[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 83 (Thursday, April 29, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23473-23477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 948

[WV-089-FOR]


West Virginia Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: We are withdrawing a proposed rulemaking for an amendment to 
the West Virginia regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The proposed rulemaking 
pertained to the State's response to several letters that we had sent 
it, which identified changes to SMCRA and the Federal regulations and 
that may require amendments be made to the State coal regulatory 
program. We are withdrawing the proposed rulemaking, because, for the 
12 items published as a proposed amendment, the State actually provided 
rationale for not making some changes, rather than proposing changes, 
and for various other reasons.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the West Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

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. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated August 15, 2000, we requested that the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) provide us a 
response to six 30 CFR part 732 notifications that we had previously 
sent the State (Administrative Record Number WV-1178). The Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(d) provide that OSM must notify the State 
of all changes in SMCRA and the Federal regulations that will require 
an amendment to the State program. Such letters sent by us are often 
referred to as ``732 letters or notifications.'' On December 20, 2000 
(Administrative Record Number WV-1191), the WVDEP responded to our 
August 15, 2000, letter. We note that in its December 20, 2000, letter, 
the State incorrectly cited a March 6, 2000, letter from OSM rather 
than our August 15, 2000, letter.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(b) provide that the State 
regulatory authority shall notify OSM, as a possible program amendment, 
of any significant events or proposed changes which affect the 
implementation, administration or enforcement of the approved State 
program. In a January 12, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 2866), 
we announced receipt of the State's December 20, 2000, letter and 
published it as a proposed rulemaking. In the same document, we opened 
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public 
hearing or meeting on whether the proposed amendment satisfies 
applicable program approval criteria.
    The State's December 20, 2000, letter addressed 22 part 732 items. 
For six of the items (identified in our Federal Register notice as 2, 
3, 6.F, 6.G, 6.H, and 6.I), the State indicated that it would be 
submitting proposed changes in the future. These items relate to coal 
extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals, special 
reclamation fund, prime farmland, qualified SOAP (Small Operator 
Assistance Program) laboratory, qualifications for SOAP assistance, and 
filing for SOAP assistance, respectively. We stated that, for those 
items, we would announce the proposed changes in a future proposed rule 
upon their submission. For four items (identified as 4, 5, 6.J, and 7 
regarding subsidence and water replacement, ownership and control, bond 
release, and staffing, respectively), we stated that (for various 
reasons described in the notice) the State had not submitted program 
changes. Therefore, we did not make these 10 items part of the proposed 
rule.
    For the remaining 12 items addressed in the State's December 20, 
2000, letter, we did characterize the State's responses as a program 
amendment and invited comments on the proposal. However, for each of 
these 12 items, the WVDEP actually asserted that no additional changes 
to the West Virginia program were necessary for the reasons explained 
in its letter. The State responses for which we requested

[[Page 23474]]

public comment were identified in the January 12, 2001, Federal 
Register notice as follows: Items 1, 2.A, 2.B, 2.C, 2.D, 2.E, 2.F, 2.G, 
2.H, 3, 4, and an unnumbered item concerning inspection frequencies. 
These numbers do not fully correspond to the numbering system in the 
State's December 20, 2000, letter. The corresponding State numbers are: 
Items 1, 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6K, 6L, 6M, unnumbered item, 8, and 9. 
These issues concern stocking and planting arrangements; definition of 
other treatment facilities; definition of previously mined area; 
definition of siltation structure; definition of significant 
recreational, timber, economic, or other values incompatible with 
surface mining operations; permitting requirements relating to the new 
dam classification criteria; performance standards relating to the new 
dam classification criteria; coal mine waste; thin and thick 
overburden; inspection frequencies at abandoned sites; subsidence due 
to underground mining; and valid existing rights, respectively.
    The public comment period closed on February 12, 2001 
(Administrative Record Number WV-1195). No one requested a public 
hearing, so none was held. However, a public commenter requested an 
extension of the public comment period, and to accommodate that request 
we accepted comments through February 28, 2001 (Administrative Record 
Numbers WV-1200 and WV-1201). We received comments on the December 20, 
2000, submittal from one environmental group and two Federal agencies.

