West Virginia Regulatory Program, 19262-19273 [2024-05682]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19262-19273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05682]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 948

[SATS No. WV-118-FOR (partial); Docket ID: OSM-2011-0009; SATS No. WV-
126-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2019-0012; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 
220S180110;S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 220XS501520]


West Virginia Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment in part, disapproval of 
amendment in part.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSMRE), are approving amendments to the West Virginia regulatory 
program (the West Virginia program) under the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). These amendments make 
changes to the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act 
(WVSCMRA), the Code of West Virginia (W.Va. Code), and the West 
Virginia Code of State Rules (CSR).

DATES: This rule is effective April 17, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Castle, Acting Director, 
Charleston Field Office, Telephone: (859) 260-3900. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the West Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSMRE's Finding
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSMRE's Decision
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background on the West Virginia Program

    Subject to OSMRE's oversight, section 503(a) of the Act permits a 
State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its 
borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, 
State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and 
reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with 
the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). Based on 
these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved 
the West Virginia program on January 21, 1981. You can find background 
information on the West Virginia program, including the Secretary's 
finding, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the 
West Virginia program in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 
5915). You can also find later actions concerning West Virginia's 
program and program amendments at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 
948.15, and 948.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

WV-118-FOR

    By letter dated April 25, 2011, received by us on May 2, 2011 
(Administrative Record Number WV-1561), the West Virginia Department of 
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an amendment to its program 
under SMCRA, docketed as WV-118-FOR. The proposed amendment consists of 
regulatory revisions to the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation 
Regulations at CSR Title 38, Series 2, as contained in Committee 
Substitute for Senate Bill 121 of 2011. See 2011 W.Va. Acts ch. 109. As 
is discussed more fully below, because West Virginia has made multiple 
submissions with respect to the same or similar provisions of statue 
and regulations, only a portion of the original submission from West 
Virginia will be addressed in this final rule. The remaining portion of 
WV-118 will be addressed in a subsequent final rule.
    Relevant to this Notice, Senate Bill 121 authorizes regulatory 
revisions codifying an emergency rule issued on December 16, 2009, 
which amend the existing West Virginia coal mining regulations by 
adding trust funds and annuities as approved forms of financial 
assurance instruments.
    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the November 2, 
2011, Federal Register (76 FR 67637). In the same notice, we opened a 
public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing 
on these provisions (Administrative Record Number WV-1573). The public 
comment period closed on December 2, 2011. We received responses from 
three Federal agencies stating that they had no comments.

WV-126-FOR

    By letters dated May 2, 2018 (Administrative Record Nos. WV-1613A, 
in part, and WV-1613B), WVDEP submitted an amendment to its program 
under SMCRA, docketed as WV-126-FOR. The amendment contains revisions 
to the WVSCMRA and the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation 
Regulations at CSR 38-2-1 et seq., as contained in Committee 
Substitutes for Senate Bills 163 and 626 of 2018. See 2018 W.Va. Acts 
chs. 141, 152.
    Senate Bill 163 seeks to revise regulatory provisions involving 
definitions, reclamation, the environmental security account for water 
quality, water quality enhancement and modifying sections on 
incremental bonding, release of bonds, forfeiture of bonds, effluent 
limitations, and blasting.
    Senate Bill 626 seeks to revise statutory provisions about the 
method in which permit applications, permit revisions, and informal 
conferences are advertised under WVSCMRA and make several editorial 
corrections about items such as position titles and agency names.
    We announced the receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 
14, 2020, Federal Register (85 FR 8497). In the same document, we 
opened the public comment period and provided an

[[Page 19263]]

opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the 
amendment. The public comment period ended on March 16, 2020. We did 
not hold a public hearing or meeting because one was not requested. We 
received one public comment that is addressed below in the Public 
Comments section of part IV, Summary and Disposition of Comments.
    When announcing the proposed amendment, we removed the blasting 
portion of Senate Bill 163 from the proposed rule and subsequently 
announced it on February 10, 2020, (85 FR 7476), as a part of the West 
Virginia program amendment WV-123-FOR. West Virginia had previously 
submitted an amendment to its blasting regulations that had not been 
approved; therefore, in order to keep all changes to the blasting 
regulations together, we consolidated them into WV-123-FOR.
    WVDEP-Division of Mining and Reclamation (DMR) sent a letter to the 
Regional Director, Interior Regions 1 and 2, dated February 3, 2020. In 
its letter, West Virginia asked us to prioritize part of the WV-118-FOR 
submission, in particular changes to CSR 38-2-11.3.f pertaining to 
financial assurance requirements, which also relates to requirements to 
release bonds and forfeiture of bonds. These changes are discussed in 
detail below.

III. OSMRE's Findings

    We are approving in part and disapproving in part the revisions 
proposed in WV-118 and WV-126 as described below. We made the following 
findings concerning West Virginia's amendment as provided under SMCRA 
and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. Any revisions 
that we do not specifically discuss below concerning non-substantive 
wording or editorial changes can be found in the full text of the 
program amendment available at www.regulations.gov, searchable by the 
Docket ID Numbers referenced at the top of this notice.

Statutory Revisions

    The following describes the substantive statutory revisions that 
WVDEP submitted to OSMRE for approval on May 2, 2018 (Administrative 
Record WV-1613-B) (WV-126).
1. W.Va. Code 22-3-9(a)(6). Permit Application Requirements and 
Contents
    West Virginia submitted a revision to this statutory provision that 
would remove the requirement that an applicant's advertisement of its 
permit application must be published in a newspaper of general 
circulation in the locality of the proposed permit area at least once a 
week for four successive weeks and add in its place a requirement that 
an applicant's advertisement must be on a form and in a manner 
prescribed by the Secretary, which manner may be electronic.
    OSMRE Finding: We are not approving this section of the amendment 
as it is less stringent than sections 507(b)(6) and 513(a) of SMCRA (30 
U.S.C. 1257(b)(6) and 1263(a)) and less effective than the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 773.6. Updating the public notification process 
to include electronic means is desirable. However, SMCRA specifically 
requires that permit applications, significant revisions, or renewal of 
a permit must be announced with an advertisement in a local newspaper 
of general circulation in the locality of the mining and reclamation 
operation at least once a week for four consecutive weeks. As one of 
the commenters notes, West Virginia cannot ensure that electronic 
public notice will reach the same audience contemplated by SMCRA's 
newspaper requirement. Therefore, while adding electronic means is 
encouraged, the elimination of the newspaper requirement renders the 
proposal less stringent and less effective than the Federal 
requirements.
2. W.Va. Code 22-3-20. Public Notice; Written Objections; Public 
Hearings; Informal Conferences
    West Virginia submitted two revisions to this statutory provision 
consistent with its proposed revision to section 22-3-9(a)(6), above. 
The first revision, concerning subsection (a), would remove the 
requirement that, at the time of submission, the applicant must place 
the advertisement of its permit application or permit revision in a 
local newspaper of general circulation in the county of the proposed 
surface mining operation at least once a week for four consecutive 
weeks and add in its place a requirement that the applicant must submit 
to WVDEP a copy of the required advertisement for public notice on a 
form and in a manner prescribed by the Secretary, which manner may be 
electronic. The second revision, concerning subsection (b), would 
remove the requirement that the Secretary of WVDEP must advertise the 
date, time, and location of the informal conference in a newspaper of 
general circulation in the locality of the operation at least two weeks 
before the scheduled informal conference date and add in its place that 
the advertisement be on a form and in a manner prescribed by the 
Secretary, which manner may be electronic.
    OSMRE Finding: We are not approving the proposed revision to 
section 22-3-20(a) as it is less stringent than sections 507(b)(6) and 
513(a) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1257(b)(6) and 1263(a)) and less effective 
than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.6, which require that permit 
applications, significant revisions, or renewal of a permit must be 
announced with an advertisement in a local newspaper of general 
circulation in the locality of the mining and reclamation operation at 
least once a week for four consecutive weeks. As noted above, while 
updating the public notification process to include electronic means is 
desirable, the elimination of the newspaper requirement renders the 
proposal less stringent and less effective than the Federal 
requirements. For these same reasons, we are also not approving the 
proposed revision to W.Va. Code 22-3-20(b) amending the notice 
requirement, as doing so would render the provision less stringent than 
section 513(b) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1263(b)) and less effective than the 
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.6(c)(2)(ii), which require the 
regulatory authority to advertise the date, time, and location of 
informal conferences in a newspaper of general circulation in the 
locality of the proposed operation.

