[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26130-26136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10972]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 948

[WV-080-FOR]


West Virginia Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with certain exceptions, amendments to the 
West Virginia permanent regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as 
the West Virginia program) under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The amendment consists of the 
revisions to the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations. 
The amendments are intended to improve the operational efficiency of 
the West Virginia program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2000.

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. Submission of the Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the West Virginia Program

    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 the conditions of the 
approval in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register at 46 FR 5915-5956. 
Subsequent actions concerning the West Virginia program and previous 
amendments are codified at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 
948.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated May 11, 1998 (Administrative Record Number WV 
1086), the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) 
submitted an amendment to its approved regulatory program pursuant to 
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(b). The amendment consists of 
revisions to CSR 38-2, the State's Surface Mining Reclamation 
Regulations, which the Governor signed on April 12, 1998.
    We published the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on 
June 15, 1998 (63 FR 32632). The public comment period closed on July 
15, 1998. Since no one requested an opportunity to speak at a public 
hearing, we did not hold a hearing.

III. Director's Findings

    Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the 
amendments to the West Virginia regulatory program.

1. CSR 38-2-2  Definitions

    West Virginia is amending the definition of ``Coal Remining 
Operation'' in CSR 38-2-2.25 to mean a coal mining operation on lands 
which would be eligible for expenditures under section 22-2-4 of the 
West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (WVSCMRA). 
Section 22-2-4(c) provides that lands and water eligible for 
reclamation are those which were mined for coal or which were affected 
by the mining, waste banks, coal processing or other coal mining 
processes, and abandoned or left in an inadequate status prior to 
August 3, 1977, and for which there is no continuing reclamation 
responsibility. This language is substantively identical to the 
corresponding Federal provision in section 404 of SMCRA. Section 22-2-
4(c) also includes certain lands for which bond forfeiture proceeds are 
inadequate to completely reclaim the site, as authorized by section 
402(g)(4) of SMCRA. Hence, the State definition is substantively 
identical to the Federal definition of ``lands eligible for remining'' 
at 30 CFR 701.5, which provides that the term ``means those lands that 
would otherwise be eligible for expenditures under section 404 or under 
section 402(g)(4) of the Act.''
    The State also is amending the definition of ``Remined Area'' in 
CSR 38-2-2.102 to mean the area of any coal remining operation. This 
definition has no precise Federal counterpart, but we find that it is 
not inconsistent with the Federal definition of ``lands eligible for 
remining'' at 30 CFR 701.5 or any other SMCRA-related provision. Hence, 
it can be approved.

2. CSR 38-2-3.14  Removal of Abandoned Coal Refuse Disposal Piles

    West Virginia has revised paragraphs a. and b. of subsection 3.14 
by replacing the term ``special permit'' with the term ``reclamation 
contract'' and by replacing ``permit application'' and ``application'' 
with ``request.'' The State also made numerous other revisions to this 
subsection. For the reasons set forth below, these revisions need not 
be discussed here.
    Subsection 3.14 authorizes the State to issue reclamation contracts 
``solely for the removal of existing abandoned

[[Page 26131]]