III. OSM's Findings

    For reasons more fully explained below, we are withdrawing our 
proposed rulemaking on all 12 of the items that we announced in our 
January 12, 2001, Federal Register notice as proposed amendments. These 
12 part 732 items fall into three distinct categories with one common 
element. We will discuss each of these categories in turn, with our 
rationale for withdrawing the rulemaking in each category.

a. State Has Committed to Future Rulemaking

    For six items, the State has since revised its position. WVDEP has 
committed to amending its approved program relating to six items, and, 
by letter dated December 2, 2003, has submitted a schedule for doing 
so. Therefore, the State's December 20, 2000, submission for those six 
items, which we published as a proposed amendment identified as Items 
1, 2.B, 2.E, 2.F, 2.G, and the unnumbered item on inspection 
frequencies at abandoned sites, is now moot because the State has 
subsequently revised its response and committed to future rulemaking. 
Therefore, we are withdrawing our January 12, 2001, rulemaking as it 
relates to these items. We will announce any proposed State changes in 
future rulemaking notices as they are received.

b. Suspension of Part 732 Notifications

    For two items, we have suspended our requirement that the State 
amend its program. These items concern subsidence due to underground 
mining and valid existing rights. Given ongoing litigation, we have 
suspended all action on these two part 732 notifications until further 
notice. We will provide the State with formal notification in the 
future when these part 732 notifications will have to be addressed by 
the State. By letter dated November 17, 2003, we notified the State 
that we were suspending all actions relating to our August 22, 2000, 
part 732 letter regarding subsidence due to underground mining and 
valid existing rights until further notice (Administrative Record 
Number WV-1378). Items 3 and 4 in our January 12, 2001, proposed 
rulemaking addressed these issues. Therefore, the rationale provided by 
the State in its December 20, 2000, letter relating to these two items 
is now moot, because we are not mandating any changes at this time. 
Therefore, we are withdrawing our January 12, 2001, rulemaking notice 
as it relates to these two items.

c. Agreement That No Change Is Required

    For the following four items, that we identified as Items 2.A., 
2.C., 2.D., and 2.H. and solicited comments on in our January 12, 2001, 
Federal Register notice, we reviewed the State's December 20, 2000, 
response, conducted further evaluation of the issues, and concluded 
that the State's program, as currently approved, is no less effective 
than the Federal rules in regard to these items. Because the State had 
actually submitted rationale for not changing its approved program, 
rather than proposing any changes for these four items, and we have 
determined that no changes are required, that decision does not 
constitute rulemaking in regard to the approval of a State program 
amendment. Therefore, we are withdrawing our January 12, 2001, 
rulemaking notice in relation to these four items. Instead, we have 
notified the State by letter dated April 8, 2004, in which we explained 
that we have withdrawn our part 732 notifications relating to these 
items because we have determined that the State's approved program is 
no less effective than the Federal rules in regard to these items.
    Although the decision to terminate our part 732 notifications 
relating to the four items that were advertised is an administrative 
decision distinct from approving them as a State program amendment as 
proposed in our January 12, 2001, Federal Register notice, we are 
including our rationale for those decisions in this notice because we 
did receive comments on these issues and we feel a full explanation to 
the public of our decision is warranted. The explanation included here 
is the same as that provided the State in our letter dated April 8, 
2004, resolving the following four issues and terminating the part 732 
notifications associated with them.
c.1. 30 CFR 701.5 Definitions of ``other treatment facilities'' (Item 
2.A.) and ``siltation structure'' (Item 2.C.)
    In our July 22, 1997, part 732 letter to the WVDEP, we informed it 
that the Federal definition of ``other treatment facilities'' was 
revised and removed from 30 CFR 816/817.46(a)(3) to 30 CFR 701.5, and 
that the State must add a counterpart definition to its program. The 
revised Federal definition of ``other treatment facilities'' adds the 
words ``neutralization'' and ``precipitators'' (common water quality 
treatment processes) and the phrase ``[t]o comply with all applicable 
state and Federal water quality laws and regulations.'' This latter 
modification was made to clarify that the purpose of a treatment 
facility is to comply with water quality laws, as well as to prevent 
additional contributions of dissolved or suspended solids to streamflow 
or off-site runoff.
    Also, in our July 22, 1997, part 732 letter, we informed the State 
that OSM had moved the definition of ``siltation structure'' from 30 
CFR 816/817.46(a)(1) to 30 CFR 701.5. OSM stated that the State's 
regulations do not define ``siltation structure,'' but that the State's 
rules do define ``sediment control or other water retention structure, 
sediment control or other water retention system or sediment pond.'' 
Finally, OSM stated that the State needs to define the terms ``other 
treatment facilities'' and ``siltation structure'' or explain why they 
are not needed.
    In its December 20, 2000, letter, the WVDEP asserted that the State 
does not need the definitions of ``other treatment facilities'' or 
``siltation structure.'' The WVDEP stated that the West Virginia 
program contains a definition of ``sediment control or other water

