Illinois Regulatory Program

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 913

[SPATS No. IL-089-FOR]

Illinois Regulatory Program

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

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed amendment to the Illinois

regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as the ``Illinois

program'') under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). Illinois requested that OSM reconsider two regulations

disapproved in a previously proposed amendment to the Illinois program

and submitted explanatory information in support of its request. These

regulations concern the determination of revegetation success for non-

contiguous surface disturbance areas less than or equal to four acres.

The additional explanatory information is intended to clarify the

regulations by providing an interpretation statement and specifying

procedures and evaluation criteria that would be used in the

implementation of the regulations. The amendment is intended to improve

operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Director,

Indianapolis Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania

Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1521, Telephone: (317) 226-

6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Illinois Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director's Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director's Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Illinois Program

On June 1, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally

approved the Illinois program. Background information on the Illinois

program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of approval can be found in the June 1,

1982, Federal Register (47 FR 23883). Subsequent actions concerning the

conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR

913.15, 913.16, and 913.17.

By letter dated February 3, 1995 (Administrative Record No. IL-

1615), Illinois submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant

to SMCRA. OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the

February 27, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 19522). The public comment

period ended March 29, 1995. A public hearing was requested, and it was

held on March 24, 1995. OSM identified concerns relating to the

proposed amendment, and notified Illinois of these concerns by letters

dated April 28 and August 3, 1995 (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1649

and IL-1660, respectively). By letter dated November 1, 1995

(Administrative Record No. IL-1663), Illinois responded to OSM's

concerns by submitting revisions to its proposed amendment. OSM

reopened the public comment period in the December 5, 1995, Federal

Register (60 FR 62229). The public comment period closed on January 4,

1996. OSM approved the proposed amendment with certain exceptions and

additional requirements on May 29, 1996 (61 FR 26801). The exceptions

were the Director's decision not to approve some of the proposed

regulations. This amendment addresses two of those regulations.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

By letter dated August 5, 1997 (Administrative Record No. IL-1670),

the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and

Minerals (OMM) requested that OSM reconsider its May 29, 1996, decision

not to approve Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and

1817.116(a)(3)(F). Illinois resubmitted the regulations with an

interpretation statement, program procedures, and evaluation criteria

for implementation of them. These regulations concern the determination

of revegetation success for non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas

less than or equal to four acres. By letters dated September 26 and

November 3, 1997 (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1671 and IL-1672), OMM

provided additional explanatory information to clarify the procedures

and evaluation criteria that would be used in the implementation of the

proposed regulations.

Based upon its request for reconsideration and the additional

explanatory information submitted by Illinois, OSM reopened the public

comment period in the December 23, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR

67014). The public comment period closed on January 7, 1998.

III. Director's Findings

Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the

proposed amendment.

Illinois proposed the following regulatory language at 62 IAC

1816.116(a)(3)(F) for surface coal mining and 62 IAC 1817.116(a)(3)(F)

for underground coal mining.

Non-contiguous areas less than or equal to four acres which were

disturbed from activities such as, but not limited to, signs,

boreholes, power poles, stockpiles and substations shall be

considered successfully revegetated if the operator can demonstrate

that the soil disturbance was minor, i.e., the majority of the

subsoil remains in place, the soil has been returned to its original

capability and the area is supporting its approved post-mining land

use at the end of the responsibility period.

Illinois' proposal would exclude non-contiguous, surface

disturbance areas of less than or equal to four acres from productivity

testing to prove revegetation success. In OSM's May 29, 1996, decision

not to approve Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and

1817.116(a)(3)(F), the practicality of excluding the need to test for

revegetation success for small areas such as signs, boreholes, power

poles, and other small and minimally disturbed areas was recognized.

OSM explained that in order for it to approve this type of proposal,

Illinois would need to provide additional language that would more

closely correlate the maximum acreage to the types of activities which

would qualify for the exemption. Also, Illinois would need to provide

additional language as to what would constitute a satisfactory

demonstration of minimum disturbance, achievement of original

capability, and achievement of postmining land use. As discussed below,

OMM provided additional information to meet each of OSM's conditions

for reconsideration of

[[Page 17095]]

its proposed regulations by providing an interpretation statement,

program procedures, and evaluation criteria that would be used in the

implementation of the regulations.