coal processing waste piles.'' It further provides that, ``if the 
average quality of the refuse material meets the minimum BTU value 
standards to be classified as coal, as set forth in ASTM Standard D 
388-88, a request which meets all applicable requirements of this 
section shall be required.'' In addition, subsection 3.14.c. implies 
that the State may issue a reclamation contract for operations that 
involve on-site reprocessing of abandoned coal refuse piles.
    While we approved previous versions of subsection 3.14, our 
approval was limited to the removal of abandoned refuse piles that do 
not meet the definition of coal in 30 CFR 700.5. For example, in 1990, 
at 30 CFR 948.12(k)(4), we disapproved the initial version of 
subsection 3.14 ``to the extent that it applies to the removal of 
abandoned coal mine refuse piles where the material being removed meets 
the definition of coal (ASTM Standard D 388 77).'' 55 FR 21304, 21313-
14, May 23, 1990. We based that decision on the definition of ``surface 
coal mining operations'' in 30 CFR 700.5, which specifically includes 
``the extraction of coal from coal refuse piles.'' The term 
``extraction'' includes both the removal of coal refuse material that 
already meets the definition of coal and the on-site reprocessing of 
coal refuse to separate coal from waste rock and other materials. SMCRA 
and the Federal regulations do not establish lesser permitting 
requirements for the extraction of coal from coal refuse piles than 
they do for other types of remining operations.
    Subsection 3.14 is less stringent than SMCRA and less effective 
than the Federal regulations because it would allow the issuance of a 
reclamation contract for the removal of coal refuse piles that meet the 
definition of coal rather than requiring that such operations obtain a 
standard regulatory program permit for surface coal mining operations 
as do the Federal regulations. In addition, subsection 3.14.c. is less 
stringent than SMCRA and less effective than the Federal regulations to 
the extent that it may be interpreted as authorizing the State to issue 
a reclamation contract rather than a surface coal mining operations 
permit for on-site reprocessing operations. As discussed above, under 
the Federal definition of surface coal mining operations in 30 CFR 
700.5, all on-site reprocessing operations that separate coal from 
other materials in the pile must be regulated as surface coal mining 
operations.
    Therefore, we are not approving subsection 3.14 to the extent that 
it would apply to the removal of abandoned coal mine refuse piles 
where, on average, the material to be removed meets the definition of 
coal in 30 CFR 700.5. In addition, we are not approving subsection 3.14 
to the extent that it could be interpreted as applying to the on-site 
reprocessing of abandoned coal refuse piles.
    Otherwise, we take no position on the revisions that West Virginia 
has made to subsection 3.14. As we stated in 1990, ``the removal, 
transport and use (without onsite reprocessing) of coal mine refuse 
which does not meet the definition of `coal' set forth in 30 CFR 700.5; 
i.e., ASTM Standard D 388-77, is not subject to regulation [under 
SMCRA].'' 55 FR 21314, May 23, 1990.
    Consistent with this decision, we are requiring that West Virginia 
amend its program to either: (1) Delete subsection 3.14; or (2) revise 
subsection 3.14 to clearly specify that its provisions apply only to 
activities that do not qualify as surface coal mining operations as 
that term is defined in 30 CFR 700.5; i.e., that subsection 3.14 does 
not apply to either the removal of abandoned coal mine waste piles 
that, on average, meet the definition of coal or to the on-site 
reprocessing of coal mine waste piles. If the State chooses the second 
option, it should also submit the sampling protocol that will be used 
to determine whether the refuse piles meet the definition of coal. The 
sampling protocol must be designed to ensure that no activities meeting 
the definition of surface coal mining operations escape regulation 
under the State counterpart to SMCRA and the Federal regulations.
    The previous discussion notwithstanding, the removal or 
reprocessing of any coal refuse pile may qualify for the government-
financed construction exemption under section 528(2) of SMCRA. Section 
528(2) of SMCRA states that SMCRA shall not apply to the extraction of 
coal as an incidental part of Federal, State, or local government-
financed highway or other construction under regulations established by 
the regulatory authority. Section 22-3-26(b) of the WVSCMRA contains a 
similar provision.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 707 provide the standards 
for implementing SMCRA section 528(2). Essentially, part 707 provides 
that, to be exempt from regulation as a surface coal mining operation 
under SMCRA, coal extraction must be a component of a government-
financed construction project, and the extraction of coal must be 
incidental to the construction. CSR 38-2-3.31 is the approved West 
Virginia program regulation governing government-financed highway or 
other construction exemptions that are exempt from the provisions of 
WVSCMRA.
    On February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7469-83), we amended the definition of 
``government-financed construction'' at 30 CFR 707.5 to provide that 
government funding of less than 50 percent of a project's costs may 
qualify if the construction is undertaken as an approved abandoned mine 
reclamation project under Title IV of SMCRA. We also added 30 CFR 
874.17, which establishes requirements and procedures for reclamation 
projects receiving less than 50 percent government funding. The West 
Virginia program lacks counterparts to the revised Federal definition 
of ``government-financed construction'' at 30 CFR 707.5 and the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 874.17. Therefore, at present, the government-
financed construction exemption is not available to West Virginia 
projects with less than 50 percent government financing.

