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. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 902 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

Allen D. Klein, 

Director, Western Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 902 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 902—ALASKA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 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: 

§ 902.15 Approval of Alaska regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission 

date 

Date of final 

publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

May 11, 2004 ................................. 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. 

§ 902.16 [Amended] 

■ 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). 

[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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 

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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 

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 

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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 

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. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that the Illinois program does not 

regulate coal exploration and surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on Indian lands. Therefore, the Illinois 

program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 

U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

program provisions do not constitute 

major Federal actions within the 

meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, 

which is the subject of this rule, is based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

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. 

■ 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: 

§ 913.15 Approval of Illinois regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment submission 

date 

Date of final 

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). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71401 

[FR Doc. 05–23401 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Fiscal Service 

31 CFR Part 356 

Sale and Issue of Marketable BookEntry Bills, Notes, and Bonds; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, 

Fiscal Service, Treasury. 

ACTION: 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. 

ADDRESSES: You can download this 

correction at the following Internet 

address: http:// 

www.publicdebt.treas.gov. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. 

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: 

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) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 356 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3102 et 

seq.; 12 U.S.C. 391. 

■ 2. In § 356.17, add paragraphs (d)(1) 

and (d)(2), to read as follows: 

§ 356.17 How and when do I pay for 

securities awarded in an auction? 

* * * * * 

(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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[OPPT–2004–0111; FRL–7740–7] 

RIN 2070–AJ12 

2-ethoxyethanol, 2-ethoxyethanol 

acetate, 2-methoxyethanol, and 2- 

methoxyethanol acetate; Significant 

New Use Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

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), 2- 

methoxyethanol (CAS No. 109–86–4) (2- 

ME), 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 http:// 

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