West Virginia Regulatory Program

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: December 28, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 249)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67445-67454]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de01-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 948
[WV-093-FOR]

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 a proposed amendment to the West Virginia surface
coal mining regulatory program (the West Virginia program) authorized
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or
the Act). The program amendment consists of changes to the Code of West
Virginia (W. Va. Code) as contained in Enrolled Senate Bill 5003. The
amendment creates a Special Reclamation Fund Advisory Council and
increases the special reclamation tax rate on coal to provide
additional revenues for the West Virginia Special Reclamation Fund.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director,
Charleston Field Office, 1027 Virginia Street East, Charleston, West
Virginia 25301. Telephone: (304) 347-7158.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the West Virginia Program
II. Background on West Virginia's Alternative Bonding System
III. Submission of the Amendment
IV. OSM's Findings
V. Summary and Disposition of Comments
VI. OSM's Decision
VII. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the West Virginia Program

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its program includes, among other things, ``* * * a State law which
provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the
Secretary pursuant to the Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On
the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the West Virginia program on January 21, 1981.
You can find background information on the West Virginia program,
including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and
conditions of approval of the West Virginia program in the January 21,
1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5915). You can also find later actions
concerning West Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR
948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 948.16.

II. Background on West Virginia's Alternative Bonding System (ABS)

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary conditionally approved West
Virginia's ABS. The ABS has two basic components: the site-specific or
incremental bond posted by the permittee and the Special Reclamation
Fund (the Fund), comprised of a special reclamation tax, civil penalty
assessments, and interest earned on the revenues, which is intended to
cover any reclamation costs in excess of the site-specific or
incremental bond.
At the time of approval, the Secretary required that the State
provide an actuarial study of the Fund demonstrating that the amount of
money going into the Fund would cover the demands to be placed on it,
along with any program changes needed to redress any deficiencies
identified by the actuarial study (46 FR 5956).
The State submitted an actuarial study on October 29, 1982
(Administrative Record No. WV-456). The study concluded that the Fund
was solvent, in part because it contained a funding mechanism (the
special reclamation tax) to provide for the cost of future reclamation.
On March 1, 1983 (41 FR 8447), we subsequently found that the State's
alternative bonding provisions were in accordance with section 509(c)
of SMCRA and the Federal criteria for approval of alternative bonding
systems at 30 CFR 806.11(b), which has since been recodified as 30 CFR
800.11(e). Consequently, we removed the condition (25) relating to our
approval of the State's ABS.
By 1988-89, our oversight evaluations indicated that the Fund
lacked sufficient revenue to reclaim all outstanding bond forfeiture
sites. In addition, the cash balance in the Fund ceased earning
interest because of losses suffered by the State's Consolidated
Investment Fund. On October 1, 1991, we notified the State, pursuant to
30 CFR 732.17(c) and (e), that a program amendment was necessary
because the Fund no longer met the requirements of 30 CFR 800.11(e).
In a series of amendments beginning in 1993, West Virginia revised
portions of its program in an attempt to resolve some of our concerns.
For example, the State increased its special reclamation tax from one
cent to three cents per ton of coal mined and adopted site-specific
bonding regulations. In addition, Deloitte and Touche, an accounting
and consulting company, completed an actuarial study of the Fund in
March 1993. The study concluded that the Fund had an accrual deficit
position as of June 30, 1992, but that the Fund would realize gradual
improvement over the next five years.
On October 4, 1995 (60 FR 51900), we announced our partial approval
of the State's amendments. However, as specified in 30 CFR 948.16
(jjj), (kkk), and (lll), we also required the State to amend certain
statutory provisions to fully eliminate the deficit in the Special
Reclamation Fund and to provide for treatment of pollutional discharges
from bond forfeiture sites.
OSM and the State conducted additional studies that were completed
in September 1997 and June 1999 to assess the financial condition of
the Fund. The studies found that the Fund could eventually be solvent
if its responsibilities were limited to land reclamation. However, the
studies also determined that treatment of pollutional discharges from
forfeited sites required additional revenue.
By letter dated September 29, 2000, we informed the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) that Federal corrective
action would be taken, unless the Legislature adopted the necessary
changes to the Fund to resolve the identified deficiencies
(Administrative Record No. WV-1181). However, the Legislature adjourned
without enacting the proposed changes.
On April 18, 2001, WVDEP requested additional time to develop and
obtain approval of statutory and regulatory changes to the State's
bonding provisions (Administrative Record No. WV-1206). In addition,
WVDEP requested that we conduct an informal review of a report entitled
``The Mountain State Clean Water Trust Fund.'' Under a plan that was
based on the report, WVDEP intended to bifurcate the Fund into two
distinct accounts, one for land reclamation and one for water
treatment.
In a letter dated June 29, 2001, we initiated corrective action
under 30 CFR 733.12(b). In that letter, which is known as a Part 733
notification, we notified the State that it must initiate certain