[[Page 23475]]

retention structure, sediment control or other water retention system, 
or sediment pond'' at CSR 38-2-2.110, and the definition of ``chemical 
treatment'' at CSR 38-2-2.21. Additionally, the WVDEP stated that the 
term ``siltation structure'' is defined in the Federal rule as a 
sedimentation pond'' and that corresponds to the State's definition of 
``sediment control or other water retention structure, sediment control 
or other water retention system, or sediment pond.''
    The Federal definition of ``other treatment facilities,'' at 30 CFR 
701.5, provides as follows:

    Other treatment facilities means any chemical treatments, such 
as flocculation or neutralization, or mechanical structures, such as 
clarifiers or precipitators, that have a point source discharge and 
are utilized:
    (a) To prevent additional contributions of dissolved or 
suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area, or
    (b) To comply with all applicable State and Federal water-
quality laws and regulations.

The Federal definition of ``siltation structure,'' at 30 CFR 701.5, 
provides as follows:

    Siltation structure means a sedimentation pond, a series of 
sedimentation ponds, or other treatment facility.

We find that, despite the fact that the West Virginia program lacks 
definitions of ``other treatment facilities'' and ``siltation 
structure,'' the State program is not rendered less effective than the 
Federal requirements for the following reasons.
    The State's definition of ``sediment control or other water 
retention structure, sediment control or other water retention system, 
or sediment pond'' at CSR 38-2-2.110 ``means an impoundment designed, 
constructed, and maintained * * * for the purpose of removing solids 
from water in order to meet applicable water quality standards or 
effluent limitations before the water is discharged into the receiving 
stream. Examples include * * * all ponds and facilities or structures 
used for water treatment.'' Part of the State's language quoted above 
(the part that states ``for the purpose of removing solids from water 
in order to meet applicable water quality standards or effluent 
limitations before the water is discharged into the receiving 
stream.'') is substantively identical to the Federal definition of the 
term ``sedimentation pond,'' which is a term used in the Federal 
definition of ``siltation structure.''
    The State's definition of ``chemical treatment,'' at CSR 38-2-2.21, 
``means the treatment of water from a surface coal mining operation 
using chemical reagents such as but not limited to sodium hydroxide, 
calcium carbonate, or anhydrous ammonia for purposes of meeting 
applicable state and federal effluent limitations.'' Therefore, these 
two State definitions combine to encompass impoundments, sediment 
ponds, facilities or structures, and chemical treatments used to assure 
compliance with State and Federal water quality standards or effluent 
limitations.
    In addition, the State performance standards at CSR 38-2-14.5.c, 
concerning ``treatment facilities,'' provide that ``[a]dequate 
treatment facilities shall be installed, operated and maintained * * * 
to treat any water discharged from the permit area so that it complies 
with the * * * [effluent limitations] of CSR 38-2-14.5.b. * * *'' 
Finally, CSR 38-2-14.5.b provides that ``[d]ischarge from areas 
disturbed by surface mining shall not violate effluent limitations or 
cause a violation of applicable water quality standards. The monitoring 
frequency and effluent limitations shall be governed by the standards 
set forth in a NPDES [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] 
permit issued pursuant to W. Va. Code [Code of West Virginia] 22-11 et 
seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, 33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.''
