H. Rept. 114-277 - SUPPORTING TRANSPARENT REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS IN MINING ACT114th Congress (2015-2016)
Committee Report
| Report Type: | House Report |
|---|---|
| Accompanies: | H.R.1644 |
| Committees: |
H. Rept. 114-277 - 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Report text available as:
- TXT
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
House Report 114-277 - SUPPORTING TRANSPARENT REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS IN MINING ACT
[House Report 114-277]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-277
======================================================================
SUPPORTING TRANSPARENT REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS IN MINING
ACT
_______
October 1, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1644]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1644) to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 to ensure transparency in the
development of environmental regulations, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Transparent Regulatory and
Environmental Actions in Mining Act'' or the ``STREAM Act''.
SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS FOR RULES AND RELATED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENTS, AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS.
(a) Requirement.--Title V of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 530. PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS FOR RULES AND RELATED
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES, AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make publicly
available 90 days before the publication of any draft,
proposed, supplemental, final, or emergency rule under this
Act, or any related environmental analysis, economic
assessment, policy, or guidance, each scientific product the
Secretary relied on in developing the rule, environmental
analysis, economic assessment, policy, or guidance.
``(2) Federally funded scientific products.--For those
scientific products receiving Federal funds in part, or in
full, the Secretary shall also make publicly available the raw
data used for the federally funded scientific product.
``(b) Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--Failure to make publicly available any
scientific product 90 days before the publication of--
``(A) any draft, proposed, or supplemental rule,
environmental analysis, economic assessment, policy or
guidance shall extend by one day the comment period for
each day such scientific product is not made available;
or
``(B) any final or emergency rule shall delay the
effective date of the final or emergency rule by 60
days plus each day the scientific product is withheld.
``(2) Delay longer than 6 months.--If the Secretary fails to
make publicly available any scientific product for longer than
6 months, the Secretary shall withdraw the rule, environmental
analysis, economic assessment, policy, or guidance.
``(3) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply if a delay
in the publication of a rule will pose an imminent and severe
threat to human life.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Publicly available.--The term `publicly available'
means published on the Internet via a publicly accessible
website under the Secretary's control.
``(2) Environmental analysis.--The term `environmental
analysis' means environmental impact statements and
environmental assessments prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
``(3) Scientific product.--The term `scientific product'
means any product that--
``(A) employs the scientific method for inventorying,
monitoring, experimenting, studying, researching, or
modeling purposes; and
``(B) is relied upon by the Secretary in the
development of any rule, environmental analysis,
economic assessment, policy, or guidance.
``(4) Raw data.--The term `raw data'--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), means
any computational process, or quantitative or
qualitative data, that is relied on in a scientific
product to support a finding or observation; and
``(B) does not include such data or processes--
``(i) that are protected by copyright;
``(ii) that contain personally identifiable
information, sensitive intellectual property,
trade secrets, or business-sensitive
information; or
``(iii) to the extent that such data and
processes are covered by the provisions of part
C of title XI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320d et seq.), regulations promulgated
pursuant to section 264(c) of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note), and the
provisions of subtitle D of title XIII of the
Health Information Technology for Economic and
Clinical Health Act (42 U.S.C. 17921 et
seq.).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section
of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to
such title the following:
``Sec. 530. Publication of scientific products for rules and related
environmental analyses, and economic assessments.''.
SEC. 3. STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN RULE.
(a) Requirement.--Title VII of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1291 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 722. STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN RULE.
``(a) Study.--No later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of the STREAM Act, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and its State members, shall
enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences, for
execution by the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, to conduct a
comprehensive study on the regulatory effectiveness of the `Surface
Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Permanent Regulatory Program;
Stream Buffer Zones and Fish, Wildlife, and Related Environmental
Values' Final Rule published June 30, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 30312), and
amended September 30, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 44777), in protecting
perennial and intermittent streams through the use of stream buffer
zones. If the study determines the existence of regulatory
inefficiencies, then the study shall include suggestions and
recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of the rule.
