Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Regulatory Guidance

Text: 201 In 1983, to afford greater leeway to local regulators, the Secretary cut back on nationwide guidelines in three areas: alluvial valley floors; coal mine waste disposal; backfilling and grading. The district court, on NWF's challenge, held that the Secretary had not adequately justified the regulatory reductions. We affirm the district court's judgment with respect to alluvial valley floors, but reverse that judgment as to mine waste disposal. On backfilling and grading, we hold, in accord with the district court, that the Secretary was intolerably terse in explaining his revised positions on contemporaneous reclamation and thick and thin overburden. Contrary to the district court, however, we uphold the Secretary's action on terracing. 202 We stress that to the extent we reject the Secretary's actions under this heading, we do so provisionally. We do not hold that the Secretary's revisions are proscribed by the Act; we do hold that he has not adequately accounted for the regulatory changes he ordered.
203 Section 515(b)(10)(F) of the Act requires surface coal mining operations to preserv[e] throughout the mining and reclamation process the essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors in the arid and semi-arid areas of the country. 50 Alluvial valley floors are the productive lands that form the backbone of the agricultural and cattle ranching economy in those areas. H.R.REP. NO. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 116 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 649. 204 Prior to 1983, Sec. 785.19(d) of the regulations contained detailed specifications of the information needed in a permit application when the proposed operation might affect an alluvial valley floor or waters supplied to an alluvial valley floor. In 1983, the Secretary withdrew the enumeration of technical data, information, and analysis that formerly had to be presented and evaluated in a permit application, and instead require[d] generally that sufficient information be submitted to enable the regulatory authority to make the necessary determinations. 48 FED.REG. 29814 (1983). 51 205 NWF challenged the Secretary's deletion of specific criteria for determining what constitutes the preservation of essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors. The district court ruled that the Secretary had abandoned the detailed specification of standards approach without adequate explanation, and therefore remand[ed] this issue to the Secretary for further consideration. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1740. In so ruling, the district judge recalled the Secretary's own recognition that Congress was extremely concerned about protecting the [alluvial valley floors]. Id. at 1741. We affirm. 206 The Secretary cites the following passage as setting out a fully adequate explanation for the deletion of the detailed requirements contained in the original regulation: 207 OSM carefully evaluated the detailed informational requirements contained in the previous alluvial valley floor regulation. The changes to the alluvial valley floor rules will eliminate much of the confusion about protection requirements of the Act and will provide regulatory authorities with flexibility to reflect site-specific conditions. Much of the technical information being eliminated, while not wrong, adds unnecessary length and confusion to the regulatory structure. Most of the eliminated material will continue to be available in guidelines and is the type of information likely to be valuable in assisting the regulatory authority in making its determinations. Elimination of the detailed informational requirements from every permit application will not result in the regulatory authorities making unsupported or technically inadequate determinations with respect to alluvial valley floors. Every decision must be based on and supported by adequate technical data and analyses regardless of whether each detail or study is enumerated in the rules. 208 48 FED.REG. 29802-03 (1983) (emphasis added), quoted in Brief for the Secretary of the Interior as Appellant at 60-61. We find this account somewhat incoherent. 209 As to the asserted confusion attributed to the detailed informational requirements, we note that the Secretary gave no particulars. He did not identify the specific source or effects of the confusion, nor did he say why revisions trimming and clarifying the requirements would not suffice to deal with that problem. 210 The Secretary's principal justification for the changes, however, was not to dispel confusion, but to provide regulatory authorities with flexibility. 48 FED.REG. 29802 (1983); see id. at 29814 (The principal difference [between the original and the revised regulation] is that the regulatory authority will have the flexibility to adjust the type of data and level of analysis necessary on which to base its determinations.). But if [m]ost of the eliminated material ... is the type of information likely to be valuable in assisting the regulatory authority in making its determinations, 48 FED.REG. 29802-03, why was wholesale elimination ordered? As the district judge observed, the reference to unofficial guidelines is not forceful: The[ ] guidelines [alluded to] are not mandatory and there is no indication that operators or regulatory authorities will heed them. The existence of these guidelines, however, undermines the Secretary's argument that the diversity of [site-specific] conditions ... precludes the use of [standards or criteria set by regulation]. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1740 n. 20. 211 In 1978, in support of the original regulation, the Secretary then in office noted that the required studies are believed to be representative of standard ... studies necessary to establish characteristics which support the essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors, and determine the effect of the proposed operation on agricultural activities. 43 FED.REG. 41720 (1978) (emphasis added); see also 44 FED.REG. 15079, 15089 (1979) (objective of Sec. 785.19(d) is to ensure regulatory authority has information it needs). In changing the regulation to foster flexibility, the Secretary in 1983 did not question the above-quoted conclusion. But if the standards originally set are necessary to establish characteristics ... support[ing] the essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors, then we do not comprehend why or how flexibility would measurably increase under the Secretary's revised approach. 212 In sum, the Secretary's accounting for the 1983 deletions slips from our grasp, as it did from the district court's. We affirm the remand so that the Secretary may provide appropriate, official guidance to the operators and regulatory authorities, or explain coherently why such guidance is not needed.
