Source: http://coal.jacksonkelly.com/permitting-issues/
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 00:00:31
Document Index: 100459129

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 801', '§ 801', '§ 801', '§ 802', '§ 802', '§ 801', '§ 802', '§ 801', '§ 802', '§ 801', '§ 804', '§ 805', '§ 105', 'art 50']

Coal Blog: Permitting Issues
Posted on 02/13/2017 in Environmental, Permitting Issues, SMCRA | Permalink | Comments (0)
The Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) allows Congress to disapprove so-called “midnight” rules of an outgoing administration. But, disapprovals require congressional approvals and are subject to presidential vetoes—making them of limited utility where a rule was issued by an agency of a current president. Thus, while Congress voted to disapprove several rules under the Obama administration, all of the disapprovals were vetoed. In fact, the CRA has only been successfully used under Bush II to disapprove an OSHA ergonomics rule adopted in the waning days of the Clinton administration. Now, however, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, the CRA is a weapon to be reckoned with in a target rich environment. Among the first rules likely to be targeted will be the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule[1] and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Methane Rule.[2]
The CRA was enacted in 1996 to reestablish a measure of legislative control over agency rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. §§ 801–805.
Requires executive agencies to send their rules to both houses of Congress and the GAO before they can take effect. 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).[3]
Delays effective date of “major rules” even further—until 60 days after publication in FR or until submitted to Congress, whichever is later. 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3).[4]
Allows a Member of Congress to introduce a joint resolution of approval regarding a rule “beginning on the date on which the report referred to in Section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress.” 5 U.S.C. § 802(a).[5]
The period for introducing a joint resolution starts upon “receipt” by Congress of the final rule and ends 60 days after Congress receives the rule, but the time period does not include days when either house is adjourned for more than 3 days. 5 U.S.C. § 802(a). In addition, if the rule is submitted to Congress with less than 60 days left before the session expires, then a new period of review becomes available in the next session of Congress. In that event, the rule is treated as if it had been submitted to Congress on the 15th day of the new session. See 5 U.S.C. § 801(d).
A joint resolution shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress with jurisdiction. 5 U.S.C. § 802(b)(1).
Senate Procedures:
−If a committee to which a joint resolution has been referred does not report the resolution after 20 days [from submission or publication] the committee may be “discharged” from further consideration of the resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 30 Members of the Senate, and the resolution shall be placed on the calendar.
−When a committee to which the resolution is referred either “reports” or is “discharged” from reporting, then a motion to consider the resolution is in order without being subject to a motion to amend, postpone or consider other business.
−Before the Senate, debate or the resolution is limited to 10 hours.
If the joint resolution is ultimately enacted, the rule may not take effect (or continue in effect), and may not be reissued in substantially the same form. 5 U.S.C. § 801(b)(2).
Can the CRA be Used to Disapprove of Portions of a Rule or More Than One Rule?
No. The CRA can only be used to invalidate a single rule in its entirety; it cannot be used to modify or restructure a rule,[6] and a single resolution cannot invalidate more than one rule. 5 U.S.C. § 802(c) & (d).
Number of Rules Outlined by CRA
Only one rule has been overturned (OSHA’s ergonomic standards under Clinton administration in 2001). Five were passed by Congress under the Obama administration, but they were all vetoed. CRA FAQ, p. 5.
How Can You Determine if a Rule has Been Submitted Under CRA?
Notice of each Congressional house’s receipt appears in the “Executive Communications” section of the daily Congressional Record. They can also be searched using the Legislative Information System.
Submissions to GAO: GAO has a database at http://gao.gov/legal/congressional-review-act/overview. This contains links to reports by the GAO on major rules.
How is a Joint Resolution of Disapproval Introduced?
A joint disapproval resolution is introduced like other bills, but there is precise language required and defined time limits during which it must be submitted.
The receipt of the rule by Congress starts the 60 “days-of-continuous session” during which any member of either house may submit a resolution.
A rule is considered received by Congress on the later date of receipt by the Speaker of the House or its referral to Senate committee.
