P. 1


# OAR Box 

# 1859 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 22 ) IV-L-7 1 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/24/20089:13:57

AM Sheet 22 of 75P. 2

T. '- * „ yy. .-- • IV'^ - ^ ' 0 - ...*•* . €Rp*-'-^V-"*V:~ ^ ; : —•*? ••—*A-?<' . —'.>*&.**W , •'•'*- •" ' « •• * • X.- '•«% « W ; * 3 '.*V.- ' 

### BRIE FFOR'TH ESECRETAR

Y OF'THE^INTERIOR'A S 

### APPELLE E

. »

fy&li'"**:

»*"S» , i' Z7 ••W^'-^Ty^^i^ai^^-.fi'^rl .

IV** * 

### NATIONAL WILDLIF E FEDERATION , ET/AL." ; £ : 

### i •;.,: . ^£^4

- o

. ; 

### •• ' O^M;^^ jWiS W •„£t i jell ;

i* > *'•.>;•*»-"** % 

## s^>^^ r 

## #^^-'^3 : 

## ' ¥'- •'•$Pm¥i&i*&r .^• « •.v»J-'..-. . *0r-!~~iix'S0&y?.'f-~- '• 

### 3 ! ONAPPEA L FROMTH E UNITED * STATES^ ! STRICT ?

1 ; . > FOR TH E DISTRIC T ••QF«COLUMBIA j

-•••'. ,i?^^ v ^r%%C^ ^ 

### F . HENR YHABICHT . II- l *.»***•••* - 

### Assistan t

Attorney^GeneVal^ff i

" OFCOUNSEL : 

### " ALFRE D 'TV'GHIORZ I'^- f

o'o" : . . ••SSfer : 

### ' : 

### -'' % 

### " ;



### -- ! 

### *'

* PETE RR . STEENLAND', ! 

### '-'"jrRT^r^&£-*tifS.M^C» n SO N'-' i ROBERT L . KLARQUIS T y.^Br-jiJjPf ^ r':-•" • - cr

### ~-. vARTHUR E . GOWRA N£*•;• ^.- : 

### • '^^@^B^Psgkr.' . ..-.,. ; , _\;^-ru* \ .,*

. , Attorneys , Depannent-Q' f Jus t ic e !«Bffi£% , Washington , D.C . ' 2053 0 ^:;;,;^g | £ * - STUAR T A . SANDERSON MARY M . CROUTE R • * t ;:.•-.- , w SUSA N

### K. r HOVEN

### . "ANGEL AF . O'CONNEL

L .^^.^•^GLENDAf.a
. ^DWQ i SpPERRY ^ p^^o D IANN^|f. i 

### |SHAWL , 

### EY l I"*?^ 6 f

f t ce^Sf tfie^Soll c 1 t o fa'' : 

### " tf ^^^PI^P ISurfac eMTnjn a^8^^d@B8NS^S C 

# ? Unite d State s Departmen t if : " ^. ^ o f th

e Interio r 5 -"^?^**j^i5Sp§ | ^^. " .Washingto n , D.C . 2024 0 .*i*gMfcaa^i iP. 3

.- s discusse d Above , 3 0 C.F.R . 800.15(a ) provide s tiia t th e regula

tor yauthorit yshal l adjus t th e amoun t o f th e bond , a s necessary , -;.- - acccnno.iac- i an increas e in reclamatio n costs . Th e distric t cour t correctl yhel d tha t th e Secretary' s regulator yregim e fo r the adjustmen t o f bond s a s th e nee d arise s implement s th e statutor y recuirement s o f Sectio n 516(d ) o f th e Act .