``(b) Results of the Study.--Not later than 2 years after execution
of the arrangements under subsection (a), the Board on Earth Sciences
and Resources shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate, appropriate Federal agencies, and the Governor
of each of the States represented on the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).
``(c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2016 and
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2017 for the purposes of this section.
``(d) Prohibition on New Regulations.--The Secretary shall not issue
any final or other regulations pertaining to the proposed rule entitled
`Stream Protection Rule' (80 Fed. Reg. 44436) or relating to stream
buffer zones, until one year after the Secretary has submitted the
results of the study in accordance with subsection (b). If the
Secretary proposes any such regulations after such submission, the
Secretary shall take into consideration the findings of the study.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section
of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to
such title the following:
``Sec. 720. Subsidence.
``Sec. 721. Research.
``Sec. 722. Study of the effectiveness of certain rule.''.
SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.
Section 702 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(30 U.S.C. 1291) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsection
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Compliance With Other Federal Laws.--Nothing in this Act
authorizes the Secretary to take any action by rule, regulation,
notice, policy, guidance, or order that duplicates, implements,
interprets, enforces, or determines any action taken under an Act
referred to in subsection (a) or any regulation or rule promulgated
thereunder.''.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 1644 is to amend the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to ensure transparency in
the development of environmental regulations.
Background and Need for Legislation
H.R. 1644, the ``Supporting Transparent Regulatory and
Environmental Actions in Mining Act'' or ``STREAM Act,'' seeks
to improve overall transparency in the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSMRE) regulatory actions.
Drafted partially in response to the OSMRE's ongoing rulemaking
process governing the interaction between surface mining
operations and streams--known as the Stream Buffer Zone rule
(SBZ Rule)--the STREAM Act: 1) requires OSMRE to make publicly
available all scientific products used in its regulatory
actions; 2) calls for a study to investigate the regulatory
efficiencies of the rule OSMRE seeks to amend; and 3) clarifies
OSMRE's statutory boundaries.
OSMRE's rewrite of the SBZ rule has been an ongoing process
for over six years, costing taxpayers roughly $10 million.
Consistently scrutinized by the public, an early draft of the
rewrite, which was leaked to the Associated Press, indicated
the rule would result in a loss of at least 7,000 jobs in
Appalachia alone and drastically reduce coal production in 22
states. Furthermore, investigations conducted by the Committee
on Natural Resources revealed gross mismanagement of the
rulemaking process, including the use of unqualified
contractors. Accordingly, OSMRE restarted the rulemaking
process, finally releasing a draft rule and corresponding
environmental impact statement on July 27, 2015. Past
legislative attempts to address this controversial rulemaking
have experienced bipartisan support, with H.R. 3409 passing
233-175 in the 112th Congress, and H.R. 2824 passing 229-192 in
the 113th Congress.
Throughout the rulemaking process, Director Pizarchik of
the OSMRE has repeatedly premised the rulemaking on the
availability of new science and technological advances.
However, such ``new science'' is frequently unavailable to the
public. For instance, the recently released rule relies on a
2014 study, which was conducted by OSMRE in cooperation with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This study, entitled
``The Long-Term Impacts of Macroinvertebrates Downstream of
Reclaimed Mountaintop Mining Valley Fills in Central
Appalachia,'' is only available behind a paywall--despite being
wholly funded by the federal government. This legislation would
ensure the publication of all scientific products used by
OSMRE, thereby providing stakeholders the opportunity to
comment on the validity of such products. Such transparency
will not only allow the public the opportunity to ensure the
science being used is the ``best available,'' but will also
promote stronger, more scientifically-sound rulemakings.
Secondly, this legislation requires an independent study on
the regulatory effectiveness of the currently in-place SBZ rule
to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, in
coordination with the Interstate Mining Compaction Commission
and its member states. This will resolve two dominant issues
currently plaguing the rewrite: 1) the lack of cooperation with
the states; and 2) questions concerning the independence of the
studies justifying the rulemaking. This year, 11 states
withdrew as cooperating agencies from the rewrite's rulemaking
process, citing an unwillingness by OSMRE to permit them to
participate in the development of the rule, and a lack of
communications since 2011. The independent study would provide
the states a chance for substantive input, as well as an
independent examination of the need for a regulatory update,
while putting on hold OSMRE's controversial rulemaking.