3. CSR 38-2-3.32  Findings--Permit Issuance

    Subsection 3.32.d.12 is amended by replacing the reference to 
former subsection 14.16 with a reference to new section 24, where the 
performance standards applicable only to remining operations have been 
relocated. We find this change to be a non-substantive organizational 
revision that does not render the State program less stringent than 
SMCRA or less effective than the Federal regulations.
    In addition, West Virginia is replacing the phrase ``and prior to 
August 3, 1977'' with ``would be eligible for expenditures under 
Section 4, Article 2 of Chapter 22.'' We find that this revision is 
approvable because it is consistent with the Federal definition of 
``lands eligible for remining'' at 30 CFR 701.5, a term that appears in 
30 CFR 773.15(c)(13), the Federal counterpart to the West Virginia 
provision.
    West Virginia also proposes to add subsection 3.32.g to read as 
follows: ``The prohibition of subsection c. shall not apply to a permit 
application due to any violation resulting from an unanticipated event 
or condition at a surface mine eligible for remining held by the 
applicant.'' The Federal counterpart to this new provision is 30 CFR 
773.15(b)(4). However, the State rule lacks a counterpart to the 
restrictions that 30 CFR 773.15(b)(4) places on the exception. 
Therefore, the proposed amendment is less effective than 30 CFR 
773.15(b)(4) and it cannot be approved. In addition, the State 
provision is less effective than its Federal counterpart because it 
does not

[[Page 26132]]

define the meaning and limits of the term ``unanticipated event or 
condition'' as does 30 CFR 773.15(b)(4)(ii).

4. CSR 38-2-14.14.a.1. Disposal of Excess Spoil

    This subdivision is amended by adding language to allow excess 
spoil to be deposited on abandoned mine lands and/or bond forfeiture 
sites under a reclamation contract pursuant to Section 28 of WVSCMRA. 
The new language requires that the permittee obtain right of entry and 
any necessary approvals from the appropriate environmental agencies or 
other agencies. The WVDEP stated that these changes will allow the 
director to issue no-cost reclamation contracts to a permittee to 
reclaim abandoned and forfeited sites.
    We recently approved an amendment to the Pennsylvania program that 
authorizes the placement of excess spoil on AML reclamation project 
sites (64 FR 14610, March 26, 1999). The Pennsylvania amendment 
authorizes the use of excess spoil from a valid, permitted coal mining 
operation for the reclamation of an abandoned, unreclaimed area outside 
the permit area. As a prerequisite for approval, we informed 
Pennsylvania that the Commonwealth must either handle these projects as 
traditional Federally funded AML reclamation projects or identify the 
administrative, financial, contractual and environmental safeguards 
that will be applied to these ``no-cost'' government-financed 
construction contracts. In addition, Pennsylvania also needed to show 
how the safeguards would ensure the same level of environmental 
protection as that provided by traditional Federally funded AML 
reclamation projects.
    The same standard applies to West Virginia. That is, West Virginia 
must either limit excess spoil disposal to traditional Federally funded 
AML reclamation projects or identify alternative procedures that will 
afford the same level of protection.
    The proposed amendment at CSR 38-2-14.14.a.1. provides that the 
disposal of excess spoil on abandoned mine lands must be conducted 
under a reclamation contract pursuant to section 22-3-28 of WVSCMRA and 
``this rule.'' The meaning of the phrase ``this rule'' is unclear. 
While it could mean all of subsection 14.14, this is unlikely, because 
14.14.c. limits placement of excess spoil to permitted areas and 
approved AML reclamation projects. If these restrictions are meant to 
apply to projects authorized under 14.14.a.1., then the new provision 
is superfluous, since it would not expand the universe of sites 
eligible for excess spoil disposal. In particular, the authorization to 
place excess spoil on bond forfeiture sites would be meaningless, since 
it would be limited to bond forfeiture sites that are also eligible for 
and approved for AML reclamation funding--and such sites are already 
candidates for excess spoil placement pursuant to subsection 14.14.c. 
Therefore, we believe the phrase ``this rule'' means subsection 
14.14.a. Consequently, our analysis must focus on the issue of whether 
section 22-3-28 of WVSCMRA and subsection 14.14.a. of the regulations 
provide safeguards that will ensure the same level of environmental 
protection as that provided by Federally funded AML reclamation 
projects.
    In authorizing the issuance of ``no cost'' contracts for 
reclamation projects, section 22-3-28(e) of WVSCMRA provides no 
specific safeguards for the disposal of excess spoil on abandoned mine 
lands. CSR 38-2-14.14.a. contains some safeguards, such as the 
requirement that acid and toxic-forming materials be covered with 
nonacid, nontoxic and noncombustible materials (14.14.a.5.) and the 
requirements for slope protection (14.14.a.6.) and postmining land use 
suitability (14.14.a.7.). However, there is no meaningful performance 
incentive, such as the requirement to file a bond, to ensure completion 
of reclamation in accordance with the contract. And neither the statute 
nor the regulations provide an alternate guarantee that the necessary 
reclamation will be completed, such as commitment of AML moneys or 
other sources of funding. Because section 22-3-28 of WVSCMRA and CSR 
38-2-14.14.a. do not contain safeguards that will ensure the same level 
of environmental protection as that provided by a permit and bond or by 
Federally funded AML reclamation projects, we are not approving CSR 38-
2-14.14.a.1. at this time.
    We recommend that the WVDEP identify the specific provisions of 
section 22-3-28 of the WVSCMRA and CSR 38-2-14.14 that apply to the 
placement of excess spoil on abandoned mine lands. The WVDEP should 
also clarify that spoil may only be placed on sites eligible for 
reclamation under the abandoned mine land reclamation program and 
listed on the abandoned mine land inventory. The program also must 
require that excess spoil placed on bond forfeiture sites be placed in 
accordance with the reclamation plan of the forfeited permit.
    In short, the WVDEP must provide safeguards that will ensure the 
same level of environmental protection as that provided by a permit and 
bond issued under the State's approved regulatory program, or as 
provided by a Federally funded AML reclamation project. When these 
safeguards are developed, we encourage the WVDEP to resubmit its 
amendment concerning the disposal of excess spoil on abandoned mine 
lands and bond forfeiture sites for our review. At that time, we will 
also reconsider the proposed amendments to sections 22-3-3(u)(2)(3) and 
22-3-28(e) of WVSCMRA to the extent that they authorize reclamation of 
abandoned mine lands and bond forfeiture sites under no-cost 
reclamation contracts.