    We find that, combined, the State provisions at CSR 38-2-2.110, 38-
2-2.21, 38-2-14.5.b, and 38-2-14.5.c are no less effective than the 
substantive meaning of the Federal definitions of ``other treatment 
facilities'' and ``siltation structure'' at 30 CFR 701.5. While the 
West Virginia program does not specifically provide examples of 
chemical or mechanical treatment as does the Federal definition of 
``other treatment facilities,'' that omission alone does not render the 
State program less effective, since the Federal examples are 
illustrative only. Furthermore, the State's provisions do not exclude 
nor prohibit the use of any of the treatment facilities identified in 
the Federal definitions of ``other treatment facilities'' or 
``siltation structure.'' Because State rules acknowledge that sediment 
control structures are used for water treatment and such structures are 
used to ensure compliance with effluent limitations and water quality 
standards, the aforementioned State provisions are no less effective 
than the Federal definitions of ``other treatment facilities'' and 
``siltation structure'' at 30 CFR 701.5. For these reasons, we find 
that these part 732 issues are satisfied and no amendments of the 
approved State program are required.
c.2. 30 CFR 761.5. ``Significant Recreational, Timber, Economic, Other 
Values Incompatible With Surface Coal Mining Operations'' as it Relates 
to Federal Lands (Item 2.D.)
    In our July 22, 1997, part 732 letter to the WVDEP, we informed it 
that the phrase ``significant recreational, timber, economic, or other 
values incompatible with surface coal mining operations'' is part of 
the State's approved program at W. Va. Code 22-3-22(d)(5), but it is 
not defined.
    In its December 20, 2000, letter, the WVDEP stated that the State 
does not need to define this term since 30 CFR 740.4 states that the 
determination of significant recreational, timber, economic, or other 
values incompatible with surface coal mining operations is the 
responsibility of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
    We concur with the WVDEP's assessment of this term, and we find 
that the West Virginia program is not rendered less effective than 
SMCRA or the Federal regulations by lacking a definition of the term 
for the following reasons. Section 522(e)(2) of SMCRA provides that, 
subject to valid existing rights, no surface coal mining operations 
except those which exist on the date of enactment of SMCRA shall be 
permitted ``on any Federal lands within the boundaries of any national 
forest: Provided, however, that surface coal mining operations may be 
permitted on such lands if the Secretary [of the Department of the 
Interior] finds that there are no significant recreational, timber, 
economic, or other values which may be incompatible with such surface 
mining operations * * *.'' The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
740.4(a)(5) clearly provide that it is the sole responsibility of the 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior to make these findings. 
When making such determinations on Federal lands within the State of 
West Virginia, the Secretary will use the Federal definition of that 
term at 30 CFR 761.5. Therefore, we find that the State does not have 
to add a definition of the term to the West Virginia program, and that 
this 30 CFR part 732 issue is satisfied.
c.3. 30 CFR 816.104(a) and 816.105(a) Thin or Thick Overburden (Item 
2.H.)
    In our July 22, 1997, part 732 letter to the WVDEP, we informed it 
that 30 CFR 816.104(a) and 816.105(a) contain revised definitions of 
thin and thick overburden, respectively. Although W. Va. Code 22-3-
13(b)(3) contains provisions regarding thin and thick overburden and 
CSR 38-2-14.15