1. Interpretation Statement

OMM provided the following interpretation for the proposed

regulatory language at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F):

Non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas, with an approved land

use of cropland or pasture/hayland, less than or equal to four acres

which:

1. Have minor soil disturbances from activities such as signs,

boreholes, power poles, stockpiles and substations;

2. Have the majority of the subsoil remaining in place; and

3. Were not affected by coal or toxic material handling, may use

the following procedures for determination of revegetation success,

in lieu of Section (a)(4).

(i) The operator must document the required three criteria of

(F) above have been met.

(ii) The affected area is successfully supporting its approved

post mining land use when compared to the similar, adjacent

unaffected areas at the end of the responsibility period.

The Department will evaluate areas requested by the operator,

using qualified individuals, and determine them successfully

revegetated, if it finds subsection (i) and (ii) have been met. The

Department will require the area to be tilled with conventional

agricultural subsoiler or deeper as it deems necessary.

Illinois' interpretation clarifies that only those non-contiguous

areas of less than or equal to four acres that have been subject to

surface disturbance only and have an approved land use of cropland or

pasture/hayland will qualify under the proposed regulations. It

clarifies that these areas are only exempt from the requirements of 62

IAC 1816.116(a)(4) and 1817.116(a)(4) concerning the use of

Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula (ALPF) at 62 IAC 1816.Appendix

A to measure production. The ALPF contains the approved sampling

methods used by Illinois to determine success of revegetation for areas

designated in the approved reclamation plan as cropland, pasture,

hayland, or grazing land. The interpretation statement clarifies that

areas affected by coal or toxic material handling will not be eligible

under the proposed regulations. It clarifies that OMM will require the

areas to be tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, when

warranted, a deep tiller and that OMM will use qualified individuals to

evaluate the revegetated areas. The Director finds that Illinois'

interpretation of its proposed regulations provides the necessary

clarification that is lacking in the language of the regulations.

2. Correlation of the Maximum Acreage to the Types of Activities and

Demonstration of Minimum Disturbance

OMM proposed a four acre maximum under the recommendation of the

Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA). OMM enclosed a letter dated

September 10, 1997, from the IDOA which supports the proposed amendment

(Administrative Record No. IL-1671). The IDOA agreed that small

isolated areas of four acres or less should not be subject to the full

sampling procedures under the Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula.

The IDOA stated that based on its experience with cropland restoration

under the ALPF, it firmly believed the four-acre threshold is practical

and represents a reasonable approach to the evaluation of cropland and

hayland at Illinois mines. The IDOA in cooperation with the OMM

implements the Agricultural Lands Productivity Formula.

OMM explained that the proposed regulation language describes minor

disturbance as an area where the majority of the subsoil remains in

place. It also is intended to include areas where topsoil removal was

not required. OMM would ensure all non-toxic contaminants are either

prevented from mixing with the subsoil or are adequately removed

without significant loss of in-place subsoil. It would require the use

of techniques such as engineering fabrics to be placed prior to rock

placement where it deems it appropriate. Areas affected by coal or

toxic material handling would not be eligible under the proposed

regulation. OMM would differentiate the minor disturbances into three

main types.

(1) Areas where topsoil was left in place. Signs, markers and power

poles are common examples. A disturbed area is generally less than .25

acres. The type of disturbance is so minor and small that sampling of

these areas is impractical.

(2) Areas where topsoil was removed and stockpiled and the subsoil

was left in place. Common examples include rock dust holes and

electrical substations. The disturbed area rarely exceeds one acre.

Typically a bulldozer is used to remove and stockpile the topsoil for

these areas. Bulldozers possess a ground pressure less than or equal to

conventional farm equipment. In order to alleviate any soil compaction,

OMM will require the area to be tilled with a conventional agricultural

subsoiler or, if necessary, a deep tiller.

(3) Areas where the topsoil was removed and stockpiled and portions

of the area were excavated for foundations or for shaft construction.

Subsoils were stockpiled where necessary and later replaced during

reclamation of the site. A disturbed area may approach four acres.

Scrapers and excavators may be used in preparing these areas for use.

Amny foundations existing on site will be removed from the rooting

zone. In order to alleviate any soil compaction, OMM will require the

area to be tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, if

necessary, a deep tiller.