213 In 1983, the Secretary revised the regulations governing disposal of coal mine waste by substituting performance standards--rules describing minimum satisfactory end results--for how to rules (design standards). Compare 30 C.F.R. Secs. 816.81 et seq. (1982) with 30 C.F.R. Secs. 816.81 et seq. (1986). 52 NWF successfully argued before the district court that the Act, specifically, Sec. 515(f), demands how to rules; in addition, NWF maintained that the Secretary's revisions were inadequately explained. See PSMRL II (Round III), 620 F.Supp. at 1534-37. 53 On appeal, the Secretary seeks to salvage two of the provisions invalidated by the district court, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.81 and Sec. 816.83. 214 The aim of the regulatory scheme regarding mine waste is to check, contain, or control hazards that such waste presents to the environment and to human safety. Two of the primary threats posed, identified in Secs. 515(b)(11) and 516(b)(4) of the Act, are unplanned shifting and spontaneous ignition of the waste. The regulations under review seek to promote waste stability and incombustibility. 215 Prior to 1983, design standards mandated by the Secretary for the construction of refuse piles, aimed at achieving stability and incombustibility, included this instruction: The coal processing waste shall be--(1) Spread in layers no more than 24 inches in thickness [i.e., two foot lifts]; and (2) Compacted to attain 90 percent of the maximum dry density. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.85(c)(1), (2) ((1982). 54 The pre-1983 rules also included performance standards. Relevant here, the Secretary ordered operators to construct refuse piles in a manner that would avoid combustion and he required operators to attain a static safety factor, or stability rating, of 1.5. 30 C.F.R. Secs. 816.81(a)(2), 816.85(b) (1982). The 1983 revisions entirely eliminated the density standard for compaction and authorized variances from the two foot lift requirement so long as the 1.5 stability rating is achieved. See 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.81(a)(5), (c)(2) and Sec. 816.83 (1986). See also 30 C.F.R. Sec. 77.215(h) (1986) (incorporated by 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.83 (1986)). These two revisions--elimination of the degree of compactness design standard and allowance of variances from the two foot lift rule--were overturned by the district court and are now before us on review. 216 The district court remanded revised Secs. 816.81 and 816.83 insofar as they fail to provide absolute requirements for lift thickness and post-compaction density, or other satisfactory how to rules. PSMRL II (Round III), 620 F.Supp. at 1535-36. In thus remanding, the district court misconstrued the Act; as NWF no longer contests, the district judge incorrectly read Sec. 515(f) to mandate design standards for the mine waste at issue, i.e., non-impounding coal mine waste refuse piles. We find that the Secretary did not contravene Sec. 515(f), and that he adequately explained his departures from the earlier regulations; we therefore reverse the district court on this matter. 217 Section 515(f) of the Act applies to waste piles referred to in section 515(b)(13) and section 516(b)(5), and only to such piles. SMCRA Sec. 515(f). Both Sec. 515(b)(13) and Sec. 516(b)(5), we note, refer exclusively to waste piles used either temporarily or permanently as dams or embankments. Because waste piles of the kind at issue here are not used as dams or embankments, Sec. 515(f) is inapposite. 218 The Secretary accounted reasonably for his 1983 deletion of the compaction density standard. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2866-67. He anticipated that, by allowing operators to design waste sites to account for the requirements and topography of specific sites, the revised scheme would foster the design of more efficient and cost-effective coal refuse disposal sites. 47 FED.REG. 26599 (1982) (preamble to proposed revisions). Further impetus for the change came from the Secretary's revision regarding the type of waste placed in coal mine waste refuse piles. Prior to 1983, Secs. 816.81 et seq. of the regulations governed only waste created during the processing of coal. After 1983, Secs. 816.81 et seq. also controlled disposal of waste excavated from the development of underground mines. Compare 30 C.F.R. Secs. 816.81 et seq. (1982) (governing coal processing waste disposal) with 30 C.F.R. Secs. 816.81 et seq. (1986) (governing coal mine waste disposal, with coal mine waste defined in 30 C.F.R. Sec. 701.5 (1986) to include coal processing waste and underground development waste). 55 The Secretary explained:The 90 percent compaction requirement ... was difficult, but possible when coal processing waste was the only material involved. Now, however, with the inclusion of underground development waste ... with its variable characteristics, the test would be even more difficult and probably would not accomplish its goal. 219 47 FED.REG. 26603 (1982); see also 48 FED.REG. 44018 (1983) ([h]eterogeneity of coal mine waste material resulting from variations in coal mining techniques ... renders meaningless the application of standard compaction measures). 