[[Page 67447]]

remedial measures by July 27, 2001, to satisfy the outstanding required
amendments at 30 CFR 948.16 (kkk), (jjj), and (lll) and that it must
submit the necessary, fully-enacted and adopted statutory and
regulatory revisions no later than 45 days after the end of the 2002
regular session of the Legislature (Administrative Record No. WV-1218).
As stated in the letter, if West Virginia failed to take these
measures, we intended to recommend that the Secretary partially
withdraw approval of the State program and implement a partial Federal
regulatory program.
On July 27, 2001, WVDEP submitted draft statutory and regulatory
revisions in response to our Part 733 notification (Administrative
Record No. WV-1231). The draft changes are commonly referred to as the
20/20 Plan.
By e-mail message dated August 8, 2001, WVDEP provided us with
additional draft legislative changes for informal review
(Administrative Record No. WV-1233A). The proposed revisions are
commonly called the 7-Up Plan.
On August 9 and August 28, 2001, we provided WVDEP our informal
review of the proposed statutory revisions that were submitted on
August 8 (Administrative Record Nos. WV-1233 and WV-1235). Under the
draft legislation, the special reclamation tax would be increased from
3 cents to 14 cents per ton of clean coal mined for 39 months and
reduced to 7 cents thereafter with biennial review by an advisory
council.
By letter dated August 13, 2001, WVDEP provided us with a schedule
for submitting statutory and regulatory revisions to the Legislature in
response to our Part 733 notification (Administrative Record No. WV-
1234). The letter specified that the State would formally submit the
program amendment to us by April 30, 2002. The letter also indicated
that the statutory changes could be presented to a special session of
the Legislature before that date.
We released our financial analysis of the State's draft legislation
on September 7, 2001 (Administrative Record No. WV-1236). In that
report, we concluded that the proposal would generate sufficient
revenues for about 9 years, but future adjustments would have to be
made to meet long-term needs of the Fund.
On September 15, 2001, a special session of the West Virginia
Legislature passed Senate Bill 5003, which is intended to eliminate the
deficit in the Fund and provide for water treatment at bond forfeiture
sites. The Governor of West Virginia (Governor) signed Enrolled Senate
Bill 5003 on October 4, 2001. The effective date of the bill is October
4, 2001, but none of the provisions could be implemented without OSM
approval. WVDEP submitted the legislation as a program amendment on
September 24, 2001 (Administrative Record No. WV-1238).

III. Submission of the Amendment

By letter dated September 17, 2001 (Administrative Record Number
WV-1237), the WVDEP notified us of the legislation that was approved
during a special session of the West Virginia Legislature. By letter
dated September 24, 2001 (Administrative Record Number WV-1238), the
WVDEP formally submitted the legislation as a proposed program
amendment.
As discussed in Section II of this preamble, the amendment,
consisting of statutory revisions, was submitted in response to our
Part 733 notification of June 29, 2001, and certain outstanding
required program amendments. In accordance with our Part 733
notification, the State informed us on November 30, 2001, that it is
developing regulatory changes that will be submitted to the Legislature
during the upcoming regular legislative session that begins on January
9, 2002 (Administrative Record Number WV-1253).
The amendment being considered today consists only of changes to
the W.Va. Code, as amended by Enrolled Senate Bill 5003. The amendment
adds W.Va. Code section 22-1-17, which establishes the Special
Reclamation Fund Advisory Council (Advisory Council). The amendment
also revises W.Va. Code 22-3-11 by increasing the special reclamation
tax rate and revises W.Va. Code 22-3-12 by deleting certain site-
specific bonding provisions.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment on October 24, 2001
(66 FR 53749). 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 (Administrative Record Number WV-1243).
While the amendment consists of Enrolled Senate Bill 5003, we also made
Engrossed Senate Bill 5003 available for public review and comment.
With a few exceptions, Engrossed Senate Bill 5003 is substantively
identical to Enrolled Senate Bill 5003. However, the engrossed bill
clearly shows, via underscoring and strikethroughs, most of the
statutory language that has been added to or deleted from the W.Va.
Code as a result of the enactment of Senate Bill 5003. We quoted the
new and revised provisions in their entirety in the October 24, 2001,
Federal Register notice in which we asked for public comment on the
amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting on the amendment
because no one requested one. The public comment period closed on
November 23, 2001.
We received comments on this amendment from the U.S. Department of
Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, we received comments from
the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (WVHC); Morgan Worldwide Mining
Consultants, Inc., consultant for the WVHC; and the West Virginia Coal
Association, Inc.
On November 6, the WVHC requested that the comment period on the
amendment be extended through December 14, 2001 (Administrative Record
No. WV-1245). On November 9, 2001, we denied the request
(Administrative Record Number WV-1245). See Section V., ``Public
Comments'' Item 4, ``Alleged abuse of discretion by failing to grant an
extension to the comment period,'' below.

IV. OSM's Findings

This section contains our findings on the amendment.
As stated above in Section II, we notified the State in accordance
with 30 CFR 733.12(b) that it must submit fully-enacted and adopted
statutory and regulatory revisions to fix its ABS within 45 days after
the close of the 2002 regular legislative session. We estimate this
deadline will occur about April 23, 2002. This rule announces our
decision to approve the amendment, based on the findings in this
section of the preamble. However, because of the complexity of the
issues concerning the long-term solvency of the ABS, we are deferring
decision on the broader issue of whether the State has fully fixed its
ABS. We will use the time remaining between now and the deadline
mentioned above to conduct further analysis and to allow all interested
parties the necessary time to complete a comprehensive review. We will
publish a separate notice in the Federal Register soliciting further
comments on the effect these amendments have on the ABS and whether
additional measures are needed to restore full consistency with Federal
ABS requirements.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(10), we must use the applicable criteria in
30 CFR 732.15 in approving or disapproving State program amendments.
Because this amendment pertains only to performance bonds, the
applicable