5. Redesignation of CSR 38-2-14.16 Through 38-2-14.19

    As discussed in Finding 9, West Virginia is incorporating CSR 38-2-
14.16 into new section CSR 38-2-24. As a consequence of this action, 
CSR 38-2-14.17 is redesignated as CSR 38-2-14.16; CSR 38-2-14.18 is 
redesignated as CSR 38-2-14.17; and CSR 38-2-14.19 is redesignated as 
CSR 38-2-14.18. These are non-substantive organizational changes that 
do not render the West Virginia program less effective than the Federal 
regulations.

6. CSR 38-2-14.18  Disposal of Noncoal Mine Wastes

    West Virginia is deleting subsection 14.18.d. (formerly codified as 
subsection 14.19.d.) because it conflicts with CSR 38-2-8.2.e., which 
was added during the last legislative session. In our approval of CSR 
38-2-8.2.e., we noted that 30 CFR 948.16(ttt) continued to require that 
the State regulations at CSR 38-2-14.19.d. (now 14.18.d.) concerning 
the windrowing of timber be amended. We also noted that West Virginia 
indicated that 38-2-14.19.d. (now 14.18.d.) would be deleted in a 
future rulemaking session, which would satisfy this requirement. See 64 
FR 6201, 6209 (February 9, 1999).
    For this reason, we find that the State's deletion of CSR 38-2-
14.18.d. does not render the West Virginia program less effective than 
the Federal regulations. In addition, we are removing 30 CFR 
948.16(ttt) for the same reason.

7. CSR 38-2-22.5.l  Removal of Abandoned Coal Refuse Piles

    Subsection 22.5.l applies to the removal or reprocessing of 
abandoned coal refuse piles under CSR 38-2-3.14 and subsection 22-3-
28(d) of WVSCMRA. West Virginia is revising this subsection by deleting 
the term ``special permit'' and replacing it with ``reclamation 
contract'' to more accurately reflect actual practice. Therefore, we 
find that this change is

[[Page 26133]]

non-substantive. However, as discussed in Finding 2, we are not 
approving CSR 38-2-3.14 to the extent that it applies to the on-site 
reprocessing of any abandoned coal mine waste piles or to the complete 
or partial removal of abandoned refuse piles that meet the definition 
of coal in 30 CFR 700.5.

