plain understandable language and the regulation that is at the heart of this case satisfies that standard the regulation governs what are known as alternative bonding systems have available sufficient money to complete the reclamation plan for any areas which may be in the fall at any time that regulation is controlled in this case it up lives because since july the question presented today mr restrictionists i'm a little bit confused as to exactly what it is that you want to remain in place clearly longer the system is no longer news prospective it's correct about it but the fundamental issue in this case then is what are the responsibilities for the guarantees that happen for i understand that i guess but for my question comes to the point is i'm having some difficulty in understanding what it is you would want o s m to continue to do in supervising the surface mining program in pennsylvania treated on sites that suck in some instances were forfeited in the mid one nine hundred eighty s that having had treatment so there would be treatment today where there is no treatment and there would be a guarantee and that's exactly what's a member of the me and every side no side left behind who would who would provide good treatment that you say here that you said is not being treated today just the state would contract the problem for their treatment they would turn in by the system as it does it that other sites  uses the money from the bond pool from the state wide bond pool fun to provide for reclamation in the obligation is to provide provide enough money to complete the reclamation plan but but isn't it under the enhanced program that was part of the to the june two thousand and three approval but didn't the state under the enhanced program commit to do that now what they committed to doing was what i would call a trio process what they've all of the mines that were bonded that obtain recantation guarantees through the a b s now by switching to a different system prospectively you may win it the number of those that continue to be added to the sort of the dead burden on b s but that that is the standard that they would have to satisfy also procedurally they would have to do that through a formal program and the a b s and this is this is a fundamental dispute in this case  only be eliminated or in the changed increased through formal program amendment the only significant change that has happened to the a b s since one thousand nine hundred eighty two since it was originally approved was the doubling of the reclamation be in then or now has on hand and that's sort of like saying that if you cancel a credit card you are outstanding balance automatically drops to the amount of money you have on hand it's a heck of a trick if you can get away with it what they're doing is trying to use a prospect of change maybe through a technical guidance stockmen an internal document and saying that it has retroactive effects on obligations already in crude or junction what would it say i think the i think because this is an administration procedure and a record review proceeding what would happen is the district court's decision would be reversed the agency's two thousand and three actions that on  with the ship itself to the conventional bonding system isn't the problem in the sense that the mines that successfully make that transition are not going to be a burden on the reclined in the future we will not be here today the fact is what they have that is not a guarantee is they have a guarantee that will be satisfactory that's what we're asking for that on the best projections available in two thousand and three but that was sufficient they did say that that was sufficient and that's incorrect and i'm sure you disagree with that conclusion yes because there isn't a guarantee and because border they are doing they are going to leave some of these sites behind whatever they say to the contrary they are now making that judgment i know that because of documents i've gotten in florida but they have to make that judgment and  said every e d s mind will be true to the a t f and here's the schedule here's the guarantee in the fact that some of these discharges have been out there for almost twenty years and certainly a good number more than a decade without any kind of burdens on the public that smear group was supposed to prevent that's what you want to guarantee and that's where you have to do something like west virginia has done raising as i can west west virginia proposed to stay with the a point pennsylvania home pennsylvania has the conventional and alternative bonding system but but that point is irrelevant with respect to the a b s his obligations towards the studies that were bonded and then forbidden under the is now limited were expunged but certainly limited by a change made twelve years later about the help the bonding mechanisms that different minds can use the regulations which include the a b s regulation so bottom line as mong as an a b s is part of an approved state program it must accept the standards of the a b s regulation eight hundred point well in one i'm surprised in your complaint that you did not seek an injunction to demand a program to eliminate d b s we did object to the manner in which government the environment call it forward and to withhold action on that program amend the pending this court's decision in this case about what the scope of the obligations are toward the mines that be the same you why the question is going to be under the vs regulation what are the obligations towards the mines that were bonded out of the a b s and that have not made or or could not make the transition to conventional bonding in our position of course commonwealth i would first just like to address the the statement that judge fisher made and i'd like to hear to reason as to why the appellant's complained there was no injunction for a program amendment for the transmission of the b s and that's because this issue was not raised in the district court the question of whether a program with them and for the terminations of any of us was not put before the district court the parties did not prevent the district court did not address it nor to post and a b s frond it is undisputed that for all new morning operations they could only post a c b s bond conventional politics system bond second for existing mining operations that have been a regionally permitted under the a b s system they didn't have the option of for example having their a b s bonds grandfathered they were not allowed to keep the s u v s bonds i undisputed that for all of these types of sites and operations they were required to convert to c b s bond and third the come home to pennsylvania itself was not of the view that it had an operating a b state regulatory regime and it's state approved program allows for the commonwealth to have irony vs core c b s so the fact that it simply converted from one form to another to address all of the rec disappear they can change the system and what happens to these ultimately and what the commonwealth has done here as is as your fisher has has has addressed has an entire plan in the enhancement document to actually just generate something that it will not follow through with but we dance in the terms of the plan they have to follow through that period there is their citizen foresman for instance it's available i cannot speak to that enough there's just an unfortunate however  kid i'm sorry i don't think slush fund is the appropriate watering ten words a fund to address for example sites that are forfeited and there is not sufficient money then perhaps stage legislation should take that up until that's done pennsylvania has put in place a the system was to make sure that each site as your opponent put it put there's no site left behind every site past to be cleaned up that's very certain the facts not only the purpose but indeed what they b s requires that system requires that that's what's