[[Page 67448]]

criteria are those in 30 CFR 732.15(b)(6). That paragraph provides that
the State regulatory authority must have the authority under State laws
and regulations--and the State program must include provisions--to
``[i]mplement, administer and enforce a system of performance bonds and
liability insurance, or other equivalent guarantees, consistent with
the requirements of subchapter J of [30 CFR Chapter VII].'' As
discussed in Section II of this preamble, the Secretary made the
finding required by 30 CFR 732.15(b)(6) when he conditionally approved
the West Virginia ABS on January 21, 1981, with full approval following
on March 1, 1983.
The relevant provisions of subchapter J are those in 30 CFR
800.11(e), which establishes criteria for approval of an ABS as part of
a State or Federal program. Therefore, our findings focus on those
provisions of the amendment relevant to the criteria in 30 CFR
800.11(e). We do not necessarily discuss changes that are not pertinent
to those criteria.
OSM Directive STP-1 interprets the requirements of 30 CFR 800.11(e)
as they pertain to State program amendment approval. Appendix 12 of
Directive STP-1 specifies that, once the Secretary approves an ABS, we
may approve subsequent revisions to the ABS through the State program
amendment process as long as those revisions do not adversely impact
previous findings. The directive further states that, when a proposed
amendment concerns an ABS that no longer meets the criteria in 30 CFR
800.11(e), we may approve the amendment even if it does not fully
remedy all deficiencies, provided we find that the amendment does not
adversely affect the solvency of the ABS. Based upon this rationale, we
may approve any amendment that improves the ABS, even as we defer on
the question of whether the amendment fully restores solvency or
compliance with the other requirements of 30 CFR 800.11(e).
We find that this amendment will improve the solvency of the ABS by
adding approximately $1.9 million per month to the Special Reclamation
Fund, beginning January 1, 2002. However, because this tax rate
increase cannot take effect without our approval, we believe that
delaying a decision on these funding enhancements until we decide the
broader question of whether the amendment fully satisfies 30 CFR
948.16(lll), as a commenter advocates, would be counterproductive. Our
findings do not attempt to determine whether the ABS as revised by this
amendment would be fully consistent with the criteria in 30 CFR
800.11(e). Instead, we conclude that the amendment improves the ability
of the ABS to comply with those criteria. As discussed above, we will
separately determine, after opportunity for further comment, whether
this amendment has satisfied all outstanding requirements or whether
additional measures are needed.
See Section II above, for a review of the history of our approval
of West Virginia's ABS and the circumstances that preceded the State's
submittal of this amendment.

1. W.Va. Code 22-1-17 Special Reclamation Fund Advisory Council

This new section creates the Advisory Council.
Purpose and Operation of the Advisory Council
Senate Bill 5003 creates the Advisory Council to ensure ``the
effective, efficient and financially stable operation of the special
reclamation fund.'' As required by W.Va. Code 22-1-17, the Advisory
Council must ``study the effectiveness, efficiency, and financial
stability of the special reclamation fund with an emphasis on
development of a financial process that ensures the long-term stability
of the special reclamation program.'' The Advisory Council must submit
an annual report to the West Virginia Legislature and the Governor on
the adequacy of the special reclamation tax (see Finding 2) and the
fiscal condition of the Fund. The report must include recommendations
as to whether any adjustments to the special reclamation tax should be
made, considering the cost, timeliness and adequacy of bond forfeiture
reclamation, including water treatment.
The Advisory Council will consist of eight members, including the
Secretary of the WVDEP (or designee), the Treasurer of the State of
West Virginia (or designee), and the Director of the National Mine Land
Reclamation Center at West Virginia University. In addition, the
Governor will appoint five members: four representing the interests of
the coal industry, environmental protection organizations, coal miners,
and the general public; and one who, by training and profession, is an
actuary or economist.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.11(e)(1) require that an ABS
ensure that the regulatory authority has sufficient money to complete
the reclamation plan for any areas which may be in default at any time.
We find that the Advisory Council, which has a statutory mandate to
study the effectiveness, efficiency, and financial stability of the
Fund, should prove useful in helping the ABS comply with 30 CFR
800.11(e). Therefore, we are approving the addition of W.Va. Code 22-1-
17 to the West Virginia program.

2. W.Va. Code 22-3-11 Bonds; Amount and Method of Bonding; Bonding
Requirements; Special Reclamation Tax and Fund; Prohibited Acts; Period
of Liability

a. Incremental Bonding--Bond Amount
In W.Va. Code 22-3-11(a), the State has increased the amount of the
penal bond from one thousand dollars per acre to not less than one
thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars for each acre or
fraction thereof. This revision clarifies that incremental bonding is
subject to the same per-acre bonding rate range as found in W.Va. Code
22-3-12(b)(1), which pertains to site-specific bonding of an entire
permit area.
We find that this change would improve the ability of the West
Virginia ABS to comply with 30 CFR 800.11(e). Therefore, we are
approving it.
b. Use of Funds
As amended, W.Va. Code 22-3-11(g) provides that moneys accrued in
the Fund are reserved for the purposes set forth in W.Va. Code 22-3-11,
which concerns bonds, and W.Va. Code 22-1-17, which concerns the
Advisory Council. The Legislature also added language to prohibit the
expenditure of moneys from the Fund to reclaim lands that are
``eligible for abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation funds under
article two of this chapter.''
The latter change is apparently related to section 402(g)(4)(B) of
SMCRA. As enacted on November 5, 1990, that provision authorizes use of
AML reclamation funds to perform land reclamation on, and treat
pollutional discharges of water from, (1) unreclaimed sites that were
mined after August 4, 1977, under a program other than a permanent
regulatory program approved by the Secretary, and (2) permanent program
bond forfeiture sites with surety bonds for which the surety became
insolvent on or before November 5, 1990. In both cases, SMCRA
authorizes use of AML reclamation funds only if funds available from
the bond or other form of financial guarantee or from any other source
are not sufficient to provide adequate reclamation or abatement.
West Virginia revised its Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation Act
and its AML Plan in response to the addition of section 402(g)(4)(B) to
SMCRA.