Finally, the STREAM Act restates the original intent of
OSMRE's jurisdiction as envisioned by the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). For
foundational support of the rule, OSMRE cites a memorandum of
understanding between the EPA, the U.S. Department of the Army,
and the Department of the Interior. In part, the memorandum was
premised on the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.). OSMRE is an entity that exists to administer
``programs for controlling surface coal mining operations and
reclaiming abandoned mine lands'' and to ``insure compliance
with [SMCRA]''. Nowhere in SMCRA is OSMRE granted authority to
interpret the provisions of the Clean Water Act. This provision
expressly precludes OSMRE from expanding its authority or
statutory mandate beyond the duties prescribed by SMCRA.
To ensure sensitive data will be protected, the STREAM Act
includes provisions prohibiting the publication of raw data: 1)
that would reveal information protected by copyright; 2) that
contains personally identifiable information, sensitive
intellectual property, trade secrets, or business-sensitive
information; and 3) that would violate health privacy laws.
Furthermore, the legislation ensures OSMRE can regulate
efficiently during emergencies in which the imminent health of
persons is threatened by providing exceptions to the
enforcement mechanism that ensures OSMRE will publish
scientific products.
Committee Action
H.R. 1644 was introduced on March 26, 2015, by Congressman
Alexander X. Mooney (R-WV). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. On May 14, 2015,
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On September 9,
2015, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill.
The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent.
Congressman Mooney offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute (ANS). Congressman Alan S. Lowenthal (D-CA) offered
an amendment designated 001 to the ANS. The Lowenthal amendment
was not adopted by a bipartisan vote of 12-23, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
No further amendments were offered and the amendment in the
nature of a substitute was adopted by voice vote. On September
10, 2015, the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported
to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote
of 23 to 12, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 1644--STREAM Act
H.R. 1644 would authorize the appropriation of $1 million a
year over the 2016-2017 period for the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to study the effectiveness of an existing rule
governing coal mining activities near streams. The bill also
would prevent the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSMRE) from issuing any final rules related to
such activities until one year after NAS completes the study.
CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $2
million over the 2016-2017 period, assuming appropriation of
the authorized amounts for NAS to complete the study. In
addition, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase
net offsetting receipts, which are treated as reductions in
direct spending, by roughly $1 million over the 2020-2023
period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting
H.R. 1644 would not affect revenues.
Under current law, OSMRE plans to fully implement a
proposed rule governing coal mining activities near streams by
2020. Based on information from the agency, CBO expects that if
the proposed rule is implemented it will increase operating
costs for the coal industry and reduce coal production. The
rule will mainly affect coal mining activities in eastern
states, which, in 2014, accounted for a very small portion of
the gross receipts from coal production on federal lands.
Based on information from OSMRE, CBO estimates that
implementing the proposed rule also will reduce coal production
on federal lands in western states by about two-tenths of a
percent. Based on CBO's projection of federal royalties from
the affected areas over the 2020-2025 period (roughly $650
million a year), we estimate that implementing the proposed
rule will reduce gross offsetting receipts from federal coal
leases by $1.3 million a year over that period. Because the
federal government distributes about half of those receipts to
states, CBO estimates that under current law implementing the
proposed rule will reduce net receipts by $650,000 a year over
the 2020-2025 period.
Under the bill, CBO expects that OSMRE would be prohibited
from finalizing that proposed rule for at least three years
after enactment of the bill (one year after the completion of
the NAS study). Thus, the higher operating costs and reduced
production that will result from implementing the rule would
not occur until 2023. As result, CBO estimates that, over the
2020-2023 period, net offsetting receipts from federal coal
leases under the bill would be about $650,000 a year higher
than those expected under current law. However, there is some
probability that OSMRE may not finalize the proposed rule under
current law. After accounting for the uncertainty regarding
implementation of the proposed rule, CBO estimates that
enacting the bill would increase net offsetting receipts,
relative to current law, by $325,000 a year over the 2020-2023
period, for a total savings of $1 million.
