96-3413. West Virginia Regulatory Program  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 1996)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 6511-6537]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-3413]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    30 CFR Part 948
    
    
    West Virginia Regulatory Program
    
    AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 
    Interior.
    
    ACTION: Final rule; Approval of amendment.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: OSM is approving with certain exceptions an amendment to the 
    West Virginia permanent regulatory program under the Surface Mining 
    Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The amendment contains 
    revisions to the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act 
    (WVSCMRA) and the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations. 
    The amendment is intended to make the West Virginia program consistent 
    with SMCRA and the corresponding Federal regulations. Additional 
    amendments will be required to bring the West Virginia program into 
    full compliance with SMCRA.
        The statutory revisions pertain to reorganization of the State 
    regulatory authority, extension of the State Abandoned Mine Lands and 
    Reclamation Act, definitions, surface mine reclamation inspector 
    qualifications, approval to remove more than 250 tons of coal during 
    prospecting, permit transfers, permit fees, premium payments for the 
    Workers' Compensation Fund, Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP), 
    hydrologic protection, blasting schedules, preblast surveys, 
    termination of underground mining permits, excess spoil fills, 
    variances from approximate original contour, citizen complaint 
    investigations, issuance of notices of violation, abatement times for 
    notices of violation, civil penalty assessments for cessation orders 
    that are abated within twenty-four hours, permit suspension or 
    revocation, temporary relief, burden of proof, disclosure of ownership 
    and control information, reinstatement of right to mine, permit renewal 
    requirements, extensions to permitted areas, surface mining activities 
    not subject to the Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system 
    (NPDES) permitting requirements, removal of 
    
    [[Page 6512]]
    coal from existing waste piles, and environmental boards.
        The revisions to State regulations concern applicability, 
    definitions, ownership and control information, maps, operation plan, 
    excess spoil disposal, new and existing structures, subsidence control 
    plan, removal of abandoned coal waste piles, approved person, fish and 
    wildlife resources, geologic information, transfer, assignment or sale 
    of a permit, permit renewals and revisions, incidental boundary 
    revisions, variances exemption for government financed highway or other 
    construction, permit issuance, permit conditions, improvidently issued 
    permits, haulroads, transportation and support facilities, intermittent 
    or perennial streams, design, construction, certification, inspection 
    and abandonment of sediment control and other water retention 
    structures, permanent impoundments, blasting, fish and wildlife, 
    revegetation, insurance, notice of intent to prospect, hydrologic 
    balance, steep slope mining, inactive status approval, variance from 
    approximate original contour, excess spoil disposal, contemporaneous 
    reclamation, control of fugitive dust, utility installations, disposal 
    of noncoal waste, backfilling and regrading underground mines, 
    subsidence control, small operator assistance program, citizen actions, 
    inspection frequencies, notices of violation, show cause orders, civil 
    penalty determinations, civil penalty assessment procedures, civil 
    penalty assessment rates, coal refuse certification, compaction 
    requirements for coal refuse areas, design, construction and 
    maintenance requirements for coal refuse impoundments, inspection, 
    examination and reporting requirements for coal refuse impoundments, 
    training and certification of blasters, and abandoned mine lands 
    reclamation.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 1996. Approval dates of regulatory program 
    amendments are listed in Sec. 948.15(p).
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. James C. Blankenship Jr., Director, Charleston Field Office, Office 
    of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1027 Virginia Street 
    East, Charleston, WV 25301, Telephone (304) 347-7158.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    
    I. Background
    II. Submission of the Amendment
    III. Director's Findings
    IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
    V. Director's Decision
    VI. Procedural Determinations
    
    I. Background
    
        SMCRA was passed in 1977 to address environmental and safety 
    problems associated with coal mining. Under SMCRA, OSM works with 
    States to ensure that coal mines are operated in a manner that protects 
    citizens and the environment during mining, that the land is restored 
    to beneficial use following mining, and that the effects of past mining 
    at abandoned coal mines are mitigated.
        Many coal-producing States, including West Virginia, have sought 
    and obtained approval from the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 
    SMCRA's requirements with their borders. In becoming the primary 
    enforcers of SMCRA, these ``primary'' States accept a shared 
    responsibility with OSM to achieve the goals of the Act. Such States 
    join with OSM in a shared commitment to the protection of citizens from 
    abusive mining practices, to be responsive to their concerns, and to 
    allow them full access to information needed to evaluate the effects of 
    mining on their health, safety, general welfare, and property. This 
    commitment also recognizes the need for clear, fair, and consistently 
    applied policies that are not unnecessarily burdensome to the coal 
    industry--producers of an important source of our Nation's energy.
        Under SMCRA, OSM sets minimum regulatory and reclamation standards. 
    Each primacy State ensures that coal mines are operated and reclaimed 
    in accordance with the standards in its approved State program. The 
    States serve as the front-line authorities for implementation and 
    enforcement of SMCRA, while OSM maintains a State performance 
    evaluation role and provides funding and technical assistance to States 
    to carry out their approved programs. OSM also is responsible for 
    taking direct enforcement action in a primacy State, if needed, to 
    protect the public in cases of imminent harm or, following appropriate 
    notice to the State, when a State acts in an arbitrary and capricious 
    manner in not taking needed enforcement actions required under its 
    approved regulatory program.
        Currently, there are 24 primacy states that administer and enforce 
    regulatory programs under SMCRA. These states may amend their programs, 
    with OSM approval, at any time so long as they remain no less effective 
    than Federal regulatory requirements. In addition, whenever SMCRA or 
    implementing Federal regulations are revised, OSM is required to notify 
    the States of the changes to that they can revise their programs 
    accordingly to remain no less effective than the Federal requirements.
        Background information on the West Virginia program, including the 
    Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions 
    of approval can be found in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 
    FR 5915). Subsequent actions concerning the conditions of approval and 
    program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 
    948.15, and 948.16.
    
    II. Submission of the Amendment
    
        In a series of three letters dated June 28, 1993, and July 30, 1993 
    (Administrative Record Nos. WV-888, WV-889 and WV-893), the West 
    Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an 
    amendment to its approved permanent regulatory program that included 
    numerous revisions to the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and 
    Reclamation Act (referred to herein as ``the Act'', WVSCMRA Sec. 22A-3-
    1 et seq.) and the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations 
    (CSR Sec. 38-2-1 et seq.). OSM approved the proposed revisions on 
    durable rock fills on August 16, 1996, (60 FR 42437-42443) and the 
    proposed revisions on bonding on October 4, 1995, (60 FR 51900-51918). 
    The remaining proposed revisions are the subject of this notice.
        The statutory revisions pertain to reorganization of the State 
    regulatory authority, extension of the State Abandoned Mine Lands and 
    Reclamation Act, definitions, surface mine reclamation inspector 
    qualifications, approval to remove more than 250 tons of coal during 
    prospecting, permit transfers, permit fees, premium payments for the 
    Workers' Compensation Fund, SOAP, hydrologic protection, blasting 
    schedules, preblast surveys, termination of underground mining permits, 
    excess spoil fills, variances from approximate original contour, 
    citizen complaint investigations, issuance of notices of violation, 
    abatement times for notices of violation, civil penalty assessments for 
    cessation orders that are abated within twenty-four hours, permit 
    suspension or revocation, temporary relief, burden of proof, disclosure 
    of ownership and control information, reinstatement of right to mine, 
    permit renewal requirements, extensions to permitted areas, surface 
    mining activities not subject to the Act, National Pollutant Discharge 
    Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements, removal of coal 
    from existing waste piles, and environmental boards.
    
    [[Page 6513]]
    
        The revisions to State regulations concern applicability, 
    definitions, ownership and control information, maps, operation plan, 
    excess spoil disposal, new and existing structures, subsidence control 
    plan, removal of abandoned coal waste piles, approved person, fish and 
    wildlife resources, geologic information, transfer, assignment or sale 
    of a permit, permit revisions and renewals, incidental boundary 
    revisions, permit conditions, improvidently issued permits, exemptions 
    for government financed highway or other construction variances, permit 
    issuance, haulroads, transportation and support facilities, 
    intermittent or perennial streams, design, construction, certification, 
    inspection and abandonment of sediment control and other water 
    retention structures, permanent impoundments, blasting, fish and 
    wildlife, revegetation, insurance, notice of intent to prospect, 
    hydrologic balance, steep slope mining, inactive status approval, 
    variance from approximate original contour, excess spoil disposal, 
    contemporaneous reclamation, control of fugitive dust, utility 
    installations disposal of coal mine waste, backfilling and regrading 
    underground mines, subsidence control, small operator assistance 
    program, citizen actions, inspection frequencies, notices of violation, 
    show cause orders, civil penalty determinations, civil penalty 
    assessment procedures, civil penalty assessment rates, coal refuse 
    certification, compaction requirements for coal refuse areas, design, 
    construction and maintenance requirements for coal refuse impoundments, 
    and inspection, examination and reporting requirements for coal refuse 
    impoundments, training and certification of blasters, and abandoned 
    mine lands regulation.
        OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the August 12, 
    1993, Federal Register (58 FR 42903) and invited public comment on its 
    adequacy. Following this initial comment period, WVDEP revised the 
    amendment on August 18, 1994, and September 1, 1994, and May 16, 1995 
    (Administrative Record Nos. WV-933, WV-937, and WV-979B). OSM reopened 
    the comment period on August 31, 1994 (59 FR 44953), September 29, 1994 
    (59 FR 49619), and July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34934), and held public 
    meetings/hearings in Charleston, West Virginia on September 7, 1993, 
    October 27, 1994, and May 30, 1995.
    
    III. Director's Findings
    
        Only those revisions of particular interest are discussed below. 
    Any revisions not specifically discussed below are found to be no less 
    stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal 
    regulations. Revisions not discussed below contain language similar to 
    the corresponding Federal regulations, concern nonsubstantive wording 
    changes, revise cross-references and paragraph notations to reflect 
    organizational changes resulting from this amendment, or concern 
    program provisions for which there is no Federal counterpart and which 
    do not adversely affect other aspects of the West Virginia program.
    
    A. Proposed Revisions to the West Virginia Code (Including numerous 
    revisions to the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act 
    (WVSCMRA)
    
    1. Sec. 22-1-4 Through 8 Division of Environmental Protection
        The State has reorganized the Division of Environmental Protection 
    under the Bureau of the Environment and abolished the Department of 
    Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources under West Virginia House 
    Bill (H.B. 4030). Within the Bureau of Environment, Division of 
    Environmental Protection, the State established the Office of Abandoned 
    Mine Lands and Reclamation, and the Office of Mining and Reclamation. 
    The Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation is given the 
    authority to administer and enforce the State's Abandoned Mine Lands 
    and Reclamation Act. The Office of Mining and Reclamation is given the 
    authority to administer and enforce the State's Surface Coal Mining and 
    Reclamation Act (under Sec. 22-1-7). The director is authorized to 
    appoint a Chief of each office who is accountable and responsible for 
    the performance of the duties, functions, and services of his or her 
    office (Sec. 22-1-8(a)). The provisions also authorize the director of 
    the division of environmental protection to employ legal counsel (H.B. 
    2523) (Sec. 22-1-6(d)(7)). The Director finds that the State regulatory 
    authority continues to have authority under State laws to implement, 
    administer, and enforce its State program. He is therefore approving 
    the proposed revisions to WVSCMRA Sec. 22-1-4 through 8. The Director 
    is also taking this opportunity to remove the required amendment at 30 
    CFR 948.16(c)(1), since it refers to the creation of the Division of 
    Mines and Minerals, which is now an obsolete designation.
    2. Sec. 22-2 Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation Act
        West Virginia proposes to revise its statute at section 22-2-2 to 
    reflect the extension of the abandoned land reclamation program and the 
    collection of fees which support it to September 30, 2004. The Director 
    finds that this revision is substantively identical to and therefore no 
    less stringent than section 402(b) of SMCRA.
        West Virginia is also amending Sec. 22-2-4 to change the reference 
    to Public Law 95-87 to read ``Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
    Act'', to change the reference to subdivision (3) to read subsection 
    (c), to change the reference to section 404 of Public Law 95-87 to read 
    section 402 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and to 
    delete references to ``administrative and personnel expenses'' for the 
    purposes of clarification. The Director finds that these revisions are 
    consistent with the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Act of 1990 and 
    satisfy 30 CFR 948.26(a), which is hereby removed.
        The State is revising paragraph (c) by changing the ending date for 
    abandoned mine land fund eligibility for surface mining sites where the 
    surety became insolvent. The ending date for eligibility was changed 
    from October 1, 1991, to November 5, 1990. Paragraph (c) is also 
    revised by changing the reference to Public Law 95-87 to the Federal 
    Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended. The Director 
    finds that the proposal is substantively identical to and therefore no 
    less stringent than section 402(g) of SMCRA.
    3. Sec. 22-3-3 Definitions
        a. Operator: The WVDEP proposes to define operator to mean any 
    person who is granted or who should obtain a permit to engage in any 
    activity covered by the WVSCMRA and any rule promulgated thereunder and 
    any person who engages in surface mining or surface mining and 
    reclamation operations, or both. The proposed definition states that 
    the term operator shall also be construed in a manner consistent with 
    the Federal program pursuant to SMCRA, as amended.
        Section 701 of SMCRA defines operator to mean any person, 
    partnership, or corporation engaged in coal mining who removes or 
    intends to remove more than 250 tons of coal from the earth by coal 
    mining within 12 consecutive calendar months in any one location. In 
    support of the proposed definition the State submitted a policy 
    statement stating that WVDEP would interpret ``operator'' to include 
    all 
    
    [[Page 6514]]
    persons who engage in surface mining or prospecting activities. This 
    policy statement was accompanied by a legal opinion from the General 
    Council for WVDEP which stated that the term ``operator'' as defined in 
    the WVSCMRA applies to a person who intends to prospect or engage in 
    coal exploration (Administrative Record No. WV-932). The Director 
    therefore finds that the proposed definition of operator at Sec. 22-3-3 
    of the WVSCMRA is no less stringent than the definition at section 701 
    of SMCRA and he is approving it.
        b. Surface mine, surface mining or surface mining operations: The 
    WVDEP proposes to revise Sec. 22-3-3(u)(1) by inserting a semicolon 
    between ``reclamation'' and ``in-situ'' and a comma between 
    ``cleaning'' and ``concentrating''. Also, at subsection 3(u)(2), the 
    exemption for permanent facilities not within the area being mined and 
    not directly involved in the excavation, storage, or processing of coal 
    has been removed from the definition. The Director finds that the 
    revisions to the definition of ``surface mining operation'', which 
    remove the exemption for certain permanent facilities and correct 
    errors in punctuation, satisfy the requirements of 30 CFR 948.16(c)(2) 
    and resolve the concerns which caused the Secretary not to approve the 
    definition at 30 CFR 948.12(c) and 30 CFR 948.13(a). Accordingly, he is 
    approving the proposed definition and removing the disapproval, set 
    aside, and required amendment provisions at 30 CFR 948.12(c), 
    948.13(a), and 948.16(c)(2).
    4. Sec. 22-3-5 Surface Mining Inspectors and Supervisors
        West Virginia proposes to change the probationary status for 
    surface mining supervisors and inspectors from one year to six months. 
    The Director has determined that this revision, for which there is no 
    direct Federal counterpart, is within the administrative discretion of 
    the regulatory authority, and is not inconsistent with the requirements 
    of SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
    5. Sec. 22-3-7 Notice of Intent To Prospect
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (f) to allow for the 
    promulgation of regulations, the development of application forms and 
    to require an application fee of $2,000 for prospecting operations 
    intending to remove more than 250 tons of coal. While there is no 
    direct Federal counterpart, the Director finds that proposed revisions 
    are consistent with the Federal requirements for coal exploration 
    permits at section 512 of SMCRA and are hereby approved.
    6. Sec. 22-3-8 Surface Mining Reclamation Permit
        The State has deleted subsections 8(a) and 8(b), and renumbered the 
    remaining subsections. The deleted subsections required coal mining 
    operations in existence at the time of the Secretary's approval (1981) 
    of the West Virginia program to obtain permits under the newly approved 
    program. The Director finds that the deletion of these out-of-date 
    provisions does not render the West Virginia program inconsistent with 
    SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (1) of this section to allow 
    for the continued operation of a mine by the transferee pending 
    approval of the transfer application, and subject to the ownership and 
    control provisions at section 22-3-18(c). The Federal counterpart to 
    this provision at Sec. 506(b) of SMCRA does not refer specifically to 
    permit transfers. However, it does allow a successor in interest to 
    continue coal mining operations on the current permit while awaiting 
    approval of the regulatory of its application for a new permit. The 
    Director believes that allowing permit transfer applicants to mine 
    while they await a decision on their application for transfer of permit 
    is not inconsistent with the principles underlying Sec. 506(b) of 
    SMCRA, so long as the applicant is eligible for a permit Sec. 22-3-
    18(c) (West Virginia's ownership and control provisions), and provides 
    adequate bond. Furthermore, the opportunity for public comment will 
    remain a meaningful one, since the regulatory authority may still 
    ultimately deny the application for the transfer based on information 
    obtained during the public comment period. Therefore, the Director is 
    approving the provision. West Virginia proposes to increase the surface 
    mining permit fee from $500 to $1,000 at paragraph (4). Also, as 
    provided in paragraph (h), the State proposes to make compliance with 
    the Workers' Compensation Program a requirement of permit approval. 
    There are no direct Federal counterparts. The Director finds that these 
    provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA or the 
    Federal regulations.
    7. Sec. 22-3-9 Permit Application Requirements
        West Virginia proposes to revise the eligibility requirements for 
    its Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP) at paragraph (b). The 
    State is increasing the total annual production rate for SOAP 
    eligibility from 100,000 to 300,000 tons of coal. In addition, the 
    State has added language that identifies the services that are 
    reimbursable under SOAP. These new services include engineering 
    analyses and designs needed in the determination of probable hydrologic 
    consequences, cross-section maps and plans, geologic drilling and 
    statements of results of test borings and core samplings, preblast 
    surveys, fish and wildlife protection and enhancement plans, and the 
    collection of archaeological and historical information. The Director 
    finds that WVSCMRA Sec. 22A-3-9(b), as revised, is substantively 
    identical to and, therefore, no less stringent than the corresponding 
    SOAP provisions of section 507(c) of SMCRA.
        At subsection 9(g), the State has added the word 
    ``administratively'' in two locations to clarify that the provision 
    pertains to administratively complete applications. The term 
    ``administratively complete application'' is defined at CSR 38-2-2.9. 
    The Director finds these changes to be consistent with section 510 of 
    SMCRA, and no less effective than the use of the term 
    ``administratively complete application'' at 30 CFR 773.13 concerning 
    public participation in permit processing and the definition of the 
    term ``administratively complete'' at 30 CFR 701.5.
    8. Sec. 22-3-9a Permit To Mine Two Acres or Less
        The State has deleted (S.B. 579; June 7, 1991) this section which 
    contains special provisions governing surface mining operations of two 
    acres or smaller in size. Section 528(2) of SMCRA, which set forth the 
    corresponding Federal provisions, was repealed pursuant to Section 201 
    of Public Law 100-34. Therefore, the Director finds that the proposed 
    deletion will not render West Virginia's program less stringent than 
    SMCRA. In addition, the Director finds that the deletion of WVSCMRA 
    Sec. 22A-3-9a eliminates the need for further action regarding the 
    required amendments set forth at 948.16(c)(3), (4), (5) and (6), and 
    the disapproval and set-aside set forth at 30 CFR 948.12(d) and 
    948.13(b), respectively, and he is, therefore, removing them.
    9. Sec. 22-3-13 Performance Standards
        The State proposes to amend subparagraph (b)(10) to require that 
    operators avoid acid or toxic-mine drainage by preventing or removing 
    water from contact with toxic producing deposits, treating drainage, 
    and casing, sealing or managing boreholes, shafts and wells to keep 
    acid drainage from entering ground and surface waters. The Director 
    finds that this proposal is substantively identical to and, therefore, 
    