[[Page 23476]]

contains West Virginia's backfilling and grading requirements, we 
stated that West Virginia does not define thin or thick overburden. In 
addition, we stated that the State does not have regulations comparable 
to 30 CFR 816.104 and 816.105. We also stated that since backfilling 
and grading of thick overburden is a common practice in the State, the 
WVDEP needs to amend its regulations or explain why its existing 
requirements are no less effective than those set forth in 30 CFR 
816.105.
    In its December 20, 2000, response, the WVDEP stated that West 
Virginia does not need to amend its rule. The WVDEP stated that the 
statute at W. Va. Code 22-3-13(b)(3) defines thin and thick overburden, 
and it has similar language to that contained in 30 CFR 816.104(a) and 
816.105(a).
    For the following reasons, we agree with the WVDEP's assertion that 
the State does not need to further amend its rules. The Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.104(a) provide that ``[t]hin overburden means 
insufficient spoil and other waste materials available from the entire 
permit area to restore the disturbed area to its approximate original 
contour [AOC].'' It further provides that ``[i]nsufficient spoil and 
other waste materials occur where the overburden thickness times the 
swell factor, plus the thickness of other available waste materials, is 
less than the combined thickness of the overburden and coal bed prior 
to removing the coal, so that after backfilling and grading the surface 
configuration of the reclaimed area would not: (1) Closely resemble the 
surface configuration of the land prior to mining; or (2) Blend into 
and complement the drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain.''
    The State provision at W. Va. Code 22-3-13(b)(3) provides for 
reclamation to AOC, with the following exception for thin overburden:

    Provided, that in surface-mining which is carried out at the 
same location over a substantial period of time where the operation 
transects the coal deposit, and the thickness of the coal deposits 
relative to the volume of the overburden is large and where the 
operator demonstrates that the overburden and other spoil and waste 
materials at a particular point in the permit area or otherwise 
available from the entire permit area is insufficient, giving due 
consideration to volumetric expansion, to restore the approximate 
original contour, the operator, at a minimum, shall backfill, grade 
and compact, where advisable, using all available overburden and 
other spoil and waste materials to attain the lowest practicable 
grade, but not more than the angle of repose, to provide adequate 
drainage and to cover all acid-forming and other toxic materials, in 
order to achieve an ecologically sound land use compatible with the 
surrounding region * * *.

    This language, though not identical to the Federal definition at 30 
CFR 816.104(a), entails the same substantive analysis of a coal seam 
and its surrounding overburden. Under both the Federal and State 
schemes, the volume of the postmining overburden, spoil and waste 
material must be less than that of the combined premining volume of the 
overburden and coal in order for the proposed operation to qualify for 
the ``thin overburden'' AOC exemption.
    Also, the State's thin overburden provision does not contain 
specific counterparts to the Federal language at 30 CFR 816.104(a)(1) 
and (2). However, the State's counterparts to those provisions are 
located at W.Va. Code 22-3-3(e) (the definition of AOC), and are, in 
effect, incorporated into W.Va. Code 22-3-13(b)(3) by the State's 
reference to insufficient overburden, spoil and waste to restore AOC. 
Therefore, we find that the State's description of thin overburden at 
W.Va. Code 22-3-13(b)(3) is substantively identical to the Federal 
definition of thin overburden at 30 CFR 816.104(a).
    The State's description of thick overburden is also contained in 
W.Va. Code 22-3-13(b)(3), and provides as follows:

