Opinion ID: 3012166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pennsylvania Program

Text: Pennsylvania chose to develop its own regulatory program, and the statutory provisions and regulations subsequently enacted comprehensively regulate, by means of extraordinarily detailed provisions, every aspect of surface coal mining and the surface effects of underground _________________________________________________________________ OSM and the subsequent awards of permits by the state under that program on the one hand, with the exclusive jurisdiction that Haydo found is expressly granted to a state once those initial criteria are met, on the other. Most of plaintiffs’ anti-Haydo argument focuses on the standards preliminary to the administration of the state program; the conduct in question here, though, involves whether Pennsylvania conformed to the criteria it developed to meet those standards. The second prong of the anti-Haydo argument is based on the fact that when a state fails to properly administer its program, the federal government may take over and replace the defective state program with federal regulation. 30 U.S.C. SS 1254, 1271. Again, however, this misses the point. Federal law may provide the opportunity for the federal government to correct a defective program, but the existence of that provision does not transform the standards a state establishes as part of that program into federal law. We acknowledged in Haydo that suits underS 1270 may, of course, be brought for violations of federal law. 830 F.2d at 496. Nevertheless, we affirmed the District Court’s dismissal because the Haydos’ complaint only alleged violations of state law, not of SMCRA itself. Parenthetically, to the extent that Haydo was criticized by the Fourth Circuit in Molinary v. Powell Mountain Coal Co., Inc., 125 F.3d 231, 236-37 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997), which, like Haydo, was not an Eleventh Amendment case and did not involve a claim against a state official, subsequent case law in that circuit, most importantly Bragg, has severely undercut the Molinary reasoning. 11 mining. Pennsylvania’s proposed program was conditionally approved in July 1982, and Pennsylvania was granted primacy and the concomitant exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over (and responsibility for) surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-federal and non-Indian lands within its borders.8 47 Fed. Reg. 33050-80 (July 30, 1982). The Pennsylvania program is set forth in full in exquisite detail primarily in the Pennsylvania Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act, 52 Pa. Stat. Ann. SS 1396.1-1396.19a (Purdon 1998 & Supp. 2001), which alone fills nearly one hundred pages of text, as well as portions of the Clean Streams Law, Pa. Stat. Ann. SS 691.1-691.1001 (Purdon 1993), and their accompanying rules and regulations. 25 Pa. Code SS 86.1-86.242 and SS 87.1-87.209. Primary authority to enforce the Pennsylvania program is vested in the Pennsylvania DEP. The text of the Pennsylvania program as found in Pennsylvania’s statutes and regulations is not set forth in 30 C.F.R. S 938, that part of the federal regulations reserved for Pennsylvania. All that is set forth is the notification of the Secretary’s program approval, the action taken by the Secretary on amendments proposed by Pennsylvania, and the dates by which other amendments were to be adopted by Pennsylvania. The regulations nonetheless purport to contain[ ] all rules applicable only within Pennsylvania that have been adopted under [SMCRA]. S 938.1. See alsoS 900.12. An important environmental problem addressed by SMCRA -- and by Pennsylvania -- was the reclamation of sites after mining operations have ended. In order for a state regulatory program to be initially approved by the Secretary, therefore, the program must include a bonding plan designed to ensure that money is available to reclaim, if necessary, various mine sites, i.e., to restore the site after the coal has been mined. 30 U.S.C. SS 1257(d), 1258; 30 C.F.R. S 800.11(e)(1). To receive a mining permit, operators are required to submit a detailed reclamation plan for the site in question. 30 U.S.C. SS 1257(d), 1258; 52 Pa. C.S.A. _________________________________________________________________ 8. The Secretary may grant full primacy to a state with a conditionally approved program. 30 C.F.R. S 732.13(j). 12 S 1396.4(a)(2). Operators are also required to post a bond to cover the costs of that plan if they default on it. 30 U.S.C. S 1259; 52 Pa. C.S.A. S 1396.4(d). Under SMCRA, the bonds collected by states from mining operators must be sufficient to assure the completion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be performed by the regulatory authority, i.e., the state. 30 U.S.C. S 1259(a). As long as the federal objectives of the bonding program are met, a state may also develop an alternative bonding program, such as the one challenged here. 30 C.F.R. S 800.11(e). That regulation requires that, under the alternative program, the state regulatory authority collect sufficient money to complete a reclamation plan for any site which may be in default. Pennsylvania’s alternative bonding program was conditionally approved. As part of that program, Pennsylvania requires that before commencing mining operations, an operator must file a bond with the DEP. in an amount determined by the department based upon the total estimated cost to the Commonwealth of completing the approved reclamation plan, or in such other amount and form as may be established by the department pursuant to regulations for an alternate coal bonding program which shall achieve the objectives and purposes of the bonding program. 