OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 1 of 7

COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 228 

August 1992 

Karen Jacobs, Esquire 

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals

Land Reclamation Division

300 West Jefferson Street - Suite 300 

P.O. Box 10137 

Springfield, Illinois 63791-0137 

TOPIC: INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISIONS AND INSIGNIFICANT PERMIT 

REVISIONS

INQUIRY: Illinois DMM is interested in obtaining information on IMCC-member states' 

regulations regarding these two topics: 

1. Incidental boundary revisions (IBRs): 

a. Is there a limit to the number of IBRs which may be issued under a single permit? 

b. Are acreage limitations imposed on IBRs? 

c. Have there been any OSM oversight concerns with the regulations or their 

implementation?

2. Insignificant permit revisions (IPRs): 

a. Are land use changes allowed via the IPR process? 

b. If so, under what criteria are they allowed, e.g., under a certain acreage limitation? 

c. What are the differences between an insignificant and a significant permit 

revision? 

d. Have there been any OSM oversight concerns with the use of the IPR process for 

land use changes or with any other aspect of the implementation of these state 

regulations? 

SEARCH RESULTS: A telephone survey of nine IMCC member states was conducted using 

the questions listed above. Results of the survey follow. Copies of state statutes, regulations or 

policies are attached, as indicated. Also included is a copy of COALEX State Inquiry Report - 

165, "Permit revisions; incidental boundary revisions" (1991). 

ALABAMA 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a/b. There is no limit to the number of IBRs allowed under a a/b. Land use changes are 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 2 of 7

single permit nor are there acreage or percentage limits. The IBR allowed under the IPR 

limitations are functional, i.e., if the baseline information covers process; however, the 

the area proposed to be added then the regulatory authority (RA) operator must go through 

considers it an IBR. If the revision involves a new property the public notice procedure. 

owner, it has to be advertised. 

c. There were some OSM oversight problems several years ago, c. A written policy defines 

nothing recently. when a revision is 

considered "incidental", 

"insignificant" or 

"significant"

d. There have been no OSM 

oversight concerns on this 

issue.

INDIANA 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a. There is no limit on the number of IBRs per permit term. a/b. Post-mining land use 

changes require an 

abbreviated revision 

process. Notice must be 

given to state agencies for 

their comments but public 

notice is not required. The 

appeal processes apply.

b. The additional acreage of each IBR request may not exceed 20 

acres or 10% of the original permit area. The aggregate of all 

coal removal IBRs may not exceed 10% of the original permit 

area. The aggregate of all non-coal removal IBRs may not 

exceed 15% of the original area. IBRs may not be used to avoid 

full permit revisions. 

c. Earlier in the program 

the abuse of the system.

there were oversight problems due to c. No additional acreage 

may be added through the 

IPR process. Changes may 

be made to the operations 

plan, etc., provided there is 

no "significant impact". 

d. Earlier in the program, 

there were some OSM 

concerns as a result of 

public complaints. As a 

result, the relevant statute 

was changed and the 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 3 of 7

regulations revised to better 

define different types of 

permit revisions. 

KENTUCKY 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a. Limits do not depend on the number of IBRs applied for. a/b/c. Applications for 

minor revisions, which do 

not require public 

advertisement, may be 

approved by state field 

offices. Applications for 

changes involving greater 

than 20 acres are considered 

major revisions and require 

public advertisement.

b. The statute and regulations regarding major and minor permit 

revisions were revised about a year ago: The area included in the 

IBR may not exceed 10% of the permitted area nor exceed a 

maximum of 20 acres. Additional conditions apply, e.g., the area 

to be added must be contiguous, lie within the same watershed, 

be required for "orderly continuation" for mining that coal seam, 

have been included in the baseline information, etc. No IBR will 

be issued when there is a change in the mining method or the 

area is considered "unsuitable for mining" or is part of a historic 

area. The additional area must conform to the reclamation plan. 

In the event that the operator applies for and receives a permit 

amendment and existing IBRs are incorporated into the permit, 

the 10% or 20 acre "clock" starts anew from zero. 

c. There have been no OSM oversight problems with this issue.

d. There have been no OSM 

oversight problems with this 

issue.

MARYLAND 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a. There is no limit to the number of IBRs per permit. a/b/c. There are 28 

conditions listed in the 

regulations which are 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 4 of 7

considered IPRs. 

b. The IBR is limited to 250 feet from the original perimeter of the 

permitted area. However, as the total acreage permitted must not 

change, an equal number of acres must be reduced from another 

part of the permitted area. 

c. There have been no OSM oversight problems. 

c. There have been no 

OSM oversight problems.

OHIO 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a. There are no limits on the number of 

under a single permit. 

IBRs which may be issued a/b. Certain kinds of land 

use changes may be 

allowed via the IPR 

process. 

b. Policy states that the limit for the IBR is 5% of the permitted 

area. In practice, an IBR limit of up to 10% may be considered, 

depending on the circumstances. 

c. There have been no OSM oversight problems with IBRs. c. The regulations list the 

revisions that are 

considered "significant"; 

revisions not listed are 

considered "insignificant".

d. New policies were 

developed as a result of 

OSM oversight problems 

that occurred about 5 years 

ago.

