1 OSM Program Deficiencies and Remining Financial Guarantee Rulemaking Changes EQB--November 16, 2010 J. Scott Roberts, Deputy Secretary Mineral Resources Management

2 Timeline  October 2009-MRAB Recommends proposed regulations proceed  March 2010-Proposed Regulation Approved by EQB  May 1, 2010-PA Bulletin Publication as Proposed Regulation  May 31, 2010-Public Comment Period Ends  September 7, 2010-MRAB Final Regulation recommendation

3 Comments  3 Commentators  14 Comments  Additional request from OSM for clarification  Regulations were revised in response to these comments

4 Sections with Changes  86.1 Revise definition of ownership to exactly match the Federal Regulation  Emphasize that the application and permit for exploration on UFM areas must be available to the public  (RFGs) Clarification and adding a subsection that states that existing participants are eligible for subsequent RFGs

5 Sections with changes Continued  and (noncoal waste disposal) changes made to match federal language  (spillway design) another clarification

6 Other Comments  Comment: The definition of "violation" is unclear as 30 C.F.R. § includes two definitions of "violation." Federal regulations have two terms  violation  violation, failure or refusal

7 Exploration on UFM  Comment: The proposed revisions to § prevents the Department from waiving the UFM permit requirement Federal Regulations require a permit  Comment: The permit term for should be consistent with other permits (5 years) Exploration is limited to 250 tons

8 Self-bonding qualifications  Comment: Subsection (a)(2) contains overly broad language relating to “all applicable Federal and State laws” This exactly matches the federal language

9 Letters of Credit  Comment: The Department should not undermine a bank’s ability to: (1) evaluate an operator’s financial stability and (2) issue a letter of credit based on that informed and highly regulated decision. The regulation doesn’t do what the comment suggests

10 RFGs and LCs  Comment: The option to post a letter of credit should not be eliminated. LCs can still be used as bonds.  Comment: DEP and the Board should provide evidence to provide justification for the change. 16 RFGs have been forfeited-4 have required payment from the fund-for three of these the demonstration was made by LC

11 RFGs and Discharges  Comment: Department should clarify that an RFG needs to be replaced if discharge liability is related to the remining area. This requirement in not intended to be limited to the remining area. Any liability for a discharge is too great of a risk for the RFG program

12 Rebuttable Presumption Reimbursement  Comment: The Department should not unilaterally eliminate a surface mine operator’s or mine owner’s cost recovery rights. State law was changed. The regulation is being changed to conform. There are other cost recovery provisions that are still applicable

13 Conclusion  The Department is requesting a approval of this final-form regulation.  Thank you