    [[Page 6515]]
    no less stringent than, the corresponding Federal statute at section 
    515(b)(10)(A) of SMCRA.
        West Virginia proposes to revise subparagraph (b)(15) to require 
    the mailing of the proposed blasting schedule to every resident within 
    one-half mile of the blasting site, and to provide any resident or 
    owner of a dwelling within one-half mile of any portion of the permit 
    area the right to a preblast survey. The Director finds that this 
    proposal is substantively identical to and, therefore, no less 
    stringent than, the corresponding Federal statute at section 515(b)(15) 
    of SMCRA.
        In addition, the State proposes to revise subparagraph (b)(16)(C) 
    to provide that underground mining permits shall terminate if 
    operations have not commenced within three years of the date of permit 
    issuance. The Director finds that this proposal is substantively 
    identical to and, therefore, no less stringent than section 506(c) of 
    SMCRA.
        The State also proposes to revise subparagraph (b)(22) to require 
    that rock to be used in durable rock fills not slake in water and not 
    degrade to soil material. The Director finds that this proposal is 
    substantively identical to and, therefore, no less effective than the 
    corresponding Federal provision set forth at 30 CFR 816.73(b).
        Finally, West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (e) to allow 
    the Director to promulgate rules that permit variances from approximate 
    original contour. The Director finds that this proposal is consistent 
    with that portion of section 515(e) of SMCRA which permits states with 
    approved programs to allow variances from the requirements to return a 
    steep slope area to its approximate original contour (AOC). Therefore, 
    this revision is approved, but only to the extent that it applies to 
    steep slope areas as defined at WVSCMRA Sec. 22-3-13(d). In addition, 
    the Director is requiring that West Virginia amend its program to limit 
    such variances to industrial, commercial, residential, or public 
    alternative postmining land use, in accordance with section 515(e)(2).
    10. Sec. 22-3-15  Inspections
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (b)(1)(C) to require 
    that monitoring equipment be installed, maintained and used consistent 
    with WVSCMRA Sec. 22-3-9 rather than WVSCMRA Sec. 22-3-10 as currently 
    stated. The Director has determined that this correction of a cross-
    reference will not render the West Virginia program inconsistent with 
    the requirements of SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
        The State also proposes to delete the provision in paragraph (g) 
    which provides that permittees, employees and inspectors are not to be 
    held civilly liable for any injury sustained by a person accompanying 
    an inspector on an inspection. The Director finds that this deletion, 
    which resolves the concerns raised by OSM as set forth at 30 CFR 
    948.12(a) and 948.13(e), will not render the West Virginia program 
    inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA or the Federal regulations. 
    The Director is, therefore, removing the disapproval at 30 CFR 
    948.12(a), and the corresponding set aside at 30 CFR 948.13(e).
        Finally, the State is deleting from paragraph (g) the provision 
    that any person accompanying an inspector on an inspection shall be 
    responsible for supplying any safety equipment required. There is no 
    counterpart to this rule in the Federal program, and the Director finds 
    that the deletion of this provision will not render the West Virginia 
    program inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA or the Federal 
    regulations.
    11. Sec. 22-3-17  Notice of Violation
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (a) of this section to 
    make it mandatory to issue a notice of violation whenever any provision 
    of WVSCMRA, the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto or a permit 
    condition has not been complied with. In addition, the time set for 
    initial abatement of a notice of violation is proposed to be changed 
    from 15 to 30 days, and the maximum time allowed as a reasonable 
    extension is changed from 75 to 60 days. The Director finds that these 
    revisions are no less stringent than and are procedurally similar to 
    section 521(a)(3) of SMCRA.
        In paragraph (a), the State also proposes to delete the provision 
    that exempts cessation orders that are released or expire within 24 
    hours after issuance from mandatory civil penalty assessment of seven 
    hundred fifty dollars per day per violation. While there is no direct 
    Federal counterpart, the Director finds that the deletion of this 
    provision will not render the State's program inconsistent with the 
    requirements of SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (b) to allow the director to 
    suspend or revoke a permit upon the operator's failure to show cause 
    why the permit should not be suspended or revoked. In addition, if the 
    permit is revoked, the proposal states that the commissioner shall 
    initiate procedures to forfeit the operator's bond in accordance with 
    rules promulgated by the Director. The Director finds that the 
    proposals are consistent with the requirements of SMCRA at section 
    521(a)(4) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 843.13.
        In addition, West Virginia proposes to recodify paragraph (d)(3) as 
    new subsection (e) in order to clarify that appeal rights and 
    procedures apply to all notices, orders and decisions of the 
    commissioner, not just those relating to civil penalty assessments; and 
    to recodify paragraph (d)(4) as new subsection (f) to clarify that 
    temporary relief provisions apply to all enforcement actions and 
    orders, but not to civil penalty assessments. The Director finds that 
    the proposed recodification will not render the State's program 
    inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA or the Federal regulations, 
    and satisfies the requirements of 30 CFR 948.16(c) (8) and (9), which 
    are hereby removed.
        West Virginia proposes to revise newly redesignated section (f) to 
    provide that the filing of a request for an informal conference or 
    formal hearing will not stay the execution of the order appealed from. 
    The Director has determined that this proposal is substantively 
    identical to and, therefore, no less stringent than the corresponding 
    Federal provision at section 525(a) of SMCRA. Finally, the State 
    proposes to revise section (f) to provide that where a request for 
    temporary relief from an order for cessation of operations is filed, 
    the commissioner shall issue his decision within 5 days of receipt of 
    the request. The Director finds that this proposal is substantively 
    identical to and, therefore, no less stringent than the corresponding 
    Federal provision at section 525(c) of SMCRA.
    12. Sec. 22-3-18  Permit Approval
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (a) of this section to 
    require the submission of a complete permit application before a 
    decision is rendered, and to provide that the applicant has the burden 
    of establishing that the application is in compliance with the program 
    requirements. The Director finds that the proposed revisions are 
    substantively identical to and, therefore, no less stringent than the 
    corresponding Federal statute at section 510(a) of SMCRA.
        The State has amended paragraph (c) to require that permit 
    applications contain violation information on any surface mining 
    operation owned or controlled by the applicant, rather than just those 
    operations located in the state of West Virginia. The Director has 
    determined that this revision is substantively identical to and, 
    therefore, 
    
    [[Page 6516]]
    no less stringent than the Federal law at section 510(c) of SMCRA.
        In addition, section (c) has been revised to add that no permit may 
    be issued upon a finding of a demonstrated pattern of willful 
    violations of (in addition to West Virginia statute) other State or 
    Federal programs implementing SMCRA of such a degree as to indicate an 
    intent not to comply with the State statute or SMCRA. The Director 
    finds these changes to be substantively identical to and no less 
    stringent than section 510(c) of SMCRA and satisfies the concerns 
    raised in 30 CFR 948.12(g) and 948.13(f) which are hereby removed.
        Finally, West Virginia is proposing to revise, in section (c), the 
    conditions under which a permit may be issued after revocation or 
    forfeiture, to include situations where the violations which resulted 
    in the revocation or forfeiture have not caused irreparable damage to 
    the environment. While there is no direct Federal counterpart, the 
    Director finds that the proposal is not inconsistent with the permit 
    approval provisions of section 510 of SMCRA.
    13. Sec. 22-3-19  Permit Renewal and Revision Requirements
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (a)(2) of this section by 
    deleting the references to incidental boundary revisions, and adding a 
    requirement that where a renewal application proposes to extend the 
    operation beyond the original boundaries, the portion of the renewal 
    application involving the new area is subject to the full permit 
    application requirements. The State clarified the intent of the 
    amendment by stating that the term ``full standards'' as used in 
    WVSCMRA Sec. 22-3-19(a)(2) means that for the area being added to the 
    permit, the applicant must satisfy all current permitting requirements 
    and is subject to all inspection and enforcement provisions and all 
    performance standards. In other words, it would be treated like a new 
    permit application (Administrative Record No. WV-932). Given this 
    clarification, the Director finds the revisions to be substantively 
    identical to and, therefore, no less stringent than section 506(d)(2) 
    of SMCRA.
        In addition paragraph (a)(4) is amended to add a two thousand 
    dollar filing fee for any permit renewal for an active permit. The 
    Director finds that this proposal is not inconsistent with the permit 
    fee provisions in section 507(a) of SMCRA.
        Finally, West Virginia proposes to revise section (b)(3) to provide 
    that where the permittee desires to add new area to a permit, the 
    original permit may be amended to include the new area, provided the 
    application for the new area is subject to all the procedures and 
    requirements applicable to applications for original permits. The 
    Director finds that the revision is substantively identical to and, 
    therefore, no less stringent than section 506(d)(2) of SMCRA.
    14. Sec. 22-3-22  Designation of Areas Unsuitable for Mining
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (b) of this section by 
    deleting the word commissioner. As revised, the provision gives any 
    person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected the 
    right to petition the Director to have the area designated as 
    unsuitable for mining or to have such designation terminated. The 
    Director finds the proposal to be substantively identical to and, 
    therefore, no less stringent than section 522(c) of SMCRA.
    15. Sec. 22-3-26  Surface Mining Operations Not Subject to the Act
        The State proposes to delete paragraph (b) of this section which 
    provided an exemption for the extraction of coal by a landowner engaged 
    in construction. There is no direct Federal counterpart to this 
    exemption and the Director finds that the proposed deletion will not 
    render the West Virginia program inconsistent with the requirements of 
    SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
        The exemption for government financed construction at paragraph (c) 
    is being revised to provide that coal extraction incidental to federal, 
    state, county, municipal, or other local government financed highway or 
    other construction is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The 
    Director finds that this provision is substantively identical to and, 
    therefore, no less stringent than section 528(2) of SMCRA.
        The State also proposes to delete paragraph (d) which provided an 
    exemption for the extraction of coal affecting two acres or less. The 
    Director finds this proposal to be consistent with the provisions of 
    subsection 201(b) of Public Law 100-34 (effective June 6, 1987) which 
    repealed the two-acre exemption originally set forth at section 528(2) 
    of SMCRA and, therefore, the deletion of this provision will not render 
    the State's rules inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA or the 
    Federal regulations. The Director is removing required amendment 30 CFR 
    948.16(c)(7) because with the deletion it is no longer relevant.
    16. Sec. 22-3-28  Special Permits for Abandoned Coal Waste Piles
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (d) of this section by 
    deleting the word ``reprocessing'' and adding the word ``removal'' in 
    order to clarify that the special permit is solely for removal of 
    existing abandoned coal waste piles. The Director finds that this 
    revision will not render the State program inconsistent with the 
    requirements of SMCRA or the Federal regulations. The Director notes 
    that the implementing rules are located at CSR 38-2-3.14(d) (see 
    Finding B-9 below).
    17. Sec. 22-3-40  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
    (NPDES)
        The State proposes to revise this section to require a filing fee 
    for an NPDES permit application of $500 and a filing fee for a renewal 
    application of $100. The Director finds that this proposal is not 
    inconsistent with the general permit fee provisions of section 507(a) 
    of SMCRA.
    18. Sec. 22B-1-4 through 12 Environmental Boards; General Policy and 
    Purpose
        The State is adding these provisions to the West Virginia program 
    to establish the requirements under which environmental boards will 
    operate. The Director finds that the provisions are not inconsistent 
    with SMCRA section 503 concerning state programs. The Director notes 
    that West Virginia's administrative hearings and appeals procedures are 
    the same or similar to those in sections 514 and 525 of SMCRA. The 
    Director is not approving language at section 22B-1-7(d) concerning 
    allowing temporary relief where the appellant demonstrates that the 
    executed decision appealed from will result in the appellant suffering 
    an ``unjust hardship.'' because the exception is inconsistent with 
    SMCRA sections 514(d) and 525(c). In addition, the Director is 
    requiring that West Virginia further amend Sec. 22B-1-7(d) to be 
    consistent with SMCRA sections 514(d) and 525(c).
        Section 7(h) would allow the Surface Mining Board to consider 
    economic feasibility of treating or controlling discharges from surface 
    coal mining operations in appeals from decisions of an order, permit, 
    or official action. In this respect, the provisions are less stringent 
    than SMCRA section 515(b)(10) and less effective than the Federal 
    regulations at 30 CFR 816.42, because both require discharges to be 
    controlled or treated without regard to economic feasibility. 
    Therefore, the Director is not approving this language 
    
    [[Page 6517]]
    to the extent that it would allow the Board to decline to order an 
    operator to treat or control discharges due to economic considerations. 
    In addition, the Director is requiring that West Virginia further amend 
    Sec. 22B-1-7(h) to be no less stringent than SMCRA section 515(b)(10) 
    and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.42, by 
    requiring discharges to be controlled or treated without regard to 
    economic feasibility.
    19. Sec. 22B-3-4  Environmental Quality Board
        This new provision establishes the Environmental Quality Board's 
    rule-making authority. Under WV S.B. 287, the provision authorizes the 
    promulgation of procedural rules granting site specific variances for 
    water quality standards for coal remining operations; providing minimum 
    requirements for procedures for granting variances; prohibits granting 
    variances without requirement of best available technology and best 
    professional judgement; prohibits granting variance without 
    demonstration of potential for improvement; and prohibits granting 
    variance if degradation will result. The Director finds the provision 
    is not inconsistent with SMCRA section 503 which provides that State 
    programs must have the capacity to establish rules and regulations to 
    carry out the purposes of SMCRA. The provision is also not inconsistent 
    with section 301(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
    U.S.C. 1311) which allows alternate effluent limitations to be 
    established for coal remining operations. The Director notes that any 
    such procedural rules that grant variances must be submitted to OSM for 
    approval prior to their implementation.
    20. Sec. 22B-4  Surface Mine Board
        The State has renamed the ``Reclamation Board of Review'' the 
    ``Surface Mine Board'' and has established new requirements under which 
    it operates. However, the amendment still requires that some board 
    members represent outside interests. Therefore, the Director finds that 
    these revisions do not materially affect the basis for OSM original 
    determination of the Board's multiple interest status. Since the Board 
    continues to represent multiple interests, its members are not 
    ``employees'' within the meaning of section 517(g) of SMCRA and the 
    Federal regulations at 30 CFR 705.5. Therefore, the Director finds the 
    provisions of section 22B-4 to be not inconsistent with SMCRA section 
    503 concerning State programs, section 514 concerning decisions of 
    regulatory authority and appeals, and 517(g) concerning financial 
    interests of employees.
    
    B. Proposed Revisions to the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation 
    Regulations
    
    1. CSR Sec. 38-2-1.2  Applicability
        West Virginia proposes to delete former paragraph (b) of this 
    subsection. The Director finds that the deletion satisfies the 
    disapproval codified at 30 CFR 948.12(h). 30 CFR 948.12(h) is hereby 
    removed.
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraphs (c) and (d) by 
    providing for the termination and reassertion of jurisdiction over a 
    completed surface mining and reclamation operation. The Director finds 
    that the amendments to paragraphs (c)(2) and (d) are substantively 
    identical to and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 
    CFR 700.11(d)(1)(ii) and (2), respectively, concerning termination of 
    jurisdiction. Subsection (c)(1) is less effective than the Federal 
    counterpart at 700.11(d)(1)(i) to the extent that subsection (c)(1) 
    does not require compliance with the Federal initial program 
    regulations at Subchapter B or the West Virginia permanent regulatory 
    program as a prerequisite to the termination of jurisdiction over an 
    initial program site. In addition, the Director is requiring that the 
    State further amend subsection (c)(1) to require compliance with the 
    Federal initial program regulations at Subchapter B or the West 
    Virginia permanent regulatory program regulations as a prerequisite to 
    the termination of jurisdiction over an initial program site.
    2. CSR Sec. 38-2-2  Definitions
        a. Chemical treatment. The WVDEP proposes to define ``chemical 
    treatment'' at subsection 2.20. This definition, among other 
    applications, applies to the bond release provisions at CSR 38-2-
    12.2(e). CSR 38-2-12.2(e) prohibits bond release where chemical 
    treatment is necessary to bring water discharged from or affected by 
    the operation into compliance with effluent limitations or water 
    quality standards as set forth in CSR 38-2-14.5(b). In effect, for 
    example, under the proposed definition, bond would not be released 
    under Sec. 38-2-12.2(e) if water discharged from or affected by an 
    operation is being actively treated by chemical reagents (such as 
    sodium hydroxide or calcium carbonate) to bring a discharge into 
    compliance. The bond would be released, however, if that same water 
    were being treated, instead, by passive treatment systems (such as 
    wetlands or limestone drains) to bring the discharge into compliance. 
    The Director finds that the blanket exclusion of passive treatment 
    systems from the definition of chemical treatment would render the West 
    Virginia program less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
    800.40(c)(3) concerning release of bond. 30 CFR 800.40(c)(3) provides 
    that no bond shall be fully released until reclamation requirements of 
    SMCRA are fully met. If treatment is necessary to maintain compliance, 
    whether it be active or passive treatment, then the hydrologic 
    protection standards of SMCRA section 515(b)(10) have not been fully 
    met and bond cannot be released. The withheld bond helps assure that 
    the required treatment will be continued. The fact that a treatment 
    system is ``passive,'' and may not require human intervention as 
    frequently as an ``active'' treatment system, does not diminish the 
    need for assurance that treatment will be provided as long as is 
    necessary to maintain compliance. Therefore, the Director is approving 
    the definition of ``chemical treatment'' except to the extent that it 
    would allow bond release where passive treatment systems are used to 
    achieve compliance with applicable effluent limitations as discussed 
    above. In addition, the Director is requiring that West Virginia 
    further amend the West Virginia program to clarify that bond may not be 
    released where passive treatment systems are used to achieve compliance 
    with applicable effluent limitations. This finding does not mean that 
    OSM is discouraging the use of mining and reclamation practices and the 
    use of passive treatment systems that help minimize water pollution. On 
    the contrary, when such practices and passive systems are designed into 
    the approved operations and reclamation plans, they become an integral 
    part of an effective program to minimize the formation of acidic or 
    toxic drainage. However, when such passive systems are used to treat a 
    discharge that would otherwise not be in compliance with effluent 
    discharge limitations, such systems are, in effect, chemical treatment 
    and bond release should not be granted. Passive treatment systems have 
    not yet been proven effective for all parameters or on a long-term 
    basis; their effectiveness appears to decrease over time. See OSM's 
    directive TSR-10, Use of Wetland Treatment Systems for Coal Mine 
    Drainage, for further information on this issue.
    
