative method for
determining success of revegetation for cropland and pasture land and/
or hayland or grazing land; (2) update requirements pertaining to
adjustment for abnormal, catastrophic, growing conditions when the ALPF
or the new alternative method is used for determining success of
revegetation; (3) remove references to oats as a crop that may be used
to prove success of revegetation; (4) update information in the soil
master file, county average yield file, the agricultural lands
productivity formula sampling method, and Exhibit A in the ALPF; and
(5) delete Tables A through F from the ALPF. Illinois proposed to amend
its regulation at 62 IAC 1817.116 to reference the new alternative
method for determining success of revegetation for cropland and pasture
land and/or hayland or grazing land at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). Illinois
proposed to amend 62 IAC 1816.116 and 1817.116 to update references to
and requirements in existing regulations concerning the new alternative
method.
1. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and 1817.116(a)(2)(C)
a. At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and 1817.116(a)(2)(C), Illinois
proposed to change its references from the ``Illinois Agronomy Handbook
(1999-2000)'' to the ``Illinois Agronomy Handbook, 23rd Edition
(University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, College of Agriculture,
Consumer and Environmental Science, 1917 Wright St., Champaign, IL
61820 (2001-2002; this incorporation includes no later amendment or
editions)).''
b. At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and 1817.116(a)(2)(C), Illinois also
proposed to change its references from the old Federal conservation
plan act, ``Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 1421 et seq.),'' to the new Federal conservation plan act,
``Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171; 116
Stat. 134).''
c. Finally, at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C), Illinois proposed to
remove the following language:
The Illinois Agronomy Handbook is published by the University of
Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, Office of Agricultural
Communications and Education, 69E Mumford Hall, 1301 West Gregory
Drive, Urbana, Illinois 61801.
The removed language was replaced by information in Illinois' new
reference to the Illinois Agronomy Handbook.
Illinois proposed these changes as a result of comments received
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Because these
editorial and reference changes are minor, we find that they will not
make Illinois' regulations less effective than the corresponding
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116.
2. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(C) and (E) and 1817.116(a)(3)(C) and (E)
a. At subsection (a)(3)(C) and (E), Illinois proposed to add a
reference to new 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). Subsection (a)(3)(C) concerns
areas, in the approved reclamation plan, designated as cropland, except
those prime farmland cropland areas subject to 62 IAC 1823.15.
Subsection (a)(3)(E) concerns areas, in the approved reclamation plan,
designated as pasture and/or hayland or grazing land, except for
erosion control devices and other structures. As revised, subsection
(a)(3)(C) requires that the determination of success of revegetation
for cropland areas be made in accordance with 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or
(a)(6). Also, revegetation will be considered successful if it is 90
percent of the crop production required in 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or
(a)(6) with 90 percent statistical confidence. As revised, subsection
(a)(3)(E) requires that the determination of success of revegetation
(tons of grasses and/or legumes per acre) for pasture and/or hayland or
grazing land be made in accordance with 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or
(a)(6). Also, revegetation will be considered successful if it is 90
percent of the crop production required in 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or
(a)(6) with 90 percent statistical confidence. Currently approved 62
IAC 1816.116(a)(4) references the ALPF, which includes the standards
and sampling techniques to be used to evaluate success of revegetation
for cropland and pasture and/or hayland or grazing land. Proposed new
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) is an alternative to using the ALPF and includes
an optional method for determining the standard to be used to evaluate
success of revegetation for cropland and pasture and/or hayland or
grazing land. The currently approved method in the ALPF for calculating
the standard for determining success of revegetation is based on the
current level of yield for a soil type within the county. At proposed
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6), the alternative method for calculating the
standard for
[[Page 71396]]
determining success of revegetation, is based on an average of the last
five years of yield for a specific crop for a specific soil type in the
county.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) and 817.116(a)(1)
require that standards for success of revegetation and statistically
valid sampling criteria for measuring success must be selected by the
regulatory authority and included in an approved regulatory program.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and 817.116(a)(2)
require that standards for success of revegetation must include
criteria representative of unmined lands in the area being reclaimed to
evaluate the appropriate vegetation parameters of ground cover,
production, or stocking. We find that Illinois' proposed alternative
method at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) for calculating the standard for
determining success of revegetation is no less effective than the
requirements of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a) and
817.116(a). Therefore, we are approving the addition of a reference to
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(C) and (E) and
817.116(a)(3)(C) and (E).
b. Illinois also proposed to add the following requirement at the
end of subsections (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E): ``Once chosen by the
permittee, the productivity alternative in 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) may
not be modified without approval from the Department.''
