COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Coleman and Overton 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

GENERAL TRUCKING CORPORATION 

v. Record No. 1554-94-3 OPINION BY 

 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

O. GENE DISHNER, DIRECTOR, ETC. DECEMBER 19, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WISE COUNTY 

James C. Roberson, Judge 

 Henry S. Keuling-Stout for appellant. 

 John B. Sternlicht, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General; Zane B. Scott, Assistant Attorney 

General; Sandra B. Riggs, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 General Trucking Corporation obtained two surface mine 

permits from the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Mined 

Land Reclamation Division (DMLR) and gave reclamation bonds on 

these permits in the total amount of $539,000. After issuing 

Notices of Violations (NOVs) on the permits, DMLR forfeited the 

entire amount of the two bonds. General Trucking appeals the 

trial court's decision affirming the forfeiture. 

 Pursuant to Code § 45.1-247(A), DMLR has promulgated a 

regulation establishing procedures for the forfeiture of 

reclamation bonds. General Trucking contends that DMLR did not 

comply with this regulation and that, consequently, the trial 

court erred by affirming the bond forfeiture. We hold that the 

forfeiture was proper and affirm the trial court's decision. 
 -2- 

Facts and Proceedings

 On August 10, 1988, DMLR by letter advised General Trucking 

of its decision to forfeit the reclamation bond on surface mine 

permit number 1100333 (permit 333). DMLR forfeited the total 

amount of the bond, $400,000. The reason for the forfeiture was 

General Trucking's failure to abate conditions specified in two 

NOVs that required General Trucking to perform certain remedial 

actions on a diversion ditch and sediment ponds located on the 

land covered by permit 333. At the hearing challenging the 

forfeiture, DMLR did not offer any evidence of the cost of 

remedying the violations. General Trucking, however, estimated 

that the cost of remedying conditions specified in two NOVs was 

less than $10,000. 

 On November 2, 1988, DMLR advised General Trucking by letter 

of its decision to forfeit the $139,000 reclamation bond on 

surface mine permit number 1100184 (permit 184) because General 

Trucking had failed to abate the conditions specified in a third 

NOV. This NOV required General Trucking to repair a highwall on 

the permit area. Once again, DMLR presented no evidence of the 

cost of remedying the problems identified in the NOV. General 

Trucking estimated that the cost of remedying the problems in 

this NOV would exceed $100,000. 

 Ralph Tomlinson, an employee of General Trucking, testified 

that General Trucking was a contract miner for Westmoreland Coal 

Company. According to Tomlinson, General Trucking could not 
 -3- 

abate the conditions specified in the three NOVs and continue 

mining the sites because it "went broke" after Westmoreland 

stopped buying its coal. Tomlinson admitted that at the time of 

the forfeiture a substantial amount of reclamation, exceeding the 

amount necessary to remedy the conditions specified in the three 

NOVs, needed to be done with respect to both permits. 

 On July 24, 1990, DMLR entered into a letter agreement with 

Westmoreland that Westmoreland would complete the reclamation on 

the mine sites covered by permits 333 and 184. In return, DMLR 

agreed to pay Westmoreland the $539,000 in bond proceeds obtained 

from General Trucking. 

 After a formal public hearing, DMLR determined that the 

forfeiture of the reclamation bonds was proper. The trial court 

affirmed DMLR's decision. 

The Bond Forfeiture

 Regulation § 480-03-19.800.50 governs the forfeiture of 

reclamation bonds. 

 (a) If the permittee refuses or is unable to conduct 

reclamation of an unabated violation, fails to comply 

with the terms of the permit, or defaults on the 

conditions under which the bond was accepted, the 

Division shall take the following action to forfeit all 

or part of a bond or bonds for the permit area or a 

portion of the permit area: 

 (1) Send written notification by certified mail, 

return receipt requested, to the permittee and the 

surety on the bond, if any, informing them of the 

determination to forfeit all or part of the bond, 

including the reasons for the forfeiture and the amount 

to be forfeited. The amount shall be based on the 

estimated total cost of achieving the reclamation plan 

requirements. 
 -4- 

Id. (emphasis added). At issue in this case is the proper 

interpretation of the last sentence of this regulation. General 

Trucking contends that this regulation required DMLR to estimate 

the cost of remedying the conditions specified in the three NOVs. 

 DMLR, however, contends that it properly based the amount of 

forfeiture on the estimated total cost of completing reclamation. 

 The clear import of the statutory provision instructing DMLR 

to establish procedures for bond forfeiture and release is to 

ensure that all reclamation requirements are completed. 

 The Director shall promulgate regulations . . . 

establishing procedures, conditions, criteria, and 

schedules for the forfeiture or release of performance 

 bonds or deposits required under this chapter; 

however, no bond shall be fully released until all 

reclamation requirements of this chapter and the 

regulations thereunder are fully met. 

Code § 45.1-247(A) (emphasis added). Consistent with this 

statutory mandate, DMLR's regulations provide that the bonds 

shall "[b]e based on, but not limited to, the estimated cost of 

reclamation submitted by the permit applicant." Coal Surface 

Mining Reclamations Regulation § 480-03-19.800.14(a)(4). 