Most surface coal mining permits in Illinois are issued for several

hundred acres or more, with some issued for over 1,000 acres. A common

occurrence at surface mines is a fringe of surface disturbance only

areas adjacent to the mined areas. These surface disturbance only areas

are surrounded by unaffected land and usually have been used for signs,

markers, power poles, or electrical substations. Most non-contiguous,

minor disturbance areas associated with underground mines are permitted

under Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC 1785.23 for minor underground

mine facilities not at or adjacent to the processing or preparation

facility or area. The types of facilities permitted under these

regulations include air shafts, fan and ventilation buildings, small

support buildings or sheds, access power holes, other small

miscellaneous structures and associated roads. These small isolated

areas are surrounded by unaffected land. The Director finds that

Illinois has provided adequate information to correlate the maximum

acreage to the types of activities that would qualify under the

proposed regulations and has provided a satisfactory explanation of

what constitutes minimum disturbance.

3. Achievement of Original Capability. In its letter of September

26, 1997, OMM stated that the process of the permittee planting of the

crop and OMM's evaluating the crop is the ``demonstration of

capability,'' if it is determined the crops are successful.

On May 2, 1994 (finding 16.C, 59 FR 22513, 22514), OSM made the

following applicable findings concerning the achievement of original

capability in the preamble discussion of a proposed amendment submitted

by the State of Ohio.

Section 515(b)(2) of SMCRA requires that land affected by

surface coal mining operations be restored to a condition capable of

supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any

mining or to higher or better uses of which there is a reasonable

likelihood. However, this capability demonstration is independent of

the

[[Page 17096]]

revegetation requirements of paragraphs (b)(19) and (b)(20) of

section 515(b) of SMCRA * * * Indeed, in the preamble to 30 CFR

816.133(a) as revised on September 1, 1983 (48 FR 39892, 39897), the

Secretary states that:

[T]he final rule emphasizes the land's capability, both with

regard to premining uses and higher or better uses, in this

implementation of Section 515(b)(2) of the Act. This requirement is

distinct from the revegetation or prime farmland rules, which under

some circumstances may require actual production on the reclaimed

land as a measure of successful reclamation.

Furthermore, section 508(a) of SMCRA and its legislative history

(S. Rep. No. 128, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 77 (1977)) provide that the

demonstration that premining capability can and will be restored

must be made as part of the reclamation plan submitted with the

permit application. Thus, the land use restoration requirements of

section 515(b)(2) are addressed primarily through the permit

application review process, and compliance is achieved by adherence

to the reclamation plan and other performance standards such as

those pertaining to toxic materials, topsoil, and backfilling and

grading. No separate capability demonstration is necessary upon the

completion of mining and reclamation.

The permits which contain the non-contiguous, surface disturbance

areas of four acres or less are subject to all of the permit

application review processes of the approved Illinois program. These

areas also must adhere to the approved reclamation plans and the toxic

materials, topsoil, and backfilling and grading performance standards

of the approved Illinois program. The minor disturbances, discussed in

the above finding under item 2, should have minimal impact on the pre-

mining soil capability. Also, Illinois' requirement that the area be

tilled with a conventional agricultural subsoiler or, if necessary, a

deep tiller would alleviate what impact did occur. Therefore, based

upon this discussion and OSM's May 2, 1994, policy finding regarding

the demonstration of pre-mining capability, the Director finds that the

approved Illinois program will assure the achievement of original

capability for non-contiguous, surface disturbance areas of less than

or equal to four acres.

Achievement of Postmining Land Use. OMM would assess the success of

the area by the determination the area is supporting its post mining

use and there were no observable differences between these areas and

adjacent unaffected areas. OMM would not use this testing procedure if

coal or other toxic material were to be handled in the immediate

affected area. OMM would require at a minimum the area to be tilled

with an agricultural subsoiler, preferably before topsoil replacement.