In accordance with the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.13(c), no
permit revision can be approved unless the application demonstrates and
the regulatory authority finds that reclamation as required by the Act
and regulatory program can be accomplished. Because, Illinois requires
that the productivity alternative under 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6), once
chosen by the permittee, may not be modified without approval of the
Department, we find that the proposed requirement is no less effective
than the requirement of the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.13(c), and
we are approving it.
3. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and 62 IAC 1817.116(a)(4)
At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and 1817.116(a)(4), Illinois proposed to
reference the new alternative method at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) for
determining success of revegetation. At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4), Illinois
also proposed to update requirements pertaining to adjustment for
abnormal, catastrophic, growing conditions when the ALPF or the new
alternative method is used for determining success of revegetation and
to remove a reference to oat crops from several provisions.
a. At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and 1817.116(a)(4), Illinois proposed
to reference the new alternative method at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). As
revised, subsections (a)(4) provide that in order to use the ALPF, 62
IAC 1816.Appendix A, or the alternative method at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6)
to determine success of revegetation, the requirements of 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4) apply.
At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A), the permittee is required to submit
annually a scale drawing or aerial photograph delineating field
boundaries, a field numbering scheme, the total acreage for each field,
and the crop that will be grown on each field to demonstrate proof of
productivity for the coming crop year. Once approved by the Department,
the information required by 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A) cannot be changed
without restarting the responsibility period, unless the submittal is
amended in accordance with Illinois' permit revision regulation at 62
IAC 1774.13(b)(2). Illinois' regulation at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(B)
requires the permittee to use the sampling methods of the ALPF for
measuring success of revegetation. At 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(C), the
permittee may make adjustments to crop yields due to abnormal growing
conditions by meeting specified requirements. Illinois' regulation at
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(D) specifies the kind of crops that must be grown
to determine success of revegetation.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) and 817.116(a)
require that standards for success of revegetation and statistically
valid sampling criteria for measuring success must be selected by the
regulatory authority and included in an approved regulatory program.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and 817.116(a)(2)
require that standards for success of revegetation must include
criteria representative of unmined lands in the area being reclaimed to
evaluate the appropriate vegetation parameters of ground cover,
production, or stocking. We find that Illinois' proposed alternative
method at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) for calculating the standard for
determining success of revegetation is no less effective than the
requirements of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a) and
817.116(a). Therefore, we are approving the addition of a reference to
new 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and 1817.116(a)(4).
Also, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 780.18(b)(5)(vi) and
784.13(b)(5)(vi) require the reclamation plan to contain a plan for
revegetation as required in 30 CFR 816.111 through 816.116 and 817.111
through 817.116 including, but not limited to, measures proposed to be
used to determine the success of revegetation as required by 30 CFR
816.116 and 817.116. We find that Illinois' requirement that the
permittee must meet the requirements of 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(A)
through (D) in order to use the ALPF or the alternative method in 62
IAC 1816.116(a)(6) to determine success of revegetation, is no less
effective than the requirements of 30 CFR 780.18(b)(5) and
784.13(b)(5).
b. Illinois proposed to revise the requirements of 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4)(C) concerning adjustments for abnormal growing
conditions to read as follows: ``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.'' Currently
approved 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(C) requires adjustments for abnormal
growing conditions to be certified by a crop adjuster certified to
perform adjustments by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC).
Because FCIC crop adjusters in Illinois are no longer available to
certify adjustments for abnormal growing conditions, Illinois proposed
to allow such adjustments to be certified by a qualified professional
(American Society of Agronomy certified) or National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture crop enumerators. Illinois provided a
letter dated December 17, 2004, from the NRCS State Conservationist,
which stated that the NRCS concurred with the proposed change
(Administrative Record No. IL-5088).
Based on the discussion above, we find that the proposed change to
this previously approved provision will not alter our original approval
of Illinois' regulation at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)(C) to allow
adjustments for abnormal growing conditions, and we are approving the
change.
c. Illinois proposed to make the following changes to 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4)(D):
(1) Illinois proposed 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
[[Page 71397]]
other cropland areas. Oats is being removed because it is not grown
enough in Illinois to have agricultural statistics upon which to
establish a standard of yield. With the removal of oats, the types of
crops commonly grown on surrounding unmined cropland in Illinois
include corn, soybeans, hay, sorghum, and wheat. The Federal regulation
at 30 CFR 823.15(a)(6) requires that the reference crop on which
restoration of soil productivity is proven shall be selected from the
crops most commonly produced on the surrounding prime farmland. The
Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) requires standards for
success to include criteria representative of unmined lands in the area
being reclaimed to evaluate the appropriate vegetation parameters of
ground cover, production, or stocking. We find that the deletion of
oats as a reference crop meets the requirements of 30 CFR 823.15(a)(6)
and 816.116.(a)(2), and we are approving it.