    [[Page 6518]]
    
        b. Impoundment or impounding structure; operator; prospecting; and 
    sediment control or other water retention structure, sediment control 
    or other water retention system, sediment pond. The Director finds the 
    proposed definition of ``impoundment or impounding structure'' at CSR 
    38-2-2.66 is substantively identical to the Federal definition at 30 
    CFR 701.5 and is removing the required amendment codified at 30 CFR 
    948.16(f).
        The State is adding the proposed definition of ``operator'' at CSR 
    38-2-2.81. This definition is substantively identical to the proposed 
    statutory State definition of ``operator'' at Sec. 22-3-3. See Finding 
    A-3a above for a complete discussion. The Director finds the proposed 
    definition of ``operator'' is consistent with the Federal definitions 
    at section 701 of SMCRA and 30 CFR 701.5.
        The Federal counterpart to the definition of ``prospecting,'' is 
    the Federal definition of ``coal exploration'' at 30 CFR 701.5. The 
    State and Federal definitions are different in that the Federal 
    definition includes all data gathering without consideration of whether 
    or not disturbance occurs. However, the Director finds the proposed 
    definition of ``prospecting'' at CSR 38-2-2.95, while different, 
    doesn't render the State program less effective than the Federal 
    regulations, in light of the fact that CSR 38-2-13.1 contains all the 
    appropriate requirements for a notice of intent to prospect where no 
    disturbance is anticipated (see Finding B30 below). The Director is 
    approving the definition of prospecting, and removing the required 
    amendment at 30 CFR 948.16(nn). In addition, the Director notes an 
    apparent inconsistency between the definition of prospecting at CSR 38-
    2-2.95, which excludes the gathering of environmental data without 
    disturbance from the definition of prospecting, and the requirements 
    for a notice of intent to prospect at CSR 38-2-13, which recognize that 
    prospecting can include data gathering without disturbance. The State 
    may want to correct this.
        The Director finds the definition of ``sediment control or other 
    water retention structure, sediment control or other water retention 
    system, or sediment pond'' at CSR 38-2-108 to be consistent with the 
    federal definition of ``siltation structure'' at 30 CFR 701.5 and can 
    be approved, and the required amendment at 30 CFR 948.16(n) is 
    partially satisfied.
    3. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.1  Application Information
        New subsection 3.1(o) is added to authorize the grouping of 
    ownership and control information by permittees who are so related by 
    the submittal and maintenance of a centralized ownership and control 
    file. Each file must contain required information at CSR Sec. 38-2-3.1 
    (a), (c), (d), and (l) and be updated at least quarterly. However, the 
    file must be complete and accurate during the time that an application 
    is pending. There is no counterpart to the proposed language. However, 
    the Director finds that the proposed provision is not inconsistent with 
    the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 773.15 concerning review of permit 
    applications and can be approved to the extent that all permit 
    applicants which maintain centralized ownership and control files are 
    also required to comply with all of the informational provisions 
    contained in CSR 38-2-3.1.
    4. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.4  Maps
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (d), subparagraphs (18), 
    (22), (23), and (24) to require that the permit application identify 
    each topsoil and noncoal waste storage area, each explosive storage and 
    handling facility and the area of land to be affected within the 
    proposed permit area according to the sequence of mining and 
    reclamation. This revision is intended to satisfy the requirements of 
    30 CFR 948.16(t). Paragraph (d)(23) concerning explosive storage 
    facilities has also been amended to read as follows: ``The location of 
    any explosive storage and handling facility; which will remain in place 
    for an extended period of time during the life of the operation.'' The 
    Director finds that the amendments are substantively identical to and 
    no less effective than the requirements of 30 CFR 780.14(b), and that 
    30 CFR 948.16(t) can be removed.
    5. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.6  Operation Plan
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (k) of this subsection 
    to require the submission of a fugitive dust control plan. This 
    revision is intended to satisfy the requirements of 30 CFR 948.16(s). 
    The Director finds the amendment to be substantively identical to and 
    no less effective than 30 CFR 780.15(a)(2) concerning a plan for 
    fugitive dust control practices, and that 30 CFR 948.16(s) is satisfied 
    and can be removed.
    6. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.7  Excess Spoil
        The State proposes to delete the provision in paragraph (a) which 
    gives the Director authority to approve alternative design requirements 
    for excess spoil fills. This deletion satisfies the deficiency noted at 
    30 CFR 948.15(k)(3) and the requirement at 948.16(i) which can be 
    removed.
    7. CSR 38-2-3.8  New and Existing Structures and Support Facilities
        Subsection 3.8(a) is amended to require that each permit 
    application contain a description, plans, and drawings for each support 
    facility to be constructed, used or maintained within the proposed 
    permit area. The Director finds the proposed language to be 
    substantively identical to and no less effective than 30 CFR 780.38 
    concerning support facilities.
        Subsection (d) is amended by adding a provision that will provide 
    for the permitting and bonding of a facility or structure that is to be 
    shared by two or more separately permitted mining operations. The 
    Director finds that the provision is substantively identical to and, 
    therefore, no less effective than the Federal provision concerning 
    shared facilities at 30 CFR 778.22 and can be approved.
    8. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.12  Subsidence Control Plan
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (a), subparagraph (5) to 
    require that measures be taken to mitigate or remedy material damage to 
    structures due to subsidence in accordance with subsection 16.2(c) and 
    (d) in addition to the existing requirement of meeting 16.2(a) 
    concerning surface owner protection. While there is no direct Federal 
    counterpart to this proposal, the Director finds the proposed revisions 
    to be consistent with the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 784.20(b) 
    concerning subsidence control plans. The State also proposes to delete 
    the phrase in paragraph (d), subparagraph (2) which does not require an 
    identification of measures to be taken to protect structures when the 
    applicant demonstrates the right to subside without liability. This 
    revision is consistent with the 1992 Energy Policy Act, which added 
    section 720 to SMCRA and requires repair or compensation by the 
    operator for material damage to structures caused by subsidence 
    regardless of any ``right to subside.''
    9. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.14  Removal of Abandoned Coal Waste Piles
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (a) of this subsection which 
    allows the State to issue a special permit solely for the removal of 
    existing abandoned coal processing waste piles. 
    
    [[Page 6519]]
    The added language requires that if the average quality of the refuse 
    material can be classified as coal using the BTU standard in ASTM D 
    388-88, a permit application which meets all applicable requirements of 
    Sec. 38-2-3 shall be required. This revision is intended to satisfy the 
    deficiency of 30 CFR 948.15(k)(4). The Director finds the proposed 
    language is consistent with the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 773.11 
    concerning requirements to obtain permits and can be approved, and that 
    30 CFR 948.15(k)(4) is satisfied.
    10. CSR Sec. 38-3.15  Approved Person
        West Virginia proposes to revise its approved person requirements 
    in this subsection. The State is proposing to allow approved persons to 
    certify associated facilities. It also proposes to require the 
    submission of a registration or license in addition to a resume. 
    Finally, it proposes to delete the provisions which allow the director 
    to require a person to requalify for ``approved person'' status, and to 
    suspend or withdraw ``approved person'' status. Although there are no 
    Federal counterparts, the Director finds the proposed changes are not 
    inconsistent with SMCRA and the Federal regulations concerning 
    requirements for permits and permit processing, since the State has 
    retained the provision, at subsection 3.15(a), which states that 
    ``approved person'' may only be designated by the regulatory authority 
    where the WVSCMRA does not otherwise prohibit such designations.
    11. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.16  Fish and Wildlife Resources
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (a) to this subsection 
    deleting the word ``approval''. Under the revised provision, the 
    regulatory authority will provide only for coordination of review of 
    permits where such coordination is appropriate pursuant to the Fish and 
    Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). The Director finds 
    the proposed deletion does not render the West Virginia program less 
    effective than 30 CFR 780.16 concerning fish and wildlife information.
    12. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.25  Transfer, Assignment or Sale of Permit Rights
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (a), subparagraph (4) of 
    this subsection to provide that the approval of a transfer application 
    may be granted in advance of the close of the public comment period, 
    provided that the Director can immediately withdraw approval if 
    information is made available as a result of public comment that would 
    preclude approval. There is no direct Federal counterpart to the 
    proposed language. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.17(b) provide 
    that an applicant for approval of the transfer, assignment, or sale of 
    permit rights shall (at (b)(2)) advertise the filing of the application 
    and identify where written comments may be sent. The State counterpart 
    to the notice requirements of 30 CFR 774.17(b)(2) is CSR 38-2-
    3.25(a)(3). While the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 774.17(b)(2) 
    require public notice, they do not prohibit application approval prior 
    to the end of the public comment period. The State proposal provides 
    the regulatory authority with reasonable flexibility to promptly 
    conclude approvals of transfer, assignment or sale of permit rights 
    while also assuring that public comment is considered and in those 
    cases where public comment presented information that would preclude 
    approval, the State can immediately withdraw approval. The Director 
    finds that the proposed language is not inconsistent with the intent of 
    30 CFR 774.17 concerning transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights 
    and can be approved. See Finding A6, above for the Director's approval 
    of the statutory provision at Sec. 22-3-8 concerning permit transfers.
        Paragraph (a)(4) is also amended to add reference to subsection 
    ``3.32(d)(7)'' (formerly subsection 3.31) which requires a finding by 
    the State that the applicant has paid all reclamation fees from 
    previous and existing operations. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
    774.17(d)(1) provide that an application for a transfer, assignment or 
    sale may be granted where the applicant is eligible to receive a permit 
    in accordance with 30 CFR 773.15(b) and (c). The State counterpart to 
    30 CFR 774.17(d)(1) is contained at CSR 38-2-3.25(a)(4).
        This paragraph requires that applicants be eligible for permits in 
    accordance with CSR 38-2-3.32(c), which is the State counterpart to 30 
    CFR 773.15(b). However, subsection 3.25(a)(4), as proposed, adds a 
    cross-reference to only one portion of the State's counterpart to 30 
    CFR 773.15(c), namely, subsection 3.32(d)(7), pertaining to payment of 
    reclamation fees. The State has argued, and the Director agrees, that 
    the other findings contained in subsection 3.32(d) (30 CFR 773.15(c)) 
    need not be made during the review of an application for transfer, 
    assignment or sale since these findings relate to the issuance of the 
    original permit, and should, therefore, remain valid. However, the 
    finding at subsection 3.32(d)(7), pertaining to payment of reclamation 
    fees, must be made, since it relates specifically to the applicant for 
    transfer, assignment or sale. Therefore, the Director finds that the 
    additional reference to subsection 3.32(d)(7) renders the State's 
    program no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
    774.17(d)(1) and can be approved.
        The State also proposes to revise this subsection by revising 
    paragraph (c) and by adding paragraphs (d) and (e). These requirements 
    provide that permit assignments (operator reassignments) be advertised, 
    contain the ownership and control information required by Subsection 
    3.1 and subcontractors be subject to the eligibility requirements of 
    Subsection 3.32. This revision is intended to satisfy the requirements 
    of 30 CFR 948.16(v). Although there is no direct Federal counterpart, 
    the Director finds the added language is no less effective than 30 CFR 
    774.17, and that 30 CFR 948.16(v) is satisfied can be removed.
    13. CSR 38-2-3.26  Ownership and Control Changes
        The language of this subsection is new and governs the reporting of 
    name changes, replacements, and additions to the ownership and control 
    information for any surface mining operation or permittee. While there 
    is no direct Federal counterpart to the proposed language, the Director 
    finds that the proposed language is not inconsistent with 30 CFR 778.13 
    concerning identification of interests and 778.14 concerning violation 
    information and can be approved.
    14. CSR 38-2-3.27(a)  Permit Renewals and Permit Extensions
        The WVDEP proposes to add a provision which will allow the Director 
    to waive the requirements for permit renewal if the permittee certifies 
    in writing that all coal extraction is completed, that all backfilling 
    and regrading will be completed within 60 days prior to the expiration 
    date of the permit and that an application for Phase I bond release 
    will be filed prior to the expiration date of the permit. The proposal 
    also provides that failure to complete backfilling and grading within 
    60 days prior to the expiration date of the permit will nullify the 
    waiver. Finally, operations granted inactive status are also subject to 
    permit renewal requirements. The Director finds this provision to be 
    consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 773.11 which provides 
    that a permittee need not renew the permit if no surface coal mining 
    operations will be conducted under the permit and solely reclamation 
    activities remain to be done.
    
    [[Page 6520]]
    
    15. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.28  Permit Revisions
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (b) in this subsection to 
    require that each application for a permit revision be reviewed by the 
    director to determine if an updated probable hydrologic consequences 
    determination (PHC) or cumulative hydrologic impact assessment (CHIA) 
    is needed. The Director finds the proposed revisions are substantively 
    identical to and, therefore, no less effective than the Federal 
    regulations at 30 CFR 780.21(f)(4) concerning PHC determinations.
        The State also proposes to revise paragraph (c) to give the 
    Director the authority to require reasonable revision of a permit at 
    any time and to delete the provision which only required a revision to 
    assure adequate protection of the environment or public health and 
    safety. The revisions also require notice to the permittee of the need 
    for revisions and reasonable time for compliance. The Director finds 
    that the proposed revisions are similar to and no less effective than 
    the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.11(b) concerning review of 
    permits. These revisions satisfy the deficiency at 30 CFR 948.15(k)(5) 
    and the requirements of 948.16 (j) and (w). 30 CFR 948.16 (j) and (w) 
    are hereby removed.
    16. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.29  Incidental Boundary Revisions (IBRs)
        West Virginia proposes to revise its incidental boundary revision 
    (IBR) requirements in this subsection. The revisions in paragraph (a) 
    provide that IBRs will be limited to minor shifts or extensions into 
    non-coal areas or areas where coal extraction is incidental to or of 
    only secondary consideration of the intended purpose of the IBR. IBRs 
    will not be granted to abate a violation for encroachment beyond the 
    original permit boundaries, unless an equal amount of area is deleted 
    from the permitted area. Paragraph (b) is revised to allow IBRs for 
    underground mines to be larger than 50 acres when an applicant 
    demonstrates the need for a larger IBR. Also, applications for an IBR 
    must be accompanied by an adequate bond, a map showing the IBR area and 
    a reclamation plan for the area of the IBR. The State proposes to 
    delete subparagraph (6) which provides that all provisions of the IBR 
    which differ from the original permit meet the requirements of the Act 
    and regulations, except as provided in this subsection. Finally, the 
    State proposes to add paragraph (e) which gives the Director the 
    authority to require the publication of an advertisement that provides 
    for a ten-day public comment period for an IBR application.
        There is no definition for ``incidental boundary revisions'' 
    contained in either SMCRA or the Federal regulations. However, the 
    Director notes that under the proposed language IBR's will not be 
    authorized for surface or underground operations in cases where 
    additional coal removal is the primary purpose of the revision. 
    Therefore, the Director finds the proposed amendments to be consistent 
    with the principal intent of sections 511(a)(3) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 
    774.13(d) which pertain to incidental boundary revisions.
    17. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.30  Variances
        The State proposes to revise its variance requirements at 
    paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this subsection. These paragraphs 
    set forth requirements for granting variances from contemporaneous 
    reclamation. These revisions are intended to satisfy the requirements 
    at 30 CFR 948.16(x). The Director finds the proposed language is 
    substantively identical to and no less effective than 30 CFR 785.18 
    concerning variances for delay in contemporaneous reclamation 
    requirements in combined surface and underground mining activities. The 
    Director also finds the revisions do satisfy the requirements at 30 CFR 
    948.16(x), which is hereby removed.
    18. CSR 38-2-3.31(a)  Exemption for Government Financed Highway or 
    Other Construction
        The WVDEP proposes to revise its rules to allow exemptions from the 
    requirements of the WVSCMRA for county, municipal or other local 
    government-financed highway or other construction. The Director finds 
    this amendment to be consistent with and no less effective than the 
    Federal definitions of ``government financing agency'' and 
    ``government-financed construction'' at 30 CFR 707.5.
    19. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.32  Permit Findings
        The State proposes to delete the provision in this subsection which 
    requires the WVDEP to use and update ownership and control information 
    from surrounding States in the issuance of permits. While there is no 
    direct counterpart to the language that is being deleted, the Director 
    finds the deletion does not render the West Virginia program less 
    effective than the requirements of 30 CFR 773.15(b) concerning review 
    of violations. The West Virginia program continues to provide for the 
    review of outstanding violations at CSR Sec. 38-2-3.32 (b) and (c).
    20. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.33  Permit Conditions
        The State proposes to delete subsection (i) concerning an annual 
    submittal of information required at Sec. 38-2-3.1. There is no direct 
    Federal counterpart to the deleted language. The Director finds the 
    proposed deletion does not render the West Virginia program less 
    effective than 30 CFR 773.17 concerning permit conditions. The West 
    Virginia program continues to retain at CSR 38-2-3.33(h) a counterpart 
    to 30 CFR 773.17(i) concerning notification requirements following 
    cessation orders.
    21. CSR 38-2-3.34  Improvidently Issued Permits
        The WVDEP proposes to amend paragraph (b) by inserting the phrase 
    ``in paragraph (b) of subsection 3.32 of this section.'' This amendment 
    identifies where in the West Virginia program the violations review 
    criteria are located. The Director finds this change to be consistent 
    with and no less effective than 30 CFR 773.20(b)(1)(i).
        Subparagraph (b)(3) has been amended by deleting the existing 
    language and adding in its place language that is substantively 
    identical to and no less effective than 30 CFR 773.20(b)(1)(iii).
        New subparagraph (b)(4) has been added to provide that a permit 
    shall be determined to have been improvidently issued when the 
    permittee had a permit revoked or bond forfeited and has not been 
    reinstated, or the permittee was linked to a permit revocation or bond 
    forfeiture through ownership or control, at the time the permit was 
    issued and an ownership or control link between the permittee and the 
    person whose permit was revoked or whose bond was forfeited still 
    exists, or when the link was severed the permittee continues to be 
    responsible for the permit revocation or bond forfeiture. Although 
    there is no direct Federal counterpart, the Director finds the added 
    language to be consistent with the definition of ``violation notice'' 
    at 30 CFR 773.5, which definition includes notices of bond forfeiture, 
    with 30 CFR 773.20 concerning improvidently issued permits.
        Paragraph (c) is amended to add ``permit revocation or a bond 
    forfeiture'' to the list of circumstances that can cause a finding that 
    a permit was improvidently issued. While there is no direct Federal 
    counterpart, the Director finds the added language to be consistent 
    with the definition of ``violation notice'' at 30 CFR 773.5 and with 30 
    CFR 773.20(a)(1).
    