I n summary , neithe r th e Ac t no r th e regulation s requir e th e regulator yauthorit yt o se c th e amoun t o f th e bon d base d upo n speculatio n a s t o whether , where , and t o wha t exten t materia l damag e cause d b ysubsidenc e ma yoccur . However , i f subsidenc e damag e doe s occur , insid e o r outsid e th e permi t area , bond proceed s ma yb e use d t o accomplis hreclamation . I n recognitio n o f th e distinc t differenc e betwee n surfac e and under

groun d mining , liabilit yinsuranc e stand s a s an appropriat e alternativ e t o performanc e bonding . Il l TH E DISTRIC T COUR T CORRECTL Y HEL D THA T TH E SECRETAR Y DOE S NO T HAV E AUTHORIT Y T O REGULAT E TH E NON-EROSIONA L ASPECT S Or AI R QUALIT Y 0007 contend s (Br . 36-37 ) tha t th e distric t cour t erre d i n interpretin g Sectio n 515(b)(4) , 3 0 U.S.C . 1265(b)(4) , t o requir e onl yth e regulatio n o f ai r pollutio n associate d with , o r "attendan t to, " erosion . NW F maintain s (Br . 36 ) tha t suc hregula

tio n i s a "relativel ymino r aspec t o f th e ai r pollution " cause d1 5 - P. 4

b v.surfac e coa l minin g operations . I t assert s (Br . 37 ) tha t bot hth e statutor ylanguag e an d th e legislativ e histor yrequir e the regulatio n o : al l ai r pollutio n cause d b ysurfac e minin g operations , v.ozmerel ytha t generate d b yerosion . Accordingly , NW F assert s (_i_d

. ) tha t th e cour t erre d i n upholdin g th e Secretary' s regulation s a t 3 0 C.F.R . 816.9 5 an d 317.95 , whic honl yrequir e the regulatio n o f th e erosiona l aspect s o f ai r pollution .

Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) provide s tha t an operato r must : stabiliz e and protec t al l surfac e area s includin g spoi l pile s affecte d b yth e sur fac e coa l minin g and reclamatio n operatio n t o effectivel ycontro l erosio n and attendan t ai r and wate r pollution . Specifically , NW F argue s (_id.) ' tha t th e mos t logica l readin g o f th e statutor yprovisio n i s tha t "erosion " and "pollution " ar e th e object s o f th e infinitiv e "t o effectivel ycontrol. " I c assert s (Br . 37-33 ) tha t th e adjectiv e "attendant " modifie s th e phras e "ai r an d wate r pollution" , therebyrequirin g th e operato r t o contro l erosio n an d "th e ai r and wate r pollutio n attendan t t o th e

NWF' s interpretatio n o f th e expres s sun-ic e :."*. : , t ion , languag e o f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) i s incorrect .

Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) require s operator s t o contro l erosio n b ystabilisin g and protectin g al l surfac e area s expose d a s a resul t o f surfac e coa l minin g an d reclamatio n operations . Th e principa l thrus t o f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) i s t o "stabilize " an do - P. 5

"•:-:.?z-?cz"

surfac e areas . Th e word s "stabilise " an d "protect " ar e specific , physica l maintenanc e standard s require d o f operator s "t o effectivel vcontro l erosio n an d attendan t ai r an d wate r pollution. " Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) doe s no t confe r upo n th e Secretar ya genera l gran t o f authorit yt o regulat e ai r pollution . I t cover s onl yai r and wate r pollutio n specificall yrelate d t o erosion . Whe n al l o f th e operativ e word s o f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) ar e rea d together , th e Secretary' s regulator yauthorit yi s clearl ylimite d t o ai r pollutio n cause d b yerosion . Th e phras e "attendan t ai r and wate r pollution " applie s t o th e wor d "erosion " whic himmediatel yprecede s it , not , a s NW F claim s (Br . 37-38) , t o th e entir e "surfac e minin g operation. " Thus , th e plai n languag e o f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) support s thi s 

## £ / statutor yconstruction . 

## II ;

8 / I n Sectio n 515(b)(4) , wate r pollutio n i s treate d in th e sam e manne r a s ai r pollution , and NW F doe s no t conten d tha t thi s provisio n confer s a broa d gran t o f authorit yupo n th e Secretar y t o resulat e wate r pollution . Sectio n 5 1 5(b ) (10) , 3 0 U.S.C . 126 5 (b ) \ 10 ) , set s fort ha performanc e standar d fo r th e regulatio n o f wate r pollution . I f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) wer e interprete d t o gran t suc hbroa d authority , Sectio n 515(b)(10 ) woul d b e super fluous . 9 / Moreover , whil e th e distric t cour t di d no t rel yupo n th e rul e o f th e las t antecedent , tha t rule , nevertheless , likewis e sup port s th e Secretary' s interpretation . Th e rul e require s tha t qualifyin g phrase s lik e "attendan t ai r an d wate r pollution " modif yth e word s immediatel yprecedin g them , no t othe r remot e words'o r phrases . Unite d State s v . Pritchett , 47 0 F.2 d 455 , 45 9 (D.C . Cir . 1972) .P. 6