Regulatory Revisions

    The following describes substantive regulatory revisions that WVDEP 
submitted to us for approval on April 25, 2011 (Administrative Record 
WV-1561) (WV-118) and May 2, 2018 (Administrative Record WV 1613-A) 
(WV-126).
1. CSR 38-2-2. Definitions
    West Virginia proposes to remove the following definitions for lack 
of Federal counterpart:
    a. CSR 38-2-2.6. Acid Test Ratio means the relation of quick assets 
to current liabilities.
    b. CSR 38-2-2.37. Completion of Reclamation means that all terms 
and conditions of the permit have been satisfied, the final inspection 
report has been approved by the Secretary, that all applicable effluent 
and applicable water quality standards are met, and the total bond has 
been released.
    OSMRE Findings: The term ``acid test ratio'' has no Federal 
counterpart and is not used in the existing West Virginia regulations; 
the CSR defines other terms, including ``asset ratio'' and ``current 
ratio'' under CSR 38-2-2 (relating to definitions); and ``current 
assets'' and ``current liabilities,'' as

[[Page 19264]]

defined and used under CSR 38-2-11.3.d (relating to self-bonding), make 
up the definition of ``acid test ratio.'' As such, we have determined 
that the proposed deletion does not render the West Virginia statute or 
regulations either less stringent than SMCRA or less effective than the 
Federal regulations found at 30 CFR 701.5, and we approve of its 
removal.
    There is no direct counterpart in the Federal regulations for the 
West Virginia defined term ``completion of reclamation.'' This term 
follows the WVSCMRA requirements that an operator must faithfully and 
fully perform all requirements of the statute and of the permit before 
a bond is fully released and reclamation is determined to be complete. 
See W.Va. Code 22-3-11; 22-3-23(c)(3).
    While the Federal regulations do not define the term ``completion 
of reclamation'' they do define ``reclamation'' at 30 CFR 701.5 as 
``those actions taken to restore mined land as required by this chapter 
to a postmining land use approved by the regulatory authority'' 
(emphasis added). In addition to the term ``completion of 
reclamation,'' the CSR contains a stand-alone term ``reclamation'' 
defined as ``those actions taken to restore mined land to the approved 
postmining land use.'' Notably missing from the West Virginia 
definition is the reminder of the obligation to take all actions 
required by the regulations including those not solely focused on 
restoring mined land to its approved postmining land use approved by 
the regulatory authority.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 clarify that the State's 
laws and regulations, collectively, must be in accordance with SMCRA 
and consistent with the Federal regulations. We have previously found 
the CSR definition of ``reclamation'' to be no less effective than the 
Federal requirements when the regulations are ``viewed in their 
entirety with WVSCMRA,'' despite its deviation from the Federal 
definition. See 55 FR 21304, 21306 (May 23, 1990) (explaining that any 
provisions not specifically discussed in this notice were 
``substantively identical to the corresponding Federal regulations in 
effect on June 9, 1988, with minor changes to improve clarity and 
specificity and to incorporate State references and terms were deemed 
necessary or useful''). While nothing in the approved West Virginia 
stand-alone definition of ``reclamation'' permits operators to deviate 
from the statutory and regulatory requirements, the term ``completion 
of reclamation'' offers clarity and an unambiguous reminder of the 
obligation, similar to that in the Federal definition of 
``reclamation,'' to take all actions required by the regulations, not 
just those necessary to achieve the approved postmining land use as 
approved by the regulatory authority. Specifically, it requires that 
``all terms and conditions of the permit have been satisfied, the final 
inspection report has been approved by the Secretary, that all 
applicable effluent and applicable water quality standards are met, and 
the total bond has been released.'' The additional protections 
incorporated in the term ``completion of reclamation'' are now proposed 
to be removed. When taken together, the two approved terms 
``reclamation'' and ``completion of reclamation'' made the West 
Virginia program no less effective than the Federal regulations. The 
current proposal to remove one of the two terms would make the West 
Virginia program collectively less effective than the Federal 
regulations in that it would create an ambiguity in the requirement to 
take all actions required by the regulations beyond those immediately 
necessary to restore mined land to a postmining land use approved by 
the regulatory authority.
    For example, we first relied upon the definition of the term 
``completion of reclamation'' when we approved the definition of the 
term ``disturbed area'' currently in W.Va. Code 22-3-3(j). See 46 FR 
5915, 5920 (Jan. 21, 1981). In that approval, we explained that even 
though West Virginia's definition of ``disturbed area'' lacked language 
from the Federal definition prescribing that an area is considered 
disturbed until the bond is released, the definition of ``completion of 
reclamation'' made that clear. Later, we relied upon the definition of 
the term ``completion of reclamation'' to remove required amendments of 
the West Virginia program with respect to its financial assurance 
requirements and obligations. West Virginia uses an approved 
alternative bond system that is designed to achieve the objectives and 
purposes of section 509 of SMCRA as implemented in 30 CFR 800.11(e)(1). 
Historically, West Virginia's alternative bond system, commonly 
referred to as the Special Reclamation Fund, has been the subject of 
amendments, some required by us to address inadequacies of the system, 
eliminate the deficit in the State's alternative bonding system, and 
ensure that sufficient money will be available to complete reclamation. 
Those obligations included the treatment of polluted water discharged 
from all bond forfeiture sites and a requirement that moneys from the 
Special Reclamation Fund must be used, where needed, to pay for water 
treatment on bond forfeiture sites. These required amendments were 
removed, in part, based upon the existing definition at CSR 38-2-2.37 
and its role in supporting the mandatory requirement that bond 
forfeiture monies be used, where needed, for acid mine drainage 
treatment. See 60 FR 51900 (October 4, 1995); 66 FR 67446 (December 28, 
2001); and 67 FR 37610, 37613-14 (May 29, 2002).
    In view of the statutory and regulatory framework and history 
discussed, we conclude that the removal of the definition ``completion 
of reclamation'' would render the West Virginia program less effective 
than the Federal regulations, and we are not approving its removal.
2. CSR 38-2-9. Revegetation
    CSR 38-2-9.3.d Standards for Evaluating Vegetative Cover. West 
Virginia proposes to amend this section to remove the minimum two-year 
waiting period for WVDEP to conduct a vegetative inspection, a 
precondition to a Phase II bond release. The proposal will remove the 
phrase ``Not less than two (2) years following the last date of 
augmented seeding'' while retaining the requirement: ``the Secretary 
shall conduct a vegetative inspection to verify that applicable 
standards for vegetative success have been met.''
    OSMRE Findings: The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116 and the 
West Virginia regulations at CSR 38-2-9.3 identify the applicable 
standards for vegetative success, and 30 CFR 800.40(c) and CSR 38-2-
12.2.c describe the regulatory authority's responsibility to verify 
compliance with revegetation requirements before releasing a 
commensurate amount of bond. While individual vegetative standards can 
have timing elements associated with their successful establishment 
(for example, trees and shrubs counted to determine the success of fish 
and wildlife habitat must be in place for not less than two growing 
seasons, see 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(ii) and CSR 38-2-7.7.f.3 and 9.3.g), 
neither SMCRA nor the Federal regulations establish a blanket waiting 
period for the regulatory authority to conduct an evaluation of 
vegetative success. The two year waiting period for inspection under 
the successful revegetation standards in CSR 38-2-9.3.d is a companion 
provision to CSR 38-2-12.2.c.2, which requires for Phase II bond 
release that ``[n]ot less than two years after the last augmented 
seeding, standards for revegetation success have been met.'' West 
Virginia also proposes to delete

[[Page 19265]]