    [[Page 6521]]
    
        New subparagraph (d)(1)(E) is added to the list of circumstances 
    that could prevent an automatic suspension or rescission of a permit. 
    Under subparagraph (d)(1)(E), a permit would not be automatically 
    suspended or revoked if the permittee or other person responsible for 
    the permit revocation or bond forfeiture has been reinstated, pursuant 
    to section 18(c) of the WVSCMRA. While there is no direct Federal 
    counterpart, the Director finds the added language to be consistent 
    with 30 CFR 773.21(a) concerning automatic suspension or rescission of 
    permits.
        West Virginia proposes to amend paragraph (f) of this subsection to 
    change the cross reference in that paragraph to subsection ``(e),'' 
    Section 17 of WVSCMRA. The Director finds the change does not render 
    the West Virginia program less effective than 30 CFR 773.20(c)(2) 
    concerning appeals of suspensions or rescissions of permits determined 
    to have been improvidently issued.
        Paragraph (g) is being revised to clarify that the term ``permit 
    issuance'' also includes permit transfers, assignments, or sales of 
    permit rights, as well as revisions for ownership and control purposes. 
    While there is no direct Federal counterpart, the Director finds the 
    added language is not inconsistent with 30 CFR 773.15 concerning review 
    of permit applications.
    22. CSR Sec. 38-2-4  Haulageways, Roads, and Access Roads
        West Virginia proposes to revise all of its haulroad regulations at 
    Section 4. The new haulroad and access road requirements provide for a 
    road classification system, plans and specifications, stream crossings, 
    standards for infrequently used roads, construction standards, drainage 
    design standards, performance standards, maintenance standards, 
    reclamation standards, primary road standards and certification. In 
    addition, Section 4 contains design, construction, maintenance and 
    abandonment requirements for other transportation facilities.
        a. Sec. 38-2-4.1  (a) Road Classification System. The WVDEP 
    proposes to include haulageways and access roads under its road 
    classification system, and is defining ``primary road.'' The Director 
    finds these amendments to be substantively identical to and no less 
    effective than 30 CFR 816.150(a) concerning road classification system, 
    and 30 CFR 816.150(a)(2) concerning the definition of ``primary road.''
        b. Sec. 38-2-4.2 Plans and Specifications. These amendments set for 
    the requirements for each road to be constructed, used, or maintained 
    within the permit area. The provisions specify that road designs are to 
    be certified as meeting the requirements of the WVSCMRA and 
    implementing rules. The WVDEP is also reorganizing its rules by 
    deleting the title ``4.3 Stream Crossings'' and designating paragraph 
    (a) of the deleted subsection 4.3 as paragraph (b) of subsection 4.2. 
    This reorganization is intended to clarify that CSR 38-2-4.2(b) applies 
    to all stream crossings, and is not limited to only roads in stream 
    channels. Under the proposed revisions, CSR 38-2-4.2(b) applies to all 
    roads whether they are within or crossing a stream. The Director finds 
    the proposed provisions to be consistent with 30 CFR 780.37(a) 
    concerning road systems; plans and drawings to the extent that the 
    provisions pertain to all roads, whether they are within or crossing a 
    stream. The Director notes that 30 CFR 780.37(a) cross references the 
    Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.150(d)(1) (concerning the prohibition 
    against locating a road in the channel of a stream), and this in turn 
    cross-references other Federal hydrologic protection rules. The State 
    language does not contain a similar cross references in CSR 38-2-
    4.2(b). The Director believes, however, that a lack of such cross 
    references does not render the State program less effective. The State 
    hydrologic protection standards apply regardless of whether or not they 
    are cross-referenced.
        c. Sec. 38-2-4.3  Existing Haulageways or Access Roads. This 
    subsection provides that where it can be demonstrated that 
    reconstruction of existing haulageways or access roads to meet the 
    required design, construction, and environmental protection standards 
    of the West Virginia program would result in greater environmental 
    harm, such reconstruction may be exempt from the standards at 
    subsection 4.5(a)(1) and (2), and subsection 4.6(a)(2)(A) and (b), 
    where the sediment control requirements of CSR 38-2-5 can otherwise be 
    met. The provisions in the State program contain grade requirements for 
    roads. Since the Federal regulations contain no specific road grade 
    requirements, for roads. Since the Federal regulations contain no 
    specific road grade requirement but merely require, at 30 CFR 
    816.150(c), that designs include appropriate grade limits, the Director 
    finds these provisions to be consistent with and no less effective than 
    30 CFR 780.37(a) and 816.150(c) concerning plans and drawings.
        d. Sec. 38-2-4.4  Infrequently Used Access Roads. This provision 
    requires that infrequently used access roads be designed to ensure 
    environmental protection appropriate for their planned duration and 
    use, and be constructed in accordance with current prudent engineering 
    practices and any necessary design criteria established by the 
    Director. A statement has been added to clarify that prospecting roads 
    are to be designed, constructed, maintained, and reclaimed in 
    accordance with subsection 13.6 which governs prospecting roads. Cross 
    references have also been revised. The Director finds the proposed 
    amendments to be consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 
    816.150(c) concerning design and construction limits and establishments 
    of design criteria.
        Subsection 4.4 is also revised to provide that roads constructed 
    for and used only to provide for infrequent service to facilities used 
    in support of mining and reclamation operations may be exempt from all 
    haulroad requirements in CSR 38-2-4, except for subsections 4.2, 4.3, 
    4.5(a)(1), 4.5(b), 4.6(a), 4.7, and 4.8. These ``infrequently used 
    access roads'' include all roads defined as ``ancillary roads'' under 
    30 CFR 816.150(a)(3). Under the Federal regulations, ancillary roads 
    must comply with all requirements contained in 30 CFR 816.150. To be 
    consistent with the Federal regulations, the State program must require 
    that all ``infrequently used access roads'' comply with the State 
    program counterparts to 30 CFR 816.150. However, subsection 4.4, as 
    proposed, would exempt infrequently used access roads from the 
    requirements of subsection 4.9, which is the State program counterpart 
    30 CFR 816.150(f) pertaining to reclamation of roads. Therefore, the 
    Director is not approving subsection 4.4 to the extent that it exempts 
    infrequently used access roads from the requirements of subsection 4.9. 
    The Director is also requiring the State to amend its program to 
    require that all infrequently used access roads comply with CSR 38-2-
    4.9.
        e. Sec. 38-2-4.5  Construction. This provision sets forth the grade 
    limits for the construction of haulageways or access roads and the 
    tolerance standards for grade measurements and linear measurements. 
    While there are no direct Federal counterparts, the Director finds 
    these amendments to be consistent with 30 CFR 816.150(c), which 
    requires that designs for roads contain appropriate grade limits.
    
    [[Page 6522]]
    
        f. Sec. 38-2-4.6  Drainage Design. These amendments set forth the 
    standards for all drainage designs of haulageways or access roads. The 
    amendments also specify that culverts shall be installed and maintained 
    to sustain the vertical soil pressure, the passive resistance of the 
    foundation and the weight of the vehicles using the road. While there 
    are no Federal counterparts which apply to all roads, the Director 
    finds these amendments to be consistent with 30 CFR 816.150(c), which 
    requires that road designs contain plans for surface drainage control, 
    and 30 CFR 816.151(d) concerning drainage control for primary roads.
        g. Sec. 38-2-4.7  Performance Standards. These amendments are 
    intended to set forth the performance standards for the location, 
    design, construction, reconstruction, use, maintenance, and reclamation 
    of roads. The Director finds the proposed amendments to be no less 
    effective than 30 CFR 816.150(b) concerning performance standards for 
    roads. The proposed changes governing sediment storage volume and 
    detention time as applied to drainage from roads are intended to 
    clarify that the regulatory authority may approve lesser storage values 
    than 0.125 acre/feet if compliance with the applicable effluent limits 
    and the general performance standards for roads can be achieved. OSM 
    conducted a study of West Virginia's 0.125 acre/feet standard and 
    determined that its application in West Virginia does not render the 
    State program less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
    816.46(c)(1)(iii) (Administrative Record Number WV-890). The study did 
    not address the adequacy of lesser storage values. However, so long as 
    the end result is that applicable effluent limits are not exceeded, 
    West Virginia may allow the use of lesser storage values. Therefore, 
    the Director finds that the proposed language, which continues to 
    require compliance with the applicable effluent limitations and 
    performances standards for roads and providing the regulatory authority 
    with reasonable flexibility in implementing the West Virginia program, 
    does not render the West Virginia program less effective than the 
    Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.46(c)(1)(iii) concerning siltation 
    structures.
        h. Sec. 38-2-4.8  Maintenance. These amendments provide that roads 
    shall be maintained to meet the West Virginia performance standards for 
    roads and any additional standards specified by the State. Roads that 
    are damaged by catastrophic events shall be repaired as soon as is 
    practicable. The Director finds these amendments to be substantively 
    identical to and no less effective than 30 CFR 816.150(e) concerning 
    maintenance.
        i. Sec. 38-2-4.9  Reclamation. These amendments set forth the 
    performance standards for roads that are not to be retained under the 
    approved postmining land use. With the exception of subsection 4.9(e), 
    the Director finds the amendments to be substantively identical to and, 
    therefore, no less effective than 30 CFR 816.150(f)(1-4), and (6), 
    concerning reclamation of roads. Subsection 4.9(e) contains drainage 
    and culvert requirements for road abandonment. While there are no 
    direct Federal counterparts, the Director finds these requirements to 
    be consistent with and, therefore, no less effective than the 
    requirement to protect the natural drainage contained in 30 CFR 
    816.150(f)(5).
        j. Sec. 38-2-4.10  Primary Roads. These amendments set forth the 
    performance standards for primary roads. The Director finds these 
    amendments to be substantively identical to and, therefore, no less 
    effective than 30 CFR 816.151 concerning primary roads.
        k. Sec. 38-2-4.11.  Support Facilities and Transportation 
    Facilities. These amendments set forth the requirements for support and 
    transportation facilities such as railroad loops, spurs, sidings, 
    surface conveyor systems, chutes, and aerial tramways ``which are under 
    the control of the permittee.'' The Director is concerned that the 
    phrase ``which are under the control of the permittee'' could be 
    interpreted to exclude from these requirements certain support 
    facilities which are within the definition of ``surface coal mining 
    operations'' at 30 CFR 700.5. Therefore, the Director is approving this 
    amendment only to the extent that it does not exclude facilities that 
    are included within the definition of ``surface coal mining 
    operations'' at 30 CFR 700.5.
        l. Sec. 38-2-4.12.  Certification. This provision requires that, 
    upon completion of construction, all primary roads for which design 
    criteria were approved as part of the permit shall be certified. Where 
    the certification statement for a primary road indicates a change from 
    design standards or construction requirements in the approved permit, 
    such changes must be documented in as-built plans and submitted as a 
    permit revision. The Director finds the proposed language to be 
    consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 816.151(a) concerning 
    certification, and 30 CFR 774.13 concerning permit revisions.
        This subsection also requires that all roads used for 
    transportation of coal or spoil, and which are constructed outside the 
    permitted coal extraction area shall be certified before they are used 
    for such transportation. Finally, any roads within the coal extraction 
    area which are constructed concurrently with progress of mining 
    activities shall be certified in increments of 1,000 linear feet as 
    measured from the active pit. While there are no Federal counterparts 
    to these two proposals, the Director finds that they are consistent 
    with 30 CFR 780.37(b) and 816.151(a).
    23. CSR Sec. 38-2-5.2  Intermitteent or Perennial Streams
        The State proposes to revise this subsection to provide that before 
    the director can approve any mining within 100 feet of an intermittent 
    or perennial stream, the director must find that such activities will 
    not cause or contribute to the violation of applicable State or Federal 
    water quality standards. The Director finds that the amendment 
    satisfies 30 CFR 948.16(aa) and can be approved. 30 CFR 948.16(aa) is 
    hereby removed.
    24. CSR Sec. 38-2-5.4  Sediment Control
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (a) of this subsection 
    to make its sediment control requirements applicable to other water 
    retention structures, and it is deleting all references to on-bench 
    sediment control systems. The State has also deleted the reference to 
    the design, construction and maintenance criteria in the Technical 
    Handbook. The Director finds that this revision satisfies the 
    requirements of 30 CFR 948.15(k)(6) and 30 CFR 948.16(n) and can be 
    approved. The required amendment at 30 CFR 948.16(n) is hereby removed.
        Paragraph (b) is revised to make its design and construction 
    requirements applicable to sediment control or other water retention 
    structures used in association with the mining operation. The State has 
    deleted references to on-bench sediment control structures. The 
    Director finds this deletion is consistent with the deletion at 
    paragraph 5.4(a), and does not render the West Virginia program less 
    effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 780.25, 816,45, 816.46 
    and 816.49.
        Subparagraph (b)(12) is revised to require that foundation 
    investigations and any necessary laboratory testing be performed to 
    determine foundation stability design for impoundments meeting the size 
    or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a). This revision satisfies the 
    requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(pp) and can be approved, and 30 CFR 
    948.16(pp) can be removed.
    
    [[Page 6523]]
    
        Subparagraph (b)(13) has been revised to require that all sediment 
    control and other water retention structures be certified in accordance 
    with the design requirements of the Act and regulations and other 
    design criteria established by the Director. The Director finds the 
    proposed language to be consistent with and no less effective than 30 
    CFR 780.25 concerning reclamation plans for siltation structures, 
    impoundments, banks, dams, and embankments.
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (c) to make the 
    requirements of that paragraph applicable to all embankment type 
    sediment control or other water retention structures, including slurry 
    impoundments. The Director finds that this revision satisfies the 
    requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(qq) and can be approved. 30 CFR 948.16(qq) 
    is hereby removed.
        Subparagraph (c)(3) is revised to require the installation of 
    cutoff trenches during embankment construction to ensure stability. The 
    Director finds that this revision satisfies the requirement at 30 CFR 
    948.16(rr) and can be approved. 30 CFR 948.16(rr) is hereby removed.
        Subparagraph (c)(4) is revised to require prompt notification of 
    the State if any examination or inspection of an impoundment discloses 
    that a hazard exists. The Director finds that this revision satisfies 
    the requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(ss) and can be approved. 30 CFR 
    948.16(ss) is hereby removed.
        Subparagraph (c)(6) is revised to require that the design plan for 
    an impoundment which meets the size criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) 
    include a stability analysis which includes but is not limited to 
    strength parameters, pore pressures, and long-term seepage conditions. 
    Subparagraph (c)(6) also provides that the design plan will include a 
    description of each engineering design assumption and calculation. 
    These revisions satisfy the requirements at 30 CFR 948.16(ccc) and can 
    be approved, and 948.16(ccc) can be removed.
        Paragraph (d) has been revised to require that where sediment 
    control or other water retention structures are constructed in sequence 
    with the advance of the mining to allow for on-bench construction, such 
    systems shall be constructed and certified in sections of 1,000 linear 
    feet or less as measured from the active pit. While there is no direct 
    Federal counterpart to the proposed language, the Director finds that 
    the language is not inconsistent with 30 CFR 816.49(a)(3) concerning 
    design certification.
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (e) to require the 
    inspection of sediment control or other water retention structures. The 
    State also proposes to require that the professional engineer, licensed 
    land surveyor, or other specialist involved in the inspection of 
    impoundments be experienced in the construction of impoundments. The 
    Director finds that this revision satisfies the requirement at 30 CFR 
    948.16(uu) and can be approved, and 948.16(uu) can be removed.
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (h) to make its 
    abandonment requirements applicable to sediment control and other water 
    retention structures. The Director finds that these changes do not 
    render the State program less effective than the Federal regulations, 
    and are consistent with the required amendment at 30 CFR 948.16(n) and 
    can be approved.
    25. CSR 38-2-5.5  Permanent Impoundments
        The WVDEP proposes to clarify that sediment or water retention or 
    impounding structures left in place after final bond release must be 
    authorized by the Director as part of the permit application or a 
    revision to a permit. The Director finds this revision partially 
    satisfies 30 CFR 948.16(vv) (the first sentence) and can be approved. 
    The Director is making this finding with the assumption that the 
    apparent typographical error in the first sentence of subsection 5.5 
    (``review'' should be ``revision'') will be corrected. The State has 
    also proposed to amend subsection 5.5(c) to require the landowner to 
    provide for sound future maintenance of a permanent impoundment. The 
    Director finds that this provision satisfies the requirement codified 
    in the second sentence of 30 CFR 948.16(vv). The proposed provisions 
    are approved, and 30 CFR 948.16(vv) is hereby removed.
    26. CSR 38-2-6  Blasting
        a. Sec. 38-2-6.3(b)  Public Notice of Blasting Operation. This 
    subsection is amended to require that all local governments and 
    residents or owners of dwellings or structures located within one-half 
    mile of the blast site be notified of surface blasting activities 
    incident to an underground mine. The State also proposes to require 
    that the blasting notification be announced weekly, but in no case less 
    than 24 hours before the blasting will occur. The Director finds the 
    amended language to be substantively identical to and no less effective 
    than 30 CFR 817.64(a).
        b. Sec. 38-2-6.6  Blasting Control for Other Structures. The State 
    proposes to revise Subsection 6.6 to require that all non-protected 
    structures in the vicinity of the blasting area be protected from 
    damage by the establishment of a maximum allowable limit on ground 
    vibration specified by the operator in the blasting plan and approved 
    by the Director. The Director finds that this revision satisfies the 
    requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(cc) and can be approved. 30 CFR 948.16(cc) 
    is hereby removed.
        c. Sec. 38-2-6.8  Preblast Survey. Subparagraph 6.8(a) is amended 
    to delete language that excludes a certain portions of the permit area 
    when determining the applicability of preblast survey notification 
    requirements. The Director finds this revision satisfies the 
    requirements of 30 CFR 948.15(k)(7) and 948.16(l) and can be approved. 
    30 CFR 948.16(l) is hereby removed.
    27. Sec. CSR 38-2-8.1  Protection of Fish and Wildlife and Related 
    Value
        West Virginia proposes to add an exception to paragraphs (e)(1) and 
    (e)(3) of Subsection 8.1 to require the use of the best technology 
    currently available to protect raptors and large mammals, except where 
    the Director determines that such requirements are unnecessary. The 
    Director finds the added language to be substantively identical to and 
    no less effective than 30 CFR 816.97(e)(1) and (3).
    28. CSR Sec. 38-2-9  Revegetation
        The State proposes to revise paragraphs (g) and (h) of Subsection 
    9.3 to require that, in determining success on areas to be developed 
    for forestland and wildlife resources or commercial woodlands, the 
    trees and shrubs counted be healthy and in place for not less than two 
    growing seasons. This revision is intended to satisfy OSM's Regulatory 
    Reform III letter of March 6, 1990. The Director finds these amendments 
    to be substantively identical to and no less effective than 30 CFR 
    816.116(b)(3)(ii) concerning revegetation, standards for success.
    29. CSR Sec. 38-2-11.1  Insurance
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (a) of this subsection to 
    clarify that liability insurance must be maintained throughout the life 
    of the permit or any renewal thereof. The State also proposes to revise 
    this paragraph to provide that there are no exclusions for blasting 
    from the property damage coverage. The Director finds the proposed 
    amendments are substantively identical to and no less effective than 30 
    CFR 800.60 concerning terms and conditions for liability insurance.
    
    [[Page 6524]]
    
    30. CSR Sec. 38-2-13  Notice of Intent to Prospect
        Subsection 13.1 is added to this section. Under this subsection, 
    where prospecting operations are proposed without surface disturbance 
    and without appreciable impacts on land, air, water, or other 
    environmental resources, the Director may waive the requirements of 
    this section and the bonding requirements of Sec. 22A-3-7 of the 
    WVSCMRA. To qualify, at least 15 days prior to commencement of any 
    prospecting activities, the operator must file with the Director a 
    written notice of intent to prospect. The notice must include a 
    description of the activities to be conducted and a USGS topographic 
    map showing the area to be prospected. The Director may approve the 
    notice of intent subject to the findings required by paragraph (b) of 
    Subsection 13.4. CSR 38-2-13.4(b) provides that the regulatory 
    authority, to approve an application, must find, in writing, that the 
    applicant has demonstrated that the prospecting operation will be 
    conducted in accordance with section CSR 38-2-13, and other applicable 
    provisions of the State regulations and statute, and the application. 
    This revision is intended to satisfy in part the requirements of 30 CFR 
    948.15(l)(2). The Director finds that the proposed language is no less 
    effective than 30 CFR 772.11 concerning notice requirements for 
    exploration removing 250 tons of coal or less. The Director notes that 
    where no surface disturbance or other appreciable impacts caused by 
    coal exploration are anticipated, and no lands unsuitable are involved, 
    applicants will not have some of the information required by 30 CFR 
    772.11, such as information related to drilling and trenching located 
    at 772.11(b)(3) and reclamation located at 772.11(b)(5).
        Subsection 38-2-13.5(b) concerning performance standards for 
    prospecting roads is deleted and new requirements for prospecting roads 
    are established at CSR 38-2.13.6. The new provisions provide the 
    environmental standards relevant to the location, design, construction 
    or reconstruction, use, maintenance, and reclamation of prospecting 
    roads. The Director finds the proposed standards are substantively 
    identical to and no less effective than 30 CFR 816.150 concerning 
    general performance standards for roads.
        Subsection 13.10 is revised to provide that, notwithstanding any 
    other provision of this section, any person who proposes to conduct 
    prospecting operations on lands which have been designated as 
    unsuitable for surface mining pursuant to Sec. 22A-3-22 of the WVSCMRA 
    shall file a notice of intent in accordance with Subsection 13.3. 
    Approval of the notice of intent shall be in accordance with Subsection 
    13.4. The Director finds the amendment to be consistent with and no 
    less effective than 30 CFR 772.11(a).
    31. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.5  Hydrologic Balance
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (b) of this subsection 
    to require that monitoring frequency and effluent limitations be 
    governed by the standards set forth in a National Pollutant Discharge 
    Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued pursuant to Sec. 20-5-1 et 
    seq. of the West Virginia Code, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
    as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. and the rules and regulations 
    promulgated thereunder. The Director finds these amendments to be 
    consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 816.42 concerning 
    water quality standards and effluent limitations.
        Paragraph (c) has been revised to require that any water discharged 
    from a permit area and treated complies with the requirements of 
    paragraph (b) of this subsection, pertaining to NPDES permits. The 
    Director finds this amendment is consistent with and no less effective 
    than 30 CFR 816.42 concerning water quality standards and effluent 
    limitations.
        Paragraph (h) has been revised to provide that a waiver of water 
    supply replacement rights granted by a landowner can apply only to 
    underground mining, provided that it does not exempt any operator from 
    the responsibility of maintaining water quality. Under section 
    720(a)(2) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 816.41(j), the permittee must promptly 
    replace any drinking, domestic, or residential water supply that is 
    contaminated, diminished, or interrupted by underground mining 
    activities conducted after October 24, 1992, if the well or spring was 
    in existence before the permit application was received. Such water 
    supplies may be replaced by restoring a spring or an aquifer, or by 
    providing water from an alternative source, such as from another 
    aquifer or from a public water supply or a pipeline from another 
    location.
        While a landowner may not desire the replacement of a water supply 
    on his or her property, a waiver is only permissible under the 
    circumstances set forth in paragraph (b) of the definition of 
    ``Replacement of water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5.
        The definition of ``Replacement of water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5 
    provides that, at paragraph (b), if the affected water supply was not 
    needed for the land use in existence at the time of loss, 
    contamination, or diminution, and if the supply is not needed to 
    achieve the postmining land use, replacement requirements may be 
    satisfied by demonstrating that a suitable alternative water source is 
    available and could feasibly be developed. If the latter approach is 
    selected, written concurrence must be obtained from the water supply 
    owner.
        Therefore, the waiver of water supply proposed to be authorized by 
    the State must be consistent with the definition of ``Replacement of 
    water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5. The Director notes that while section 
    720(a)(2) of SMCRA does not expressly authorize waivers, the 
    regulations implementing this provision recognize that waivers are 
    appropriate under certain circumstances, provided the permittee 
    demonstrates that an alternative source is available. However, under 
    the definition, no waivers (source or delivery system) are permissible 
    if the water supply is needed for either the existing land use or the 
    approved postmining land use.
        The Director finds that the proposed language is not inconsistent 
    with SMCRA and the Federal regulations except to the extent that the 
    proposed waiver would not be implemented in accordance with the 
    definition of ``Replacement of water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5. The 
    Director also finds that this revision satisfies the requirements of 
    948.16(q), and that 30 CFR 948.16(q) can be removed. In addition, the 
    Director is requiring that the West Virginia program be further amended 
    to clarify that under Section 22-3-24(b) and CSR 38-2-14.5(h), the 
    replacement of water supply can only be waived under the conditions set 
    forth in the definition of ``Replacement of water supply,'' paragraph 
    (b), at 30 CFR 701.5.
    32. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.8  Steep Slope Mining
        The State proposes to revise subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) of 
    this subsection to provide that casting of spoil from a higher seam to 
    a lower seam in multiple seam operations may only occur where the 
    highwall of the lower seam intersects the outcrop of the upper seam; 
    the lowest seam is mined first or in advance of the upper seams; and 
    minimum bench widths based on slopes are established on the lower bench 
    sufficient to accommodate both spoil placement from the upper seam and 
    bench drainage structures. This revision is intended to satisfy in part 
    the requirements of 30 CFR 948.15(1)(2) by 
    