required by jack how can it be consistent with be asked to allow the state to take a step which i think i hear you maybe does not provide the same obligation to the state to clean up every site i hear if i've misunderstood you please correct me but i think i've heard you say the state has a plan created in good faith to address these problems these problems but it doesn't have to do it as it would have had to do it under the system that was previously place that's correct because there is no a b s in place it is not this time it implies it in it applies out into infinity because under the appellant's interpretation you have to read the provision is stating at any time the alternative learning system must  has a timeframe for at the beginning which says the alternative binding says to be or the alternative which is what it refers to that's in the present is recent it's referring to the alternative bombing system it doesn't say whether there is no alternative bon review what the regulations say to understand even though there is no specific provision for terminations how how terminations can take place if there are regulations which  balance this provision never ok as long as there is an a b s correct but can you terminate the a b s and less you can make the determination that there will be that provision for that one point responsibility that it has been covered in one way or the other if you can terminate your credit card unless you can ensure that you will be able to make provision to pay off to cover any amount due and owing that you cannot terminate your a c s which is required to have an ongoing responsibility and there she can demonstrate that you are prepared to for a bill that on going to the bones is a good hearted elegy if there were no requirement that unless you can fulfill the responsibility that you have while it is ongoing one that maybe you question and i'm simply my point is simply there is nothing for the court or the agency to turn to you in terms of gun says to hell let me terminate you can terminate that ongoing responsibility and less you can demonstrate that you have provided for the means to fulfill that ongoing responsibility if that language is if you see the language in that sense then perhaps it would be required and so it seems position that that language is not there and what it was faced with was the question of whether there was an a b s who placed into it in two thousand and three against which for example almost every issue in order to not what you do convert pennsylvania being the first to convert that a west them is to keep supervision over the solvency of the remaining a v s all geisha or whether or not you can accept a proposal from a state that says here's how we're going to resolve the remaining solvency problems and you can discontinue seven thirty two supervision isn't that really the question here i'm sorry sir maybe seven thirty two i  address that you were proposing other mechanisms that will address that indeed the question is at that point does o s m continue to wreck supervision over that under eight hundred eleven a one as a you or do you off as you have done and said unless someone complains to us about what you've done you continue to have privacy and we're not going to interfere on a day to day basis or that to question first of all that it's the exams understand the fu supervised at least not for this appeal the remaining question is who reviews the remaining liabilities to the commonwealth of pennsylvania for the federal government of the on reclaimed land that was mine under the old b b s program there is no question it is does eight hundred point one one even want to continue to govern the even though this is the first time it's been done no other state has proposed that you're liable to have subsequent proposals in west virginia and elsewhere missouri huggin i don't see how the agency can issue an order or make any supervision and say you know what we changed our mind we're just not doing that bad but those seven has no obligation or power to do anything at that point because you may not be using those words but that's what i hear you the state's assertion that it's done means it's done and i've heard you're right i don't know under your hypothetical as i understand it as your you're asking whether for example a state can simply walk in the door and say we dropped the ball we're not doing anything else i there is their sister or whatever program has been approved by by the federal government we're still in place clearly the government saying you were still obligated you still being required and second because you put the rabbit back in the hat so i'm not getting the answer state program that you approve this and we can have only has well now we'd like to change we'd like to change it to c b s if in that instance and the state had no authority to have any other type of system of us i would say sorry you can't do it your state program says you can have only one kind of plumbing system it's an e t s you have got to fulfill the requirements of that system you cannot change it for if you want to change it would have to be a program and then we've got to go through the formalities here the case w different pennsylvania again was not coming to us and for approval to make the conversion it was able to do so under its existing substrate regulatory scheme so the fact that it's a yes we want to change if you want to say it's dropping the ball the presenting the commonwealth of pennsylvania department of environmental protection and obviously there's a few basic questions here that the court that has a few things that need to be addressed number one eventually there was a going to be enough acreage to make it solid therefore in order to address it in pennsylvania a number of things first of all for all new and existing lines in operation yes and our view that's the case also of yes at that point at that juncture not here to have you tread on around trees territory too much but was always  in power at that point to say no to the state i believe in vientiane so that would be no and the reason for that is in one thousand eighty two one pencil when pennsylvania's program was approved the pennsylvania as in other words sites that were for the clear form of it wired to the conversion in two thousand and one and my answer ben pennsylvania answer today is yes and the reason for that it is is that pennsylvania submitted we want to use the place language an equivalent promise to the type you had of the yes system if you give us that good otherwise you can't do it now let me ask about whether it was a good idea or a bad idea i'm just asking about as a critical regulations thirty c of course section seven thirty two point one seven gene which that is that you can only change a program through program amendment and seven thirty three point zero eleven which says that you have to  which he said he just doesn't have a place here state there's no basis for talking to those terms because the states not a debtor not a guarantor fashion the state general fund is not a guarantor but what he did say was that it as talking about a government that has a constitutional obligation under all one section twenty seven of the constitution to serve as a trustee of pennsylvania's public natural resources if they're serving in the interest of trustee capacity with respect to this fund they can't just sort of disclaim that liability but i do agree that he's correct that the state of pencil the commonwealth of pennsylvania general fund is not on the hook that doesn't mean that they don't have to change the to continue to monitor the remaining liabilities under a b s program that was converted to a c b s program if the state provided sufficient regulations the which includes the a b s regulations what they could have done in two thousand and three the state of pennsylvania but you can switch we can stop you from switching for the mines going forward prospectively requiring