- 1 7 - Assuming , arguendo , tha t Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) i s ambiguous , the legislativ e histor yo f tha t statutor yprovisio n confirm s th e Secretary' s interpetatio n a s reflecte d in the implementin g regula

-

- ' H) / tion s a t 3 0 C.F.R . 816.9 5 and 817.95 . Congress , i n th e Hous e Committe e Report , explaine d th e purpos e o f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) a s follows : Standard s t o assur e th e stabilit yo f spoi l mas s

a s wel l a s t o contro l surfac e erosio n ar e pre - i scribe d fo r surplu s soi l fro mal l type s o f minin g [ operation s * * * . i H.R . Rep . 95-213 , 95t hCong. , 1s t Sess . 17 4 (1977) . Th e Hous e Committe e Report , therefore , specificall yaddresse s erosion , bu t i s noticeabl ysilen t regardin g standard s fo r ai r pollution .

Similarly , th e Senat e Committe e Repor t list s a plethor a o f environmenta l protectio n performanc e standard s unde r th e

10 / 3 0 C.F.R . 816.95 , whic hcover s th e stabilizatio n o f surfac e areas , provides : (a ) Al l expose d surfac e area s shal l b e protecte d an d stabilize d t o effectivel ycontro l erosio n and ai r pollutio n attendan t t o erosion . (b ) Rill s and gullies , whic hformi n area s tha t hav e bee n regrade d and topsoile d an d whic heithe r (1 ) disrup t th e approve d postraining land us e o r th e reestablishmen t o f th e vegetativ e cover , o r (2 ) caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f wate r qualit ystandard s fo r receivin g stream s shal l b e filled , regraded , o r otherwis e stabilized ; topsoi l shal l b e replaced ; and th e area s shal l b e reseede d o r replanted . 3 0 C.F.R . 817.9 5 mirror s th e exac t languag e o f 3 0 C.F.R . 816.95 . It , however , regulate s th e stabilizatio n o f surfac e area s affecte d b

yundergroun d [.linin g activities .! 

# i

4

-

r 

### tg. , 1s t Sees . 8 2 (1977) . Clearl y then , th e legislativ

e histor j confirm * tha t Sectio n515(h)(4 $ require s ch e Secretar

y t o protec t agains t erosio nan dai r an

dwate r pollu - . * 

### P. 7

~ * * .- -

. X



### - 1 8 -

u t fail s eve

nt o mentio

nai r quality . ffeffrijptf" '



### tio ncause d byerosion *

HW F incorrectl yrelie s (Br . 38-39 ) civ ehistor ye f

th e fciatory S.v-« *



### at t histor yo tpropose d ^eexlon^ l 1fl> ) (6 > earolai i require d t o •stabilis ean d protec tal l surfac e spoi l pile s t o contro l ai rand vate rpollution . • 

### 93-1072 , 93 d Cong. , 2 d Sees . 13 4 (1974) . A * enacted , Ikwever . J ^ >••*" " **r . 

### Sectio n515(b)(4 ) i s substantiall y different fro

m th e proposed Sectio n211(b)(6) . Sectio n515(b)(4 ) require s a noperato r "t o effectively

contro l erosio

nan dattendant ai r an dwate r pollution. " Th e legislativ

e histor

y o f Sectio

n515(b)(4 ) explain s that per forman-ajg

f sKtfrf

i "t o assure th

e stability

o f spoi l mas s as wel l a :*v * fac e erosio

nare prescribedfo r surplu s soi l fros

i al l type s o f mining operations. " H.R . Rep . 95-218 , 9 5 Cong. , 1s t Sess . 17 4 (1977) . NV F ignore s th

e critica l difference s betweenth

e legislativ

e histor

y o f th e proposedSectio n211(b)(6 )

• 

### an dSectio

n515(b)(4 ) whichwa s ultimatel y enacted .