    [[Page 6525]]
    preventing the placement of spoil on natural intervening slopes.
        The Federal rules do not specifically address the use of cast 
    blasting as a means of spoil transport in multi-seam operations. 
    However, this practice is not inherently inconsistent with any Federal 
    requirement. The State rule does not exempt these operations from 
    compliance with other applicable requirements of the approved program. 
    Instead, it would provide additional assurance that cast lasting is 
    conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner. For example, any 
    State authorized cast blasting would necessarily have to comply with 
    the approved State blasting provisions at CSR 38-2-6, such as the State 
    rules controlling flyrock at CSR 38-2-6.5(d). The approved State 
    requirements for the compaction and stability (a 1.3 static safety 
    factor is required) of the backfill at CSR 38-2-14.8(a)(4) also apply. 
    In some cases, the stability analysis might require that certain 
    materials need to be rehandled to place spoil in its final place or to 
    achieve adequate compaction of the backfill.
        The approved State requirements for contemporaneous reclamation at 
    CSR 38-2-14.15 also apply. The approved State prohibition at CSR 38-2-
    14.8(a)(1) of placing spoil on the downslope also applies. Where excess 
    spoil is involved, the approved State requirements at CSR 38-2-14.14 
    would also apply. The required amendment codified at 30 CFR 948.16(xx) 
    is being revised to require that the State amend its program at CSR 38-
    2-14.8(a) to specify design requirements of outcrop barriers that will 
    be the equivalent of natural barriers and will assure the protection of 
    water quality and insure the long-term stability of the backfill. With 
    these considerations in mind, the Director finds that the amendment to 
    allow the use of cast blasting is not prohibited by or otherwise 
    inconsistent with SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.107 
    concerning backfilling and grading of steep slopes. The Director is 
    taking this opportunity to delete the required amendments codified at 
    30 CFR 948.16(yy) and (zz). The required amendments are being removed 
    because the West Virginia rules that had the deficiencies were never 
    approved by the West Virginia legislature and do not appear in the 
    latest submittal of the rules.
        The State also proposes to revise subparagraph (4) of paragraph (a) 
    to prohibit placement of woody materials in the backfill unless the 
    Director first determines that the method of placement of woody 
    material will not deteriorate the future stability of the backfilled 
    area. The Director finds the amended language substantively identical 
    to 30 CFR 816.107(d), and that this revision satisfies the requirement 
    at 30 CFR 948.16(hh). 30 CFR 948.16(hh) is hereby removed.
    33. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.11  Inactive Status
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (b) of this subsection 
    to provide that the Director may grant inactive status for a period not 
    to exceed one-half the permit term if it is determined that the 
    application contains sufficient information to meet all requirements of 
    paragraph (a): Provided that where the applicant documents in the 
    application that the operations will become inactive for more than 30 
    days, but will be reactivated on an intermittent and/or irregular basis 
    during the approval period, such operations are not required to reapply 
    for inactive status except at the termination date of the initial term 
    of approval: Provided, however, that the Director may review the 
    approval of inactive status during its term and require updated 
    information pursuant to paragraph (a) and, based upon this or other 
    information, may modify or rescind the approval prior to its initial 
    termination date. The Director finds the amended language to be no less 
    effective than 30 CFR 816.131 concerning temporary cessation of 
    operations, which requires notification to the regulatory authority by 
    the operator of any intention to temporarily cease mining for more than 
    30 days.
    34. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.12  Variance From Approximate Original Contour 
    Requirements
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (a)(6) to provide that 
    the Director may grant a variance from the requirements for restoring 
    the mined land in steep slope areas to approximate original contour if 
    the watershed of the permit and adjacent area will be improved by 
    reducing pollutants, environmental impacts, or flood hazards; provided 
    that, the watershed will be deemed improved only if the amount of total 
    suspended solids or other pollutants discharged to ground or surface 
    water from the permit area will be reduced, or flood hazards will be 
    reduced, and if changes in seasonal flow volumes from the proposed 
    permit area will not adversely affect surface water ecology or any 
    existing or planned use of the surface or ground water. The Director 
    finds that this change satisfies the requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(ii) 
    and is no less effective than 30 CFR 785.16(a)(3)(i) and (ii). 30 CFR 
    948.16(ii) is hereby removed.
    35. CSR 38-2-14.14  Disposal of Excess Spoil
        Subsection (e)(2) provides that the valley fills shall be designed 
    to assure a long-term static safety factor of 1.5 or greater. The 
    Director finds that this provision satisfies 30 CFR 948.16(jj) which 
    can be removed, and is no less effective than 30 CFR 816.71(b)(2) 
    concerning excess spoil. 30 CFR 948.16(jj) is hereby removed.
        Subsection (e)(10) is amended to limit the maximum grade from the 
    outslope of a valley fill toward the rock core to three percent. The 
    Director finds this amendment to be substantively identical to and no 
    less effective than 30 CFR 816.72(b)(3) concerning slopes of valley and 
    head-of-hollow fills.
    36. CSR 38-2-14.15 Contemporaneous Reclamation Standards
        West Virginia has completely revised this subsection to require 
    that the mining and reclamation plan for each operation describe how 
    the mining and reclamation operations will be coordinated to minimize 
    total land disturbance and to keep reclamation operations as 
    contemporaneous as possible with the advance of mining operations. The 
    revised provisions specify time, distance and acreage limits for single 
    seam contour mining, single seam contour mining and auger operations, 
    area mining, augering, multiple seam mining, and mountaintop removal 
    operations. The proposed rules set deadlines for existing and new 
    operations to comply with these requirements, and they allow the 
    Director to grant variances to specific standards with proper 
    justification. The Director finds these amended provisions to be 
    consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 816.100 concerning 
    contemporaneous reclamation, and the backfilling and grading 
    requirements at 30 CFR 816.102. The Director notes that 30 CFR 816.101 
    concerning time and distance requirements for contemporaneous 
    reclamation is suspended (57 FR 33875; July 31, 1992) and cannot be 
    used as a standard against which to judge the effectiveness of State 
    programs. As such, the Federal regulations do not contain specific time 
    and distance requirements, but only require, at 30 CFR 816.100, that 
    reclamation efforts occur as contemporaneously as practicable with 
    mining operations.
        Subsection (m) is amended to add provisions governing the placement 
    of coal processing waste in the backfill. Under the proposed provision, 
    compaction shall be in accordance with CSR 38-2-22.3(p) and shall 
    achieve a 
    
    [[Page 6526]]
    minimum static safety factor of 1.3. The coal processing waste shall 
    not contain acid-producing or toxic-forming material and shall be 
    placed in a controlled manner to: minimize effects on surface and 
    groundwater quality and quantity; ensure mass stability; ensure 
    suitable reclamation and revegetation compatible with the postmining 
    land use; not create a public hazard; and prevent combustion. Such 
    disposal facilities must be designed using current prudent engineering 
    practices and must meet any design criteria established by the 
    regulatory authority. Designs must be certified by a qualified 
    registered professional engineer. Any potential hazards must be 
    promptly reported. The Director finds these amendments do not render 
    the State program less effective than 30 CFR 816.81 (a) and (c)(1). 30 
    CFR 816.81(b) does not apply because the State is not proposing to 
    allow coal waste from activities located outside the permit area to be 
    placed in the backfill. 30 CFR 816.81(d) does not apply because the 
    coal waste will be placed in the backfill, and not in a refuse pile. 
    The State has proposed a static safety factor of 1.3 which is identical 
    to that required at 30 CFR 816.102(a)(3) concerning backfilling and 
    grading; general standards. The 1.3 static safety factor is the 
    appropriate factor to require, since the proposed provision concerns 
    placing coal waste in a backfill and not in a waste pile. Finally, the 
    Director notes that all the State provisions concerning the protection 
    of the hydrologic balance will continue to apply. The prohibition in 
    the proposed language to the placement of acid-producing and toxic-
    forming material in the backfill will help assure the protection of the 
    hydrologic balance.
    37. CSR Sec. 38-2-14-17  Control of Fugitive Dust
        West Virginia proposes to revise this subsection to require that 
    all exposed surface areas be protected and stabilized to effectively 
    control erosion and air pollution attendant to erosion.
        The Director finds this revision to be substantially identical to 
    and, therefore, no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 
    CFR 816.95(a).
    38. CSR 38-2-14.18  Utility Installations
        WVDEP proposes to add a provision requiring that all surface mining 
    operations be conducted in a manner that minimizes damage, destruction, 
    or disruption of services provided by utilities. The Director finds the 
    added provision to be substantially identical to and, therefore, no 
    less effective than 30 CFR 816.180 concerning utility installations.
    39. CSR 38-2-14-19  Disposal of Noncoal Waste
        WVDEP proposes to add provisions to regulate the disposal of 
    noncoal waste such as grease, lubricants, garbage, abandoned machinery, 
    lumber and other materials generated during mining activities. Under 
    the proposal, final disposal of noncoal waste will be in accordance 
    with a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 22, Article 15 of the Code of 
    West Virginia (Solid Waste Management Act). The Director finds these 
    provisions consistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.89(b) 
    which allows operators to dispose of noncoal mine waste in State-
    appointed solid waste disposal areas outside of the permit area.
        The proposed provisions would also allow timber from clearing and 
    grubbing operations to be wind-rowed below the projected toe of the 
    outslope. The Director finds these provisions to be non inconsistent 
    with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.89 concerning disposal of 
    noncoal mine wastes. However, the proposed windrowing is less effective 
    than the Federal steep slope regulations at 30 CFR 816.107(b). 30 CFR 
    816.107(b) prohibits the placement of debris, including that from 
    clearing and grubbing, on the downslope in steep slope areas. 
    Therefore, the Director is approving the proposed amendments except to 
    the extent that windrowing would be allowed on the downslope in steep 
    slope areas. In addition, the Director is requiring that West Virginia 
    further amend CSR 38-2-14.19(d) to clarify that windrowing will not be 
    allowed on the downslope in steep slope areas.
    40. CSR 38-2-15.2  Backfilling and Regrading; Underground Mines
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (b) of this subsection to 
    require that reclamation activities of an underground mine be initiated 
    within 30 days of completion of underground operations. The Director 
    finds the proposed amendment to be consistent with 30 CFR 817.100 
    concerning contemporaneous reclamation.
    41. CSR 38-2-16.2  Subsidence Control; Surface Owner Protection
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (c) of this subsection 
    by deleting the phrase, ``To the extent required under applicable 
    provisions of State law.'' This revision is intended to correct the 
    deficiency noted at 30 CFR 948.15(k)(11). The Director finds the 
    proposed deletion does not render the West Virginia program less 
    effective than 30 CFR 817.121(c)(2), and satisfies the deficiency noted 
    at 30 CFR 948.15(k)(11).
    42. CSR Sec. 38-3-17  Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP)
        The State is making numerous changes to its SOAP provisions.
        a. Subsection 17.1 is amended to identify services fundable under 
    the SOAP and to provide that the State will develop procedures for the 
    interstate exchange of SOAP information. While there is no Federal 
    counterpart to interstate exchanges of SOAP information, the Director 
    finds these changes to be consistent with and no less effective than 30 
    CFR 795.9 concerning program services and data requirements, and no 
    less stringent than section 507(c)(2) of SMCRA, concerning the 
    assumption of training costs.
        b. Subsection 172. is amended to clarify that requests for SOAP 
    assistance must be in writing. The Director finds the amendment to be 
    consistent with 30 CFR 795.7 concerning filing for assistance.
        c. Subsection 17.3 is amended to increase the production limit of 
    those operators eligible for assistance under the SOAP from 100,000 to 
    300,000 tons. The State is also raising, at 17.3(b)(1), the threshold 
    ownership percentage for which coal production from an operation will 
    be attributed to the applicant from five percent to ten percent 
    interest. Finally, the State is requiring that all coal produced by 
    operations owned by persons who directly or indirectly control the 
    applicant by reason of direction of the management be attributed to the 
    applicant. The Director finds these changes to be substantively 
    identical to counterpart provisions at 30 CFR 795.6(a). In addition, 
    the requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(kk) is satisfied and is hereby 
    removed.
        d. Subsection 17.4 is amended to require SOAP applicants to use 
    application forms and format provided by the State. While there is no 
    direct Federal counterpart, the Director finds these changes to be 
    consistent with 30 CFR 795.7 concerning filing for assistance.
        e. Subsection 17.5 is amended to provide that applicants be 
    notified in writing of approval or denial of a SOAP application. This 
    subsection is also amended to add that contractors may be used for SOAP 
    assistance to qualified laboratories. The Director finds these changes 
    to be consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 795.8(a) 
    concerning application approval and 
    
    [[Page 6527]]
    notice, and 795.10(b) concerning subcontractors.
        f. Subsection 17.6 is amended to add the term SOAP contractor, and 
    to provide that the laboratory or contractor must be qualified to 
    perform the required determinations and statements. The Director finds 
    the changes to be consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 
    795.10 concerning qualified laboratories and subcontractors.
        g. Subsection 17.7(a)(4) and 17.7(a)(5) are amended to clarify that 
    operator liability will be based on actual and attributed annual 
    production for all locations of 300,000 tons during the 12-month period 
    immediately following permit issuance. The Director finds this 
    provision to be substantively identical to and no less effective than 
    30 CFR 795.12(a)(2), concerning applicant liability.
        Subsection 17.7(b) is amended to require applicants to submit 
    written statements with sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant has 
    acted in good faith at all times prior to the State waiving the 
    reimbursement obligation. The Director finds this provision to be 
    substantively identical to 30 CFR 795.12(b).
    43. CSR Sec. 38-2-18.3  Review of Decision Not to Inspect or Enforce
        Subsection 18.3(b) has been revised to provide that any person who 
    is or may be adversely affected by the decision of the Director not to 
    inspect or enforce may appeal such decision to the Surface Mine Board 
    pursuant to Sec. 22-4-2 of the Code of West Virginia. The Director 
    finds the amended language to be substantively identical to and no less 
    effective than 30 CFR 842.15(d) concerning review of decision not to 
    inspect or enforce.
    44. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.1  Inspection Frequencies
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (a) of this subsection to 
    provide that prospecting operations be inspected ``as necessary'' to 
    assure compliance with the Act and these regulations. The Director 
    finds the proposed language to be substantively identical to and no 
    less effective than 30 CFR 840.11(c) concerning inspections by State 
    regulatory authorities.
    45. CSR Sec. 38.2-20.2  Notices of Violations
        Paragraph (a) of this subsection has been amended to provide that 
    when the Director determines that a surface mining and reclamation 
    operation or prospecting operation is in violation of any of the 
    requirements of the Act, these regulations or the terms and conditions 
    of the permit or prospecting approval, a notice of violation shall be 
    issued. Such notice of violation shall comply with all the requirements 
    and provisions of this subsection. In the past, pursuant to its Code of 
    Violations, the State issued enforcement actions rather than notices of 
    violation, for certain violations. This proposal will only allow the 
    issuance of a notice of violation. The Director finds the added 
    language no less effective than 30 CFR 843.12(a)(1) concerning notices 
    of violations.
        Subparagraph (b)(3) has been amended to change the maximum initial 
    abatement period from 15-days to 30-days. This change is proposed to 
    render the regulations consistent with 22-3-17(o) of WVSCMRA which now 
    provides for an initial abatement period of 30 days, followed by a 
    maximum additional abatement period of 60 days following issuance of a 
    cessation order. The Director finds the change is reasonable and does 
    not render the West Virginia program less effective than 30 CFR 
    843.12(b)(3) concerning abatement of violations, or less stringent than 
    section 521(a)(3) of SMCRA, which allows a maximum total abatement 
    period of 90 days, following issuance of a notice of violation and 
    cessation order.
    46. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.4  Show Cause Orders
        West Virginia proposes to revise paragraph (b) of this subsection 
    by adding the phrase, ``where violations were cited.'' The proposal 
    provides that the Director may determine a pattern of violations exists 
    or has existed where violations were cited on two or more inspections 
    of the permit area within any 12-month period. The Director finds the 
    proposed change to be substantively identical to and no less effective 
    than 30 CFR 843.13(a)(2) concerning pattern of violations.
    47. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.5  Civil Penalty Determinations
        Paragraph (b) has been revised to provide that the Director shall, 
    for ``any'' cessation order, assess a civil penalty in accordance with 
    Sec. 22-3-17(a) of the WVSCMRA for each day of continuing violation, 
    except that such penalty shall not be assessed for more than 30 days. 
    In accordance with this change, the sentence requiring that imminent 
    harm cessation orders shall have an initial assessment in accordance 
    with subsection 20.7 of the regulations is deleted. The State now 
    assesses all cessation orders, including imminent harm cessation 
    orders, as if they were failure-to-abate cessation orders. That is, 
    they are assessed a civil penalty at the rate of $750 per day, for 30 
    days, beginning with the issuance date.
        The Director finds that these proposed changes return the State 
    program to its former practice of assessing imminent harm cessation 
    orders as failure to abate cessation orders.
        This practice was included in West Virginia's original permanent 
    program submittal, which OSM approved on January 21, 1981 (46 FR 5916-
    5956). However, in 1991, West Virginia proposed to change this long-
    standing practice to require that imminent harm cessation orders be 
    assessed according to the State's point system at CSR 38-2-20.7. The 
    Director did not approve this proposed change, noting that the State 
    failed to retain the requirement that civil penalties be assessed for 
    cessation orders in all instances, and that violations in imminent harm 
    cessation orders be assessed an additional penalty of $750 for each day 
    the failure to abate continues. The Director also questioned whether 
    the State has statutory authority to assess imminent harm cessation 
    orders using the point system (56 FR 58306, 58307; November 19, 1991). 
    Because of these deficiencies, the Director imposed a required 
    amendment, which is codified at 30 CFR 948.16(ddd) (Id. at 58311). 
    Within the current proposal to return to its former practice, West 
    Virginia has revised CSR 38-2-20.5(b) to require the assessment of 
    civil penalties for ``any'' cessation orders, in accordance with 
    Sec. 22-3-17(a), which requires that failure to abate cessation orders 
    be assessed at $750 per day for each day the failure to abate 
    continues. As such, imminent harm cessation orders will be assessed 
    penalties of $750 per day for each day a violation continues, both 
    before and after the target date for abatement. Therefore, the 
    reference to Sec. 22-3-17(a) satisfies the deficiency noted at 30 CFR 
    948.15(m) and the requirement at 30 CFR 948.16(ddd) concerning initial 
    and mandatory civil penalty assessment procedures for imminent harm 
    cessation orders. 30 CFR 948.16(ddd) is hereby removed.
        The State also proposes to revise this paragraph to provide that if 
    the cessation order has not been abated within the 30-day period, the 
    Director shall initiate action pursuant to Sec. 22-3-17(b), (g), (h) 
    and (j) of the WVSCMRA as appropriate. The term ``modified'' was 
    deleted from previous language of this provision that read, ``* * * 
    abated or modified within the thirty (30) day period * * *.'' The 
    Director finds this revision satisfies the requirement at 30 CFR 
    948.16(eee). The deletion of the word ``modified'' is consistent with 
    the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 845.15(b) 
    