    Provided, however, that in surface-mining where the volume of 
overburden is large relative to the thickness of the coal deposit 
and where the operator demonstrates that due to volumetric expansion 
the amount of overburden and other spoil and waste materials removed 
in the course of the mining operation is more than sufficient to 
restore the approximate original contour, the operator shall, after 
restoring the approximate original contour, backfill, grade and 
compact, where advisable, the excess overburden and other spoil and 
waste materials to attain the lowest grade, but not more than the 
angle of repose, and to cover all acid-forming and other toxic 
materials, in order to achieve an ecologically sound land use 
compatible with the surrounding region and, the overburden or spoil 
shall be shaped and graded in a way as to prevent slides, erosion 
and water pollution and is [sic] revegetated in accordance with the 
requirements of this article * * *

    This language, though not identical to the Federal definition at 30 
CFR 816.105(a), entails the same substantive analysis of a coal seam 
and its surrounding overburden. Under both the Federal and State 
schemes, the volume of the postmining overburden, spoil and waste 
material must be greater than that of the combined premining volume of 
the overburden and coal, in order for the proposed operation to qualify 
for the ``thick overburden'' AOC exemption.
    Also, the State's thick overburden provision does not contain 
specific counterparts to the Federal language at 30 CFR 816.105(a)(1) 
and (2). However, the State's counterparts are located at W. Va. Code 
22-3-3(e) (the definition of AOC), and are, in effect, incorporated 
into W. Va. Code 22-3-13(b)(3) by the State's requirement to restore 
the land to AOC.
    The State counterparts to the requirements at 30 CFR 816.104(b)(1) 
(thin overburden) and 816.105(b)(1) (thick overburden), concerning 
using all available spoil and waste materials to achieve the lowest 
practicable grade, are located in the performance standards at W. Va. 
Code 22-3-13(b)(3).
    The W. Va. Code lacks specific counterparts to the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 816.104(b)(2) and 816.105(b)(2), which require 
compliance with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.102(a)(2) through 
(j). However, the State program does contain counterparts to 30 CFR 
816.102(a)(2) through (j) at CSR 38-2-5.5, 14.3, 14.5, 14.6, 14.15, and 
14.18. In addition, the State's counterparts to the Federal 
requirements concerning excess spoil disposal at 30 CFR 816.105(b)(3) 
are at W. Va. Code 22-3-13(b)(22) and CSR 38-2-14.14. Since these 
provisions are of general applicability to all surface coal mining 
operations in West Virginia, there is no reason to believe they will 
not be applied to thin or thick overburden operations in particular.
    For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that the West Virginia 
program currently contains counterparts to the Federal regulations that 
are no less effective than the Federal regulations concerning thin and 
thick overburden at 30 CFR 816.104 and 816.105, and, therefore, this 30 
CFR part 732 issue is satisfied. However, we do recommend that for 
clarity the State modify its rules at CSR 38-2-14.15.a.1 as discussed 
in its December 2, 2003, letter and specifically identify the AOC 
variance for thin or thick overburden and reference those backfilling 
and grading provisions that are applicable to such a variance.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    In response to our requests for comments from the public on the 
proposed amendments (see Section II of this preamble), we received the 
following comments from the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (WVHC) 
concerning the 30 CFR part 732

[[Page 23477]]