» - vo. 

### ke theP. 8



# f ' 1 9 - legislativ

e historyo f the propose d Sectio n 211(b)(6) , the legis

lativ e historyo f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) prescribe s onl yan erosio n oerformanc e standard . Consequently , NWF' s assertio n tha t the propose d Sectio n 211(b)(6 ) an d Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) ar e identica l i s erroneous .

NW F als o wrongl yassert s (Br . 40 ) tha t th e distric t cour t erre d in concluding tha t Sectio n 702(a ) o f th e SMCRA , 3. 0 U.S.C . 1292(a) , prevent s OSM' s regulatio n o f ai r quality . NW F cite s (^d. ) I n Re : Surfac e Minin g Regulatio n Litigation , 62 7 F.2 d 134 6 (D.C . Cir . 1980) , t o suppor t it s contentio n tha t Sectio n 702(a ) doe s no t prohibi t the Secretaryfro mregulating ai r qualit ya s lon g a s h e take s n o actio n whic hi s inconsisten t wit hEPA' s regulator

yauthority . NWF' s argumen t i s seriousl yundermine d b y it s ow n concessio n (_ici. ) tha t Sectio n 702(a ) onl yauthorize s the Secretaryt o fil l regulatorygaps . Mos t significantly , NWF' s argumen t i s contraryt o th e holding o f thi s Cour t in I n Re : Surfac e Mining Regulatio n Litigation , supra . I n tha t case , thi s Cour t hel d tha t the Secretaryo f the Interio r ha d no authorit yt o promulgat e wate r qualit yregulations , wher e suchauthorit yreste d wit hthe EPAeve n in th e fac e o f tha t agency' s decisio n no t t o promulgat e suc hregulations . Thi s Cour t hel d tha t th e Secretary coul d properl yissu e wate r qualit yregulation s onl yi f the Federa l Wate r Pollutio n Contro l Act , 3 3 U.S.C . 125 1 e_ t seq . , an d it s underlying regulatoryscheme , create d a regulatorygap "s o a s t o constitut e an 'absenc e o f regulation.' " 62 7 F.2 d a t 1367 . Eve n wher e suc ha gap exists , thi s Cour t conclude dP. 9

r



### - 2 0 - (id. ) tha t the Secretarymayissu e regulation s t o fil l the gap "withou t regard t o EPApractic e s o lon g a s h e i s authorize d t o do so." . W e hav e alread ydemonstrate d tha t Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) confer s n o authorit yon the Secretaryt o regulat e ai r pollutio n generally , bu t instead authorize s himt o regulat e onl yai r pollutio n generate d b yerosion .

Furthermore , no ga p exist s wit hregard t o the regulatio n o f fugitiv e dus t fro mcoa l mines . Th e Clean Ai r Ac t a t 4 2 U.S.C . 7411(b)(1)(A ) an

d (f ) expressl yauthorize s the EPAt o establis h Federa l performanc e standard s fo r majo r stationarysource s o f 

## Ii / ai r pollution , including fugitiv e dust .

Thi s Court , in Sierr a Clu bv . Gorsuch , 71 5 F.2 d 65 3 (D.C . Cir . 1983) , implicitl yrecognize d EPA' s authorit yt o regulat e fugitiv e dust . Th e distric t cour t her e (Jul y6 , 1984 , mem . op. , 34-35 ) explicitl yacknowledge d EPA' s authorit yt o regulat e fugitiv e dust . Pursuan t t o it s authorit yt o regulat e fugitive dust , EPA , on February28 , 1986 , reopene d the commen t perio d o n propose d rule s t o regulat e fugitiv e emission s fro m 

### Ul mines . 5 1 Fed . Reg . 7090 . ]J_ / Unde r Sectio n 302(j) , 4 2 U.S.C . 7602(j) , a majo r stationary sourc e includes , b

ydefinition , "an

ymajo r emitting facilit y o r sourc e o f fugitiv e emission s o f an ysuc hpollutant. " 12 / Contraryt o NWF' s assertio n (Br . 40) , the propose d rul e consider s four alternative s an d is , therefore , no t limited merel yt o ne wsurfac e coa l mines . 5 1 Fed . Reg . a t 7091 .