(2) Illinois proposed 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.
Currently, if the Department approves a hay crop use, subsection
(a)(4)(D) requires operators to grow a minimum of one successful year
of corn and allows operators to grow one year of hay and one year of
wheat to demonstrate revegetation success on prime farmland and other
cropland areas. Illinois' proposed change would allow operators to grow
two years of hay or two years of wheat if deep tillage has been
completed to a minimum depth of 36 inches, while retaining the
requirement for one successful year of corn. The Federal regulation at
30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) requires that standards for success of
revegetation and statistically valid sampling criteria for measuring
success must be selected by the regulatory authority and included in an
approved regulatory program. We find that Illinois' proposal is no less
effective than the requirements of the Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(1), and we are approving this change.
4. 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6)
Illinois proposed 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)(3)(C) or (E ).
(A) The following substitution of Column F--Appendix A--County
Average Yield File shall read:
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.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) requires that
standards for success and statistically valid sampling criteria for
measuring success be selected by the regulatory authority and included
in an approved regulatory program. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2) requires that standards for success include criteria
representative of unmined lands in the area being reclaimed to evaluate
the appropriate vegetation parameters of ground cover, production, or
stocking. The previously approved regulation at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4)
that references the Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula at Appendix
A includes both the standards and sampling techniques to be used to
evaluate revegetation success for cropland. The proposed regulation to
allow the use of 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) would allow the operator the
option of an alternative method for determining the cropland standard
when the field has been determined to have a maximum soil strength and
a minimum fertility. The current approved program calculates the
standard on the current level of yield for a soil type within the
county. The alternative method would allow the use of a standard based
on an average of the last five years of yield for a specific crop for a
specific soil type in the county. We find that the optional method at
62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) reduces the annual variability of the
productivity standard while maintaining the representative character of
the standard. Therefore, the revised regulation is no less effective
than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a), and we are approving
it.
5. 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A--ALPF
Illinois proposed to update information in the soil master file,
county cropped acreage file, county average yield file, the
agricultural lands productivity formula sampling method, and Exhibit A
in the ALPF. Illinois also proposed to delete Tables A through F from
the ALPF.
a. Illinois proposed to remove its reference to ``oats'' as a grain
crop used for evaluation of success of revegetation from the Soil
Master File; the County Average Yield File; the Agricultural Lands
Productivity Formula Sampling Method; and Exhibit A, County Crop Yields
by Soil Mapping Unit. Illinois also proposed to remove the sections
``Oats Sampling Technique (Rows >8'')'' and ``Oats Sampling Technique
(Discernible Rows)'' from the Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula
Sampling Method.
For the reasons discussed in finding III.B.3.c.(1), we find that
the proposed revisions to remove a reference to a grain crop that is no
longer commonly grown in Illinois is no less effective than the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(a)(6) and 816.116(a)(2), and we are
approving them. We also find that the proposed revision to remove the
sampling techniques for a crop that is no longer commonly grown in
Illinois is no less effective than the Federal regulations, and we are
approving it.
b. Soil Master File. Illinois proposed 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 to add a
reference to Bulletin 811, ``Optimum Crop Productivity Ratings for
Illinois Soil,'' University of Illinois, College of Agricultural,
Consumer and Environmental Sciences, Office of Research, August 2000.
Bulletin 811 is the reference document for information contained in the
soil master file. Illinois also proposed to remove the information
regarding additional components of the soil master file.
The level of management applied for the productivity standard needs
to be
[[Page 71398]]
representative of the unmined lands in the area. Bulletin 811 applies a
recognized standard of crop productivity as determined by the
University of Illinois, College of Agriculture. Because of the change
to new Bulletin 811, the deleted additional components of the soil
master file are no longer necessary. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(2) requires that the standards for success must include
criteria representative of unmined lands in the area being reclaimed to
evaluate the appropriate vegetation parameters of ground cover,
production, or stocking. We find that Illinois' proposal to eliminate
outdated information and to use a contemporary University agricultural
publication to support its standard is consistent with the Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2), and we are approving it.
c. County Average Yield File. Illinois proposed to change the word
``high'' to the word ``optimum'' in the phrase ``high management
yield.'' Illinois also proposed to add the following new provision:
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.