CSR 38-2-12.2.c.2, which we discuss and approve below.
    When we approved West Virginia's inspection frequency of inactive 
mines, we explained that West Virginia's two-year requirement under CSR 
38-2-12.2.c.2 was more stringent than Federal requirements. The Federal 
requirements at 30 CFR 800.40(c) ``require only that revegetation be 
successfully established, with the definition of `established' left to 
the discretion of the regulatory authority, provided it includes 
adequacy to control erosion and compliance with the species composition 
requirements of the reclamation plan.'' See 55 FR 21304 (May 23, 1990). 
When a regulatory authority proposes to remove a provision that is more 
stringent than the Federal requirements, we must still ensure the 
remaining provisions are not rendered less stringent than those 
requirements. For purposes of the inspection following an application 
for bond release, the timing of WVDEP's inspection under CSR 9.3.d is 
not critical to a mining operator's achievement of the relevant 
vegetative performance standard or to WVDEP's evaluation of whether the 
standard is met. The proposed amendment to CSR 38-2-9.3.d retains West 
Virginia's commitment to verify that applicable standards for 
vegetative success have been met before the relevant portion of bond is 
released and, therefore, is no less stringent than Sections 505 and 519 
of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1265 and 1269) or less effective than the Federal 
regulations at 30 CFR 800.40 and 816.116. Therefore, we are approving 
the amendment.
3. CSR 38-2-11. Insurance and Bonding
    CSR 38-2-11.3.f--Special consideration for sites with long-term 
postmining pollutional discharges. West Virginia proposes to add a new 
rule which states that, upon approval of the WVDEP Secretary, a 
permittee may establish a trust fund, annuity, or both to guarantee 
treatment of long-term postmining pollutional discharges in lieu of 
posting one of the other approved forms of bond. The new rule subjects 
the trust fund or annuity to the following conditions: (1) WVDEP will 
determine the amount of the trust fund or annuity, and that amount must 
be adequate to meet all anticipated treatment needs, including capital 
and operating expenses; (2) it must be in a form approved by WVDEP and 
contain all terms and conditions required by WVDEP; (3) it must 
irrevocably establish WVDEP as the beneficiary; (4) WVDEP will specify 
the investment objectives of the instrument; (5) termination will only 
occur only as specified by WVDEP upon its determination that no further 
treatment or other reclamation measures are necessary, that a 
replacement bond or other financial instrument has been posted, or that 
the administration of the instrument requires termination in accordance 
with its purpose; (6) release of money may be made only upon written 
authorization by WVDEP or according to a schedule established in the 
trust or annuity agreement; (7) the financial institution or company 
serving as trustee or issuing the annuity must be a bank or trust 
company organized or authorized to do business in West Virginia, a 
national bank chartered by the West Virginia Office of the Comptroller 
of the Currency, an insurance company licensed or authorized to do 
business in West Virginia or designated by the West Virginia Insurance 
Commissioner as an eligible surplus lines insurer, or any other 
financial institution or company with trust powers and with offices 
located in West Virginia provided that its activities are examined or 
regulated by a State or Federal agency; (8) the trust fund or annuity 
must be established in a manner that guarantees that sufficient money 
is will be available to pay for the treatment of postmining pollutional 
discharges (including maintenance, renovation, and replacement of 
treatment support facilities), the reclamation of sites upon which the 
treatment facilities are located, and areas used in support of those 
facilities.
    Finally, West Virginia's new rule specifies that when the trust 
fund or annuity is in place and fully funded sufficient to treat all 
discharges and reclaim all areas involved in such treatment, WVDEP may 
approve the release of conventional bonds posted for the permit or 
permit increment, provided that apart from the pollutional discharge 
covered by the trust or annuity, the area fully meets all applicable 
reclamation requirements. The new rule further specifies that portions 
of the permit required for treatment must remain bonded, but that the 
trust or annuity serves as that bond.
    OSMRE Findings: SMCRA, WVSCMRA, and their implementing regulations 
require that performance bonds or approved alternatives be sufficient 
to cover treatment of long-term postmining pollutional discharges in 
the event that the permittee fails to do so. See 30 U.S.C. 1259(a) and 
W.Va. Code 22-3-11. W.Va. Code 22-3-11(a) requires that each permittee 
post a performance bond conditioned upon faithful performance of all 
the requirements of the WVSCMRA and the permit. W.Va. Code 22-3-
11(c)(2) authorizes the Secretary of WVDEP to ``approve an alternative 
bonding system if it will: (A) Reasonably assure that sufficient funds 
will be available to complete the reclamation, restoration and 
abatement provisions for all permit areas which may be in default at 
any time; and (B) provide a substantial economic incentive for the 
permittee to comply with all reclamation provisions.'' The statutory 
requirements for a ``reclamation plan'' include the measures to be 
taken to assure the protection of water quality. See W.Va. Code 22-3-
10.
    A prudent approach to provide financial assurances for long-term 
treatment of pollutional discharges is to allow the permittee to 
establish a dedicated income-producing account, such as a trust fund or 
annuity or both, that is held by a third party as trustee for the 
regulatory authority. Neither trust funds nor annuities are 
specifically defined in WVSCMRA or SMCRA. However, we have previously 
recognized and approved trust funds as a form of collateral bond, as 
well as an alternative bonding mechanism. See 70 FR 25472 (May 13, 
2005), amended at 70 FR 52916 (May 13, 2005); and 75 FR 48526 (August 
10, 2010). In addition, trust funds and annuities are approved as 
options for bonding long-term pollutional discharges in Tennessee under 
our implemented Federal regulatory program. See 30 CFR 942.800(c).
    Trust funds and annuities give the permittee a mechanism to 
generate a revenue stream to fund long-term treatment of pollutional 
discharges. See 72 FR 9615 (March 2, 2007). Under the provisions West 
Virginia proposes, the income stream from a fully funded trust fund or 
annuity will be used to fund treatment of postmining pollutional 
discharges (including maintenance, renovation, and replacement of 
treatment and support facilities as needed) and the reclamation of the 
sites upon which treatment facilities are located and areas used in 
support of those facilities. The trust fund or annuity will be employed 
in a manner to ensure final bond release is not permitted until all 
reclamation is completed and all pollutional discharges are eliminated 
or otherwise cease to exist. The provisions West Virginia has proposed 
are identical to those we promulgated for the Tennessee program at 30 
CFR 942.780(c), with the exception of certain agency names and internal 
citations consistent with the existence and use of these trusts and 
annuities in West Virginia under the

[[Page 19266]]