    [[Page 6528]]
    concerning assessment of violations. The Director also finds that the 
    requirement coded at 30 CFR 948.16(fff) concerning the starting and 
    ending dates for civil penalty assessments is satisfied by the 
    reference to Sec. 22-3-17(a) of the WVSCMRA at CSR 38-2-20.5(b). 30 CFR 
    948.16 (eee) and (fff) are hereby removed.
    48. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.6  Procedures for Assessing Civil Penalties
        The State proposes to revise paragraph (d) of this subsection to 
    remove the restrictions on public participation at assessment 
    conferences. The proposed rule provides that any person may submit in 
    writing at the time of the assessment conference a request to present 
    evidence concerning the violation(s) being conferenced. Such request 
    must be granted by the assessment officer. The Director finds these 
    changes satisfy the deficiency codified at 30 CFR 948.15(m)(2) and the 
    requirement at 948.16(ggg). 30 CFR 948.16(ggg) is hereby removed.
        Subparagraph (h) has been amended to change the citation of 
    Sec. 22-3-17(d)(3) or (4), to Sec. 22-3-17(d)(1) of WVSCMRA. This 
    change was made to be consistent with the changes made to Sec. 22-3-17; 
    see Finding A 11, above. The Director finds the citation changes do not 
    render the State program inconsistent with 30 CFR Part 845 and are 
    approved.
    49. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.7  Assessment Rates
        Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are revised to clarify that the 
    monetary denomination used in the assessment of civil penalties is 
    dollars. The Director finds the revisions satisfy the requirement at 30 
    CFR 948.16(hhh). 30 CFR 948.16(hhh) is hereby removed.
        Paragraph (d) is revised to ensure that an operator is awarded good 
    faith only where abatement is achieved before the time set for 
    abatement. The Director finds these revisions satisfy the deficiency 
    codified at 30 CFR 948.15(m)(2) and the requirements of 948.16(iii). 30 
    CFR 948.16(iii) is hereby removed.
    50. CSR Sec. 38-2-22  Coal Refuse
        a. Subsection 22.2 to require that coal refuse disposal facilities 
    be designed to attain a minimum long-term static safety factor of 1.5 
    and a seismic factor of safety of 1.2. The Director finds the change 
    satisfies the requirements codified at 30 CFR 948.16(aaa). 30 CFR 
    948.16(aaa) is hereby removed.
        b. Subsection 22.3(p) has been revised deleting the provision that 
    allows coal refuse piles to be constructed with slopes exceeding two 
    (2) horizontal to one (1) vertical. The Director finds this revision 
    satisfies the deficiency codified at 30 CFR 948.15(l)(2) and the 
    requirements of 948.16(bbb). 30 CFR 948.16(bbb) is hereby removed.
        c. Subsection 22.4(f) has been amended to provide that Class A coal 
    refuse impoundments be designed for a minimum P100+0.12 (PMP-
    P100) inches of rainfall in 6 hours and Class B coal refuse 
    impoundments be designed for a minimum P100+0.40 (PMP-P100) 
    inches of rainfall in 6 hours. The Director finds the proposed 
    amendments to be consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 
    816.84(b)(2).
        d. Subsection 22.4(g) has been amended to add the requirement that 
    all impoundments meeting size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) 
    must be designed and constructed to safely pass the probable maximum 
    precipitation (PMP) of a 24 hour storm event. The Director finds the 
    proposed amendment to be no less effective than 30 CFR 816.84(b)(2) 
    concerning the design event for coal refuse disposal impoundments 
    meeting or exceeding the criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) with one 
    exception. Rainfall data for design storms is usually obtained from the 
    U.S. Weather Service. The U.S. Weather Service's document ``Rainfall 
    Frequency Atlas,'' however, does not have data charts concerning PMP 
    for a 24-hour storm event. Without such data the standard cannot be 
    implemented. Therefore, the Director is requiring that West Virginia 
    demonstrate how the State would implement the PMP 24-hour standard, or 
    revise subsection 22.4(g) to require compliance with a PMP 6-hour 
    standard. Data for the PMP 6-hour storm event is available from the 
    U.S. Weather Service.
        e. Subsections 22.4 (g) and (h) have been revised to allow the use 
    of single open channel or open channel spillways if they are of non-
    erodible materials and designed to carry sustained flows or earth- or 
    grass-lined and designed to carry short-term, infrequent flows at non-
    erosive velocities where sustained flows are not expected. The Director 
    finds these revisions satisfy the requirements at 30 CFR 948.16(mm). 30 
    CFR 948.16(mm) is hereby removed.
        f. Subsection 22.5(a)(2) has been amended to provide that all coal 
    refuse sites be constructed and maintained so as to attain a minimum 
    long-term static safety factor of 1.5, and that structures that have 
    the capacity to impound water also attain a seismic safety factor of 
    1.2. The Director finds the proposed standards are consistent with the 
    requirements contained in 30 CFR 948.16(aaa) and can be approved.
        g. Subsection 22.7(a) has been amended to require that inspections 
    of impounding refuse piles be made regularly, but not less than 
    quarterly during construction. In addition, inspections will be made 
    during placement and compaction of coal refuse material and during 
    critical construction periods. Subsection 22.7(c) is amended to provide 
    that impoundments not meeting MSHA size or other criteria be examined 
    at least quarterly. Subsection 22.7(d) is amended to provide that a 
    copy of each inspection or examination report be retained at or near 
    the mine site. The Director finds the proposed amendments to be 
    consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 816.83(d) concerning 
    inspections of refuse piles, 30 CFR 816.49(a)(12) concerning 
    impoundment examinations, and 816.49(a)(11)(iii) concerning inspection 
    reports.
    51. CSR 38-2C-4  Training of Blasters
        Section 4 has been amended to add a provision that would allow 
    applicants for certification or recertification to complete a self-
    study course in lieu of the existing training program. Self-study 
    materials would be provided the State. While there is no direct Federal 
    counterpart, the Director finds the proposed language is consistent 
    with 30 CFR 850.13 concerning the training of blasters.
    52. CSR 38-2C-5  Examination for Certification of Examiner/Inspector 
    and Certified Blaster
        Subsections 5.1 and 5.2 are amended to add that the examination for 
    certified blaster will also test on information contained in the self-
    study course established by Sec. 38-2C-4 as an option to completing the 
    refresher training course. While there is no Federal counterpart, the 
    Director finds the proposed language is not inconsistent with 30 CFR 
    850.13 concerning training of blasters.
    53. CSR 38-2C-8.2  Refresher Training Course/Self-study Course
        This subsection is amended to allow the completion of the self-
    study course established by Sec. 38-2C-4 as an option to completing the 
    refresher training course. While there is no Federal counterpart, the 
    Director finds the proposed language is not inconsistent with 30 CFR 
    850.13 concerning training of blasters.
    54. CSR 38-2C-10.1  Violations by a Certified Blaster
        WVDEP proposes to remove language authorizing the Director to issue 
    a cessation order and/or take other action as provided by the WVSCMRA 
    Sec. 22-3-16 and 17 when a certified blaster is in violation of WVSCMRA 
    Sec. 22-3-1. The 
    
    [[Page 6529]]
    Director retains authority to issue a notice of violation. While the 
    Federal regulations do not specifically provide for the issuance of 
    either notice of violations or cessation orders against certified 
    blasters, the Director finds the proposed changes are not inconsistent 
    with 30 CFR 850.15(b) concerning suspension and revocation of blaster 
    certification.
    55. CSR 38-2C-11.1  Penalties
        This subsection is amended to authorize the issuance of an order to 
    suspend a blaster's certification based on clear and convincing 
    evidence of a violation, and to provide for a hearing to show cause why 
    a blasters certification should not be suspended. Deleted from this 
    subsection and from subsection 11.2, and Sec. 38-2C-12 are reference to 
    cessation orders. The Director finds the proposed changes to be 
    consistent with and no less effective than 30 CFR 850.15(b) concerning 
    suspension and revocation of blaster certification.
    56. CSR 38-2D-4.4  Reclamation Objectives and Priorities
        This subsection is amended to clarify its objectives and priorities 
    for abandoned mine lands reclamation projects by indicating the 
    provision applies to ``past'' coal mining practices which may or may 
    not constitute and extreme danger. The Director finds the proposed 
    change to be no less stringent than section 403(a)(2) of SMCRA 
    concerning eligible lands and water.
    57. CSR 38-2D-6.3(a)  Acceptance of Gifts of Land
        This section is revised to remove the requirement that the Director 
    accept gifts of land in accordance with Department of Justice 
    procedures for the acquisition of real property. The Director finds the 
    deletion does not render the West Virginia program less effective than 
    30 CFR 879.13 concerning acceptance of gifts of land.
    58. CSR 38-2D-8.7  Grant Application Procedures
        This section is amended to remove provisions which describe 
    procedures for completing and submitting a grant application to OSM for 
    the reclamation of abandoned mine lands. The Director finds the 
    proposed deletions do not render the West Virginia program less 
    effective than the grant application procedures at 30 CFR 886.15 which 
    contain no counterparts to the deleted language.
    
    IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
    
    Public Comments
    
        The Director solicited public comments and provided an opportunity 
    for public hearings on the proposed amendment on three separate 
    occasions. Public hearings were held on September 7, 1993, October 27, 
    1994, and May 30, 1995, (Administrative Record Nos. WV-906, WV-958, and 
    WV-983). OSM has published final rule notices on the provisions 
    concerning bonding and the provisions concerning durable rock fills. 
    Therefore, comments relating to those provisions will not be discussed 
    here.
        Following is a summary of the substantive comments. Comments 
    voicing general support or opposition to the proposed amendment but 
    devoid of any specific issues are not discussed. The summarized 
    comments and responses are organized by subject. All comments and 
    responses have been adjusted to reflect the nomenclature of the May 16, 
    1995, version of the regulations.
    
    Amendment Review Process
    
        A commenter asserted that OSM has predetermined the proposed State 
    amendments in the Federal Register notice dated August 12, 1993 (58 FR 
    42903). Specifically, the commenter stated that OSM referred to a 
    ``satisfaction in part of a federal referenced regulation'' (see 
    proposed regulation changes #19, 20, 33, 35, 37, 50, and 53 in the 
    August 12, 1993 notice). Such statements by OSM, the commenter 
    asserted, indicate that a decision has already been made and that the 
    changes will not be objectively considered by OSM. In response, the 
    Director believes that the commenter has misunderstood OSM's intention. 
    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(2)(i), OSM is required to inform the public of 
    proposed changes to State regulatory programs, and to publish the text 
    or a summary of the proposed State program amendments. As part of that 
    notification, OSM also identifies those proposed amendments that are 
    related to program deficiencies that are codified in the Federal 
    regulations at 30 CFR 948.16 concerning required program amendments. 
    This is done to draw the public's attention to the fact that the State 
    is addressing program deficiencies. Sometimes, proposed amendments 
    appear to address only part of the requirements codified at 30 CFR 
    948.16. In those cases, OSM often states that the proposed amendment is 
    intended to satisfy a portion of the requirements of a specific 
    paragraph codified at 30 CFR 948.16. In no way does such a statement by 
    OSM mean, or imply, that OSM has predetermined whether or not the 
    proposed amendment is approvable by OSM.
    
    No Federal Counterpart Provisions
    
        Some commenters made the assertion that in situations where there 
    are no Federal counterparts to the proposed State provisions that the 
    proposed provisions should not be of concern to OSM. In response, the 
    Director notes that, under 30 CFR 732.17, the State must submit and OSM 
    must review changes to approved State programs. In those cases where 
    there are no direct Federal counterparts to the proposed State 
    provisions, OSM will make a determination, under 30 CFR 732.15 (a) and 
    (c), of whether or not the State provisions are in accordance with 
    SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations, and that the 
    proposed State provisions would not interfere with or preclude 
    implementation of SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
    
    Statutes
    
        Sec. 22-3-13(b)(10)  Performance standards: The commenter stated 
    that the charge to avoid acid or toxic mine drainage implies that you 
    have to avoid it at all costs, and that you can't have any alternative. 
    In response, the Director notes the provision is substantively 
    identical to section 515(b)(10)(A) of SMCRA (see Finding A9).
        Sec. 22-3-19  Permit renewal and revision: A commenter stated that 
    the proposed renewal fee is required only when the operator is going to 
    continue active mining. Also, that a fee is not required for any 
    reclamation work, including regrading and certainly not needed for the 
    grass to grow. In response, the Director notes that under the proposed 
    rules at CSR 38-2-3.27(a), the WVDEP may waive, under specified 
    conditions, the requirements for permit renewal if coal removal is 
    completed. Therefore, the $2000 filing fee may not affect permittees 
    with only reclamation to be done.
        Sec. 22-3-19(a)(2)  Permit renewal and revision: The commenter 
    stated that the amended statute remains more than a bit fuzzy as to 
    whether or not the additional land area will be subject to the 
    procedural requirements of a new permit, i.e., public notice, review 
    and comment. The Director disagrees. The proposed language and the 
    State's June 16, 1994 (WV-923) clarification letter, both clearly state 
    that new areas being added to a permit at renewal will be subject to 
    the full permitting requirements of the West Virginia program, 
    including public review, notice, and comment.
    
    [[Page 6530]]
    
        Sec. 22-3-28  Special reclamation permits: The commenter said that 
    this section should be removed from the State program even though the 
    State has expressed interest in leaving it in the State program in the 
    event that OSM will, in the future, approve such special permits. In 
    response, the Director is not acting on this provision, at this time, 
    because the State has not made any substantive changes to this section. 
    The State will be notified via the 30 CFR part 732 process that the 
    provisions are inconsistent with SMCRA and should be removed.
    
    Rules
    
    Rulemaking Authority
        A commenter stated that some of the proposed rules exceed the 
    authority granted to the Division under WV Code Sec. 22-3-11(a) to the 
    extent that they attempt to amend 38 CSR Secs. 14.8 (steep slope 
    mining) and 14.15 (backfilling and regrading). The commenter stated 
    that the legislation that authorized the Division to promulgate the 
    site-specific bonding regulations provided for a special exception from 
    the normal rulemaking procedure (allowing the Division to proceed to 
    final adoption without submission to the Legislature) specifically for 
    the purpose of implementing a new bonding system, and not for any other 
    amendments. In response, the Director notes that the West Virginia 
    statutes at Sec. 22-3-2 and Sec. 22-3-13(d) authorize the director of 
    the division of environmental protection to promulgate, administer and 
    enforce rules pursuant to the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and 
    Reclamation Act. The rules the commenter referred to (CSR 38-2-14.8 and 
    14.15) were promulgated as legislative rules, and were approved by the 
    State legislature. See Findings B32 and B36 above for the Director's 
    findings on those amended rules.
    General
        CSR 38-2-1.2  Applicability: The commenter stated that this 
    provision should not have retroactive application. See Section V, 
    Director's Decision, below, for a complete explanation of the 
    Director's retroactive approval.
    Definitions
        CSR 38-2-2.20  Chemical treatment: Commenters are concerned that 
    this definition, which separates passive treatment from the definition, 
    will lead to problems related to bond release. The specific concern is 
    that if bond release is authorized in cases where passive treatment 
    system (e.g., limestone drains) are maintaining water quality 
    standards, then the risk is high that water quality will degrade after 
    bond release as the passive treatment systems lose effectiveness. 
    Another commenter said that there is no Federal counterpart and it 
    should be approved. This commenter said that the definition of 
    ``chemical treatment'' applies to all facets of the regulations, not 
    just to bond release. The Director has approved the definition of 
    ``chemical treatment'' except to the extent that the definition would 
    allow bond release where passive treatment systems are used to achieve 
    compliance with applicable effluent standards (see Finding B-2a above). 
    Although OSM encourages the use of passive treatment systems as an 
    integral part of surface mining and reclamation operations, the 
    effectiveness and reliability of such passive systems to control 
    pollutional discharges on a long-term basis has not been proven to the 
    extent that they can be considered an effective basis for bond release.
    Permits
        CSR 38-2-3.7  Excess spoil: The commenters object to the removal of 
    the authority to approve alternative design requirements for excess 
    spoil fills. The commenter stated that identical regulations have been 
    approved in the Virginia program at 480-03-19-816.73. In response, the 
    Director notes that the Virginia provision was approved because it 
    specifies criteria that such alternative designs must meet. Such 
    criteria are not present in the West Virginia rule, and the Director 
    did not approve the rule.
        CSR 38-2-3.12  Subsidence control plan: One commenter expressed 
    concern as to whether or not State law is still a consideration on the 
    obligation to support the surface (from subsidence) under CSR 38-2-
    16.2. Another commenter stated that nothing in State SMCRA has changed 
    to provide authority for removing the State law limitation found in the 
    State regulation. In response, the Director notes that the deletion of 
    the reference to state law is intended to clarify that the requirements 
    of CSR 38-2-16.2 are not to be diminished by other State law. The 
    amended State language is a response to the amendments made to Federal 
    SMCRA by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Energy Policy Act added new 
    section 720 to SMCRA to provide for the repair or compensation for 
    material damage caused by subsidence, and the replacement of drinking, 
    domestic, or residential water supplies damaged by underground coal 
    mining operations. The Federal regulations implementing section 720 of 
    SMCRA were published in the Federal Register on March 31, 1995 (60 FR 
    16722-16751). Neither section 720 of SMCRA nor the implementing 
    regulations defer to State law concerning the requirements to repair or 
    compensate for subsidence-caused material damage to dwellings and 
    related structures or the replacement of water supplies damaged by 
    underground coal mining operations.
        CSR 38-2-3.14  Removal of abandoned coal waste piles: The commenter 
    apparently disagrees with the proposed provision concerning the need 
    for a permit if the coal waste material can be classified as coal using 
    the BTU standard in ASTM D 388-88. In response, the Director notes that 
    if a mined deposit is coal, a permit is required. Section 506 of SMCRA 
    requires a permit if coal mining operations are to be conducted. The 
    Federal regulations at 701.5 define surface mining activities to 
    include the recovery of coal from deposits not in their original 
    geologic location, which would include the reprocessing of abandoned 
    waste piles.
        CSR 38-2-3.27  Permit renewals: The commenter disagrees with the 
    proposed language that allows the State to waive the requirements for 
    permit renewal only where all coal extraction is completed and all 
    backfilling and regrading will be completed within 60 days prior to the 
    expiration date of the permit. The commenter states that Federal law 
    only requires a permit in order to ``mine'' and does not require that 
    reclamation be permitted. In response, the Director notes that the 
    proposed State provision is consistent with and is a reasonable 
    interpretation of the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 773.11(a) 
    concerning the requirements to obtain permits. See Finding B.14 above 
    for the Director's approval of this provision.
        CSR 38-2-3.28  Permit revisions: The commenter disagrees with the 
    amendments that would allow the State to determine if an updated 
    probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) determination is necessary, or 
    if other permit revisions are necessary. In response, the Director 
    notes that the State requirements concerning the PHC are consistent 
    with the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 780.21(f)(4). The State 
    provision concerning reasonable revisions is consistent with the 
    Federal requirements at 30 CFR 774.11(b) concerning review of permits.
        CSR 38-2-3.28  Permit revisions: The commenter stated that new 
    provisions cannot be applied retroactively. See Section V, Director's 
    Decision, below, for a complete explanation of the Director's 
    retroactive approval.
    