[[Page 67449]]

However, as discussed in the March 26, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR
16353, 16354), we deferred a decision on the State's proposed revisions
because they were not fully consistent with the Federal provisions.
Because of our deferral, addition of the phrase ``where the land is
not eligible for abandoned mine land reclamation funds under article
two of this chapter'' to W.Va. Code 22-3-11(g) does not preclude use of
moneys from the Fund to reclaim any site for which a bond is required
under 30 CFR Part 800 and section 509 of SMCRA. Therefore, we find that
this revision to W.Va. Code 22-3-11(g) is not inconsistent with the
bonding requirements of 30 CFR Part 800 and section 509 of SMCRA, and
we are approving it.
c. Water Treatment Expenditures
The State has deleted a provision in W.Va. Code 22-3-11(g) that
limited spending from the Fund for water treatment systems to 25
percent of the annual amount of the fees collected. This provision
restricted expenditures for water treatment purposes, without regard to
the amount needed to adequately treat such sites and ensure compliance
with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. The
deletion of this provision is necessary to provide for the complete
abatement or treatment of pollutional discharges of water from bond
forfeiture sites.
The deletion of the 25 percent limitation partially satisfies the
requirement codified at 30 CFR 948.16(jjj). However, to fully satisfy
this requirement, the State must also delete the 25-percent limitation
in its regulations at Code of State Regulations (CSR) 38-2-12.5(d).
Under 30 CFR 948.16(jjj) the State must revise W.Va. Code 22-3-11(g)
and CSR 38-2-12.5(d) to remove the limitation on the expenditure of
funds for water treatment or to otherwise provide for the treatment of
polluted water discharged from all bond forfeiture sites. As mentioned
above, WVDEP is in the process of further revising its regulations. The
State has said that it plans to delete the 25-percent limitation in its
regulations at CSR 38-2-12.5(d) during the upcoming regular legislative
session.
In addition, revised subsection 22-3-11(g) states that the
Secretary ``may,'' rather than ``shall,'' ``use the special reclamation
fund for the purpose of designing, constructing and maintaining water
treatment systems when they are required for a complete reclamation of
the affected lands * * *.'' Ordinarily, the use of the word ``may''
implies discretion. However, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
has determined that the WVDEP has a mandatory duty to use bond moneys
for acid mine drainage treatment. State ex rel. Laurel Mountain v.
Callaghan, 418 S.E.2d 580 (1990). Moreover, in a subsequent decision,
the Court held that W.Va. Code 22A-3-11(g), now codified as 22-3-11(g),
imposes upon the WVDEP ``a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to utilize
moneys from the SRF [Special Reclamation Fund]
* * *, to treat AMD
[acid mine drainage]
at bond forfeiture sites when the proceeds of the
forfeited bonds are less than the actual cost of reclamation.'' State
ex rel. West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. West Virginia DEP,
447 S.E.2d 920, 925 (1994).
Nevertheless, we have previously found that the word ``may,'' in
subsection (g), could not be approved because it provides the WVDEP
with the discretion not to use Fund moneys for water treatment. (60 FR
at 51902, October 4, 1995.) Therefore, we are requiring that the State
amend its program to specify that moneys from the Fund must be used,
where needed, to pay for water treatment on bond forfeiture sites.
Otherwise, we find that these amendments would improve the ability of
the West Virginia ABS to comply with 30 CFR 800.11(e) and that they are
not inconsistent with that regulatory provision. As such, we are
approving them. For the reasons discussed above, we are revising 30 CFR
948.16(jjj) to reflect the statutory changes and to require the State
to amend its program to specify that the Fund must be used, where
needed, to pay for water treatment on bond forfeiture sites.
d. Administrative Expenses
In W. Va. Code 22-3-11(g), the State deleted a reference to
Articles 2 and 4 of W. Va. Code Chapter 22. The revised provision now
only allows the WVDEP to expend up to 10 percent of the total annual
assets in the Fund to implement and administer the provisions of W. Va.
Code 22-3 and, to the extent that they apply to the Surface Mine Board,
W. Va. Code 22B-1 and 4. This revision is intended to prohibit the
expenditure of special reclamation funds for administrative activities
under Article 2, Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Act, and Article 4,
Surface Mining and Reclamation of Minerals Other Than Coal.
Given the current deficit in the Fund, we encouraged the State to
modify this language to limit expenditures from the Fund for
administrative expenses relating only to the special reclamation
program. Furthermore, as discussed in the March 20, 1986, Federal
Register and codified at former 30 CFR 948.15(i), before making any
withdrawals to cover administrative expenses unrelated to bond
forfeitures, West Virginia must request and receive OSM concurrence for
such withdrawals (54 FR 9649). To assist in restoring and maintaining
the financial solvency of the Fund, this requirement will continue to
apply to any withdrawals that are not related to bond forfeiture
reclamation administrative expenses.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that these revisions to W.
Va. Code 22-3-11(g) would improve the ability of the West Virginia ABS
to comply with 30 CFR 800.11(e). Therefore, we are approving them.
e. Special Reclamation Tax Rates/Financial Analysis
New W. Va. Code 22-3-11(h) increases the permanent special
reclamation tax rate from 3 cents per ton of clean coal mined to 7
cents per ton of clean coal mined. This subsection also levies an
additional tax of 7 cents per ton of clean coal mined for a period not
to exceed 39 months. Collection of both taxes will begin on or after
January 1, 2002. Coal refuse reprocessing operations that require a
surface mining permit must pay the tax on the clean coal obtained by
these mining methods.
Subsection 22-3-11(h) provides that the 7-cent permanent tax rate
may not be reduced until the Fund has sufficient moneys to meet the
State's reclamation responsibilities under W. Va. Code 22-3-11.
Furthermore, this tax rate will be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted
annually by the Legislature upon recommendation of the Advisory Council
(see Finding 1 above).
The increased per-ton tax assessments are intended to eliminate the
existing Fund deficit and assure that the Fund will have sufficient
moneys to meet the State's long-term water treatment responsibilities
and complete the reclamation plans of existing and future bond
forfeiture sites.
On September 7, 2001, we completed a financial analysis of a draft
version of a legislative submission that would have increased the
special reclamation tax rate (Administrative Record Number WV-1236). At
that time, we informed the State that based on our analysis, it
appeared that a proposed tax rate of 14 cents for up to 39 months and 7
cents thereafter would allow the WVDEP to eliminate the current Fund
deficit and meet land reclamation and water treatment needs for several
years. Our projections also indicated that, following the period of
surplus, the