approved West Virginia program. We have determined that West Virginia's 
addition of special consideration for sites with long-term postmining 
pollutional discharges is in accordance with the provisions of SMCRA 
and consistent with its implementing Federal regulations, and we 
approve of its addition.
    a. CSR 38-2-11.4--Incremental Bonding. West Virginia proposes to 
amend this section to reflect the counterpart language found at 30 CFR 
800.11.
    OSMRE Findings: West Virginia's revised language is substantively 
identical to the Federal counterpart provisions of 30 CFR 800.11 that 
include incremental bonding. In its revision, West Virginia eliminates 
a prohibition in paragraph 11.4.a.2. that reads: ``Once the operator 
has chosen to proceed with bonding either the entire permit area or 
with incremental bonding, he shall continue bonding in that manner for 
the term of the permit.'' The provision sought to be removed from the 
West Virginia regulations is contained verbatim in W.Va. Code 22-3-
11(a), which will remain in effect. This limitation binding the 
operator's decision to bond either the entire permit or by increments 
for the life of the permit is not in the Federal regulations or 
otherwise required under the Federal program. Removing this limitation 
from the West Virginia regulations does not render the proposal less 
effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we approve the 
revisions proposed in CSR 38-2-11.4.
    b. CSR 38-2-11.6--Environmental Security Account for Water 
Quality-- West Virginia is proposing the removal of subsection 11.6, 
which requires WVDEP to study the desirability of developing an 
environmental security account for water quality. Subdivisions (a) 
through (e) called for the inclusion of: (a) a screening process for 
determining which sites have the potential for producing acid mine 
drainage, (b) a process for predicting the rate and duration of acid 
mine drainage, (c) a method for estimating water treatment costs, (d) a 
system to ensure that sufficient monies will be placed in an escrow 
account to provide financial assurance that treatment will be 
accomplished and maintained, and (e) procedures to ensure the 
expenditure of funds from the escrow account in the event of default 
will provide water treatment. Furthermore, subdivision 11.6.f provides 
that after the study is completed, the Secretary of WVDEP may propose 
regulations to implement the environmental security account for water 
quality, but the regulations will not become effective until approved 
by the legislature. Subdivision 11.6.g provides that the Secretary of 
WVDEP will inform the legislature if statutory changes are necessary to 
implement an effective system for financial assurances. Subdivision 
11.6.h provides that no changes proposed by this subsection shall 
authorize in any way the issuance of a permit in which acid mine 
drainage is anticipated and which would violate applicable effluent 
limitations or water quality standards without treatment. Because this 
study was completed, West Virginia is deleting this provision from its 
program.
    OSMRE Findings: We approved these provisions as part of a decision 
on the solvency of West Virginia's alternative bonding system on 
October 4, 1995 (60 FR 51900). This provision required WVDEP to prepare 
a report and submit it to the West Virginia Legislature within 240 days 
so that options could be developed to ensure the solvency of West 
Virginia's alternative bonding system. The study, entitled ``Acid Mine 
Drainage Bond Forfeiture Report'' was completed and submitted to the 
West Virginia Legislature on December 31, 1993. This specific provision 
did not modify any duties or functions under the approved West Virginia 
program.
    We determined that the development of an environmental security 
account for water quality could enhance the financial status of the 
State's special reclamation fund. We noted at the time that there was 
no correlating Federal provision and that any amendments to the program 
implemented as a result of the study would have to be approved by us. 
West Virginia completed the study and has taken various actions and 
approaches towards addressing the solvency of its alternative bonding 
system since that time.
    The deletion of this specific provision will not have an adverse 
impact on the ability or the obligation of the West Virginia 
Alternative Bonding System to meet the criteria in 30 CFR 800.11(e), 
and we are approving its removal. The renumbering of remaining sections 
38-2-11.7 to 38-2-11.6 is likewise approved. This finding does not 
express an opinion on the solvency or status of the State's alternative 
bonding systems.
4. CSR 38-2-12. Replacement, Release and Forfeiture of Bonds
    a. CSR 38-2-12.2.a--West Virginia proposes to add, move, and revise 
language at CSR 38-2-12.2.a.3; 38-2-12.2.a.4; 38-2-12.2.a.4.A; and 38-
2-12.2.a.4.B related to bond release. West Virginia proposes requiring, 
at paragraph 12.2.a.3, that the applicant provide a notarized statement 
certifying applicable reclamation activities have been accomplished. In 
addition, West Virginia proposes to restructure and revise existing 
language from CSR 38-2-12.2.e, e.1, and e.2 to proposed CSR 38-2-
12.2.a.4, a.4.A, and a.4.B. Proposed CSR 38-2-12.2.a.4 maintains but 
modifies the limitation on the release or reduction of bond if water 
discharged from or affected by an operation requires chemical or 
passive treatment in order to comply with effluent limitations. West 
Virginia removed ``or water quality standards'' from the limitation 
along with other verbiage modifications. The revised language also 
modifies an existing prohibition to allow bond release to now be 
considered for Phases II and III on sites with a discharge requiring 
treatment so long as the remaining bond or other qualifying financial 
assurance is adequate to assure long term treatment. Currently, only 
Phase I bond release may be considered under these circumstances. As 
proposed, if the applicant demonstrates that the remaining bond is 
adequate to assure long term treatment or the operator has provided 
irrevocable financial assurances, WVDEP may approve and release the 
excess portions of the bond. The application must address, at a 
minimum, the current and projected quantity and quality of drainage to 
be treated, the anticipated duration of treatment, and the estimated 
capital and operating cost of the treatment facility, as well as the 
calculations that demonstrate the adequacy of the remaining bond or 
financial assurance. Proposed CSR 38-2-12.a.4.A makes no changes to 
existing CSR 38-2-12.e.1. Proposed CSR 38-2-12.a.4.B rephrases portions 
of existing CSR 38-2-12.e.1, adds references to the Federal and state 
statutes governing water quality treatment, removes a proviso that the 
alternate arrangement provides a mechanism by which WVDEP can assume 
the treatment work in the event of the operator's default, and deletes 
language stating that default on the treatment obligation ``shall be 
considered equivalent to a bond forfeiture,'' while retaining that 
default will subject the operator to penalties and sanctions, including 
permit blocking.
    OSMRE Findings: CSR 38-2-12.2.a.3 is identical to the Federal 
provision at 30 CFR 800.40(a)(3), which requires certification of all 
reclamation activities, except West Virginia references ``the rules 
promulgated thereof'' instead of ``the regulatory program.'' This 
difference is merely editorial; therefore, we are approving this 
provision. CSR

[[Page 19267]]

38-2-12.2.a.4.A is identical to CSR 38-2-12.2.e.1 as we approved it in 
the July 24, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 38382), and so we are 
approving its move.
    The provisions at CSR 38-2-12.2.a.4 and 12.2.a.4.B include some 
revisions to the language we approved in the July 24, 1996, Federal 
Register (61 FR 38382). While moving the language, West Virginia has 
excised ``or water quality standards'' from the previously approved 
phrase ``effluent limitations or water quality standards.'' However, 
West Virginia's performance standards at CSR 38-2-14.5.b., both the 
existing version and after the revisions we are approving below, 
describe ``effluent limitations'' broadly, incorporating all applicable 
water quality laws and regulations. Therefore, we are approving this 
change.
    Next, West Virginia revises the language of paragraph 12.2.a.4 to 
allow Phase II and Phase III bond release to be considered for sites 
with a discharge requiring treatment, where the existing paragraph only 
allows Phase I release. The two subparagraphs, 4.A and 4.B, allow 
release only when the remaining bond is adequate to assure long term 
treatment or the operator provides an irrevocable financial assurance 
adequate to provide long term treatment. This is consistent with our 
decisions approving treatment trusts and annuities in Pennsylvania, see 
70 FR 25472, 25474 (May 13, 2005) (approving 52 P.S. 1396.4(g)(3) 
authorizing Phase III bond release when the operator has made 
provisions for ``the sound future treatment of pollutional discharges'' 
and other relevant requirements are met), and Tennessee, see 72 FR 
9636, 9619, 9625-26 (March 2, 2007) (promulgating 30 CFR 942.800(c)(9) 
providing for the release of conventional bonds upon providing a fully-
funded trust or annuity to provide for treatment and otherwise meeting 
reclamation requirements). However, in those approvals we explained 
that the release of conventional bonds cannot occur until the long-term 
irrevocable financial assurance is in place and fully funded and other 
reclamation obligations have been completed and that the remaining site 
required for treatment must remain bonded but the long-term financial 
assurance may act as that bond. We also explained that this action is a 
form of partial bond release in accordance with 30 CFR 800.40(c). West 
Virginia provides these requirements in the proposed regulations 
authorizing treatment trusts and annuities at CSR 38-2-11.3.f.8 and 
f.9, discussed and approved above. However, CSR 38-2-12.2.a.4 and a.4.B 
are not limited to trust funds and annuities. They apply generally to 
any irrevocable financial assurance in a form satisfactory to WVDEP, 
which could include, for example, a dedicated escrow account funded 
through monthly deposits, see CSR 38-2-11.3.e.2.B.1. West Virginia's 
escrow account provisions do not separately require the account to be 
fully funded before all phases of the bond may be released. The broader 
application of paragraph 12.2.a.4 and subparagraph a.4.B justify the 
two provisos, which West Virginia proposes to delete, that the 
arrangement allow for WVDEP's management of treatment in the event of 
default and that default ``shall be considered equivalent to a bond 
forfeiture.'' We did not expressly discuss those provisos when we 
initially approved them under CSR 38-2-12.2.e.2. See 61 FR 38382, 
38384-85 (July 24, 1996). While these provisos might be redundant or 
unnecessary when the irrevocable financial assurance is a trust fund 
(where WVDEP is the trustee and the trust is not collected like a 
bond), they might be necessary where the financial assurance takes a 
different form, such as a dedicated escrow account, which is allowed to 
be funded in monthly installments and would require forfeiting upon 
default. The proposed revisions would leave financial security 
arrangements other than trust funds and annuities without a set of 
safeguards to ensure they are fully funded and that a permitted site 
remains. Therefore, the revisions would render the West Virginia 
program less effective than the Federal regulations concerning bond 
release at 30 CFR 800.40 and less stringent than the requirements of 
SMCRA. Therefore, we are approving the renumbering of, and revisions 
to, CSR 38-2-12.2.a.4 and a.4.B except the following: from subdivision 
12.2.e, now paragraph 12.2.e.4, the deletion of the phrase ``Phase I 
but not Phase II or III'' from the last sentence; and from paragraph 
12.2.e.2, now subparagraph 12.2.a.4.B, deletion of the proviso that the 
financial arrangement provide a mechanism whereby WVDEP can assume 
management of the resource and treatment work in the event of operator 
default, and deletion of the proviso that default is considered 
equivalent to a bond forfeiture. Our decision regarding these 
provisions does not affect our approval above of CSR 38-2-11.3.f.8 and 
f.9 related specifically to the release of conventional bonds where 
trust funds and annuities meet all applicable requirements.
    b. CSR 38-2-12.2.c.--West Virginia proposes to modify its existing 
language in this section covering the release of bonds to make it 
substantively identical to the Federal regulations found at 30 CFR 
800.40(c). West Virginia is revising language with respect to the WVDEP 
Secretary's authority to release all or part of the bond for the entire 
permit or incremental area if they are satisfied that all reclamation 
or a phase of the reclamation covered by the bond has been accomplished 
in accordance with the schedules for reclamation Phases I, II, and III. 
Through its restructured language, West Virginia has removed the 
specific limitations relevant to open-acre permit bonding (i.e., that 
all coal extraction operations for the permit or increment thereof are 
completed and that the entire disturbed area for the permit or 
increment thereof has been completely backfilled and regraded before 
bond release), and moved the former prohibitions and requirements 
associated with bond release on sites with water discharges requiring 
treatment to the preceding section. In addition, West Virginia has 
eliminated the previously approved requirement that no violations exist 
relative to the permitted site before bond is released.
    In its proposed revision of CSR 38-2-12.2.c.1, while mirroring the 
language of 30 CFR 800.40(c)(1), West Virginia eliminates specific 
references to compliance with the WVSCMRA, its implementing rules, and 
the terms and conditions of the permit, as well as a specific inclusive 
reference to the need to meet all requirements pertaining to 
maintaining the hydrologic balance before a Phase I bond release may 
occur.
    In its proposed revision of CSR 38-2-12.2.c.2, West Virginia has 
eliminated the specified amount (25 percent) that is to be returned 
upon a Phase II bond release and has eliminated the minimum two-year 
waiting period after the last augmented seeding standards have been met 
before a Phase II bond release may occur. As a result of the 
modifications, the remaining subsections are renumbered.
    In its proposed revision of CSR 38-2-12.2.c.3, West Virginia has 
adopted language from the Federal requirements pertaining to the 
conditions necessary for the release of a Phase III bond while 
excluding the requirement that ``all surface coal mining and 
reclamation activities'' be successfully completed before Phase III 
bond release. See 30 CFR 800.40(c)(3). West Virginia's proposal is that 
``reclamation activities'' be complete before any such release.
    OSMRE Findings: Through its restructured language, West Virginia 
looks to simplify and revise its existing provisions with respect to 
the release of bonds to more closely model Federal