    [[Page 6531]]
    
        CSR 38-2-3.29  Incidental boundary revisions (IBR's): The commenter 
    stated that it should be mandatory for the State to require an 
    advertisement and a ten day public comment period for any IBR greater 
    than 50 acres in size that might be granted pursuant to the waiver 
    provision at the end of CSR 38-2-3.29(b)(2). The Director does not 
    agree. A requirement to advertise in all such cases would eliminate the 
    possibility of the regulatory authority exercising reasonable 
    discretion in the conduct of its responsibilities. Also, neither SMCRA 
    nor the Federal regulations require notice or comment on proposed 
    IBR's. The approved State program does, however, provide for appeals of 
    decisions by the regulatory authority under CSR 38-2-18.
        CSR 38-2-3.34(b) and (g) Improvidently issued permits: The 
    commenter disagrees with these amendments and stated that the 
    provisions appear to be for the purpose of covering agency mistakes, 
    with no regard for the coal operator. The Director disagrees. As noted 
    in Finding B21, above, the proposed changes are consistent with the 
    language and intent of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.20 
    concerning improvidently issued permits and 773.15 concerning review of 
    permit applications.
    Roads
        CSR 38-2-4  Haulageways or Access Roads: The commenter said there 
    is no Federal requirement in this area. The Director disagrees. The 
    counterpart Federal provisions are at 30 CFR 816.150 concerning roads; 
    general, and 816.151 concerning primary roads.
        CSR 38-2-4.4  Infrequently used access roads: The commenter 
    disagrees with the need for the proposed language. The commenter stated 
    that the key to the requirements for infrequently used access roads is 
    use and frequency of use. Unless the road is used frequently, the 
    operator should not be required to spend large sums of money on 
    extensive plans, pipes, drains and other costly items. In response, the 
    Director notes that a road's impact on the environment is only partly 
    derived from the use of the road. The degree of alteration of the 
    natural land configuration of the road itself can be the greater source 
    of environmental harm. The proposed rules are designed to minimize 
    those impacts.
    Drainage and Sediment Control
        CSR 38-2-5.5  Permanent impoundments: The commenter stated that 
    permanent impoundments should be encouraged, not restricted. In 
    response, the Director notes that the provisions concerning the 
    retention of permanent impoundments both authorize the retention of 
    such impoundments and ensure sound future maintenance.
    Blasting
        CSR 38-2-6.3(a) Public notice of blasting operations: The commenter 
    stated that all natural gas pipelines should be included within the 
    definition of ``public utilities'' at subsection 6.3(a) and be notified 
    of the blasting schedule. Without such notice, the commenter stated, 
    the opportunity for significant input on the specifics of the blasting 
    plan may be lost without written notice at the permit stage. As 
    discussed in Finding B26b, above, the proposed State language is 
    substantively identical to and, therefore, no less effective than the 
    Federal regulations at 30 CFR 817.64(a). The Director agrees that such 
    notice would be valuable, however, and encourages the commenter to 
    discuss this matter with the regulatory authority.
    Insurance and Bonding
        CSR 38-2-11.1  Insurance: The commenter stated that the amendment 
    is unclear and that it seems as though blasting liability continues 
    after blasting is continued. The Director disagrees. The State language 
    clearly states that insurance coverage for blasting damage may be 
    terminated prior to final bond release, but not before blasting 
    activities have ceased. The provision also requires that even though 
    blasting coverage may be terminated, the full amount of the liability 
    coverage (from subsection 11.1(a)) shall continue throughout the life 
    of the permit (or renewal).
    Notice of Intent To Prospect
        CSR 38-2-13.6(a)(7), (f)(6) Prospecting roads: The commenter 
    recommended that the proposed language not be approved. There is no 
    Federal counterpart for prospecting roads, the commenter asserted, and 
    the proposed requirements would be expensive and not cost effective for 
    such roads which are often infrequently used. In response, the Director 
    notes that requirements for prospecting roads are intended to be 
    counterparts to the Federal requirements for roads at 30 CFR 816.150, 
    and as noted in Finding B30, above, the amendments are approved. 30 CFR 
    815.15(b) concerning coal exploration standards requires the 
    application of 816.150(b) through (f) for coal exploration which causes 
    substantial disturbance.
    Performance Standards
        CSR 38-2-14.5(h)  Waiver of water supply replacement: The commenter 
    stated that no waivers of water supply should be allowed because they 
    would be inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 1992. In response, 
    and as discussed above in Finding B31, above, the Director has 
    determined that the proposed language is not inconsistent with SMCRA 
    and the Federal regulations except to the extent that the proposed 
    waiver would not be implemented in accordance with the definition of 
    ``Replacement of water supply'' at 30 CFR 701.5. In addition, the 
    Director is requiring that the West Virginia program be further amended 
    to clarify that under CSR 38-2-14.5(h), the replacement of water supply 
    can only be waived under the conditions set forth in the definition of 
    ``Replacement of water supply,'' paragraph (b), at 30 CFR 701.5.
        CSR 38-2-14.8  Steep slope mining: A commenter stated that the 
    downslope prohibition (in 14.8(a)(1)) seems to be a new condition and 
    does not take into consideration the unusual geologic conditions of the 
    southern West Virginia coal fields. In response, the Director notes 
    that, as discussed above in Finding B32, the amendment is intended to 
    prevent the placement of spoil on natural intervening slopes in steep 
    slope operations. The amendment renders the State provision 
    substantively identical to 30 CFR 816.107(b)(1), which prohibits spoil 
    placement on the downslope.
        A commenter suggested that, to improve clarity of the new language 
    at CSR 38-2-14.8(a)(1), the phrase ``multiple seam operations'' be 
    amended to read ``multiple seam contour operations.'' The Director 
    notes that, while the change would improve clarity, contour mining is 
    logically implied by the amendments and the State need not be required 
    to revise the language.
        A commenter also stated disagreement with the prohibition at CSR 
    38-2-14.8(a)(4) concerning placement of woody material in the backfill. 
    The commenter asserted that when done right, such placement does not 
    cause stabilization problems. In response, the Director notes that the 
    proposed language is substantively identical to the Federal regulations 
    at 30 CFR 816.107(d). The State language does allow the placement of 
    woody materials in the fill if the regulatory authority first 
    determines that the method of placement of woody material will not 
    deteriorate the future stability of the backfilled area.
        CSR 38-2-14.15  Contemporaneous reclamation standards: The 
    commenter 
    
    [[Page 6532]]
    made numerous comments and provided recommended language concerning 
    these provisions. While the comments and recommendations may have 
    merit, the commenter is not asserting that any of the proposals are 
    inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal regulations. Since the Director 
    need only decide whether amendments are in accordance with SMCRA and 
    the Federal regulations, he will not require the State to add language 
    to its program if it is not needed to bring the program into compliance 
    with Federal law and regulations. As noted in Finding B36, above, the 
    Director has determined that the State's proposed language is 
    consistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.100 concerning 
    contemporaneous reclamation standards and can be approved (see Finding 
    B36, above).
        CSR 38-2-14.19(d)  Disposal of noncoal mine wastes: The commenter 
    recommended that OSM disapprove the proposal to allow the wind-rowing 
    of timber below the toe of the outslope. The commenter stated that OSM 
    has disapproved this practice in the past and should do so once again. 
    As explained above in Finding B39, the Director is approving the 
    proposed amendments except to the extent that the amendments would 
    allow wind-rowing on the downslope in steep slope areas. Such wind-
    rowing in steep slope areas would be less effective than 30 CFR 
    816.107(b)(3).
    Subsidence Control
        CSR 38-2-16.2(c)(2)  Subsidence control; surface owner protection: 
    The conmenter stated that deletion of the phrase ``To the extent 
    required under applicable provisions of State law'' should not have 
    been proposed because court decisions negate the validity of the 
    disapproval of that phrase and the disapproval at 30 CFR 948.15(k)(11). 
    In response, the Director notes that the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
    amended SMCRA at new section 720 to require the repair or compensation 
    for subsidence-caused material damage to certain structures. The new 
    SMCRA provision does not provide for a deference to State law.
    Inspection and Enforcement
        CSR 38-2-20.6  Procedure for assessing civil penalty: Two 
    commenters stated that this section should be modified to ensure that 
    it is clear that citizens with information and interests which support 
    a coal operation or operator should be equally free to participate in 
    assessment conferences as are citizens who are opposed. The Director 
    disagrees that the State language is unclear. The State provision 
    clearly states that ``[a]ny person, other than the operator and 
    Division of Environmental Protection representives, may submit in 
    writing at the time of the conference a request to present evidence 
    concerning the violation(s) being conferenced.'' Clearly, the provision 
    does not state that the evidence must be either in support of or 
    against the violation(s) being conferenced. The commenters also 
    questioned why ``any'' person could participate in the conference, and 
    stated that the Division of Environmental Protection should have the 
    discretion of allowing those they feel are genuinely affected by the 
    proceeding to attend, not just anybody or everybody who might petition. 
    In response, the Director notes that subsection CSR 38-2-20.6(e) 
    provides that the conference assessment officer shall consider all 
    relevant information on the violation(s). Therefore, the assessment 
    officer has some discretion to determine what information is relevant 
    to the violation(s) being conferenced.
        CSR 38-2-22  Coal Refuse: The commenter stated that this section 
    should be amended to clarify that the coal refuse regulations do not 
    apply to coal refuse placed in the backfill, but only to isolated and 
    distinct structures designed solely or primarily for coal refuse 
    disposal. The Director partially agrees. 30 CFR 816.81 concerning coal 
    mine waste general requirements, provides that all coal mine waste 
    disposed of in an area other than the mine workings or excavations 
    shall be placed in new or existing disposal areas within the permit 
    area. The regulations at 30 CFR 816.83 provide the standards for coal 
    mine waste refuse piles, with particular emphasis on stability and 
    drainage control. Coal mine waste that is placed in the backfill, 
    however, presents potential acidity and toxicity problems that must be 
    addressed just as those problems must be addressed if the coal waste is 
    placed in a separate structure. The State has addressed those potential 
    problems in its rules concerning coal refuse in the backfill at CSR 38-
    2-14.15(m) (see Finding B36, above). In designing those regulations, 
    the State used applicable standards from 30 CFR 816.81 concerning coal 
    mine waste. In approving the proposed State provisions, OSM compared 
    them to applicable parts of 30 CFR 816.81 as the primary standards for 
    preventing the formation of acidity and toxicity.
        CSR 38-2-22.4(f)  Design storm specifications: The commenter 
    supports the proposed changes and stated that those changes bring the 
    State standards in line with Federal standards. In response, the 
    Director notes that as explained in Finding B50c, above, the proposed 
    amendments are approved except to the extent that the new standards 
    apply to impoundments that meet the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 
    77.216(a). 30 CFR 816.84(b)(2) provides that impoundments that meet the 
    size or other criteria of 77.216(a) must be designed for a probable 
    maximum precipitation (PMP) of a six-hour or greater precipitation 
    event.
    Federal Agency Comments
        Pursuant to section 503(b)(1) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), 
    OSM solicited comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal 
    agencies with an actual or potential interest in the West Virginia 
    program on four different occasions (Administrative Record Nos. WV-891, 
    WV-897, WV-936, and WV-942). Comments were received from the U.S. 
    Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and the U.S. Army 
    Corps of Engineers. These Federal agencies acknowledged receipt of the 
    amendment, but generally had no comment or acknowledged that the 
    revisions were satisfactory.
        The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) commented that CSR 
    38-2-14.15(m) concerning coal processing waste disposal, and CSR 38-2-
    14.19(d) concerning disposal of non-coal waste may be less restrictive 
    than MSHA's requirements. For example, MSHA stated that MSHA's minimum 
    design criteria for refuse piles (30 CFR 77.214 and 77.215) have 
    provisions requiring the placement of clay over any exposed coal beds 
    before constructing a refuse pile, and also prohibit the placement of 
    any extraneous combustible materials in a refuse pile. In response, the 
    Director notes that the State rules at CSR 38-2-14.15(m) provide that 
    where approval for placing coal processing waste in the backfill has 
    been granted, such placement shall be done in accordance with the 
    compaction requirements of CSR 38-2-22.3(p). CSR 38-2-22.3(p) requires 
    MSHA approval of any alternate construction plans for refuse piles in 
    compacted layers exceeding two feet in thickness. In addition, the 
    proposed language provides that the coal processing waste will not 
    contain acid-producing or toxic-forming material. Also, CSR 38-2-
    14.19(c) provide that noncoal mine waste shall not be deposited in a 
    refuse pile or impounding structure, nor shall an excavation for a 
    noncoal mine waste disposal site be located within eight feet of any 
    coal outcrop or coal storage area. In addition, under both of these 
    rules, 
    
    [[Page 6533]]
    the coal processing waste would be placed in the backfill, a location 
    from which the coal has already been removed. Finally, nothing in CSR 
    38-2-14.15(m) or 14.19 excuses the operator from compliance with 
    applicable MSHA requirements. The Director recognizes the applicability 
    of 30 CFR 77.214 and 77.215 to refuse piles.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
        Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to 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.).
        On July 2 and August 3, 1993 (Administrative Record Nos. WV-892 and 
    WV-896), and June 29, 1995 (Administrative Record No. WV-999) OSM 
    solicited EPA's concurrence on the proposed amendments. On October 17, 
    1994 (Administrative Record No. WV-949), EPA gave its written 
    concurrence with a condition on subsection 5.4(b)(2) of West Virginia's 
    regulations. Subsection CSR 38-2-5.4(b)(2) is not being amended, and is 
    not, therefore, a subject of this rulemaking. EPA also submitted 
    comments concerning various State provisions that are not being 
    amended. Since the provisions are not being amended, EPA's comments 
    will not be addressed here.
        EPA also responded by letter dated January 31, 1996, with its 
    concurrence with the proposed amendments (Administrative Record No. WV-
    1019). In that letter, EPA provided comments in support of CSR 38-2-
    14.15(m) concerning the prohibition of acidic coal processing waste 
    being placed in backfills, and Sec. 22B-3-4(c) concerning variances to 
    water quality standards for coal remaining operations.
    
    V. Director's Decision
    
        Based on the above findings, and except as noted below, the 
    Director is approving with certain exceptions and additional 
    requirements the proposed amendments as submitted by West Virginia on 
    June 28, 1993, as modified on July 30, 1993; August 18, 1994; September 
    1, 1994; and May 16, 1995. As discussed in the findings, there are some 
    exceptions to this approval, and those are noted below. The Director is 
    also requiring the State to make additional changes to certain 
    provisions to ensure that the program is no less stringent than SMCRA 
    and no less effective than the Federal regulations. Those requirements 
    are also noted below.
        At Sec. 22-3-13(e)--The authorization to promulgate rules that 
    permit variances from approximate original contour is approved to the 
    extent that it only applies to steep slope areas as defined at WVSCMRA 
    Sec. 22-3-13(d). The Director is requiring that West Virginia amend its 
    program to limit such variances to industrial, commercial, residential, 
    or public alternative postmining land use, in accordance with section 
    515(e)(2) of SMCRA.
        At Sec. 22B-1-7(d)--The authorization to allow temporary relief 
    where the appellant demonstrates that the executed decision appealed 
    from will result in the appellant suffering an ``unjust hardship'' is 
    not approved. The Director is requiring that West Virginia further 
    amend Sec. 22B-1-7(d) to be consistent with SMCRA sections 514(d) and 
    525(c).
        At Sec. 22B-1-7(h)--The authorization that would allow the Surface 
    Mining Board to consider economic feasibility of treating or 
    controlling discharges from surface coal mining operations in appeals 
    from decisions of an order, permit, or official action is not approved. 
    The Director is requiring that West Virginia further amend Sec. 22B-1-
    7(h) to be no less stringent than SMCRA section 515(b)(10) and no less 
    effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.42, by requiring 
    discharges to be controlled or treated without regard to economic 
    feasibility.
        At CSR 38-2-1.2(c)(1)--The termination of jurisdiction over an 
    initial program site except to the extent that subsection (c)(1) does 
    not require compliance with the Federal initial program regulations at 
    Subchapter B or to the West Virginia permanent program as a 
    prerequisite to the termination of jurisdiction. The Director is 
    requiring that the State further amend subsection (c)(1) to require 
    compliance with the Federal initial program regulations at Subchapter B 
    or the West Virginia permanent regulatory program rules as a 
    prerequisite to the termination of jurisdiction over an initial program 
    site.
        At CSR 38-2-2.92--The definition of ``chemical treatment'' except 
    to the extent that the definition of ``chemical treatment'' would allow 
    bond release where passive treatment systems are used to achieve 
    compliance with applicable effluent limitations. The Director is 
    requiring that West Virginia further amend the West Virginia program to 
    clarify that bond may not be released where passive treatment systems 
    are used to achieve compliance with applicable effluent limitations.
        At CSR 38-2-3.1(o)--The grouping of ownership and control 
    information is approved to the extend that all permit applicants which 
    maintain centralized ownership and control files are also required to 
    comply with all of the informational provisions contained in CSR 38-2-
    3.1.
        At CSR 38-2-4.2(b)--Is approved to the extent that the provisions 
    pertain to all roads, whether they are within or crossing a stream.
        At CSR 38-2-4.4--Is approved except to the extent that it exempts 
    infrequently used access roads from the requirements of subsection 4.9. 
    The Director is also requiring the State to amend its program to 
    require that all infrequently used access roads comply with CSR 38-2-
    4.9.
        At CSR 38-2-4.11--Is approved to the extent that the provision does 
    not exclude facilities that are included within the definition of 
    ``surface coal mining operations'' at 30 CFR 700.5.
        At CSR 38-2-14.5(h)--Is approved except to the extent that the 
    proposed waiver would not be implemented in accordance with the 
    definition of ``Replacement of water supply'' at 30 CFR 710.5. The 
    Director is requiring that West Virginia further amend CSR 38-2-14.5(h) 
    and amend Sec. 22-3-24(b) to clarify that the replacement of water 
    supply can only be waived under the conditions set forth in the 
    definition of ``Replacement of water supply,'' paragraph (b), at 30 CFR 
    701.5.
        At CSR 38-2-14.19--Is not approved to the extent that windrowing 
    would be allowed on the downslope in steep slope areas. In addition, 
    the Director is requiring that West Virginia further amend CSR 38-2-
    14.19(d) to clarify that windrowing will not be allowed on the 
    downslope in steep slope areas.
        At CSR 38-2-22.4(g)--The Director is requiring that West Virginia 
    demonstrate how the State would implement the PMP 24-hour standard, or 
    revise subsection 22.4(g) to require compliance with a PMP 6-hour 
    standard.
        The Director is amending 30 CFR Part 948 to codify this decision. 
    With respect to those changes in State laws and regulations approved in 
    this document, the Director is making the effective date of this 
    approval retroactive to the date upon which they took effect in West 
    Virginia for purposes of State law. He is taking this action in 
    recognition of the extraordinarily complex nature of the review and 
    approval process for this amendment and the need to affirm the validity 
    of State actions taken during the interval between State implementation 
    and the decision being announced today. Retroactive approval of these 
    provisions is in keeping with the purposes of SMCRA relating to State 
    primacy and environmental protection.
    