In the event of poor crop performance on areas being evaluated,

Illinois will require tillage to greater depths as deemed appropriate,

based on timing, soil handling techniques, and equipment used for

reclamation. If mitigation efforts are still unsuccessful, Illinois

would require soil penetrometer testing and deeper tillage if deemed

appropriate. Areas topsoiled to date will be evaluated in their current

state, if a subsoiler has already been through the soil. OMM explained

that all determinations of the success of these small areas will be

done by qualified individuals experienced in the field of agronomy and

soils. OMM's staff currently includes an individual certified under

ARCPACS. ARCPACS: A Federation of Certifying Boards in Agriculture,

Biology, Earth and Environmental Sciences is a certification program

that certifies professionals in agronomy and soils, who possess

sufficient education and experience in these fields. Certified

individuals are bound by a code of ethics, regarding their professional

opinion and conduct. Illinois has persons other than ARCPACS certified

persons available for crop evaluations. They include persons who are

currently involved in the ALPF testing program such as IDOA personnel

and U.S. Department of Agriculture crop enumerators.

The evaluation of the crop would be done near the time of the

harvest of the crop grown. Hay would be required in a pasture land use

and corn or soybeans would be required in a crop land use. The

observation would be done for a minimum of two years of the

responsibility period, excluding the first year. No phase III bonds

would be released before the fifth year of the responsibility period.

OSM notes that an inspection and evaluation of the reclamation work

involved would also be conducted upon receipt of a bond release request

in accordance with Illinois' regulation at 62 IAC 1800.40(b). The

Director finds that Illinois has adequate procedures and qualified

individuals to determine whether the small, minimally distributed areas

have achieved their postmining land use.

In accordance with section 101(f) of SMCRA, OSM has always

maintained that the primary responsibility for developing, authorizing,

issuing and enforcing regulations for surface coal mining and

reclamation operations should rest with the States. The absence of

minimum standards in portions of the Federal rules is not a weakening

of revegetation requirements but reflects that the rules are designed

to account for regional diversity in terrain, climate, soils, and other

conditions under which mining occurs. OMM in its implementation of the

Illinois program has found that it is impracticable to test crop

productivity on small isolated areas. Several of these non-contiguous,

minimally disturbed areas have been reclaimed for several years. From a

practical standpoint, it is usually difficult to identify precisely

where such areas are located in the field once revegetation is

established in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. As

discussed earlier, OSM recognizes the practicality of excluding the

need to test for revegetation success for small minimally disturbed

areas. Although OSM provided exceptions in the Federal regulations from

the full performance standards for soil removal and prime farmland for

minor disturbance areas at 30 CFR 816.22(a)(3), 817.22(a)(3),

823.11(a), 823.12(c)(2), and 823.14(d), OSM did not consider the

eventual need for exceptions from the full requirements of the Federal

revegetation standards for success at 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116 for

minimally disturbed areas. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.22(a)(3) and 817.22(a)(3) authorize the regulatory authority to

approve an exception from the requirement to remove topsoil for

minimally disturbed areas for surface and underground mines, including

operations on prime farmland, for minor disturbances which occurs at

the site of small structures, such as power poles, signs, or fence

lines. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.11(a) authorizes the

regulatory authority to approve an exemption from prime farmland

performance standards for coal preparation plants, support facilities,

and roads of underground mines that are actively used over extended

periods of time and where such uses effect a minimal amount of land.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.12(c)(2) and 823.14(d) authorize

the regulatory authority to approve an exception from the requirement

to remove and reconstruct B and C soil horizons when the B and C

horizons would not otherwise be removed by mining activities and where

soil capability can be retained, such as areas beneath surface mine and

underground mine support facilities. OSM recognizes that standards

sampling methods may not be practical for the small minimally disturbed

areas that will be eligible under Illinois' regulations at 62 IAC

1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F). These areas will still subject

to the general revegetation requirements of Illinois' counterparts to

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111 and 817.111. With the

exception of the

[[Page 17097]]

sampling methods approved of measuring revegetation success for

cropland and pastureland at 62 IAC 1816.Appendix A, these areas will

also be subject to the applicable revegetation standards for success

and responsibility periods contained in Illinois' counterparts to 30

CFR 816.116 and 817.116. Disturbance of the limited types referenced by

Illinois for these small areas should have minimal impact on soil

productivity, if any. Also, areas this small would have a negligible

impact on the overall production of the surrounding non-mined cropland

or pastureland. Illinois has established that qualified individuals

experienced in the fields of agronomy and soils that have the

experience and ability to make valid determinations as to whether a

diverse, effective permanent vegetative cover has been successfully

established will evaluate these small areas. The interpretation,

program procedures, and evaluation criteria provided in Illinois'

letter of August 5, 1997, as modified by its letters of September 26

and November 3, 1997, should ensure that these minimally disturbed

areas are capable of achieving a productivity level compatible with the

approved postmining land uses and that crop production will be at least

equal to that of the surrounding unmined lands. Therefore, the Director

finds that requiring these areas to be evaluated by the statistically

valid sampling methods approved in the Illinois program would be

impractical.