For the reasons discussed above in finding III.B.5.b, we find that
Illinois' proposal to change the word ``high'' to ``optimum'' is
consistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(a)(6) and
816.116(a)(2), and we are approving the word change. Illinois provided
a letter dated December 17, 2004, from the NRCS State Conservationist
that concurs with the new provision proposed by Illinois regarding the
substitution of a county crop yield from an adjacent county if official
county crop yields are unavailable for a specific crop in a given year
under specified conditions (Administrative Record No. IL-5088).
Illinois has determined that hay and wheat are grown so little in some
counties that data from adjacent counties must be used as the standard.
For prime farmland, the Federal regulation at 30 CFR
823.15(b)(7)(i) requires that reference crop yields for a given crop
season are to be determined from the current yield records of
representative local farms in the surrounding area, with the
concurrence by the NRCS. For other cropland, the Federal regulation at
30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) requires that the standards for success shall
include criteria representative of unmined lands in the area being
reclaimed to evaluate the appropriate vegetation parameters of ground
cover, production, or stocking. We find that Illinois has provided the
necessary concurrence of the NRCS for prime farmland and the proposed
revision is no less effective than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR
823.15(b)(7)(i). We also find that because the soils and weather
conditions must be similar in the adjacent county and the concurrence
of the Illinois Department of Agriculture is required, the proposed
revision for other cropland is no less effective than the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2). Therefore, we are approving the
new provision.
d. Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula Sampling Method.
Corn Sampling Technique. Illinois proposed to delete the current
row factor information under step 10 of its corn sampling technique and
replace it with ``average row width in feet x 15 feet of row / 43560
square feet/acre and .845 = the standard moisture content conversion
factor of corn per bushel (1.0-(15.5%/100).'' The existing table
provides a row factor for four row spacing widths of 30, 36, 38, and 40
inches. The table is being replaced by a formula for calculating a row
factor for any row width. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
816.116(a)(1) requires that standards for success and statistically
valid sampling criteria for measuring success shall be selected by the
regulatory authority and included in an approved regulatory program. We
find that Illinois' revision meets the requirements of the Federal
regulation, and we are approving it.
e. Exhibit A County Crop Yields by Soil Mapping Unit. Illinois
proposed to change the word ``high'' to the word ``optimum'' in columns
E and F.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) requires that the
standards for success shall include criteria representative of unmined
lands in the area being reclaimed to evaluate the appropriate
vegetation parameters of ground cover, production, or stocking. The
Illinois proposal is the result of replacing the obsolete soil master
file with Bulletin 811 that references optimum rather than high levels
of production for the State of Illinois. Bulletin 811 applies a
recognized standard of crop productivity as determined by the
University of Illinois, College of Agriculture and is consistent with
the Federal regulations. We find that the proposal to eliminate
outdated information and use a contemporary University agricultural
publication to support its standard is consistent with the Federal
regulations, and we are approving it.
f. Illinois proposed to delete Tables A through F from the ALPF.
The information in Tables A, B, and D is redundant of other information
found in the ALPF and the information in Tables C, E, and F are no
longer needed.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) requires that
standards for success and statistically valid sampling criteria for
measuring success shall be selected by the regulatory authority and
included in an approved regulatory program. Because these tables are
redundant or no longer needed, we find that the proposed deletions are
not inconsistent with the Federal regulations.
C. 62 IAC 1817.121 Subsidence Control
At subsection (c) entitled ``Repair of damage,'' Illinois proposed
to remove the last sentence from paragraph (2) and to make it the new
introductory paragraph to subsection (c). Illinois also proposed to add
a new exception clause to the end of the relocated sentence. The new
introductory paragraph reads as follows:
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).
Illinois removed the last sentence from paragraph (2) and made it
the introductory paragraph to subsection (c) in order to clarify that
all parts of subsection (c) are subject to the February 1, 1983, date.
Illinois added the exception clause because the replacement of water
supplies was effective January 19, 1996, the date that 62 IAC
1817.41(j) was promulgated, rather than the February 1, 1983, date. We
find that Illinois' proposed revisions are appropriate and will not
make the Illinois regulation at 62 IAC 1817.121(c) less effective than
the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 817.121(c), and we are
approving the revisions.