    [[Page 6534]]
    
        To assure consistency with 30 CFR 732.17(g), which state that 
    ``[no] * * * change to laws or regulations shall take effect for 
    purposes of a State Program until approved as an amendment,'' The 
    Director's approval of the revisions, as noted in the codification 
    below, includes West Virginia's previous and ongoing implementation of 
    these revisions.
        Retroactive approval of the revisions is appropriate because no 
    detrimental reliance on the previous West Virginia laws or regulations 
    has occurred for the period involved. OSM is approving these changes 
    back only to the dates from which West Virginia began enforcing them. 
    As support for this decision, the Director cites the rationale employed 
    by the United States Claims Court in McLean Hosp. Corp. v. United 
    States, 26 Cl.Ct. 1144 (1992). In McLean, the court held that 
    retroactive application of a rule was appropriate where the rule was 
    identical in substance to guidelines which had been in effect anyway 
    during the period in question. Therefore, the Court concluded, the 
    plaintiff could not ``claim that it relied to its detriment on a 
    contrary rule.'' 26 Cl.Ct. at 1148. Likewise, since the Director is 
    approving changes which the State has been enforcing there can be no 
    claim of detrimental reliance on any contrary West Virginia Statutes or 
    regulations in this instance.
        Making portions of the approval retroactive does not require 
    reopening of the public comment period under section 553(b)(3) of the 
    Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). The public, in 
    general, and the coal industry in particular have had sufficient notice 
    of these revised statutory and regulatory revisions to support 
    retroactive OSM approval. Retroactive approval constitutes an 
    acknowledgement of statutory and regulatory revisions which West 
    Virginia has been implementing since the respective approval dates of 
    these revisions at the State level, and would have been expected as a 
    natural outgrowth of the proposal. The retroactive approval does not 
    apply to earlier versions of these provisions to the extent that such 
    provisions were inconsistent with Federal requirements.
        Furthermore, ``good cause'' both under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 
    APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), for retroactive approval (if notice were 
    not sufficient) and under section 553(d)(3) of APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 
    for not delaying the effective date of the approval for 30 days after 
    the publication of this Federal Register decision document. As noted in 
    the findings above, many of these program revisions are needed to 
    render the West Virginia program consistent with SMCRA and no less 
    effective than the Federal regulations.
        Failure to make OSM approval of these statutory and regulatory 
    provisions retroactive could cause significant disruption to the 
    orderly enforcement and administration by the State of the West 
    Virginia program. The Director believes that the desire to avoid a 
    significant disruption of the West Virginia program, coupled with the 
    lack of any prejudice to the public or to the regulated community, are 
    sufficient bases to constitute ``good cause.''
    
    Effect of Director's Decision
    
        Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise 
    jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State submits and obtains the 
    Secretary's approval of a regulatory program. Similarly, 30 CFR 
    732.17(a) requires that the State submit any alteration of an approved 
    State program to OSM for review as a program amendment. Thus, any 
    changes to the state program are not enforceable until approved by OSM. 
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit any unilateral 
    changes to approved State programs. In oversight of the West Virginia 
    program, the Director will recognize only the statutes, regulations and 
    other materials approved by OSM, together with any consistent 
    implementing policies, directives and other materials, and will require 
    the enforcement by West Virginia of only such provisions. The 
    provisions that the Director is approving today will take effect on the 
    specified dates for purposes of the West Virginia program.
    
    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 12778
    
        The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
    by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (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 
    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. 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 counterpart Federal regulations.
    
    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948
    
        Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
    
        Dated: February 8, 1996.
    Allen D. Klein,
    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:
    
    [[Page 6535]]
    
    
    PART 948--WEST VIRGINIA
    
        1. The authority citation for Part 948 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
    
    
    Sec. 948.12  [Amended]
    
        2. Section 948.12 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
    (a), (c), (d), (g) and (h).
    
    
    Sec. 948.13  [Amended]
    
        3. Section 948.13 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
    (a), (b), (e) and (f).
        4. Section 948.15 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read:
    
    
    Sec. 948.15  Approval of regulatory program amendments.
    
    * * * * *
        (p)(1) General description and effective dates. Except as noted in 
    paragraph (p)(3) of this section, the amendment submitted by West 
    Virginia to OSM by letter dated June 28, 1993, as revised by submittals 
    dated July 30, 1993; August 18, 1994; September 1, 1994; and May 16, 
    1995, is approved to the extent set forth in paragraph (p)(2) of this 
    section. The effective dates of the Director's approval of the 
    provisions identified in paragraph (p)(2) of this section are:
        (i) July 1, 1990, for those statutory amendments contained in HB-
    202;
        (ii) June 7, 1991, for those amendments contained in SB-579;
        (iii) October 16, 1991, for those amendments contained in HB-217;
        (iv) July 1, 1994, for those amendments contained in HB-4030;
        (v) June 11, 1994, for those amendments contained in HB-4065;
        (vi) February 10, 1995, for those amendments contained in SB-250;
        (vii) March 10, 1995, for those amendments contained in HB-2134;
        (viii) June 9, 1995, for those amendments contained in SB-287 and 
    HB-2523;
        (ix) May 2, 1993, for those rule changes submitted on June 28, 1993 
    (WV-889);
        (x) June 1, 1991, for those changes submitted on July 30, 1993 (WV-
    893) which were not identified as changes in the June 28, 1993, 
    submittal (WV-889);
        (xi) June 1, 1994, for those rule changes submitted on September 1, 
    1994 (WV-937);
        (xii) May 1, 1995, for those blaster certification revisions 
    submitted on May 8, 1995 (WV-979);
        (xiii) June 1, 1995, for those abandoned mine land revisions 
    submitted May 8, 1995 (WV-979);
        (xiv) June 1, 1995, for all remaining changes submitted on May 16, 
    1995 (WV-979).
        (2) Approved revisions. Except as noted in paragraph (p)(3) of this 
    section, the following provisions of the amendment described in 
    paragraph (p)(1) of this section are approved:
    
    (i) Revisions to the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and 
    Reclamation Act
    
    1. Sec. 22-1-4 through 8--Division of Environmental Protection.
    2. Sec. 22-2--Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation Act.
    3. Sec. 22-3-3--Definitions.
    4. Sec. 22-3-5--Surface Mining Inspectors and Supervisors.
    5. Sec. 22-3-7--Notice of Intent to Prospect.
    6. Sec. 22-3-8--Surface Mining Reclamation Permit.
    7. Sec. 22-3-9--Permit Application Requirements.
    8. Sec. 22-3-9a--Permit to Mine Two Acres or Less. [Deleted]
    9. Sec. 22-3-13--Performance Standards to the extent that subsection 
    13(e) only applies to steep slope areas as defined in Sec. 22-3-
    13(d).
    10. Sec. 22-3-15--Inspections.
    11. Sec. 22-3-17--Notice of Violation.
    12. Sec. 22-3-18--Permit Approval.
    13. Sec. 22-3-19--Permit Renewal and Revision Requirements.
    14. Sec. 22-3-22--Designation of Areas Unsuitable for Mining.
    15. Sec. 22-3-26--Surface Mining Operations Not Subject to the Act.
    16. Sec. 22-3-28--Special Permits for Abandoned Coal Waste Piles.
    17. Sec. 22-3-40--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
    (NPDES).
    18. Sec. 22B-1-4 through 12--Environmental Boards; General Policy 
    and Purpose, except language at Sec. 22B-1-7(d) which allows 
    temporary relief where the appellant demonstrates that the executed 
    decision appealed from will result in the appellant suffering an 
    ``unjust hardship'' and except language at Sec. 22B-1-7(h) which 
    allows the Surface Mining Board to consider economic feasibility of 
    treating or controlling discharges from surface coal mining 
    operations in appeals from decisions of an order, permit, or 
    official action.
    19. Sec. 22B-3-4--Environmental Quality Board.
    20. Sec. 22B-4--Surface mine board.
    
    (ii) Revisions to the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation 
    Regulations
    
        1. CSR Sec. 38-2-1.2--Applicability; except subsection 1.2(c)(1) 
    to the extent that it does not require compliance with the Federal 
    initial program regulations at Subchapter B or the West Virginia 
    permanent regulatory program as a prerequisite to the termination of 
    jurisdiction over an initial program site.
        2. CSR 38-2-2--Definitions; except to the extent that the 
    definition of ``chemical treatment'' at CSR 38-2-2.20 would be 
    applied in the context of section CSR 38-2-12.2(e) to authorize bond 
    release for sites with discharges that require passive treatment to 
    meet discharge standards.
        3. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.1(o)--Application information to the extent 
    that all permit applicants which maintain centralized ownership and 
    control files are also required to comply with all of the 
    informational provisions contained in CSR 38-2-3.1.
        4. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.4--Maps.
        5. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.6--Operation Plan.
        6. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.7--Excess Spoil.
        7. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.8--New and Existing Structures and Support 
    Facilities.
        8. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.12--Subsidence Control Plan.
        9. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.14--Removal of Abandoned Coal Waste Piles.
        10. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.15--Approved Person.
        11. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.16--Fish and Wildlife Resources.
        12. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.25--Transfer, Assignment or Sale of Permit 
    Rights.
        13. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.26--Ownership and Control Changes.
        14. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.27(a)--Permit Renewals and Permit 
    Extensions.
        15. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.28--Permit Revisions.
        16. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.29--Incidental Boundary Revisions (IBRs).
        17. CSR Sec. 38-2-30--Variances.
        18. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.31(a)--Exemption for Government Financed 
    Highway or Other Construction.
        19. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.32--Permit Findings.
        20. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.33--Permit Conditions.
        21. CSR Sec. 38-2-3.34--Improvidently Issued Permits.
        22. CSR Sec. 38-2-4--Haulageways, Roads, and Access Roads:
        22a. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.1(a)--Road Classification system;
        22b. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.2--Plans and Specifications; except CSR 38-
    2-4.2(b) is approved to the extent that the provisions pertain to 
    all roads, whether they are within or crossing a stream;
        22c. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.3--Existing Haulageways or Access Roads;
        22d. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.4--Infrequently Used Access Roads; except 
    CSR 38-2-4.4 is approved except to the extent that it exempts 
    infrequently used access roads from the requirements of subsection 
    4.9;
        22e. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.5--Construction;
        22f. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.6--Drainage Design;
        22g. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.7--Performance Standards;
        22h. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.8--Maintenance;
        22i. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.9--Reclamation;
        22j. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.10--Primary Roads;
        22k. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.11--Support Facilities and Transportation 
    Facilities except to the extent that the provision does not exclude 
    facilities that are included within the definition of ``surface coal 
    mining operations'' at 30 CFR 700.5.
        22l. CSR Sec. 38-2-4.12--Certification.
        23. CSR Sec. 38-2-5.2--Intermittent or Perennial Streams.
        24. CSR Sec. 38-2-5.4--Sediment Control.
        25. CSR Sec. 38-2-5.5--Permanent Impoundments.
        26. CSR Sec. 38-2-6--Blasting;
        26a. CSR Sec. 38-2-6.3(b)--Public Notice of Blasting Operations;
        26b. CSR Sec. 38-2-6.6--Blasting Control for Other Structures;
        26c. CSR Sec. 38-2-6.8--Preblast Survey.
        27. CSR Sec. 38-2-8.1--Protection of Fish and Wildlife and 
    Related Values.
        28. CSR Sec. 38-2-9--Revegetation.
        
    [[Page 6536]]
    
        29. CSR Sec. 38-2-11.1--Insurance.
        30. CSR Sec. 38-2-13--Notice of Intent to Prospect.
        31. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.5--Hydrologic Balance except to the extent 
    that the proposed waiver at subsection (h) would not be implemented 
    in accordance with the definition of ``Replacement of water supply'' 
    at 30 CFR 701.5.
        32. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.8--Steep Slope Mining.
        33. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.11--Inactive Status.
        34. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.12--Variance From Approximate Original 
    Contour Requirements.
        35. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.14--Disposal of Excess Spoil.
        36. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.15--Contemporaneous Reclamation Standards.
        37. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.17--Control of Fugitive Dust.
        38. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.18--Utility Installations.
        39. CSR Sec. 38-2-14.19--Disposal of Noncoal Waste is not 
    approved to the extent that windrowing would be allowed on the 
    downslope in steep slope areas.
        40. CSR Sec. 38-2-15.2--Backfilling and Regrading; Underground 
    Mines.
        41. CSR Sec. 38-2-16.2--Subsidence Control; Surface Owner 
    Protection.
        42. CSR Sec. 38-2-17--Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP).
        43. CSR Sec. 38-2-18.3--Review of Decision Not to Inspect or 
    Enforce.
        44. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.1--Inspection Frequencies.
        45. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.2--Notices of Violations.
        46. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.4--Show Cause Orders.
        47. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.5--Civil Penalty Determinations.
        48. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.6--Procedures for Assessing Civil 
    Penalties.
        49. CSR Sec. 38-2-20.7--Assessment Rates.
        50. CSR Sec. 38-2-22--Coal Refuse.
        51. CSR Sec. 38-2C-4--Training of Blasters.
        52. CSR Sec. 38-2C-5--Examination for Certification of Examiner/
    Inspector and Certified Blaster.
        53. CSR Sec. 38-2C-8.2--Refresher Training Course/Self-study 
    Course.
        54. CSR Sec. 38-2C-10.1--Violations by a Certified Blaster.
        55. CSR Sec. 38-2C-11.1--Penalties.
        56. CSR Sec. 38-2D-4.4(b) Reclamation Objectives and Priorities.
        57. CSR Sec. 38-2D-6.3(a) Acceptance of Gifts of Land.
        58. CSR Sec. 38-2D-8.7(a) Grant Application Procedures.
    
        (3) Exceptions.
        (i) Sec. 22-3-13--Performance Standards is not approved to the 
    extent that subsection 13(e) applies to areas other than steep slope 
    areas as defined in Sec. 22-3-13(d).
        (ii) Sec. 22B-1-4 through 12--Environmental Boards; General Policy 
    and Purpose: Language at Sec. 22B-1-7(d) which allows temporary relief 
    where the appellant demonstrates that the executed decision appealed 
    from will result in the appellant suffering an ``unjust hardship'' is 
    not approved; and language at Sec. 22B-1-7(h) which allows the Surface 
    Mining Board to consider economic feasibility of treating or 
    controlling discharges from surface coal mining operations in appeals 
    from decisions of an order, permit, or official action is not approved.
        (iii) CSR Sec. 38-2-1.2(c)(1) concerning termination of 
    jurisdiction over an initial program site is approved except to the 
    extent that subsection (c)(1) does not require compliance with the 
    Federal initial program regulations at Subchapter B or to the West 
    Virginia permanent program as a prerequisite to the termination of 
    jurisdiction.
        (iv) CSR Sec. 38-2-2.20 concerning the definition of ``chemical 
    treatment'' is not approved to the extent that the definition would be 
    applied in the context of section CSR 38-2-12.2(e) to authorize bond 
    release for sites with discharges that require passive treatment to 
    meet discharge standards.
        (v) CSR Sec. 38-2-4.4 is not approved to the extent that it exempts 
    infrequently used access roads from the requirements of subsection 4.9.
        (vi) CSR Sec. 38-2-4.11 is not approved to the extent that the 
    provision excludes facilities that are included within the definition 
    of ``surface coal mining operations'' at 30 CFR 700.5.
        (vii) CSR Sec. 38-2-14.5(h) is not approved to the extent that the 
    proposed waiver at subsection (h) would not be implemented in 
    accordance with the definition of ``Replacement of water supply'' at 30 
    CFR 710.5.
        (viii) CSR Sec. 38-2-14.19 is not approved to the extent that 
    windrowing would be allowed on the downslope in steep slope areas.
        5. Section 948.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
    (c), (f), (i), (j), (l), (n), (q), (s), (t), (v), (w), (x), (aa), (cc), 
    (hh), (ii), (jj), (kk), (mm), (nn), (pp), (qq), (rr), (ss), (uu), (vv), 
    and (yy) through (iii); revising paragraph (xx); and adding paragraphs 
    (mmm) through (uuu), reading as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 948.16  Required regulatory program amendments.
    
    * * * * *
        (xx) By August 1, 1996, West Virginia shall submit either a 
    proposed amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed, 
    together with a timetable for adoption, to revise subsection CSR 38-2-
    14.8(a) to specify design requirements for constructed outcrop barriers 
    that will be the equivalent of natural barriers and will assure the 
    protection of water quality and insure the long-term stability of the 
    backfill.
    * * * * *
        (mmm) By August 1, 1996, 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 Sec. 22-3-13(e) to 
    limit the authorization for a variance from approximate original 
    contour to industrial, commercial, residential, or public alternative 
    postmining land use, in accordance with section 515(e)(2) of SMCRA.
        (nnn) By August 1, 1996, 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 Sec. 22B-1-7(d) to be 
    consistent with SMCRA sections 514(d) and 525(c).
        (ooo) By August 1, 1996, 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 Sec. 22B-1-7(h) to be 
    no less stringent than SMCRA section 515(b)(10) and no less effective 
    than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.42, by requiring discharges 
    to be controlled or treated without regard to economic feasibility.
        (ppp) By August 1, 1996, 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 Sec. 38-2-
    1.2(c)(1) to require compliance with the Federal initial program 
    regulations at Subchapter B or the West Virginia permanent program 
    regulations as a prerequisite to the termination of jurisdiction over 
    an initial program site.
        (qqq) By August 1, 1996, 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 Sec. 38-2-2.20, 
    or otherwise amend the West Virginia program to clarify that bond may 
    not be released where passive treatment systems are used to achieve 
    compliance with applicable effluent limitations.
        (rrr) By August 1, 1996, 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 Sec. 38-2-4.4 to 
    require that all infrequently used access roads comply with CSR 38-2-
    4.9.
        (sss) By August 1, 1996, 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 Sec. 38-2-14.5(h) 
    and Sec. 22-3-24(b) to clarify that the replacement of water supply can 
    only be waived under the conditions set forth in the definition of 
    ``Replacement of water supply,'' paragraph (b), at 30 CFR 701.5.
    
    [[Page 6537]]
    
        (ttt) By August 1, 1996, 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 Sec. 38-2-
    14.19(d) to clarify that windrowing will not be allowed on the 
    downslope in steep slope areas.
        (uuu) By August 1, 1996, 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 subsection 22.4(g) to 
    require compliance with a PMP 6-hour standard, or demonstrate how the 
    State would implement the PMP 24-hour standard at CSR 38-2-22.4(g).
        6. Section 948.26 is amended by removing the text and reserving the 
    heading as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 948.26   Required abandoned mine land reclamation program/plan 
    amendments. [Reserved]
    
    [FR Doc. 96-3413 Filed 2-20-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
02/21/1996
Department:
Interior Department
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule; Approval of amendment.
Document Number:
96-3413
Dates:
February 21, 1996. Approval dates of regulatory program amendments are listed in Sec. 948.15(p).
Pages:
6511-6537 (27 pages)
PDF File:
96-3413.pdf
CFR: (7)
30 CFR 22B-1-7(h)
30 CFR 22A-3-9a
30 CFR 948.12
30 CFR 948.13
30 CFR 948.15
More ...