[[Page 67450]]

liabilities of the Fund would exceed its assets in about nine years and
that future adjustments of the special reclamation tax rate would be
necessary to maintain a positive balance to meet future land
reclamation and water treatment needs.
However, as amended, the W. Va. Code provides several mechanisms
intended to prevent the Fund from deteriorating to a point where its
liabilities exceed its assets. First, W. Va. Code 22-3-11(h) provides
that the 7-cent permanent special reclamation tax rate may not be
reduced until the Fund has sufficient moneys to meet the State's
reclamation responsibilities established by law. Second, W. Va. Code
22-1-17 establishes the Advisory Council to ``ensure the effective,
efficient and financially stable operation of the Fund.'' If the
Advisory Council fulfills its obligations, the West Virginia
Legislature and the Governor will have the information and data they
need to make sound decisions and effective adjustments to the special
reclamation tax rate so that the Fund will maintain a positive balance
to meet existing and future land and water reclamation obligations.
In addition, W. Va. Code 22-1-17(f)(6) provides that the Advisory
Council must ``[s]tudy and recommend to the Legislature alternative
approaches to the current funding scheme of the special reclamation
fund, considering revisions which will assure future proper reclamation
of all mine sites and continued financial viability of the state's coal
industry.'' Because reclamation of mine sites includes meeting water
treatment obligations, and because subsection 22-1-17(f)(6) provides a
mechanism that, if properly implemented, could help assure proper
future reclamation, we believe this provision will greatly assist in
ensuring that the State is able to adequately address the Fund's long-
term bond forfeiture reclamation obligations.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the addition of W.
Va. Code 22-3-11(h) would improve the ability of the West Virginia ABS
to comply with 30 CFR 800.11(e). Therefore, we are approving it.
However, we are not deciding today whether the amendments satisfy
the outstanding required amendment pertaining to the financial adequacy
of the State's ABS at 30 CFR 948.16(lll). 30 CFR 948.16(lll) requires
that the State eliminate the deficit in the ABS and ensure that
sufficient money will be available to complete reclamation, including
the treatment of polluted water, at all existing and future bond
forfeiture sites. Commenters on the proposed amendments have expressed
concern that the Fund, as currently financed by these amendments, may
not maintain a positive cash balance to meet existing and future land
reclamation and water treatment needs. Commenters provided information
that we wish to more fully consider in our decision as to whether the
amendment fully satisfies the requirements of 30 CFR 948.16(lll).
Therefore, we will publish separately a new notice in the Federal
Register, soliciting further comments on this issue.
f. Funding Mechanism
In W. Va. Code 22-3-11(k), the State eliminated language providing
that the special reclamation tax must be collected whenever the
reclamation liabilities of the State exceed the accrued amount in the
Fund. This provision, in effect, allowed the accrued monies in the Fund
to sink below the level of its reclamation and water treatment
obligations. The deletion of this provision, in concert with the
addition of the new provision at subsection 22-3-11(h) that prohibits
the special reclamation tax rate from being reduced until the Fund has
a positive balance, together with the creation of the Advisory Council
at section 22-1-17, is designed to help assure that the Fund maintains
a positive balance to meet the State's land reclamation and water
treatment responsibilities.
The deletion of this language from W. Va. Code 22-3-11(k) satisfies
the requirement codified at 30 CFR 948.16(kkk) which provides that the
State must remove the provision at (former) W. Va. Code 22-3-11(g) that
allows collection of the special reclamation tax only when the Fund's
liabilities exceed its assets. For the reasons discussed above, we are
approving the deletion of the language and we are removing 30 CFR
948.16(kkk).
g. Implementation of Amendments
New W. Va. Code 22-3-11(n) provides that the modifications to W.
Va. Code 22-3-11 will become effective upon approval by the appropriate
Federal agency or official. This provision is consistent with the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g), which provide that no changes
to State laws or regulations may take effect for purposes of the State
program until approved as an amendment. Therefore, we are approving
this subsection.

3. W. Va. Code 22-3-12 Site-specific Bonding

This amendment deletes W. Va. Code 22-3-12(b), which contained
provisions requiring the formulation of legislative rules to implement
site-specific bonding requirements on an interim basis. West Virginia
subsequently developed and adopted those rules in November 1992. Those
rules remained in effect until April 1993, at which time the State
adopted final legislative rules. Therefore, W. Va. Code 22-3-12(b) is
no longer relevant.
This amendment also deletes W. Va. Code 22-3-12(f), which required
the WVDEP to report every 90 days on the progress in developing and
implementing the site-specific bonding requirements of W. Va. Code 22-
3-12. Final legislative rules, which are codified at CSR 38-2-11.6,
were adopted by the Legislature in 1993 and subsequently approved by
OSM in 1995.
Neither of the deleted subsections has a Federal counterpart. We
find that their deletion will not have an adverse impact on the ability
of the West Virginia ABS to meet the criteria in 30 CFR 800.11(e).
Therefore, we are approving their removal from the West Virginia
program.

V. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

In response to our request for comments from the public on the
proposed amendment (see Section III of this document), we received
comments from the WVHC; Morgan Worldwide Mining Consultants, Inc., a
consultant for the WVHC; and the West Virginia Coal Association, Inc.
(WVCA). Our summary and disposition of those comments appears below.
1. Criteria for Approving State Program Amendments
a. The WVHC alleged that we have no authority to approve the
amendment because the amendment does not fully satisfy all outstanding
requirements concerning the ABS. In particular, the WVHC argued against
use of the rationale that the amendment would incrementally improve the
effectiveness of the bonding system as a basis for approval of the
amendment. According to the WVHC, approval of the amendment on that
basis would be illegal because the ABS would remain in noncompliance
with federal law. The WVHC argued that use of this rationale ``would
eviscerate the requirements for an adequate alternative bonding system
in 30 CFR 800.11(e) and 30 CFR 948.16(lll), and would allow incremental
improvements over a long period of time that never achieved those
requirements.'' The WVHC further stated that deferral of an analysis of

[[Page 67451]]

whether the ABS as revised by the amendment would satisfy the
requirements of 30 CFR 948.16(lll) would cause an unreasonable delay in
remedying the inadequacies of the ABS.
Neither SMCRA nor the Federal regulations prohibit us from
approving a proposed amendment that improves a deficient State program.
It would be counterproductive for us to do otherwise. As discussed in
Finding 2 above, we believe the amendment will greatly assist in
ensuring that the West Virginia ABS is able to comply with the Federal
ABS requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e). Therefore, we are approving it.
However, we are deferring our decision as to whether these changes
allow us to remove the language at 30 CFR 948.16(lll), which requires
that West Virginia submit an amendment to eliminate the ABS deficit and
``to ensure that sufficient money will be available to complete
reclamation, including the treatment of polluted water, at all existing
and future bond forfeiture sites.'' As also discussed in Finding 2, we
will open a new comment period to provide all interested parties with
the opportunity to fully assess and comment on the impact that the
amendment will have on the State's ABS and comment on whether the
amendment is sufficient to justify removal of the required amendment at
30 CFR 948.16(lll). When that comment period closes, we will address
all comments received in response to that comment period as well as all
comments received in response to the comment period for this amendment
that we have not responded to in this preamble.
b. The WVCA alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with Federal
law and regulations because ``SMCRA neither addresses the need to bond
for potential discharges of polluting water, nor does it create a
special fund to supplement site specific bonds to aid in that
reclamation.'' However, the WVCA argued that we must nonetheless
approve the amendment because ``[t]he provisions of Sec. 505(b) of
SMCRA expressly provide that a State law that imposes requirements not
found in SMCRA, or ones more stringent than those required by the
federal program are not legally defective by reason of that
inconsistency.''
We disagree with the commenter on both points. As discussed in
Finding A.1.b. in the October 4, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 51900,
51901-02), which concerns a different West Virginia ABS amendment, both
SMCRA and the Federal regulations effectively require that the bond
cover the cost of completing the reclamation plan in the event of
forfeiture, including the expense of treating any postmining
pollutional discharges that develop. And section 509(c) of SMCRA
expressly provides for the development of alternative bonding systems
such as the one in place in West Virginia. Each ABS must meet the
criteria established in 30 CFR 800.11(e).
With respect to the commenter's second argument, section 505(a) of
SMCRA prohibits us from superseding a State law or regulation ``except
insofar as such State law or regulation is inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act.'' Section 505(b) provides that we may not
construe State laws or regulations that provide for more stringent land
use and environmental controls as inconsistent with SMCRA. It also
provides that any provision of State law or regulation ``for which no
provision is contained in this Act shall not be construed to be
inconsistent with this Act.'' In other words, section 505 precludes us
from superseding a State statutory or regulatory provision merely
because the State provision is more stringent or has no Federal
equivalent. However, contrary to the commenter's assertion, section 505
places no affirmative duty on us to approve the pertinent provision as
part of the State program. Furthermore, we would not approve a State
provision that has no direct SMCRA counterpart if we determined that
the State provision would conflict with a SMCRA-related requirement.
2. Reclamation Cost Estimates
The WVHC stated that we misled the public and State Legislature by
claiming that the amendment would solve the State's decades-long ABS
deficit. Specifically, the WVHC stated that our September 7, 2001,
financial analysis of the draft version of this amendment grossly
misrepresents the ability of the amendment to raise sufficient revenues
to make the fund solvent, and provide an adequate reserve to promptly
reclaim future forfeiture sites. We disagree.
We note that the commenters on the amendment widely disagree on the
effectiveness of the amendment to solve the financial problems of the
ABS. However, our September 7, 2001, financial analysis represents our
best estimate of the effect that the draft version of the amendment
would have on the ABS, given the information available to us at the
time. By giving commenters and ourselves more time, during the new
comment period referenced above, to study the potential impacts of the
proposed changes, we will assure a well reasoned decision as to whether
the amendment fully rectifies the long-term financial problems of the
ABS.
3. Requirement to Bond for Treatment of Pollutional Discharges
The WVCA stated that SMCRA does not address the need to bond for
potential discharges of polluting water and that our authority to
impose that requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(lll) remains in question. The
WVCA noted that the National Mining Association has filed suit in
Federal court in Tennessee to have a similar program requirement there
declared illegal. For these reasons, the WVCA asserted, our reference
to 30 CFR 948.16(lll) is inappropriate.
The litigation referred to by WVCA (National Mining Association v.
Norton, Civil Action No. :00-0549, E.D. Tenn.) has no current impact on
the validity of the mandate imposed by OSM at 30 CFR 948.16(lll).
Indeed, the court in that litigation has not yet decided whether SMCRA
requires operators to post bonds to cover the costs of pollutional
discharge treatment. Moreover, for the reasons stated in that
litigation, and in our response to comments in this rulemaking in Item
1.b. above, we believe that SMCRA clearly does require operators to
treat pollutional discharges during and after mining and reclamation
until all applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards
are met, and that, therefore, bonds must be posted to cover the costs
of such treatment. We have stated this principle in several documents,
including our decision on a prior West Virginia amendment as announced
in the October 4, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 51900, 51902), and our
March 31, 1997, ``Policy Goals and Objectives on Correcting, Preventing
and Controlling Acid/Toxic Mine Drainage.'' For these reasons, we
disagree with WVCA's assertion that the requirement in 30 CFR
948.16(lll) is inappropriate.
4. Alleged Abuse of Discretion by Failing to Grant an Extension to the
Comment Period
In a letter dated November 6, 2001 (Administrative Record Number
WV-1245), the WVHC requested an extension of the public comment period
on the State program amendment. By letter dated November 9, 2001
(Administrative Record Number WV-1246), we denied the request. WVHC
stated in its comments to this amendment that we abused our discretion
by denying its request.
We declined to reopen the comment period for two reasons. One, an
extension would delay our decision on