In calculating “days of continuous session” every calendar day is counted, including weekends and holidays, and the count is paused only for periods where either chamber adjourns for more than three days.
The resolution must be submitted during this 60-day period—not before and not after.
The CRA specifies that the language after the “resolving clause” must read:
That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the _____ relating to ______, and such rule shall have no force or effect. (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in.)
This article was authored by Robert G. McLusky and Jennifer L. Hughes, Jackson Kelly PLLC.
[1] Stream Protection Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 93,066 (Dec. 20, 2016) (to be codified at 30 C.F.R. pts. 700-01, 773-74, 777, 779-80, 783-85, 800, 816-17, 825, and 827)..
[2] Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources, 81 Fed. Reg. 35,824 (June 3, 2016) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60).
[3] “Before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report containing – (i) a copy of the rule; (ii) a concise statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule; and (iii) the proposed effective date of the rule.” 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
[4] “Major rules” are those “that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] of [OMB] finds has resulted in or is likely to result in – (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100 [million] or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, . . . agencies or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment. . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).
The Stream Protection Rule was not identified as a “major” rule. It is unclear what effect there is to a misclassification of a rule or a failure to submit it to the GA/Congress since the CRA also provides that “[n]o determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter shall be subject to judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 805.
[5] Since the ability to introduce a resolution is tied to the submission of a report to Congress and the GAO by the issuing agency, does the failure of an agency to submit the rule prevent the introduction of a resolution? According to one researcher, the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that if the GAO determines an agency action is a covered rule that should have been submitted, a Member can introduce a resolution of disapproval starting on the day of GAO’s determination. See Congressional Review Act: Many Recent Final Rules Were Not Submitted to GAO and Congress, Independent Report of Curtis W. Copeland (July 15, 2014), p. 7 n. 15 (citing, e.g., http://www.finance.‌senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=363028c1-c4fe-4ca9-b180-746e3e9daf82.
[6] Congressional Review Act: Frequently Asked Questions, CRS Report (Nov. 17, 2016) (“CRA: FAQ”), p. 4.
Posted on 01/26/2017 in Environmental, Permitting Issues, SMCRA | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted on 01/13/2017 in Environmental, Permitting Issues | Permalink | Comments (0)
Stop regulating through policy guidance and follow the established formal rulemaking process.
Establish a meaningful conferencing process prior to the issuance of proposed penalties.
Return the development and implementation of mine plans back to an operator‑specific approach where there is a fair weighing of all evidence concerning the suitability of the plans for the particular mine, rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all approach.
Rescind the respirable dust rule to review and consider the empirical data and suggested alternatives provided from industry that illustrated the unworkable nature of the rule and the better means of achieving the same results.
Redefine tests for: (1) what constitutes “interference” under § 105(c) of the Mine Act so an operator’s intent is considered; and (2) what constitutes “significant and substantial” to be consistent with the particular facts of a violation rather than the hypothetical “what‑ifs.”
Establish and adhere to real timelines for special investigations.
Reform the Part 50 immediately reportable accident rule to specifically address what must be reported to provide better and more meaningful compliance with the rule.
Reform the relationship between operators and contractors, which would include rulemaking on when it is appropriate to cite one operator for the violation of another. MSHA should also seek to provide clarification for who needs to report accidents and injuries on the MSHA form 7000-1.
Rescind and reform the work place examination rule to address M/NM industry concerns. The changes proposed in the new rule present concerns for operators, including but not limited to, the concern that MSHA will cite operators for violations it finds in examination records even if operators are in the process of abating or have already abated those conditions.
While there are likely more “wishes” that could be included for MSHA, we see these as key issues for the new administration. Please contact Jackson Kelly PLLC for help with these or other Safety and Health concerns.
This article was authored by Kristin R.B. White & Patrick W. Dennison, Jackson Kelly PLLC.