H.R. 1644 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not impose costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget
authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase
or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, implementation of the bill could
cost $2 million, subject to appropriation, over the 2015-2016
time period, to complete the National Academy of Sciences study
and also generate $1 million in increased offsetting receipts
compared to current law.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to amend the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 to ensure transparency in the
development of environmental regulations.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Compliance With H. Res. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--CONTROL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SURFACE COAL MINING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 530. Publication of scientific products for rules and related
environmental analyses, and economic assessments.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 720. Subsidence.
Sec. 721. Research.
Sec. 722. Study of the effectiveness of certain rule.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--CONTROL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SURFACE COAL MINING
* * * * * * *
SEC. 530. PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS FOR RULES AND RELATED
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES, AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS.
(a) Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make publicly
available 90 days before the publication of any draft,
proposed, supplemental, final, or emergency rule under
this Act, or any related environmental analysis,
economic assessment, policy, or guidance, each
scientific product the Secretary relied on in
developing the rule, environmental analysis, economic
assessment, policy, or guidance.
(2) Federally funded scientific products.--For those
scientific products receiving Federal funds in part, or
in full, the Secretary shall also make publicly
available the raw data used for the federally funded
scientific product.
(b) Compliance.--
(1) In general.--Failure to make publicly available
any scientific product 90 days before the publication
of--
(A) any draft, proposed, or supplemental
rule, environmental analysis, economic
assessment, policy or guidance shall extend by
one day the comment period for each day such
scientific product is not made available; or
(B) any final or emergency rule shall delay
the effective date of the final or emergency
rule by 60 days plus each day the scientific
product is withheld.
(2) Delay longer than 6 months.--If the Secretary
fails to make publicly available any scientific product
for longer than 6 months, the Secretary shall withdraw
the rule, environmental analysis, economic assessment,
policy, or guidance.
(3) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply if a
delay in the publication of a rule will pose an
imminent and severe threat to human life.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Publicly available.--The term ``publicly
available'' means published on the Internet via a
publicly accessible website under the Secretary's
control.
(2) Environmental analysis.--The term ``environmental
analysis'' means environmental impact statements and
environmental assessments prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.).
(3) Scientific product.--The term ``scientific
product'' means any product that--
(A) employs the scientific method for
inventorying, monitoring, experimenting,
studying, researching, or modeling purposes;
and
(B) is relied upon by the Secretary in the
development of any rule, environmental
analysis, economic assessment, policy, or
guidance.
(4) Raw data.--The term ``raw data''--
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B),
means any computational process, or
quantitative or qualitative data, that is
relied on in a scientific product to support a
finding or observation; and
(B) does not include such data or processes--
(i) that are protected by copyright;
(ii) that contain personally
identifiable information, sensitive
intellectual property, trade secrets,
or business-sensitive information; or
(iii) to the extent that such data
and processes are covered by the
provisions of part C of title XI of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et
seq.), regulations promulgated pursuant
to section 264(c) of the Health
Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C.
1320d-2 note), and the provisions of
subtitle D of title XIII of the Health
Information Technology for Economic and
Clinical Health Act (42 U.S.C. 17921 et
seq.).
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
other federal laws
Sec. 702. (a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
superseding, amending, modifying, or repealing the Mining and
Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-47), or any of
the following Acts or with any rule or regulation promulgated
thereunder, including, but not limited to--
(1) The Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act
(30 U.S.C. 721-740).
(2) The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of
1969 (83 Stat. 742).
(3) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (79 Stat.
903), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151-1175), the State laws
enacted pursuant thereto, or other Federal laws
relating to preservation of water quality.
(4) The Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 et
seq.).
(5) The Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 3251-
3259).
(6) The Refuse Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 407).
(7) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934
(16 U.S.C. 661-666c).
(8) The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30
U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
(b) Nothing in this Act shall affect in any way the authority
of the Secretary or the heads of other Federal agencies under
other provisions of law to include in any lease, license,
permit, contract, or other instrument such conditions as may be
appropriate to regulate surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on land under their jurisdiction.