[[Page 67452]]

the amendment, which could result in a loss of badly needed revenues,
possibly $1.9 million per month, to the Fund. Two, we agree with WVHC
that, because of the complexity and the volume of material related to
questions about how the amendment will affect the West Virginia
program, additional time is needed by all interested parties to assess
the effect of the amendment. Consequently, we have decided to open a
new comment period on the broader question of whether the amendment
fully satisfies the requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(lll) concerning the
adequacy of the State's ABS. The new comment period will allow WVHC and
all interested parties, including OSM, valuable additional time needed
to thoroughly review those materials and assess whether the changes
fully correct the deficiencies in the State's ABS.
Comments submitted in response to the comment solicitation for the
amendment that we are approving today need not be resubmitted. All
comments submitted on the current amendment that we have not addressed
in this preamble will be addressed in full following the closure of the
new comment period.
5. Other WVHC Comments
The WVHC stated that the proposed amendment satisfies 30 CFR
948.16(kkk), but not 30 CFR 948.16(jjj) nor (lll). We agree that the
amendment satisfies 30 CFR 948.16(kkk). See Finding 2.f. However, as we
state in Finding 2.c., the amendment partially satisfies 30 CFR
948.16(jjj). To fully satisfy 30 CFR 948.16(jjj), the State must also
delete the 25-percent limitation for water treatment in its regulations
at CSR 38-2-12.5(d).
As we state in Finding 2.e., we are deferring our decision as to
whether the amendment satisfies 30 CFR 948.16(lll) regarding the
adequacy of the ABS. We will open a comment period in the near future
to solicit comments on whether the amendment satisfies 30 CFR
948.16(lll).
6. Morgan Worldwide Mining Consultants, Inc. Comments
All of the comments submitted by this commenter pertain to our
September 7, 2001, financial analysis of the draft version of the
amendment submitted by the State. As we discussed above, we will
address all comments relating to our September 7, 2001, financial
analysis at a later date. We will open a new comment period to ask for
comments relating to 30 CFR 948.16(lll).
7. Other WVCA Comments
This WVCA expressed support for the amendment and urged us to
approve the amendments. As noted above in the findings, we are
approving the amendments.
The WVCA complimented the WVDEP and the State Legislature for
developing comprehensive legislation that, it said, will address the
question of proper funding for bond forfeiture sites. In response, we
note that although we are approving the amendments, we are not deciding
today the broader question of whether the amendment satisfies 30 CFR
948.16(lll), regarding the adequacy of the ABS. We will open a new
comment period to ask for comments relating to 30 CFR 948.16(lll).
The remaining comments submitted by this commenter pertain to our
September 7, 2001, financial analysis of the draft version of the
amendment submitted by the State. We will address all comments relating
to our September 7, 2001, financial analysis in a decision we will
ultimately render on the broader issue of whether the amendment
satisfies the requirements of 30 CFR 948.16(lll).

Federal Agency Comments

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 West Virginia program
(Administrative Record Number WV-1239). The U. S. Department of Labor,
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) responded and stated that
it finds no issues or impact upon miner's health and safety with the
State amendment (Administrative Record Number WV-1248).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Comments