[[Page 19268]]

language. However, West Virginia's approved program uses an alternative 
bonding system. This system requires extensive consideration of 
multiple interdependent factors in arriving at and maintaining a 
particular bond amount. Through its proposed restructured language, 
West Virginia is proposing the removal of the specific limitation 
relevant to open-acre bonding that all coal extraction operations for 
the permit or increment thereof are completed and that the entire 
disturbed area for the permit or increment thereof has been completely 
backfilled and regraded before bond release. In the original approval 
of this provision, we found: ``The State proposes to add new 
[subdivision 12.2.d] to prohibit the release of any portion of the 
bonds posted in accordance with subsection 11.5 (open-acre limit 
bonding) until all coal extraction operations are completed and the 
entire disturbed area has been completely backfilled and regraded. 
Because of the floating nature of this type of bond, this restriction 
is needed to provide a degree of protection consistent with other types 
of site-specific bond authorized under the alternative bonding 
system.'' 60 FR 51908 (October 4, 1995). Having previously found that 
these restrictions were necessary as part of the alternative bonding 
system, absent any rationale or alternative measures demonstrating why 
this provision is no longer necessary, we do not approve the change. 
Likewise, as discussed above, the restrictions regarding sites with 
water discharges are also relevant to bond release. Therefore, the 
existing introductory language ``except as provided in subdivisions 
12.2.d and 12.2.e'' at CSR 38-2-12.2.c. is retained. We are approving 
an editorial correction that is necessary to correct the now changed 
reference from ``12.2.e'' to ``12.2.a.4.''
    In its proposed revision of 38-2-12.2.c.1, West Virginia proposes 
the elimination of requirements to comply with ``the Act, this rule, 
and the terms and conditions of the permit'' as well as the elimination 
of the specific inclusive reference of the need to meet all 
requirements pertaining to maintaining the hydrologic balance before a 
Phase I bond release may occur. These references are eliminated in 
favor of the Federal language that requires compliance with the 
``approved reclamation plan.'' Unlike the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
780.18, the approved West Virginia regulations do not include a 
specific provision defining the requirements of the ``reclamation 
plan.'' However, W.Va. Code 22-3-10 identifies the extensive 
requirements for a reclamation plan and requires them to be included 
``in the degree of detail necessary to demonstrate that reclamation 
required by [WVSCMRA] can be accomplished.'' This provision of WVSCMRA 
remains in effect. When taken together, removal of the requirement 
references in this section of the West Virginia regulations in favor of 
the encompassing section of the WVSCMRA does not render the program 
less stringent than SMCRA or less effective than the Federal 
regulations. Therefore, we are approving the revisions proposed in 38-
2-12.2.c.1.
    With respect to the proposed revision of CSR 38-2-12.2.c.2, 
eliminating the specified amount (25 percent) that is to be returned 
upon a Phase II bond release, and CSR 38-2-12.2.c.2.A, eliminating the 
minimum two-year waiting period after the last augmented seeding before 
revegetation standards may be met for a Phase II bond release to occur, 
the Federal regulations neither specify an amount of bond to be 
released upon Phase II nor do they proscribe a time period for the 
determination that revegetation has been established for the purpose of 
Phase II bond release. Rather, the Federal regulations give the 
regulatory authority discretion to determine what amount of bonding is 
adequate to complete all required reclamation and to determine when 
successful revegetation has been established. See 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2); 
see also 48 FR 32932, 32953 (July 19, 1983) (removing a 25 percent 
Phase II maximum bond release from the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
800.40(c)(2)). As we note in our findings above about revision to CSR 
9.3.d, the two-year requirement was more stringent than the Federal 
requirements, which contain no direct counterpart. The remaining 
provisions direct the standards of revegetation and obligate WVDEP to 
inspect and determine whether those standards are met. Therefore, we 
approve of those revisions because they are no less effective than the 
Federal regulations. We also approve of the renumbering of 
subparagraphs in CSR 38-2-12.2.c.2. We note separately that West 
Virginia has also proposed to remove the 25 percent Phase II maximum 
bond release from its statutes at W.Va. Code 22-3-23(c)(1)(B). We have 
not yet acted on that program amendment, docketed at WV-125-FOR and 
published as proposed in the April 8, 2019, Federal Register (84 FR 
13853), but that has no effect on our approval of the instant revision 
deleting that requirement from the regulations.
    In its proposed revision of CSR 38-2-12.2.c.3, West Virginia 
proposes to adopt some of the language from the Federal requirements 
pertaining to the conditions necessary before the release of all or 
part of a Phase III bond while excluding the requirement that ``all 
surface coal mining and reclamation activities'' be successfully 
completed. Instead, West Virginia proposes only that ``successful 
reclamation activities'' be completed as a condition precedent to any 
Phase III bond release. However, W.Va. Code 22-3-23, both before and 
after the revisions West Virginia proposes under WV-125-FOR, contains 
the full language ``all surface coal mining and reclamation 
activities.'' Despite the omission of ``surface coal mining'' in West 
Virginia's proposed regulation, its statutory inclusion of ``all 
surface coal mining and reclamation activities'' will control how West 
Virginia implements the regulation. Therefore, we are approving the 
proposed change because it is not less effective than the Federal 
regulations.
    c. CSR 38-2-12.2.d.--West Virginia proposes to eliminate the 
existing prohibition on bond release for any site-specific bonding 
(i.e., open-acre bonding) until all coal extraction is completed and 
the disturbed area is completely backfilled and regraded.
    OSMRE Findings: As noted in our finding 4.b. above, having 
previously found that these restrictions were necessary as part of the 
alternative bonding system, absent there being any rationale or 
alternative measures provided demonstrating why this provision is no 
longer necessary, we do not approve the removal of existing CSR 38-2-
12.2.d, and the existing language is retained.
    d. CSR 38-2-12.2.e.--West Virginia proposes to restructure and 
revise existing approved language in this section and move it to 38-2-
12.2.a.4.
    OSMRE Findings: As is set forth above in our finding 4.a., the 
proposed revisions to this language are not approved, and, therefore, 
the existing language in CSR 38-2-12.2.e is retained.
    e. CSR 38-2-12.2.f.--West Virginia proposes to move, unchanged, 
this existing language to CSR 38-2-12.2.d. as a result of other 
proposed revisions.
    OSMRE Findings: As is set forth above in this document, we did not 
approve the proposed revisions to CSR 38-2-12.2.d, which affected the 
renumbering of this provision; thus, we are also not approving the 
proposed movement of this language to CSR 38-2-12.2.d. The existing 
language in CSR 38-2-12.2.f is retained.
    f. CSR 38-2-12.2.g.--West Virginia proposes to move, unchanged, 
this existing language to CSR 38-2-12.2.f as a result of other proposed 
revisions.