220 Not only did the Secretary relate how changes in the definition of waste rendered the 1979 rule obsolete; he also addressed the critical concerns motivating adoption of the ninety percent compaction rule in 1979: stability and incombustibility. 56 Stability, the Secretary observed, has always been, and continues to be, assured by the generous 1.5 long-term safety rating. The compaction density standard, he intimated, was a superfluous requirement that unnecessarily burdened mine operators. 48 FED.REG. 44016 (1983); see also 47 FED.REG. 26603 (1982) (citing 1979 Mine Safety and Health Administration report, not identified by the Secretary in 1979, noting allowance of substantial margin of error in 1.5 rating). Incombustibility is advanced under the revised regulation, the Secretary stated, through the requirement that mine operators [p]revent combustion. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.81(a)(5) (1986). The Secretary recognized that compaction reduces the chance of combustion, but noted that uncompacted waste does not invariably present burning problems. 48 FED.REG. 44016 (1983) (referring to 1975 United States Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration report). He concluded, we think reasonably, that [t]he specific numerical requirement for compaction [density] is ... more appropriately determined based upon the particular design, site conditions and waste characteristics. Id. 221 Given the propriety of eliminating the ninety percent compaction standard, we need not tarry over the Secretary's allowance for variances from the two foot lift rule. Mine operators must obtain mine regulator approval before constructing a waste disposal site. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.81(a) (1986). Lift thickness has regulatory significance only as a means of assuring adequate compaction. See supra note 54. It can be expected, therefore, that mine operators will succeed in obtaining a variance from the two foot lift requirement only when compaction adequate to assure stability and incombustibility remains feasible. 57 222 To recapitulate: the Secretary, contrary to the district court's central but erroneous assumption, transgressed no provision of the Act, and acted reasonably in adopting the mine waste regulatory revisions we have just reviewed. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's ruling on this joint of the case.
223 In 1983, the Secretary revised his regulations concerning the first stage of reclamation--backfilling and grading the soil and other overburden (spoil) stripped from the land when mining began. NWF challenged the revisions to 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.100 and Sec. 816.101 (contemporaneous reclamation), Sec. 816.102 (terracing), and Sec. 816.104 and Sec. 816.105 (thin and thick overburden). These provisions restate the Act's requirement that mine operators restore land to its approximate original contour, if the volume of spoil permits, as contemporaneously with mining operations as practicable. SMCRA Secs. 515(b)(3), (b)(16). 224 Unlike the replaced regulations, the revised provisions failed to furnish regulatory authorities with guidance beyond the prescriptions of the Act itself, and on that account the district court remanded the revisions. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1744-46. On appeal, the Secretary and Industry contend that the district court incorrectly read the Act to require, for each statutory prescription, additional regulatory guidance or fleshing out. We hold, in accord with the Secretary, that the Act does not automatically and inevitably require him to flesh out the prescriptions of Secs. 515(b)(3) and (b)(16). Nonetheless, we affirm the remand of the contemporaneous reclamation and thick and thin overburden regulations, for only with respect to terracing did the Secretary adequately explain why guidance beyond the statutory requirements sensibly could not be given to local regulators. 225 We note that the Act expressly commands the Secretary to flesh out certain statutory provisions. Section 515(f), for example, directs the Secretary to adopt rules governing the design, location, construction, operation, maintenance, enlargement, modification, removal, and abandonment of the mine waste piles permitted under Sec. 515(b)(13) (mine waste piles used as dams or embankments) and Sec. 516(b)(5) (same) of the Act. Similarly, Sec. 517(h)(2) instructs the Secretary by regulation, [to] establish procedures to insure that the inspections of mine operations mandated by Sec. 517(a) are adequate and complete. Nothing in the Act, however, expressly requires the Secretary to flesh out Secs. 515(b)(3) or (b)(16). 