Based on the above discussions, the Director is approving Illinois'

proposed regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F)

in combination with its August 5, 1997, interpretation statement,

program procedures, and evaluation criteria as modified by its letters

dated September 26, 1997, and November 3, 1997. Also, since approval of

these regulations will satisfy the required amendment codified at 30

CFR 913.16(x), it is being removed. The Director wants to emphasize

that this method for determining revegetation success is only being

approved for small, minimally disturbed areas.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

OSM solicited public comments on the proposed amendment, but none

were received.

Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited

comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with

an actual or potential interest in the Illinois program during its

review of Illinois' February 3, 1995, proposed amendment

(Administrative Record Nos. IL-1618 and IL-1664). The Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) was the only agency to comment on Illinois'

proposed regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F).

Although it did comment on aspects of the proposed language, the NRCS

concurred with the State's objective in proposing the rules

(Administrative Record Nos. IL-1657, June 7, 1995, and IL-1661, July

20, 1995). The concerns expressed by the NRCS were that compaction

alleviation be required, eligible activities be identified, a maximum

size area be designated, and minimum soil disturbance be defined. As

shown above in the preamble discussion, OSM took the NRCS concerns into

consideration during its evaluation of Illinois' request for

reconsideration of its May 29, 1996, decision on the proposed

regulations.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the

written concurrence of the EPA with respect to those provisions of the

proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality

standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

None of the revisions that Illinois proposed to make in this amendment

pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not

request the EPA's concurrence.

State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM is required to solicit

comments on proposed amendments which may have an effect on historic

properties from the SHPO and ACHP. OSM solicited comments from the SHPO

and ACHP during its review of Illinois' February 3, 1995, proposed

amendment (Administrative Record Nos. IL-1618 and IL-1664). The SHPO

concurred with Illinois' proposed amendment on March 3, 1995

(Administrative Record No. IL-1624(A)). The proposed regulations

addressed in this final rule have no effect on historic properties.

Therefore OSM did not solicit additional comments from the SHPO or

ACHP.

V. Director's Decision

Based on the above findings, the Director approves Illinois'

regulations at 62 IAC 1816.116(a)(3)(F) and 1817.116(a)(3)(F) as

submitted on February 3, 1995, and as revised on November 1, 1995, in

combination with the interpretation statement, program procedures, and

evaluation criteria to be used in the implementation of the regulations

as submitted on August 5, 1997, and as revised on September 26, 1997,

and November 3, 1997.

The Director approves the regulations as proposed by Illinois with

the provision that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the

regulations submitted to and review by OSM and the public and that the

interpretation statement, program procedures, and evaluation criteria

proposed by Illinois be used in the implementation of the regulations.

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 913, codifying decisions

concerning the Illinois program, are being amended to implement this

decision.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and

Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required

by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.

However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of

State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.

Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30

CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State

regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must

be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is

consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and

whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since

section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency

decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not

constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

[[Page 17098]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon

corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small

entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements

previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In

making the determination as to whether this rule would have a

significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and

assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a

cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, state, or

tribal governments or private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 27, 1998.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 913 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 913--ILLINOIS

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

follows:

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

2. Section 913.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as

follows:

Sec. 913.15 Approval of Illinois regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

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

Original amendment Date of final

submission date publication Citation/description

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

* * * *

* * *

August 5, 1997......... April 8, 1998.......... 62 IAC

1816.116(c)(3)(F);

1817.116(a)(3)(F);

Interpretation

Statement, Program

Procedures, and

Evaluation Criteria

for 62 IAC

1816.116(a)(3)(F) and

1817.116(a)(3)(F).

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

Sec. 913.16 [Amended]

3. Section 913.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph

(x).

[FR Doc. 98-9174 Filed 4-7-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M