Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Authority to Grant Variance from AOC Requirements.

Text: 381 The Act's general AOC requirements are set out in Sec. 515(b)(3), which requires all surface coal mining operations to backfill, compact ..., and grade in order to restore the approximate original contour of the land with all highwalls, spoil piles, and depressions eliminated. 108 Section 515(d)(2) adds specific AOC requirements applicable to steep slope mining, (i.e., slopes above twenty degrees): Complete backfilling with spoil material shall be required to cover completely the highwall and return the site to the appropriate original contour, which material will maintain stability following mining and reclamation. 382 The Act also allows for variances from AOC requirements under certain circumstances. See section 6, supra. Section 515(c) describes conditions under which surface mining operations may be permitted without regard to the requirement to restore to approximate original contour set forth in subsection 515(b)(3) or 515(d)(2) and (3). SMCRA Sec. 515(c)(2). Section 515(e) also provides for variances from some AOC requirements. The question before the court is whether the variance power described in Sec. 515(e) extends to all surface mining, or only to steep slope mining. That section provides: 383 (1) Each State program may and each Federal program shall include procedures pursuant to which the regulatory authority may permit variances for the purposes set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection, provided that the watershed control of the area is improved; and further provided complete backfilling with spoil material shall be required to cover completely the highwall which material will maintain stability following mining and reclamation. 384 (2) Where an applicant meets the requirements of paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection a variance from the requirement to restore to approximate original contour set forth in subsection 515(d)(2) of this section may be granted for the surface mining of coal where the owner of the surface knowingly requests in writing, as a part of the permit application that such a variance be granted so as to render the land, after reclamation, suitable for an industrial, commercial, residential, or public use (including recreational facilities) in accord with the further provisions of (3) and (4) of this subsection. 385 SMCRA Sec. 515(e) (emphasis added). 109 Three competing views have been advanced about the meaning of this section: the Secretary's view is that Sec. 515(e) establishes one variance that applies to mining on steep and non-steep slopes; Industry would be content with that reading, or alternatively suggests that Sec. 515(e) establishes two variances, one general and one for steep slopes; NWF argued, and the district court agreed, that Sec. 515(e) only establishes one variance, applicable solely to mining on steep slopes. 386 The district court concluded, as it had in 1980, that Sec. 515(e)(1) did not actually grant a variance, PSMRL II (Round II) 620 F.Supp. at 1511-15 110 and that the variance granted in Sec. 515(e)(2), as enacted, included only a reference to the steep slope AOC requirements of Sec. 515(d)(2). 111 In trying to resolve the conflict among the three interpretations of Sec. 515(e), the district court reviewed the legislative history of the variance provision, and found it to be ambiguous at best. Id. at 1574-77. It concluded that the muddled legislative history does not provide sufficient clarity to permit the court to re-insert the provision deleted in conference, Id. at 1577, and remanded the regulation providing for more general variances. Industry appealed; the Secretary did not. 387 We too find it necessary to turn to the legislative history for illumination of what this curiously worded statutory provision was intended to accomplish. The variance provision was introduced as an amendment to S.7 by Senator Wendell Ford. He specifically noted that his amendment was meant to cover steep slope mining. 123 CONG.REC. 15233-34 (1977). Senator Jennings Randolph, who had independently planned to introduce a similar amendment, co-sponsored the Ford amendment and introduced into the record prepared remarks indicating that his amendment was meant to apply to non-steep mining as well. 123 CONG.REC. 15710 (1977). In Conference, a compromise resolving a controversy about whether to require complete elimination of highwalls even from those operators who had obtained AOC variances, led the Committee to turn to the Randolph amendment as a base from which to work; that amendment had been intended to apply to steep and non-steep mining, and explicitly referenced sec. 515(b)(3). 388 The bill that emerged from Conference, however, deleted the reference to the general AOC requirements of Sec. 515(b)(3). H.R.CONF.REP. NO. 493 at 55-56. No explanation for the deletion was offered, and the Conference Committee report discussed the AOC variance found in Sec. 515(e) in the section of the report dealing with steep slope mining, rather than in the general standards section. Id. at 108-09. Senator Lee Metcalf, in reporting the text of the Conference Committee bill back to the Senate noted the concerns of landowners in mountainous areas that steep slope performance standards in the bill would preclude some beneficial land uses: In recognition of this need, the conference report modifies the standards so as to allow retention of strip mine benches. 123 CONG.REC. 23609-10 (1977). 389 Since the passage of SMCRA, one Secretary of Interior has interpreted the statutory language to create only one variance, for steep slope mining, 44 FED.REG. 15312 (1979); another has promulgated regulations allowing both steep and non-steep slope mining operators to apply for and receive variances from AOC requirements, 112 and has, for reasons of his own, declined to join Industry's appeal from the district court's 1985 ruling remanding those regulations. See Supplemental Brief for the Secretary of the Interior as Appellant at 2. 390 Ultimately we rely on the text of Sec. 515(e)(2) which specifically states that variances may be granted from the AOC requirements of Sec. 515(d)(2), the steep slope mining provision; it does not, as enacted, state that non-steep slope mining AOC requirements may be waived or excused, and neither does it reference Sec. 515(b)(3), the general AOC provision. A variance provision similar in structure, Sec. 515(c), expressly allows for disregarding the AOC requirements of both Sec. 515(b)(3) and 515(d)(2) under certain circumstances. See Sec. 515(c)(2). 113 Although we might speculate about the reasons why the reference to Sec. 515(b)(3) (which was once a part of the variance amendment), was deleted by the Conference Committee, that unexplained deletion alone does not persuade us to read into a statute a provision that is not there. As the Supreme Court has recently reminded us, if the statutory language appears to plainly settle the question before us, we look to the legislative history to determine only whether there is 'clearly expressed legislative intention' contrary to that language, which would require us to question the strong presumption that Congress expresses its intent through the language it chooses. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1213 n. 12, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987) (citations omitted). There is just not enough there to change our minds about what the text of Sec. 515(e) appears to say. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 391