226 NWF, arguing that the regulations must genuinely guide local regulators in applying each of the Act's prescriptions, cites the House Report accompanying the bill that became the Act. This Report states: 227 Another element of flexibility is the avoidance of excessive detail in the requirements of the Federal performance standards. The committee is aware, however, of the history of the development of State laws on the subject of regulation of coal surface mining. This history presents a pattern of increasingly detailed legislation and such detail is often traceable to regulations which have failed to provide full implementation of the more general performance standards of the legislation itself. The committee believes that it has struck a balance between legislation which merely frames performance standards in terms of general objectives and standards which are cast in terms more detailed than those generally found in regulatory legislation. In choosing a middle path, the committee is mindful of the past failures on the State level and thus bases it [sic] approval of [the bill] on the expectation that Federal regulations promulgated under the act will fully implement the environmental performance standards. Obviously, the mere reproduction of the statutory environmental performance standards in the regulations would be inadequate. 228 H.R.REP. NO. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 85 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 622. The Report thus featured by NWF, however, does not say that the Secretary is obliged to flesh out each and every one of the Act's environmental performance standards. We think the Report is most reasonably read to mean that, in addition to the matters on which the Act explicitly directs fleshing out, the Secretary is to exercise his informed discretion in deciding what other statutory performance standards bear elucidation or elaboration. 229 In short, we read the Act, in light of its legislative history (including the House Report passage just quoted) to afford the Secretary discretion, absent an express statutory instruction to regulate, to decide whether fleshing out is appropriate in light of other concerns. 58 Chief among those concerns is the need to accommodate widely varying local conditions that will not admit of a single, nationwide rule. See, e.g., SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(23) (mine operators must tak[e] into consideration the physical, climatological, and other characteristics of the [mine] site in achieving reclamation); H.R.REP. NO. 218 at 85, 1977 U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS at 622 ([w]orkable Federal requirements must be appropriate to the mining setting); S.REP. NO. 128, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 51, 72 (1977) administration of regulatory program should account for mining conditions, climate, and terrain [that] vary so greatly among the different coalfields). 230 Our task, now, is to review reductions of particular regulations--the contemporaneous reclamation, terracing, and thin and thick overburden regulations--to determine whether the revisions comport with the Secretary's regulatory responsibility. Under State Farm the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for the revised regulations if they are to gain judicial approbation. 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2866-67. The Secretary's accounting for his actions regarding the contemporaneous reclamation, and thin and thick overburden regulations fails to meet this standard; we do not find in the rulemaking record any identified factual basis for, or satisfactory explanation of, the Secretary's conclusion that the variety of local conditions warrants regulations on these matters that simply reiterate the relevant prescriptions in Secs. 515(b)(3) and (b)(16) of the Act. In contrast, we find that the Secretary adequately explained his revision of the terracing regulation. 231
232 Section 515(b)(16) of the Act directs mine operators to reclaim land as contemporaneously as practicable [to the] mining operations. In 1979, the Secretary had issued both a general instruction that reclamation occur as contemporaneously as practicable with mining operations, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.100 (1982), 59 and specific time and distance standards for backfilling and grading spoil at contour and area strip mines, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.101 (1982). 60 The Secretary at that time addressed the difficulty of issuing nationwide standards in view of varying mine conditions. He declined to adopt a timetable for backfilling and grading at open pit mines, or for additional reclamation steps at any mine. Furthermore, the time and distance standards he adopted were waivable on a case by case basis. Also, he explained in his regulatory preamble that these standards afforded adequate time to backfill and grade under any of the varying local conditions. 44 FED.REG. 15226 (1979). 233 The 1983 revision retained the general prescription in Sec. 816.100, 61 but eliminated Sec. 816.101 entirely. See supra note 60. To support his deletion, the Secretary commented that 'contemporaneous reclamation' is a relative term which must be interpreted by each State on the basis of the mining conditions in its territory. 48 FED.REG. 23357-58 (1983); see also id. at 24649. ([T]he regulatory authority can establish a time table, one which is more in keeping with conditions within the State, and can probably reduce the number of waiver requests received from operators.). Because Sec. 816.101 was devised to account for local differences, we do not find entirely satisfying, as an explanation for scrapping the regulation entirely, the observation that  'contemporaneous reclamation' is a relative term whose precise meaning depends on local conditions. The core deficiency, however, is that the Secretary has published barely more than a conclusion that the variety of mining conditions across the nation made Sec. 816.101 of the regulations infeasible. State Farm requires a satisfactory explanation, one that informs us why he drew his conclusion. The Secretary, in other words, if he determines there is no need to flesh out the statute, must flesh out his explanation so that we can review the rationality of his decision. 234