[[Page 19269]]

West Virginia also proposes to include a new provision for CSR 38-2-
12.2.g, anticipating the aforementioned move, outlining the Secretary's 
authority to conduct a hearing on objections.
    OSMRE Findings: As is set forth above in this document, we did not 
approve the proposed revisions, which affected the renumbering of this 
existing provision. Therefore, we are not approving the proposed 
movement of existing language to CSR 38-2-12.2.f, and the existing 
language in CSR 38-2-12.2.g is retained. We are, however, approving 
West Virginia's additional language outlining the Secretary's authority 
in conducting a hearing on objections to bond release, which mirrors 
the Federal counterpart at 30 CFR 800.40(g). We also approve of an 
editorial correction that is necessary to correct the now changed 
reference from ``12.2.f'' to ``12.2.g'' or ``this paragraph''.
    g. CSR 38-2-12.2.h.--Without change to the existing language, West 
Virginia proposes to both renumber existing CSR 38-2-12.2.h to 12.2.i 
and to insert it as a new CSR 38-2-12.2.h.
    OSMRE Findings: As is set forth above in this document, we did not 
approve the proposed revisions, which affected the renumbering of this 
existing provision. Therefore, the proposed renumbering of this section 
to CSR 38-2-12.2.i is not necessary and would result in duplicative 
sections, and we are not approving these revisions. The existing 
language in CSR 38-2-12.2.h is retained.
    h. CSR 38-2-12.4.a.2.B.--In its section dealing with the forfeiture 
of bonds, West Virginia proposes to add and delete language in this 
section to make it substantively identical to the Federal regulations 
found at 30 CFR 800.50. West Virginia is proposing to revise CSR 38-2-
12.4.a.2.B to include a specific reference to the exception that allows 
the Secretary to approve partial surety liability release.
    OSMRE Findings: The inclusion of the reference to the exception 
mirrors the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.50(a)(2)(ii). The 
additional reference and rephrasing do not render the proposal less 
effective than the Federal regulations, and we therefore approve these 
revisions.
    i. CSR 38-2-12.4.b.--In this section, West Virginia is proposing to 
revise and eliminate specific references to the purposes that bond 
proceeds should be used for upon forfeiture, including rules governing 
water quality. In revised CSR 38-2-12.4.b.1 and 12.4.b.2, West Virginia 
incorporates and adopts language mirroring 30 CFR 800.50(b)(1) and (2), 
which identifies the steps to be undertaken upon forfeiture and the 
authorized use of those funds for completing the reclamation plan, or 
portion thereof, on the permit area or increment to which the bond 
coverage applies.
    OSMRE Findings: In CSR 38-2-12.4.b, 4.b.1, and 4.b.2, West Virginia 
proposes to incorporate and adopt language mirroring that of the 
Federal regulations. While the inclusion of references to specific 
provisions pertaining to water quality have been removed in the 
revision of this subsection to mirror the Federal counterparts, the 
obligations of the West Virginia program to require adequate financial 
assurance for the treatment of pollution discharges and to use those 
funds upon forfeiture to complete the reclamation plan, as that 
requirement is set forth in W.Va. Code 22-3-10, including requirements 
related to water quality, have not been altered or removed. We are 
approving these provisions because the requirements to satisfy 
obligations related to water quality remain in place.
    j. CSR 38-2-12.4.c.--In this section, West Virginia revises 
existing language to incorporate and adopt language identical to 30 CFR 
800.50(c) further identifying measures the Secretary of WVDEP may take 
upon forfeiture. The revision eliminates an existing 180-day window for 
initiating operations to reclaim the site in accordance with the 
approved reclamation plan or modification thereof. The revised 
provision also removes the specific inclusion of taking the most 
effective actions possible to remediate acid mine drainage from the 
site, including chemical treatment where appropriate, with the 
resources available.
    OSMRE Findings: In CSR 38-2-12.4.c, the proposed revision mirrors 
the Federal regulations, which do not include a specific time frame for 
initiating reclamation operations or a specific reference to actions 
related to the treatment of acid mine drainage. However, West Virginia 
uses an approved alternative bond system that is designed to achieve 
the objectives and purposes of section 509 of SMCRA as implemented by 
30 CFR 800.11(e)(1). As noted previously, West Virginia's Special 
Reclamation Fund has been the subject of amendments, some required by 
us, imposed to address inadequacies of the system, to eliminate the 
deficit in the State's alternative bonding system, to ensure that 
sufficient money will be available to complete reclamation, including 
the treatment of polluted water discharged from all bond forfeiture 
sites, and to specify that moneys from the Special Reclamation Fund 
must be used, where needed, to pay for water treatment on bond 
forfeiture sites. These amendments were approved, and required 
amendments removed, in part, based upon the revisions made to W.Va. 
Code 22-3-11 and this section of the regulations. See, e.g., 60 FR 
51900 (Oct. 4, 1995); 66 FR 67446 (Dec. 28, 2001); and 67 FR 37610 (May 
29, 2002).
    Section 509(c) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 800.11(e) both imply that the 
funds held for reclamation must be readily available. Specifically, 30 
CFR 800.11(e)(1) specifies that an alternative bonding system must 
ensure that ``the regulatory authority will have sufficient money to 
complete the reclamation plan for any areas which may be in default at 
any time.'' Through our past approvals, we have expressed reservations 
about the notion of prioritizing bond forfeited sites insofar as it 
could imply deviating from the requirements of 30 CFR 800.11(e)(1). 
However, relying upon the State's regulations at CSR 38-2-12.4(c), 
which provide that reclamation operations must be initiated within 180 
days following final forfeiture notice, we found assurance that the 
requirement that all sites for which bonds are posted be reclaimed in 
accordance with their reclamation plans and that all sites for which 
bonds were posted be properly and timely reclaimed would be fulfilled. 
See 60 FR 51900, 51901 (Oct. 4, 1995) and 67 FR 37610, 37616 (May 29, 
2002). The removal of this timing provision would nullify previous 
corrections to the program and would render the program less effective 
than the bond forfeiture provisions at section 509(a) of SMCRA and 30 
CFR 800.50(b)(2), or the alternative bonding system criteria of 30 CFR 
800.11(e). Therefore, we are not approving this revision, and the 
existing language at CSR 38-2-12.4.c is retained.
    k. CSR 38-2-12.4.d--In this section, West Virginia revises existing 
language to incorporate and adopt language substantively similar to 
that of 30 CFR 800.50(d), identifying procedures to follow when the 
amount forfeited is insufficient to pay the full cost of reclamation. 
Specifically, West Virginia proposes to provide that the Secretary will 
make expenditures out of the Special Reclamation Fund to complete the 
reclamation of the bonded area and that the Secretary may recover all 
costs of reclamation in excess of the amount forfeited from the 
operator or permittee. The revision excludes the specific reference to 
the statement that the Secretary of WVDEP shall take the most effective 
actions possible to remediate acid mine drainage from the site, 
including chemical treatment where