8. CSR 38-2-23  Special Authorization for Coal Extraction as an 
Incidental Part of Development of Land for Commercial, Residential, or 
Civic Use

    This new section would allow special authorization for coal 
extraction as an incidental part of development of land for commercial, 
residential, industrial, or civic use. The section contains provisions 
for applicant information, site development and sampling information; 
provisions for approval of a notice of intent for coal extraction as an 
incidental part of development of land for commercial, residential, or 
civic use; performance standards; expiration of a notice of intent coal 
extraction as an incidental part of development; escrow release; notice 
on site; and public records. The WVDEP explained that the new language 
is intended to implement new statutory provisions. The new provisions 
(subsections 22-3-28 (a) through (c) of WVSCMRA) allow the director to 
apply lesser standards to coal extraction conducted as an incidental 
part of development of land for commercial, residential, industrial, or 
civic use.
    On February 9, 1999 (64 FR 6204, Finding 12), we found subsections 
22-3-28 (a) through (c) of WVSCMRA to be less stringent than sections 
528 and 701(28) of SMCRA and therefore unapprovable. As noted in that 
finding, the Interior Board of Surface Mining Appeals (IBSMA), which 
was subsequently incorporated into the Interior Board of Land Appeals 
(IBLA), twice ruled that ``the extraction of coal as an incidental part 
of privately financed construction is not an activity excluded as such 
from the coverage of the * * * regulatory program.'' See James Moore, 1 
IBSMA 216 (1979) and Gobel Bartley, 4 IBSMA 219 (1992). In addition, we 
have previously determined that subsections 22-3-28 (a) through (c) of 
WVSCMRA are inconsistent with SMCRA. See Finding 14.4 at 46 FR 5915, 
5924 (January 21, 1981). Therefore, we are not approving CSR 38-2-23. 
Furthermore, we are requiring that West Virginia revise its regulations 
to remove CSR 38-2-23.

9. CSR 38-2-24  Performance Standards Applicable Only to Remining 
Operations

    This section is largely new. However, subsections 24.1.a. through 
24.1.l. were formerly codified as subsections 14.16.a. through 14.16.l, 
subsection 24.2.a. was previously codified as subsection 14.16.m, and 
subsection 24.3 was previously codified as subsection 14.16.n. Because 
the redesignated subsections are otherwise unchanged, we find that the 
redesignation does not render the State program less effective than 
SMCRA and the Federal regulations.
    We also note that redesignated subsection 24.3 concerns only the 
standards for issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permits for remining operations. We have no jurisdiction 
over the NPDES program. Therefore, subsection 24.3 is not subject to 
review and approval under SMCRA and we do not consider it to be part of 
the State's approved SMCRA regulatory program.
    New subsection 24.2.b. provides that the revegetation 
responsibility period for remining operations must be not less than two 
growing seasons after the last year of augmented seeding, fertilizing, 
irrigation or other work. The counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(c)(2)(ii) provide that the period of responsibility must be two 
full years for lands eligible for remining. Since the State's rules at 
CSR 38-2-2.57 define growing season to mean one year, the proposed 
responsibility period of two growing seasons is equivalent to, and 
therefore no less effective than, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
816.116(c)(2)(ii).
    New subsection CSR 38-2-24.4 provides that bond release for 
remining operations must comply with CSR 38-2-12.2, with the exception 
of subdivision 12.2.e. for Phase I, II, or III release. If all other 
requirements of subsection 12.2 are satisfied, then the Director may 
approve a request for Phase I, II, or III release if the quality of 
untreated water discharging from the site is equal to or better than 
the pre-remining water quality discharged from the site. In its 
submittal of this amendment, the WVDEP stated that this change will 
allow for the release of the land reclamation bond if the post-remining 
water quality discharging from the site is equal to or better than pre-
remining water quality.
    Under section 301(p) of the Clean Water Act, the State may issue an 
NPDES permit which modifies the pH, iron, and manganese standards for 
pre-existing discharges from the remined area or affected by a 
qualifying remining operation. However, the permit may not allow the 
pH, iron, or manganese levels of any discharge to exceed the levels 
being discharged from the remined area before the advent of the coal 
remining operation.
    But section 301(p) does not apply to all remining operations. 
Instead, it defines ``coal remining operation'' to mean a coal mining 
operation which begins after February 4, 1987 (the date of enactment of 
section 301(p)), at a site on which coal mining was conducted before 
August 3, 1977 (the effective date of SMCRA). The U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) declined to concur with the approval of 
subsection CSR 38-2-24.4 because that subsection would allow use of the 
section 301(p) standards for remining operations that began prior to 
February 4, 1987, and for sites on which coal mining was originally 
conducted on or after August 3, 1977.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.42 provide that 
discharges of water from areas disturbed by surface mining activities 
must be made in compliance with all applicable State and Federal water 
quality laws and regulations. Because CSR 38-2-24.4 does not comply 
with this requirement, it is less effective than the Federal rules. 
Accordingly, we are not approving this provision. We also are requiring 
that West Virginia further amend its regulations to remove CSR 38-2-
24.4.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Federal Agency Comments