issues that are explained within this notice (Administrative Record 
Number WV-1202).
30 CFR Part 732 Letter Dated July 22, 1997
    a. 30 CFR 701.5, definitions of ``other treatment facilities'' and 
``siltation structure.'' WVHC stated that the definitions cited by the 
State in its December 20, 2000, letter do not include all of the 
elements and limitations of ``other treatment facilities.'' Without 
these elements, WVHC stated, the State program is less effective than 
the Federal program. The WVHC also stated that the Federal definition 
of ``siltation structure'' is broader than sedimentation pond.
    We disagree with these comments. As discussed above in Finding c.1, 
the State provisions at CSR 38-2-2.110, 38-2-2.21, 38-2-14.5.b, and 38-
2-14.5.c combined are no less effective than the Federal definitions of 
``other treatment facilities'' and ``siltation structure'' at 30 CFR 
701.5. While the West Virginia program does not specifically provide 
examples of chemical or mechanical treatment as does the Federal 
definition, that omission alone does not render the State program less 
effective, because the State's provisions do not exclude nor prohibit 
the use of any of the treatment facilities identified in the Federal 
definition of ``other treatment facilities.'' In addition, the West 
Virginia program does have counterparts to the other aspects of the 
Federal definition of ``other treatment facilities.'' That is, the 
State's program requires the installation of adequate treatment 
facilities for the purpose of meeting applicable State and Federal 
effluent limitations and water quality standards. Such treatment 
facilities could include a sedimentation pond or a series of 
sedimentation ponds.
    b. 30 CFR 761.5, ``Significant recreational, timber, economic, 
other values incompatible with surface coal mining operations'' as it 
relates to Federal lands. WVHC stated that without including the 
broader and more specific Federal language, the State program is less 
effective than the Federal program.
    We disagree with this comment. As we discussed above in Finding 
c.2, SMCRA at section 522(e)(2) provides that, subject to valid 
existing rights, no surface coal mining operations except those which 
exist on the date of enactment of SMCRA shall be permitted on any 
Federal lands within the boundaries of any national forest: Provided, 
however, that surface coal mining operations may be permitted on such 
lands if the Secretary of the Department of the Interior finds that 
there are no significant recreational, timber, economic, or other 
values which may be incompatible with such surface mining operations. 
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 740.4(a)(5) clearly provide that it 
is the sole responsibility of the Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior to make these findings. When making such determinations on 
Federal lands within the State, the Secretary will use the Federal 
definition of that term at 30 CFR 761.5. Since we found that the State 
does not have to add a definition of the term to the West Virginia 
program, this 30 CFR part 732 issue is satisfied.
    c. 30 CFR 816.104(a) Backfilling and grading: Thin overburden. WVHC 
stated that the State definitions are different than and narrower than 
the Federal definitions. They must therefore be changed, the WVHC 
stated, to comply with the Federal program.
    As we discussed above in Finding c.3, the State's provisions at W. 
Va. Code 22-3-13(b)(3) apply to thin and thick overburden. While the 
State's descriptions of thin and thick overburden are structured 
differently than the counterpart Federal definitions at 30 CFR 
816.104(a) and 816.105(a), the State's requirements are, nevertheless, 
substantively identical to the Federal counterpart definitions and the 
performance standards.

Federal Agency Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we 
requested comments on the amendments from various Federal agencies with 
an actual or potential interest in the West Virginia program by letters 
dated January 26, 2001 (Administrative Record Number WV-1199). By 
letter dated February 14, 2001 (Administrative Record Number 1204), the 
United States Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) responded to our request for comments. MSHA 
stated that in the event that any long-standing regulation or an 
amendment thereto should change or alter the areas of a surface or 
underground coal mine or a preparation facility, including refuse 
piles, impoundments, sealed mines, or highwalls at surface mines, to 
please call MSHA. MSHA also stated that an MSHA technical inspector 
will be assigned to discuss the mine operator's approved plans 
concerning the affected areas for the amendment at issue. MSHA's 
comments are outside the scope of the four part 732 issues discussed in 
the above Findings and, therefore, will not be discussed here.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to obtain written 
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the State 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.).
    On January 26, 2001, we asked for concurrence on the amendment 
(Administrative Record Number WV-1198). On July 3, 2001, EPA sent us 
its written concurrence, with the understanding that implementation of 
the amendments must comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), NPDES 
regulations, and other statutes and regulations under EPA authority 
(Administrative Record Number WV-1225). There is nothing in the State 
counterpart to the part 732 issues discussed in the Findings above that 
prevents compliance with the CWA, NPDES regulations, or other statutes 
and regulations under EPA authority. EPA provided us no other comments 
on the part 732 issues discussed above.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: April 8, 2004.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 04-9538 Filed 4-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P