[[Page 19270]]

appropriate, with the resources available.
    OSMRE Findings: The revised language incorporates and adopts 
language substantively similar to that of 30 CFR 800.50(d), modifying 
it to reflect West Virginia's use of an alternative bonding system, the 
Special Reclamation Fund. Although the revision of this subsection 
excludes the specific reference to the statement that the Secretary 
shall take the most effective actions possible to remediate acid mine 
drainage from the site, including chemical treatment where appropriate, 
with the resources available, the West Virginia Code 22-3-11(h)(2) 
contains such an instruction, and the obligations of the West Virginia 
program to timely reclaim forfeited sites, including remediating acid 
mine drainage, has not been altered or removed. Therefore, we approve 
this revision.
5. CSR 38-2-12.5--Water Quality Enhancement
    West Virginia proposes to delete subsection 12.5 of the West 
Virginia regulations, which directs WVDEP's collection, analysis, and 
reporting on sites where a bond has been forfeited including, in 
particular, data relating to the quality of water being discharged from 
forfeited sites. Subdivision 12.5.a requires the Secretary of WVDEP to 
establish an inventory of all sites for which bonds have been 
forfeited. The inventory is to include data relating to the quality of 
water being discharged from the sites. Subdivision 12.5.b requires a 
priority listing of these sites based upon the severity of the 
discharges, the quality of the receiving stream, effects on downstream 
water users, and other factors determined to affect the priority 
ranking. Subdivision 12.5.c provides that, until the legislature 
supplements or adjusts the special reclamation fund, the Secretary of 
WVDEP can selectively choose sites from the inventory for water quality 
enhancement projects. Subdivision 12.5.d provides that, in selecting 
sites for water improvement projects, the Secretary of WVDEP must 
consider relative benefits and costs of the projects. Subdivision 
12.5.e requires the Secretary of WVDEP to submit to the legislature, on 
an annual basis, a detailed report and inventory of acid mine drainage 
from bond forfeiture sites.
    OSMRE Findings: This provision was originally added to the West 
Virginia regulations in 1995 to implement W.Va. Code 22-3-11(g), which 
authorizes WVDEP's actions with respect to bond forfeitures. There is 
no companion Federal regulation because West Virginia uses an approved 
alternative bond system that is designed to achieve the objectives and 
purposes of section 509 of SMCRA as implemented by 30 CFR 800.11(e)(1). 
As noted previously, the Special Reclamation Fund has been the subject 
of various amendments, some required by us, imposed to address 
inadequacies of the system, to eliminate the deficit in the State's 
alternative bonding system, and to ensure that sufficient money will be 
available to complete reclamation. This obligation includes the 
treatment of polluted water discharged from all bond forfeiture sites 
and a requirement that moneys from the Special Reclamation Fund must be 
used, where needed, to pay for water treatment on bond forfeiture 
sites. These amendments were approved, and required amendments removed, 
in part, based upon the revisions made to W.Va. Code 22-3-11 and this 
section of the regulations. See, e.g., 60 FR 51900 (Oct. 4, 1995); 66 
FR 67446 (Dec. 28, 2001); and 67 FR 37610 (May 29, 2002).
    An important component of our approval of the required amendments 
was the fact that West Virginia had previously established, at W.Va. 
Code 22-1-17, the Special Reclamation Fund Advisory Council (Advisory 
Council) to oversee the State's alternative bonding system. One of the 
duties of the Advisory Council is to study the effectiveness, 
efficiency, and financial stability of the Special Reclamation Fund and 
the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. These funds are managed by 
the Office of Special Reclamation (OSR) under the Advisory Council. The 
OSR adjusts monies to pay for water treatment at bond forfeiture sites 
and ensures that the Fund is effectively used by approval of the 
Advisory Council. The Special Reclamation Fund is adjusted to pay for 
reclamation of forfeiture sites. The Secretary of WVDEP provides 
recommendations on how best to effectively ensure acid mine drainage is 
addressed in reports to the Legislature.
    Another duty of the Advisory Council, as provided by W.Va. Code 22-
1-17(f)(5), is to contract with a qualified actuary on a regular basis 
to determine the Fund's fiscal soundness and to conduct annual informal 
reviews of the Special Reclamation Fund. The actuarial studies and the 
annual informal financial reviews of the Special Reclamation Fund 
assist WVDEP and the State in ensuring that sufficient money will be 
available to complete land reclamation and water treatment at existing 
and future bond forfeiture sites within the State, a requirement that 
parallels the criterion for approval of a State's alternative bonding 
system under 30 CFR 800.11(e)(1).
    A necessary component of the ability to conduct these studies, and 
to fulfill the requirements of the alternative bond system itself, is 
the compilation of data as is directed under existing CSR 38-2-12.5.a. 
Removing the requirement to maintain an inventory would impede 
successful analysis as is required under the West Virginia Code and 
implementing regulations and would thwart the efforts put in place to 
address the required amendments. Therefore, removal would render the 
program less effective than the Federal requirements, and we do not 
approve of its removal. The existing language of CSR 38-2-12.5.a is 
retained.
    Section 509(c) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 800.11(e) are silent on the 
question of prioritizing bond forfeited sites for reclamation, but both 
imply that the funds held for reclamation must be readily available. 
Specifically, 30 CFR 800.11(e)(1) specifies that an alternative bonding 
system must ensure that ``the regulatory authority will have sufficient 
money to complete the reclamation plan for any areas which may be in 
default at any time.'' Through our past approvals, we have expressed 
reservations about the notion of prioritization insofar as it could 
imply deviating from the requirements of 30 CFR 800.11(e)(1). However, 
because the State's regulations at CSR 38-2-12.4.c provide that 
reclamation operations must be initiated within 180 days following 
final forfeiture notice, a planning process for selection and 
prioritization of sites to be reclaimed was determined to not adversely 
impact the requirement that all sites for which bonds are posted be 
reclaimed in accordance with their reclamation plans, and that all 
sites for which bonds were posted be properly and timely reclaimed. 
Therefore, the removal of the prioritization language proposed in CSR 
38-2-12.5.b; 38-2-12.5.c; and 38-2-12.5.d is consistent with the bond 
forfeiture provisions at section 509(a) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 
800.50(b)(2), or the alternative bonding system criteria of 30 CFR 
800.11(e), and we approve of its removal. See also 60 FR 51901 (Oct. 4, 
1995).
    As addressed above in our disapproval in CSR 38-2-12.5.a, a 
necessary component of the ability to fulfill the requirements of the 
alternative bond system is the compilation, review, and reporting of 
relevant data on a regular basis. West Virginia Code requires no less. 
See W.Va. Code 22-3-11 and 22-1-17. The specifics of the report as 
directed in

[[Page 19271]]

existing CSR 38-2-12.5.e provide implementing details consistent with 
the requirements established in the West Virginia Code. Removing the 
minimum details to be contained in the report and inventory would 
impede successful analysis as is required under the West Virginia Code 
and implementing regulations and would thwart the efforts put in place 
to address the previous required amendments. Removal, without any 
indication of replacement, would render the program less effective than 
the Federal requirements, and we do not approve of its removal. The 
existing language of CSR 38-2-12.5.e is retained and may be renumbered 
accordingly in response to the approved removals in this section.
6. CSR 38-2-14--Performance Standards
    38-2-14.5.b--Effluent Limitations--West Virginia proposes to revise 
language in this subdivision to make it identical to the Federal 
regulations found at 30 CFR 816.42. West Virginia removes a reference 
to ``the standards set forth in [National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES)] permits'' and the authorizing statutes for 
those permits, replacing these references with the requirement to be in 
compliance with all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and 
regulations, including effluent limitations for coal mining promulgated 
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    OSMRE Findings: The revised language mirrors the counterpart 
Federal provision. By mirroring the Federal provision, the revised 
subdivision becomes more comprehensive in scope, incorporating the 
NPDES standards despite removing the specific reference. Therefore, 
revised subdivision 14.5.b is no less effective than the Federal 
counterpart regulation at 30 CFR 816.42, and we approve the revision.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the WV-118 amendment in the 
proposed rule notice published in the November 2, 2011, Federal 
Register (76 FR 67637). We did not receive any comments.
    We asked for public comments on the WV-126 amendment in the 
proposed rule notice published in the February 14, 2020, Federal 
Register (85 FR 8497). We received one comment. This comment is 
summarized and addressed below.
    The commenter stated that they live in the southern part of West 
Virginia and rely on the legal advertisements in their local newspaper 
for the opportunity to participate in the permitting process on surface 
mining operations near their local residence. The commenter noted that 
not all citizens residing in West Virginia have the ways or means to 
access internet services and that to a person on a fixed income buying 
a local newspaper is less costly than obtaining internet service. They 
believe that by not advertising in the local newspaper people will be 
at a disadvantage to participate in the permitting process.
    OSMRE Response: We are disapproving revisions to W.Va. Code 22-3-9 
and 22-3-20 based on the fact that the proposed amendment is less 
stringent than sections 507(b)(6) and 513 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 
1257(b)(6) and 1263) and less effective than the Federal regulation at 
30 CFR 773.6, which specifically requires that permit applications, 
significant revisions, or renewal of a permit shall be announced in an 
advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation in the 
locality of the mining and reclamation operation at least once a week 
for four consecutive weeks.