    On June 12, 1998, we asked for comments from various Federal 
agencies who may have an interest in the West Virginia amendment 
(Administrative Record Number WV-1088). We solicited comments in 
accordance with section 503(b) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) of 
the Federal regulations. The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers responded and stated that the changes are satisfactory to the 
Corps.
    The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration 
(MSHA) provided the following comments. MSHA expressed concern with 
section 38-2-24.1.g. which allows coal processing and underground 
development waste embankments in mined-out areas to have a long-term 
slope stability safety factor of 1.3. MSHA stated that a safety factor 
of 1.5 is required by 30 CFR 77.215(h).
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 77.215(h), to which MSHA referred 
in its comment, requires a static safety

[[Page 26134]]

factor of 1.5 for refuse piles. Refuse piles are structures that are 
built above the ground level where no material previously existed, or 
are built upon previously existing built-up structures. The Federal 
regulations for impoundments (30 CFR 816.49), excess spoil disposal (30 
CFR 816.71), durable rock fills (30 CFR 816.73), and coal mine waste 
disposal areas (30 CFR 816.81) all provide for static safety factor of 
1.5. These are all structures that are constructed above the ground 
level, where no material previously existed. However, the stability of 
materials that will be returned to or be used to backfill the mined out 
area as provided by 30 CFR 816.102 can achieve a lesser static safety 
factor of 1.3. 30 CFR 816.102(e) provides that the disposal of coal 
processing waste and underground development waste in the mined-out 
area shall be in accordance with sections 816.81 and 816.83, except 
that a long-term static safety factor of 1.3 shall be achieved. The 
higher 1.5 static safety factor standard is only required where refuse 
or waste will be piled into above-ground structures. The lesser 1.3 
static safety factor standard is required where refuse or waste will be 
used to backfill mined out areas, or to bring the land back to its 
approximate original contour. The West Virginia standard at section 38-
2-24.1.g. applies only to the disposal of waste in previously mined out 
areas. Therefore, the static safety standard of 1.3 is appropriate, and 
no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.102(e) 
which provide the same standard for waste disposal in a mined-out area.
    The National Park Service requested that we review the proposed 
changes carefully to examine the full implication of the revisions on 
the overall effectiveness of the West Virginia program. The National 
Park Service also stated that, while the proposed revisions do not 
alter provisions pertinent to section 522(e)(3) of SMCRA, they 
nonetheless may affect the level of protection afforded various areas 
under this section of SMCRA. Section 522(e)(3) provides that, subject 
to valid existing rights, no surface coal mining operations except 
those which exist on August 3, 1977, may be permitted if the operations 
would adversely affect any publicly owned park or place included in the 
National Register of Historic Places, unless the regulatory authority 
and the Federal, State, or local agency with jurisdiction over the park 
or the historic site jointly approve these operations. In response to 
the Park Service's concerns, we note that the amendment does not in any 
way compromise the protections afforded under section 522(e)(3) of 
SMCRA.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), OSM is required to 
solicit comments and obtain the written concurrence of the EPA with 
respect to those provisions of the proposed program amendment that 
relate to air or water quality standards promulgated under the 
authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean 
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). By letter dated June 12, 1998, we 
requested comments and concurrence from EPA on the State's proposed 
amendment of May 14, 1998 (Administrative Record Number WV-1089).
    By letter dated November 29, 1999 (Administrative Record Number WV-
1141), the EPA provided comments on the proposed amendment. In 
addition, the EPA stated that it could not concur with the approval of 
CSR 38-2-24.4 because that subsection appears to allow bond release for 
sites on which remining began before February 4, 1987, and/or for sites 
mined after August 3, 1977, even if the discharges from those sites do 
not meet applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. 
The EPA noted that such a provision would not comply with section 
301(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(p).
    As discussed in Finding 9, we are not approving CSR 38-2-24.4 
because it would allow issuance of modified NPDES permits for 
operations that do not meet the criteria established in section 301(p). 
To be eligible under section 301(p), a remining operation must be a 
site on which coal mining was conducted before the effective date of 
SMCRA (August 3, 1977), and the remining operation must begin after the 
date of the enactment of section 301(p) of the Clean Water Act 
(February 4, 1987). Therefore, as submitted, CSR 38-2-24.4 is less 
effective than 30 CFR 816/817.42 and we are not approving it.