52 Pa. C.S.A. S 1396.4(d). In the 1982 approval of the Pennsylvania program, the Secretary explicitly found that the program met SMCRA’s minimum criteria for regulating performance bonds. 47 Fed. Reg. at 33056. Also as part of its program, Pennsylvania implemented guidelines detailing how the amounts of such bonds were to be calculated. First, complying with the explicit federal minimum, 30 U.S.C. S 1259(a), Pennsylvania determined that no bond shall be under $10,000. 52 Pa. C.S.A. S 1396.4(d); 25 Pa. Code S 86.150. Second, under Pennsylvania’s bonding program, bonds are supplemented by money from a bond pool that may be applied to any defaulting site in the system. This supplemental money is derived from a nonrefundable fee of $100 (originally $50) per acre charged to all operators when a permit is initially 13 issued. 25 Pa. Code S 86.17(e). The Secretary initially expressed concern about the continuing adequacy of the amount of the bond and permit fee required for permit areas that is applied to bond forfeitures. 47 Fed. Reg. at 33056. The Secretary required Pennsylvania to submit its then-ongoing bonding adequacy review study to the OSM and to make any adjustments as necessary to cover reclamation costs. Id. at 33057. Again, however, Pennsylvania’s program was conditionally approved. By 1991, Pennsylvania had been notified at least twice by the OSM of that Office’s concerns regarding the alternative bonding program. See 56 Fed. Reg. 24687, 24690 (May 31, 1991). Pennsylvania proposed to amend the relevant provision, 25 Pa. Code S 86.17(e), to, inter alia, increase the acreage fee from $50 to $100. 56 Fed. Reg. at 24689. Although this amendment did not alleviate all of the OSM’s concerns, the amendment was conditionally approved upon Pennsylvania’s representation that it was taking steps to remedy any existing deficits. Id. at 24690. More specifically, the approval was conditioned on Pennsylvania’s demonstration that the bond money, together with the acreage fees, would meet the requirements of 30 C.F.R. 800.11(e) to (1) have available sufficient money to complete the reclamation plan for any areas that might be in default and (2) provide a substantial economic incentive for mine operators to comply with all reclamation provisions. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 24690. Subsequently, this increase in acreage fee was approved as an intermediate step to keep the shortage in the [bond] Fund from further deteriorating. 58 Fed. Reg. 36139, 36140 (July 6, 1993). The $100 fee, collected in addition to the bonds posted under 25 Pa. Code SS 86.145, .149, and .150, remains in force today. See 25 Pa. Code S 86.17(e). Technically, then, the bond requirements of the Pennsylvania program -- $10,000 plus the additional $100 per acre -- exceed the federal minimum. Finally, as part of the alternative bonding program, the Pennsylvania DEP is responsible for establishing rate guidelines and the method for determining the amounts of reclamation bonds above the $10,000 and $100 per acre floor. 25 Pa. Code S 86.145. Those guidelines are set forth 14 in 52 Pa. C.S.A. S 1396.4(d), which requires that consideration be given to very specific factors as well as other criteria as may be relevant.9 A longer list appears in S 86.149 of the Pennsylvania Code.10 Moreover, again _________________________________________________________________ 9. Section 1396.4(d) reads in part as follows: Said estimate shall be based upon the permittee’s statement of his estimated cost of fulfilling the plan during the course of his operation, inspection of the application and other documents submitted, inspection of the land area, and such other criteria as may be relevant, including, but not limited to, the probable difficulty of reclamation giving consideration to such factors as topography, geology of the site, hydrology, the proposed land use and the additional cost to the Commonwealth which may be entailed by being required to bring personnel and equipment to the site after abandonment by the permittee, in excess of the cost to the permittee of performing the necessary work during the course of his surface mining operations. 52 Pa. Stat. Ann. S 1396.4(d). 10. Section 86.149 reads as follows: S 86.149. Determination of bond amount. (a) The standard applied by the Department in determining the amount of bond will be the estimated cost to the Department if it had to complete the reclamation, restoration and abatement work required under the acts, regulations thereunder and the conditions of the permit. The Department may establish bonding rate guidelines which utilize the factors in S 86.145(c) (relating to Department responsibilities). (b) This amount will be based on, but not limited to, the following: (1) The estimated costs submitted by the permittee in accordance with S 87.68, S 88.96, S 88.492,S 89.71 or S 90.33. (2) Reclamation costs for surface mines related to the specific size and geometry of the proposed mining operation, the topography and geology of the permit area, the potential for water pollution or hydrologic disturbances, the availability of topsoil and the proposed land use. (3) The costs related to distinct differences in mining methods and reclamation standards for bituminous surface mines, anthracite surface mines and underground mines. (4) The cost of relocating or reconstructing roads or streams within the permit area. 15 conforming with federal law,11 the DEP may increase the required bond amount should such an increase be determined by the department to be necessary to meet the requirements of this act. 52 Pa. C.S.A. S 1396.4(d).