Moreover, the regulations provide: 

 (b) In the event forfeiture of the bond is required by 

this Section, the Division shall: 

. . . . 

 (2) Use funds collected from bond forfeiture to 

complete the reclamation plan on the permit area. 

. . . . 

 [d](2) In the event the amount of performance bond 

forfeited was more than the amount necessary to 

complete reclamation, the unused funds shall be 
 -5- 

returned by the Division to the party from whom they 

were collected." 

Coal Surface Mining Reclamations Regulation § 480-03-19.800.50. 

Therefore, Code § 45.1-247(A) and the regulations promulgated 

thereunder are remedial in nature, and we must liberally construe 

the authority granted to forfeit reclamation bonds to achieve the 

purpose of the act. See Carmel v. City of Hampton, 241 Va. 457, 

460, 403 S.E.2d 335, 337 (1991) (stating that remedial statutes 

should be interpreted liberally). 

 This Court will not disturb an agency's interpretation of 

its regulations unless that interpretation is arbitrary and 

capricious. Virginia Real Estate Bd. v. Clay, 9 Va. App. 152, 

161, 384 S.E.2d 622, 627 (1989). DMLR contends that under 

Regulation § 480-03-19.800.50 the amount to be forfeited is based 

on the cost of completing reclamation rather than the cost of 

remedying specific violations. This interpretation is consistent 

with the regulation's language. The regulation states that DMLR 

shall determine the amount to be forfeited on the basis of "the 

estimated total cost of achieving the reclamation plan 

requirements." (emphasis added). This language makes clear that 

the purpose of the forfeiture is to ensure the "total cost" of 

completing reclamation rather than the cost of remedying 

individual violations. 

 Furthermore, DMLR's interpretation is consistent with the 

regulation providing for the initial bond determination. The 

initial bond determination is "based on, but not limited to, the 
 -6- 

estimated cost of reclamation." Coal Surface Mining Reclamations 

Regulation § 480-03-19.800.14.(a)(4) (emphasis added). 

Regulation § 480-03-19.800.50, however, makes clear that the 

amount of forfeiture is limited to the estimated cost of 

reclamation. 

 Most importantly, the agency's interpretation, with its 

focus on the cost of completing reclamation, is consistent with 

the remedial purpose of Code § 45.1-247. Therefore, we conclude 

that DMLR's interpretation of Regulation § 480-03-19.800.50 is 

neither arbitrary nor capricious, but rather, is consistent with 

the regulation's language, as well as with Code § 45.1-247. 

 In the present case, the evidence showed that General 

Trucking was "broke" and could not complete reclamation. Ralph 

Tomlinson testified that General Trucking had no money because 

Westmoreland was not buying its coal. Furthermore, Tomlinson 

admitted that at the time the NOVs were issued, most of the 

reclamation had yet to be completed. DMLR could, therefore, 

reasonably conclude that the entire amount of the bonds on 

permits 333 and 184 was needed to assure completion of the 

reclamation plan requirements. In fact, the trial court reached 

the same conclusion in holding that the initial bond 

determination in this case was "essentially the same 

determination as `the estimated total cost of achieving the 

reclamation plan requirements' referred to in the bond forfeiture 

regulation." It is clear from the record that DMLR's objective 
 -7- 

in forfeiting the total amount of the bonds was to ensure the 

completion of the reclamation on the land covered by permits 333 

and 184. Code § 45.1-247(A) grants DMLR the authority and 

responsibility to ensure that the reclamation requirements are 

satisfied, and this Court will not "substitute its own 

independent judgment for that of the body entrusted by the 

Legislature with the administrative function." Virginia ABC 

Comm'n v. York St. Inn, Inc., 220 Va. 310, 315, 257 S.E.2d 851, 

855 (1979) (quoting Schmidt v. Board of Adjustment, 88 A.2d 607, 

615 (N.J. 1952)). We, therefore, hold that DMLR conducted the 

bond forfeiture in accordance with Code § 45.1-247(A), as well as 

Regulation § 480-03-19.800.50. 

Unused Bond Proceeds

 Under Regulation § 480-03-19.800.50(d)(2), General Trucking 

is entitled to any forfeited proceeds that are not used to 

complete reclamation. After the forfeiture, Westmoreland assumed 

responsibility for the reclamation on the land covered by permits 

333 and 184. In return, DMLR paid to Westmoreland the forfeited 

bond proceeds. The record, however, does not indicate whether 

the entire $539,000 was required to complete reclamation. DMLR 

must account for the forfeited proceeds and the extent to which 

they were expended to complete the reasonable costs of 

reclamation. Accordingly, we affirm DMLR's bond forfeiture, and 

we remand the case to the trial court with instructions that the 

court direct the matter to DMLR in order that DMLR can, after the 
 -8- 

reclamation is completed, account for the forfeited bond proceeds 

and determine whether the entire amount forfeited was necessary 

to complete the reclamation plan. 

 For these reasons, we affirm the bond forfeiture and remand 

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Affirmed and remanded.