    The EPA supported CSR 38-2-3.14, which concerns no-cost contracts 
for the removal of abandoned coal refuse piles. However, the EPA noted 
that CSR 38-2-3.14.b.4.E., which requires that all necessary permits be 
obtained from environmental agencies, must be interpreted as including 
NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from the refuse removal 
operation sites, where applicable.
    As discussed in Finding 2, we are not approving subsection 3.14 to 
the extent that it would apply to the removal of abandoned coal mine 
refuse piles where, on average, the material to be removed meets the 
definition of coal in 30 CFR 700.5. In addition, we are not approving 
subsection 3.14 to the extent that it could be interpreted as applying 
to the on-site reprocessing of abandoned coal refuse piles.
    We determined that subsection 3.14 is less stringent than SMCRA and 
less effective than the Federal regulations because it would allow the 
issuance of a reclamation contract for the removal of coal refuse piles 
that meet the definition of coal rather than requiring that such 
operations obtain a standard regulatory program permit for surface coal 
mining operations as do the Federal regulations. We also determined 
that subsection 3.14.c. is less stringent than SMCRA and less effective 
than the Federal regulations to the extent that it may be interpreted 
as authorizing the State to issue a reclamation contract rather than a 
surface coal mining operations permit for on-site reprocessing 
operations. Under the Federal definition of surface coal mining 
operations in 30 CFR 700.5, all on-site reprocessing operations that 
separate coal from other materials in the pile must be regulated as 
surface coal mining operations.
    We took no position on the other revisions that West Virginia has 
made to subsection 3.14. As we stated in 1990, ``the removal, transport 
and use (without onsite reprocessing) of coal mine refuse which does 
not meet the definition of `coal' set forth in 30 CFR 700.5; i.e., ASTM 
Standard D 388-77, is not subject to regulation [under SMCRA].'' 55 FR 
21314, May 23, 1990.
    The EPA also stated that CSR 38-2-24.3 correctly provides that 
remining operations that begin after February 4, 1987, on a site that 
was mined prior to August 3, 1977, may qualify for less stringent 
effluent limits under section 301(p) of the Clean Water Act. The EPA 
explained that, subject to certain conditions, section 301(p) allows 
replacement of most effluent limits in 40 CFR 434 with less stringent, 
best professional judgement (BPJ) effluent limits if the applicant can 
demonstrate that the post-remining discharge quality will be better 
than, or at least equal to, the pre-remining discharge quality. As 
noted in Finding 9, subsection 24.3 concerns only the issuance of NPDES 
permits. Therefore, it is not subject to review and approval under 
SMCRA and we do not consider it to be part of the State's approved 
SMCRA regulatory program.

Public Comments

    We received no comments from the public.

[[Page 26135]]

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the findings in Part III of this preamble, we are 
approving the proposed amendments to the West Virginia program, except 
as noted below.
    We are not approving CSR 38-2-3.14 to the extent that it would 
apply to the removal of abandoned coal mine refuse piles where, on 
average, the material to be removed meets the definition of coal in 30 
CFR 700.5. In addition, we are not approving this subsection to the 
extent that it could be interpreted as applying to the on-site 
reprocessing of abandoned coal refuse piles. We take no position on 
subsection 3.14 to the extent that it may concern the removal, 
transport and use (without onsite reprocessing) of coal mine refuse 
which does not meet the definition of ``coal'' in 30 CFR 700.5; such 
activities are not subject to regulation under SMCRA.
    In addition, we are requiring that West Virginia amend its program 
to either: (1) delete subsection 3.14; or (2) revise subsection 3.14 to 
clearly specify that its provisions apply only to activities that do 
not qualify as surface coal mining operations as that term is defined 
in 30 CFR 700.5; i.e., that subsection 3.14 does not apply to either 
the removal of abandoned coal mine waste piles that, on average, meet 
the definition of coal or to the on-site reprocessing of coal mine 
waste piles. If the State chooses the second option, it should also 
submit the sampling protocol that will be used to determine whether the 
refuse piles meet the definition of coal. The sampling protocol must be 
designed to ensure that no activities meeting the definition of surface 
coal mining operations escape regulation under the State's SMCRA 
regulatory program.
    We are not approving CSR 38-2-3.32.g., 38-2-14.14.a.1., 38-2-23, 
and 38-2-24.4. In addition, we are requiring that West Virginia remove 
CSR 38-2-23 and 38-2-24.4.
    We are removing 30 CFR 948.16(ttt).
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 948 codifying decisions 
concerning the West Virginia program are being amended to implement 
this decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to 
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to 
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without 
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by 
SMCRA.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