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (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 West
Virginia made in this amendment pertain to air or water quality
standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA for its concurrence on this
amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), by letter dated September 28,
2001(Administrative Record No. WV-1239), we requested comments from EPA
on this amendment (Administrative Record Number WV-1238). The EPA
responded by letter dated November 13, 2001 (Administrative Record
Number WV-1247). The EPA commended the State for eliminating the 25-
percent expenditure limitation for water treatment. As we noted in
Finding 2.c. above, the deletion of the 25-percent limitation only
partially satisfies the required program amendment codified at 30 CFR
948.16(jjj). The State still needs to revise its regulations to conform
with the statutory changes.
The EPA also recommended eliminating the 39-month limit on the
temporary tax. According to the EPA, this restriction could result in
insufficient funds for possible future acid mine drainage treatment
needs. The EPA stated that the State Legislature would always have the
option on an annual basis to adjust the tax rate downward when the Fund
is determined to have sufficient resources.
As discussed in Finding 2.e. above, the legislation provides that
the permanent 7-cent tax rate ``may not be reduced until the special
reclamation fund has sufficient moneys to meet the reclamation
responsibilities. * * *''
In addition, as noted in that finding, the amendment provides an
appropriate mechanism, via the Advisory Council, to effectively manage
and monitor the financial condition of the Fund and the adequacy of the
special reclamation tax. Therefore, we are approving the amendment.
However, we plan to solicit further comments to determine if the
State's ABS provides for the amount of financial resources and kinds of
assurances that EPA feels is necessary if the State is to meet long-
term water treatment needs at bond forfeiture sites.

VI. OSM's Decision

Based on the above findings, we are approving the amendment
submitted by West Virginia on September 24, 2001. In addition, we are
removing the required program amendment at 30 CFR 948.16(kkk).
We are also revising 30 CFR 948.16(jjj) to reflect the statutory
changes and to require the State to amend its program to specify that
moneys from the Fund must be used, where needed, to pay for water
treatment on bond forfeiture sites. We are also taking this opportunity
to update obsolete information at 30 CFR 948.10 and 948.20. The changes
to 30 CFR 948.10 and 948.20 are technical revisions that do not require
public comment.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 948, which codify decisions concerning the West Virginia
program. Our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(12)

[[Page 67453]]

specify that all decisions approving or disapproving amendments will be
published in the Federal Register and that they will be effective upon
publication, unless the notice specifies a different date. We are
making this final rule effective immediately to expedite the State
program amendment process and to assist the State in making its program
conform with the Federal standards as required by the Act.

VII. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12630--Takings

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule
meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that
section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual
language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because
each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 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 regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: December 13, 2001.
Tim L. Dieringer,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR 948 is amended as
set forth below:

PART 948--WEST VIRGINIA

1. The authority citation for Part 948 continues to read as
follows:

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

2. Section 948.10 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 948.10 State regulatory program approval.

The West Virginia program, as submitted on March 3, 1980, as
clarified on July 16, 1980, and as resubmitted on December 19, 1980, is
conditionally approved, effective January 21, 1981. Beginning on that
date and continuing until July 11, 1985, the Department of Natural
Resources was deemed the regulatory authority in West Virginia for all
surface coal mining and reclamation operations and all exploration
operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands. Beginning on July 11,
1985, the Department of Energy was deemed the regulatory authority

[[Page 67454]]

pursuant to the program transfer provisions of Enrolled Committee
Substitute for House Bill 1850, as signed by the Governor of West
Virginia on May 3, 1985. Beginning on October 16, 1991, the Division of
Environmental Protection was deemed the regulatory authority pursuant
to Enrolled Committee Substitute for House Bill 217 that was signed by
the Governor on October 25, 1991. On December 3, 1991, OSM found that
it was not necessary to amend the State program to effect the
redesignation of the regulatory authority from the Division of Energy
to the Division of Environmental Protection (58 FR 42904, August 12,
1993). Beginning on April 14, 2001, the Department of Environmental
Protection was deemed the regulatory authority pursuant to Enrolled
Committee Substitute for House Bill 2218. The bill, which was signed by
the Governor on April 30, 2001, transferred programs and redesignated
the Division of Environmental Protection as the Department of
Environmental Protection within the executive branch. Copies of the
conditionally approved program, as amended, are available at:
(a) Office of Surface Mining, Charleston Field Office, 1027
Virginia Street East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301-2816. Telephone:
(304) 347-7158.
(b) West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Mining and Reclamation, 10 McJunkin Road, Nitro, West Virginia
25143-2506. Telephone: (304) 759-0510.

3. Section 948.15 is amended by adding a new entry to the table in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:

Sec. 948.15 Approval of West Virginia regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of publication of
Original amendment submission date final rule Citation/description of approved provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
September 24, 2001................. December 28, 2001..... W. Va. Code 22-1-17; 22-3-11(a), (c), (d), (g)
through (n); 22-3-12(a) through (f).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Section 948.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(kkk) and revising paragraph (jjj) to read as follows:

Sec. 948.16 Required regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *
(jjj) By March 28, 2002, West Virginia must submit either a
proposed amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed,
together with a timetable for adoption, to revise CSR 38-2-12.5(d) to
remove the 25-percent limitation on the expenditure of funds for water
treatment or to otherwise provide for the treatment of polluted water
discharged from all bond forfeiture sites. In addition, the State must
amend its program to specify that moneys from the Special Reclamation
Fund must be used, where needed, to pay for water treatment on bond
forfeiture sites.
* * * * *

5. Section 948.20 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 948.20 Approval of State abandoned mine land reclamation plan.

The West Virginia Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan as submitted on
October 29, 1980, and as amended on December 12, 1980, is approved
effective February 23, 1981. Copies of the approved plan are available
at the following locations:
(a) Office of Surface Mining, Charleston Field Office, 1027
Virginia Street East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301-2816. Telephone:
(304) 347-7158.
(b) West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Abandoned
Mine Lands and Reclamation, 10 McJunkin Road, Nitro, West Virginia
25143-2506. Telephone: (304) 759-0521.

[FR Doc. 01-31612 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

West Virginia Regulatory Program

Local Navigation