Federal Agency Comments

    On March 5, 2020, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) 
of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal 
agencies with an actual or potential interest in West Virginia 
amendment WV-126 (Administrative Record No. WV-1634). We did not 
receive any comments.
    On September 22, 2011, we requested comments on the amendment from 
various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in West 
Virginia amendment WV-118 (Administrative Record No. WV-1570). We did 
not receive any comments.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written 
concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendments 
that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the 
authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean 
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The only change related to water 
standards is to change WVDEP's regulation to mirror the Federal 
regulation, which has already received concurrence from EPA. Therefore, 
we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation (ACHP)

    Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from 
the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic 
properties. On March 5, 2020, we requested comments on West Virginia 
amendment WV-126 (Administrative Record No.WV-1634). We did not receive 
comments from the SHPO or ACHP.
    On September 22, 2011, we requested comments on the West Virginia 
amendment WV-118 (Administrative Record Numbers WV-1570). We did not 
receive comments from the SHPO or ACHP.

V. OSMRE's Decision

    Based on the above findings:
    1. We are approving in part the amendment (WV-126) that West 
Virginia sent to us on May 2, 2018 (Administrative Record No. WV-1613-A 
and WV-1613-B).
    2. We are not approving revisions to W.Va. Code 22-3-9 and 22-3-20 
because the proposed revisions render the West Virginia program less 
stringent than sections 507(b)(6) and 513 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 
1257(b)(6) and 1263) and less effective than the corresponding Federal 
regulation at 30 CFR 773.6, which require that permit applications, 
significant revisions, or renewal of a permit must be announced in an 
advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation in the 
locality of the mining and reclamation operation at least once a week 
for four consecutive weeks.
    3. We are not approving CSR 38-2-12.2.d, .e, .f, .g and .h, the 
elimination of the existing prohibition on bond release for any site 
specific bonding (i.e., open-acre bonding) until all coal extraction is 
completed and the disturbed area is completely backfilled and regraded 
because these restrictions were necessary as part of the alternative 
bonding system, absent there being any rationale or alternative 
measures provided demonstrating why this provision is no longer 
necessary. We are also not approving CSR 38-2-12.4.c, which would 
eliminate an existing 180-day window for initiating reclamation 
operations to reclaim a site in accordance with the approved 
reclamation plan or modification thereof. The removal of this timing 
provision would nullify previous corrections to the program and would 
render the West Virginia program less effective than the bond 
forfeiture provisions at section 509(a) of SMCRA

[[Page 19272]]

and 30 CFR 800.50(b)(2), or the alternative bonding system criteria of 
30 CFR 800.11(e). In addition, we are not approving proposed changes to 
CSR 38-2-12.5, which includes the deletion of subsection 12.5 of the 
West Virginia regulations that directs WVDEP's collection, analysis, 
and reporting on sites where bond has been forfeited, including, in 
particular, data relating to the quality of water being discharged from 
forfeited sites. Removal, without any indication of replacement, would 
render the West Virginia program less effective than the Federal 
requirements.
    4. We are approving the changes to CSR 38-2-11.3.f (WV-118) sent to 
us on April 25, 2011 (Administrative Record Number WV-1561), pertaining 
to financial assurance requirements (trust funds).
    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations 
at 30 CFR part 948 that codify decisions concerning the West Virginia 
program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule 
will take effect 30 days after the date of publication.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12630--Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    This rule would not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications that would result in public property 
being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. 
Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This 
determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal 
regulations.

Executive Orders 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review, 13563--
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 14094--Modernizing 
Regulatory Review

    Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, 
provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval 
of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive 
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Executive Order 
13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains 
this exemption.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required 
by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined that 
this Federal Register document meets the criteria of Section 3 of 
Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency 
review its legislation and proposed regulations to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity; that the agency write its legislation and 
regulations to minimize litigation; and that the agency's legislation 
and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct 
rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden 
reduction. Because Section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal 
legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under 
this Executive order to the quality of this Federal Register document 
and to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this 
Executive order did not extend to the language of the State regulatory 
program or to the program amendment that West Virginia drafted.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule has potential Federalism implications as defined under 
section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 13132 directs 
agencies to ``grant the States the maximum administrative discretion 
possible'' with respect to Federal statutes and regulations 
administered by the States. West Virginia, through its approved 
regulatory program, implements and administers SMCRA and its 
implementing regulations at the State level. This rule approves, in 
part, an amendment to the West Virginia program submitted and drafted 
by the State and disapproves elements of the amendment only to the 
extent necessary to ensure that the State program is ``in accordance 
with'' the requirements of SMCRA and ``consistent with'' the 
regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Therefore, this 
rule is consistent with the direction to provide maximum administrative 
discretion to States.

Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its 
government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment 
to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-
governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under 
the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in 
Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial 
direct effects on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Tribes. The basis for this 
determination is that our decision on the West Virginia program does 
not include Indian lands, as defined by SMCRA, or regulation of 
activities on Indian lands. Indian lands are regulated independently 
under the applicable approved Federal program. The Department's 
consultation policy also acknowledges that our rules may have Tribal 
implications where the State proposing the amendment encompasses 
ancestral lands in areas with mineable coal. We are currently working 
to identify and engage appropriate Tribal stakeholders to devise a 
constructive approach for consulting on these amendments.

Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of 
Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant 
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because 
this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not 
a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 
13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is 
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866; and this action does not address environmental 
health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 
1251(a) and 1292(d)) and the U.S. Department of the Interior 
Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), State program 
amendments are not major Federal actions within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)).

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) directs OSMRE to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. (OMB 
Circular

[[Page 19273]]

A-119 at p. 14). This action is not subject to the requirements of 
section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements 
would be inconsistent with SMCRA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not include requests and requirements of an 
individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and 
report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain 
information collection requirements, a submission to the Secretary of 
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.) is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject 
of this rule, is based upon corresponding Federal regulations for which 
an economic analysis was prepared, and certification made that such 
regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a 
substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to 
whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the 
Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the corresponding 
Federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) does not 
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not 
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic 
regions; and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis of the 
corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to 
constitute a major rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. This determination 
is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which 
were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Thomas D. Shope,
Regional Director, North Atlantic--Appalachian Region.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement amends 30 CFR part 948 as set forth 
below:

PART 948--WEST VIRGINIA

0
1. The authority citation for part 948 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.


0
2. Section 948.12 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  948.12  State statutory, regulatory, and proposed program 
amendment provisions not approved.

* * * * *
    (k) We are not approving the following provisions of the proposed 
West Virginia program amendments dated May 2, 2018:
    (1) At W.Va. Code 22-3-9, revisions substituting notice by 
newspaper with notice in a form and manner determined by the Secretary 
which may be electronic.
    (2) At W.Va. Code 22-3-20, revisions substituting notice by 
newspaper with notice in a form and manner determined by the Secretary 
which may be electronic.
    (3) At CSR 38-2-2.37, the removal of the definition ``completion of 
reclamation''
    (4) At CSR 38-2-12.2.d., the elimination to the existing 
prohibition on bond release for any site specific bonding (i.e., open-
acre bonding) until all coal extraction is completed and the disturbed 
area is completely backfilled and regraded.
    (5) At CSR 38-2-12.2.e., to restructure and revise existing 
approved language in this section and move it to CSR 38-2-12.2.a.4.
    (6) At CSR 38-2-12.2.f., to move, unchanged, this existing language 
to CSR 38-2-12.2.d
    (7) At CSR 38-2-12.2.g., to move, unchanged, this existing language 
to CSR 38-2-12.2.f.
    (8) At CSR 38-2-12.2.h., to renumber existing CSR 38-2-12.2.h to 
12.2.i. and to insert it as a new CSR 38-2-12.2.h.
    (9) At CSR 38-2-12.4.c., to eliminate an existing 180 day window 
for initiating reclamation operations to reclaim the site in accordance 
with the approved reclamation plan or modification thereof.
    (10) At CSR 38-2-12.5., to delete subsection 12.5 of the West 
Virginia regulations, which directs WVDEP's collection, analysis and 
reporting on sites where bond has been forfeited including, in 
particular, data relating to the water quality of water being 
discharged from forfeited sites.

0
3. Section 948.15 is amended by adding a new entry to the table in 
chronological order by ``Date of publication of final rule'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  948.15  Approval of West Virginia regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Citation/description of
   Original amendment submission dates      Date of publication  of final rule         approved provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
April 25, 2011, May 8, 2018.............  March 18, 2024.......................  CSR 38-2-2.6; 9.3.d; 11.3.f;
                                                                                  11.4; 11.6; 12.2.a, 12.5.b,
                                                                                  and .c; 12.4.a.2.B, 12.4.b,
                                                                                  4.b.1 and 4.b.2; 12.4.d;
                                                                                  14.5.b.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2024-05682 Filed 3-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P