D. 62 IAC 1823.15 Prime Farmland: Revegetation
1. At subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3), Illinois proposed to add a
reference to new 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). As revised, subsection (b)(2)
requires that success of revegetation be measured in accordance with 62
IAC 1816.116(a)(4) or (a)(6). As revised, subsection (b)(3) now
requires that revegetation be considered a success when crop production
is equivalent to or exceeds the production standards of 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(4) or (a)(6) with 90 percent statistical confidence.
Currently approved 62 IAC
[[Page 71399]]
1816.116(a)(4) references the ALPF, which includes the yield standards
and sampling techniques to be used to evaluate success of revegetation
for cropland, including prime farmland, and pasture and/or hayland or
grazing land. As revised, 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(4) will also reference the
alternative method at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6). Proposed new 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(6) is an alternative to using the ALPF and includes an
optional method for determining the standard to be used to evaluate
success of revegetation for cropland and pasture and/or hayland or
grazing land. The currently approved method in the ALPF for calculating
the standard for determining success of revegetation is based on the
current level of yield for a soil type within the county. The
alternative method at proposed 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) for calculating
the standard for determining success of revegetation is based on an
average of the last five years of yield for a specific crop for a
specific soil type in the county.
The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(2) requires that soil
productivity be measured on a representative sample or on all of the
mined and reclaimed prime farmland area using the reference crop
determined under 30 CFR 823.15(b)(6). A statistically valid sampling
technique at a 90 percent or greater statistical confidence that has
been approved by the regulatory authority in consultation with the NRCS
must be used. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(6) requires
that the reference crop that will be used to prove soil productivity
must be selected from the crops most commonly produced on the
surrounding prime farmland. Illinois provided documentation of the NRCS
consultation process. In a letter dated December 17, 2004, the NRCS
stated that it concurs with the proposed rule changes and the revised
reference crop yield determinations and procedures will make for a
better rule (Administrative Record No. IL-5088). Therefore, we find
that Illinois' revised regulations at 62 IAC 1823.15(b)(2) and (b)(3)
are no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
823.15(b)(2) and (b)(3), and we are approving them.
2. Illinois also proposed to add the following requirement at the
end of subsection (b)(3): ``Once chosen by the permittee, the
productivity alternative in 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6) may not be modified
without approval from the Department.''
In accordance with the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.13(c), no
permit revision can be approved unless the application demonstrates and
the regulatory authority finds that reclamation as required by the Act
and regulatory program can be accomplished. Because, Illinois requires
that the productivity alternative under 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(6), once
chosen by the permittee, may not be modified without approval of the
Department, we find that the proposed requirement is no less effective
than the requirement of the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 774.13(c), and
we are approving it.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
On February 8, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section
503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various
Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Illinois
program (Administrative Record No. IL-5090). We received comments from
the NRCS. The NRCS responded on February 28, 2005 (Administrative
Record No. IL-5091), that it recommended that Illinois' reference to
the ``1999-2000 Illinois Agronomy Handbook'' be changed to ``current
Illinois Agronomy Handbook'' and questioned whether the reference to
``the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990'' needs to
be updated to the ``Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.''
These references that the NRCS wanted to change are found in
Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(2)(C) and
1817.116(a)(2)(C). As discussed in findings III.B.1, Illinois revised
these regulations in accordance with the NRCS comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that
relate to air or water quality standards issued 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 those air or water quality standards.
Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.
On February 8, 2005, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested
comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. IL-5090).
EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historical 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 February 8, 2005, we requested comments on Illinois'
amendment (Administrative Record No. IL-5090), but neither responded to
our request.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Illinois sent
us on February 1, 2005, and as revised on August 3, 2005.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 913, which codify decisions concerning the Illinois
program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to
make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA
requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that
process.
VI. 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
regulations.
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
[[Page 71400]]
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
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 regulations did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: September 21, 2005.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 913 is amended as
set forth below:
PART 913--ILLINOIS
0
1. The authority citation for part 913 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
0
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 submission Date of final
date publication Citation/description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
February 1, 2005.............. November 29, 2005 62 IAC
1816.116(a)(2)(C),
(a)(3)(C) and
(a)(3)(E), (a)(4),
(a)(4)(C) and (D),
(a)(6); 1816.
Appendix A; 1817.42;
1817.43(a)(2)(D),
(b)(3), (c)(3);
1817.116(a)(2)(C),
(a)(3)(C) and
(a)(3)(E), (a)(4),
(b)(2); 1817.121(c),
(c)(2);
1823.15(b)(2) and
(b)(3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71401]]
[FR Doc. 05-23401 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