    This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 
Review).

Executive Order 12988

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since 
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not 
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon 
corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was 
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a 
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements 
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In 
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a 
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and 
assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

    This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any 
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: March 23, 2000.
Michael K. Robinson,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII, 
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 948.12 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 948.12  State statutory, regulatory, and proposed program 
amendment provisions not approved.

    (a) We are not approving the following provisions of the proposed 
program amendment that West Virginia submitted on May 11, 1998:
    (1) CSR 38-2-3.14, to the extent that it could be interpreted as 
applying to the on-site reprocessing of abandoned coal mine waste piles 
or to the extent that it would apply to the removal of abandoned coal 
refuse piles where, on average, the material to be removed meets the 
definition of coal in 30 CFR 700.5.
    (2) CSR 38-2-3.32.g., which concerns unanticipated events or 
conditions.
    (3) CSR 38-2-14.14.a.1., which concerns placement of excess spoil 
outside the permit area.
    (4) CSR 38-2-23, which concerns coal extraction as part of land 
development activities.
    (5) CSR 38-2-24.4, which concerns water quality standards for bond 
release.
* * * * *

    3. Section 948.15 is amended by revising the introductory text, the 
table headings, and by adding a new entry to the table in chronological 
order by date

[[Page 26136]]

of final rule publication to read as follows:


Sec. 948.15  Approval of West Virginia regulatory program amendments.

    The following table lists the dates that West Virginia submitted 
proposed amendments to OSM, the dates when OSM published final rules 
approving all or portions of those amendments in the Federal Register, 
and the State statutory or regulatory citations for those amendments 
(or a brief description of the amendment). The amendments appear in 
order of the date of publication of the final rules announcing OSM's 
decisions on the amendments. The preambles to those final rules 
identify and discuss any assumptions underlying approval, any 
conditions placed on the approval, and any exceptions to the approval.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Citation/description of
   Original amendment  submission date       Date of publication  of final rule         approved  provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
May 11, 1998............................  May 5, 2000.............................  West Virginia regulations at
                                                                                     CSR 38-2-2.25; 2.102;
                                                                                     3.32.d.12; 14.16 through
                                                                                     14.19; 22.5.1; 24 (except
                                                                                     24.4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    4. Section 948.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(ttt) and by adding paragraphs (nnnn), (oooo), and (pppp) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 948.16  Required regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *
    (nnnn) By July 5, 2000, West Virginia must submit either a proposed 
amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed, together 
with a timetable for adoption, to either delete CSR 38-2-3.14 or revise 
CSR 38-2-3.14 to clearly specify that its provisions apply only to 
activities that do not qualify as surface coal mining operations as 
that term is defined in 30 CFR 700.5; i.e., that subsection 3.14 does 
not apply to either the removal of abandoned coal mine waste piles 
that, on average, meet the definition of coal or to the on-site 
reprocessing of coal mine waste piles. If the State chooses the second 
option, it should also submit the sampling protocol that will be used 
to determine whether the refuse piles meet the definition of coal. The 
sampling protocol must be designed to ensure that no activities meeting 
the definition of surface coal mining operations escape regulation 
under the State's SMCRA regulatory program.
    (oooo) By July 5, 2000, West Virginia must submit either a proposed 
amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed, together 
with a timetable for adoption, to remove CSR 38-2-23.
    (pppp) By July 5, 2000, West Virginia must submit either a proposed 
amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed, together 
with a timetable for adoption, to remove CSR 38-2-24.4.

[FR Doc. 00-10972 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P