PENNSYLVANIA 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a. See the attached material. a/b. Land use changes are 

not allowed via the IPR 

process; such changes 

require public notice. 

b/c. Each IBR is limited to 5 acres for coal extraction; some 

additional acreage may be considered for support areas. An IBR 

will be considered under such conditions as a small, isolated area 

not seen at the time the original permit was approved; for survey 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 5 of 7

errors, etc. 

c. See the attached 

material.

d. There have been no OSM oversight problems. d. OSM recently reviewed 

Pennsylvania permit 

revisions and renewals. 

The report indicated that 

for 12 of 25 revisions an 

update CHIA should have 

been considered; some 

other revisions should have 

gone through the public 

notice process. 

TEXAS 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a. There are no limits on the number of 

single permit. 

IBRs allowed under a a. Compatible land use 

changes are allowed under 

the IPR process. 

b. An IBR may be issued if it is "necessary for" or will "facilitate" 

the mining operation, e.g., for roads, sedimentation ponds, 

diversions, etc. An IBR may not be issued to increase the actual 

mining area. [Policy] 

b. The criteria for these 

changes are broad; however, 

the operator must still meet 

all performance standards 

and there must be no 

"significant impact" on the 

environment. Acreage is a 

factor under certain 

revisions.

c. OSM raised concerns about the size of the Texas IBRs. Texas 

responded that while the number of acres allowed in some IBRs 

may seem large, the percentage of the IBR was not because the 

original permitted mine area was large.

c. The regulation lists what 

"significant" revisions are; 

by default, if the revision is 

not listed it is considered an 

"insignificant" revision. 

This is similar to the 1979 

federal rule.

d. OSM reviewed the 

revisions this year and 

determined that the 

regulations were broad but 

were not "arbitrary and 

capricious". 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 6 of 7

VIRGINIA 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a. Yes, there is a concern if more than one is requested. a/b. Land use changes are 

not allowed via the IPR 

process. 

b. An IBR will be issued after an analysis of the operator's 

justification for the IBR, the size of the original permitted area, 

etc. 

c. There have been no OSM oversight problems.

d. There have been no OSM 

oversight problems. 

WEST VIRGINIA 

INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISION INSIGNIFICANT 

PERMIT REVISION

a. There are no limits to the number of IBRs allowed under a a/b/c. Land use changes 

single permit. always require public notice 

and are considered 

"significant" permit 

revisions. 

b. Over the life of the permit, the IBRs are limited to 20% of the 

original permitted acreage to a maximum of 50 acres. 

c. There were no OSM oversight problems.

d. There have been no OSM 

oversight problems with this 

issue. 

ATTACHMENTS

A. ALABAMA: 

1. Memorandum from Randall C. Johnson, Director, Alabama Surface Mining 

Commission, "Revised Guidelines for Revisions" (1987). 

2. Rules of Alabama Surface Mining Commission, Sec. 880-X-8M-.06 (1982). 

Permit revisions.

B. INDIANA: 

1. 310 IAC 12-3-121 (1986). Permit revisions; revisions and renewals, etc. 

2. 310 IAC 12-3-82 (1982). Postmining land use. 

C. KENTUCKY: 

1. KRS Ann. Sec. 350.070 (Baldwin)(1991). Permit revisions. 

2. 405 KAR 8:010, Sec. 20 (1991). Permit revisions. 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 7 of 7

D. MARYLAND: COMAR 08.13.09.08 (1980). Permit review and transfer of permit rights. 

E. OHIO: 

1. Ohio Admin. Code 1501:13-4-06 (1986). Permit applications, revisions and 

renewals, etc. 

2. Ohio Admin. code 1501: 13-9-17 (1982). Postmining use of land. 

F. PENNSYLVANIA: 

1. Current Policy Guidelines, "Insignificant Boundary Corrections for Surface 

Mining Activities", Sec. II:02:03:1 (1986). 

2. PADER Coal Mining Regulations, Sec. 86.54 (1989). Public notice of permit 

revision. 

G. TEXAS: Railroad Commission of Texas, Surface Coal Mining Regulations, Sec. 

051.07.04.226 (1979). Permit revisions. 

H. VIRGINIA: 

1. Memorandum from Danny R. Brown, Commissioner, Division of Mined Land 

Reclamation, "Incidental Boundary Revision/Insignificant Permit Revision" 

(1992). 

2. Virginia Surface Mining Regulations, Sec. 480-03-19.774.13 (1985). Permit 

revisions. 

I. WEST VIRGINIA: 

1. West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations, Sec. 38-2-3 (1990). Incidental 

boundary revisions. 

2. West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations, Sec. 38-2-7 (1986). Criteria for 

approving alternative postmining use of land. 

3. West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations, Sec. 38-2-3 (1986). Permit revisions. 

4. West Virginia Surface Mining Regulations, "Addendum to Permit or Significant 

Revision of a Permit".

J. OSM DIRECTIVE, Subject No. REG-19, Transmittal No. 397, "Incidental Boundary 

Revisions" (1987). 

K. OSM DIRECTIVE, Subject No. REG-21, Transmittal No. 398, "Findings and 

Determinations for Revisions and Renewals of Federal Permits" (1987). 

L. Copies of survey conducted by IMCC for COALEX REPORT - 165. 

M. COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 165, "Permit revisions; incidental boundary 

revisions" (1991). [ONLY SURVEY RESPONSES INCLUDED - SEE ABOVE]