235 Section 515(b)(3) of the Act directs mine operators to return land to its approximate original contour. 62 The provision contains an exemption, however, for situations where the spoil is either so thin or thick relative to the coal seam that there is insufficient or too much spoil to permit return to approximate original contour. See supra note 62 (SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(3)). 63 In 1979, the Secretary issued regulations that defined numerically when a variance from the approximate original contour requirement for too little or too much spoil could be granted. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.104 and Sec. 816.105 (1982). 64 236 In 1983, the Secretary eliminated the numerical definition, permitting a variance whenever the mine operator demonstrates that spoil is either insufficient or more than sufficient to restore land to its approximate original contour. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.104 and Sec. 816.105 (1986). 65 The sole support we have found for this revision is the Secretary's cryptic observation that [t]he mathematical limit ... has proved to be impractical because of its preciseness. 47 FED.REG. 26764 (1982). We do not know from this unadorned statement why no adjusted (less precise) or alternate nationwide rule was ordered in place of the one found impractical. Absent fuller statement of the reason for the revision, we cannot intelligently determine whether the Secretary has a satisfactory explanation for his action. 66 237
238 The direction in Sec. 515(b)(3) of the Act to return land to its approximate original contour countenances the substitution of a terraced post-mining landscape for a non-terraced pre-mining landscape. See supra note 62 (SMCRA Sec. 701(2) permits terracing to achieve approximate original contour). The 1979 regulations required terraces to be constructed with bench widths less than twenty feet and slopes between benches (out-slopes) less than fifty percent, unless the regulatory authority approved a wider bench or steeper outslope. 30 C.F.R. Secs. 816.102(b)(1), (3) (1981). 67 As revised, 68 the regulations do not describe a maximum bench width or outslope angle, leaving approval of these and other terrace characteristics 69 to the regulatory authority's judgment. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.102(g) (1986). 70 The current regulations do instruct regulators to ensure a reasonable reproduction of the land's original contour. See 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.102(a) (1986). 71 As in the 1979 regulations, the current regulations allow terracing only upon approval of the regulatory authority. 48 FED.REG. 23362 (1983); 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.102(g) (1986), supra note 70; 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.102(b)(1) (1981), supra note 67. 239 The Secretary has explained on various occasions, both before and after the revisions, that the purpose of the terrace dimension regulations is to ensure the creation of land forms that will support post-mining land uses and provide erosion and water runoff control. See 48 FED.REG. 23363 (1983); 46 FED.REG. 39854 (1981); 44 FED.REG. 15228-29 (1979); see also Memorandum in Support of Federal Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (March 5, 1984) at 68, National Wildlife Federation v. Hodel (D.D.C.) (No. 83-698), reprinted in Supplemental Brief for the Secretary of the Interior (Dec. 24, 1986) at Tab 3 (memorandum filed in district court in this case). The terrace bench and outslope requirements were never intended to fulfill the statutory environmental performance standard of ensuring return to approximate original contour. SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(3). Instead, these requirements existed to ensure restoration of mined land to a condition capable of supporting its post-mining uses, by affording erosion control and moisture conservation, so that revegetation could be accomplished in accordance with SMCRA Secs. 515(b)(2), (4), (19). 240 Supporting his elimination of the bench width and outslope angle rules, the Secretary explained that terrace design to control surface erosion and water runoff must be based on local soil characteristics, local soil-management practices, and local climate. 48 FED.REG. 23363 (1983). 72 This explanation of the inutility of providing national terrace dimension guidelines adequately justifies the Secretary's decision against imposing such guidelines to fill out the statutory approximate original contour standard. We therefore reverse the district court judgment remanding the terrace regulation and uphold the Secretary's action.