Posted on 01/10/2017 in Environmental, Labor and Employment, Permitting Issues, Safety and Health, SMCRA | Permalink | Comments (0)
The United States Office of Surface Mining (“OSM”) has finalized its “Stream Protection Rule (“SPR”) (12/20/16). This was formerly known as the “buffer zone rule” and dates to the early 1980s. OSM adopted it originally as a means of keeping sediment out of streams. It prohibited land disturbance within 100 feet of intermittent or perennial streams unless the applicant made certain showings about protecting water quality and environmental resources. In the late 1990s, though, the rule became the centerpiece of the assault on surface coal mining operations when a federal court in West Virginia relied on it to prohibit the construction of new excess spoil valley fills. Although that ruling was reversed on jurisdictional grounds, anti-mining advocates continued to advance it in permit challenges. In the waning days of the George Bush administration, in late 2008, OSM substantially revised the rule. That rule expressly recognized that SMCRA could not be used to prohibit valley fills authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, but did require applicants to make extensive showings that they had minimized generation of excess spoil. Anti-mining forces immediately challenged the rule as insufficiently stringent, and claimed OSM had failed to consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The new Obama administration attempted to vacate the rule immediately by “confessing error,” but the Court ruled that OSM would either have to litigate the issue or vacate the rule through rulemaking.
For the past 8 years, the Obama administration has fumbled its way through the rulemaking process to produce the current SPR. The current rule started as a means to limit surface mining, but is now also widely regarded as a vehicle to restrict longwall underground impacts to streams. Along the way, leaks from OSM’s review process suggested that the rule would result in widespread unemployment in the east. OSM has spent several years trying to repair this damage, and now implausibly claims that the rule will result in a net employment increase. OSM concedes that coal mining jobs will diminish, but claims that more people will be hired to comply with the mitigation and restoration portions of the rule—a claim that seems to assume mining will proceed apace and that industry will absorb all of the new costs imposed by the rule with no production decreases. That might have been true if cheap and widespread sources of shale gas had not become available over the last 8 years, but is economic nonsense in the current environment.
The State of North Dakota has already challenged the rule, which is set to become final on January 19, 2017. Other industry challenges are sure to follow, and it is likely that the rule will become the object of a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act, which empowers Congress to void so-called “midnight” rules by the executive branch. OSM has issued briefing documents and a press release regarding the elements of the final rule.
EPA Releases Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity (12/10/16): Specific conductance, or conductivity, is a surrogate for measuring dissolved salts in water. Most water quality standards to protect aquatic life are developed using the results of laboratory exposure tests on a variety of aquatic life, and EPA has never adopted a recommended aquatic life criterion for conductivity. Nor have many states adopted conductivity criterion to protect aquatic life.
In 2011, however, as part of its efforts to restrict surface mining in the east, EPA developed a “conductivity benchmark” which it used as a sort of informal water quality standard in objecting to NPDES permits that did not include conductivity limits. The Benchmark did not rely on exposure tests performed in laboratories. Instead, using a database from the WVDEP of paired water chemistry and aquatic insect sampling, EPA inferred causative impacts to different insects at varying conductivity levels. It arrived at a “suggested” range of 300-500 μS/cm, a value widely considered unachievable downstream of most surface mining.
EPA purportedly relied on epidemiological principles and statistics to discount potential alternative or confounding factors. Now, it has proposed documents that can be used by states to adopt their own aquatic life criterion for conductivity using their own field data. It also suggests a method by which states with sufficient water chemistry information, but without paired benthic insect sampling, may extrapolate from the work done with the WV and other databases to develop a criterion. And, finally, the released documents include a suggested criterion of about 500 μS/cm to protect fish based on a review of eastern data.
EPA’s documents note that the draft documents are not a rule and do not establish legally binding requirements, but there is little doubt that anti-development activists will rely on the data to force EPA to adopt a recommended criterion and on states to do the same. EPA is providing a 60-day public comment period that will run from the date of publication in the federal register.
This article was authored by Robert G. McLusky and Douglas J. Crouse, Jackson Kelly PLLC.
Posted on 01/05/2017 in Environmental, Permitting Issues | Permalink | Comments (0)