(c) Compliance With Other Federal Laws.--Nothing in this Act
authorizes the Secretary to take any action by rule,
regulation, notice, policy, guidance, or order that duplicates,
implements, interprets, enforces, or determines any action
taken under an Act referred to in subsection (a) or any
regulation or rule promulgated thereunder.
[(c)] (d) To the greatest extent practicable each Federal
agency shall cooperate with the Secretary and the States in
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
[(d)] (e) Approval of the State programs, pursuant to section
503(b), promulgation of Federal programs, pursuant to section
504, and implementation of the Federal lands programs, pursuant
to section 523 of this Act, shall not constitute a major action
within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Adoption of
regulations under section 501(b) shall constitute a major
action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 722. STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN RULE.
(a) Study.--No later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of the STREAM Act, the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and
its State members, shall enter into an arrangement with the
National Academy of Sciences, for execution by the Board on
Earth Sciences and Resources, to conduct a comprehensive study
on the regulatory effectiveness of the ``Surface Coal Mining
and Reclamation Operations Permanent Regulatory Program; Stream
Buffer Zones and Fish, Wildlife, and Related Environmental
Values'' Final Rule published June 30, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg.
30312), and amended September 30, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 44777), in
protecting perennial and intermittent streams through the use
of stream buffer zones. If the study determines the existence
of regulatory inefficiencies, then the study shall include
suggestions and recommendations for increasing the
effectiveness of the rule.
(b) Results of the Study.--Not later than 2 years after
execution of the arrangements under subsection (a), the Board
on Earth Sciences and Resources shall submit to the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate,
appropriate Federal agencies, and the Governor of each of the
States represented on the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).
(c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2016 and
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2017 for the purposes of this
section.
(d) Prohibition on New Regulations.--The Secretary shall not
issue any final or other regulations pertaining to the proposed
rule entitled ``Stream Protection Rule'' (80 Fed. Reg. 44436)
or relating to stream buffer zones, until one year after the
Secretary has submitted the results of the study in accordance
with subsection (b). If the Secretary proposes any such
regulations after such submission, the Secretary shall take
into consideration the findings of the study.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 1644: ``SUPPORTING TRANSPARENT REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIONS IN MINING (STREAM) ACT''
We oppose H.R. 1644 because it would do nothing except
delay the protection of Appalachian communities from the
destructive effects of mountaintop removal mining, and is
simply the next salvo in a 5-year-long political attack the
Majority has been waging on the Stream Protection Rule, a rule
that was just released in July 2015 and has not been the
subject of any committee hearings since then.
This bill is an unwarranted ambush on an ongoing rulemaking
process, an uncharacteristic attack by the Majority on the
principle of federalism and states' rights, and an
unconscionable assault on the health of the residents of
Appalachian communities suffering from the devastating impacts
of mountaintop removal mining.
As documented by a 2005 Environmental Impact Statement,
nearly 2,000 miles of streams were buried or degraded by
mountaintop removal mining from 1985 through 2002. Mountaintop
removal mining destroys wildlife habitat, contaminates surface
and drinking water, leads to flooding, and as an increasing
number of studies show, raises the rates of cancer, birth
defects, lung disease, and heart disease in people who live
nearby.
The Majority has attempted to manufacture doubt behind the
science of health impacts from mountaintop removal mining by
raising the standards for data disclosure in Section 2 of H.R.
1644. These actions are unfounded and unnecessary, and create
an unfair standard for science that is used to inform decisions
on coal mining as opposed to other regulatory issues. The
requirements established by this bill serve only to distract
from the reality that people are suffering, and to further
delay OSM from carrying out its statutory duty to protect
people and the environment from the negative impacts from coal
mining.
The Majority has turned a blind eye to the destructive
environmental and health impacts of mountaintop removal mining,
however, and instead focused on attacking the rulemaking
process every step of the way. They conducted a multi-year
investigation into the drafting of the Stream Protection Rule,
holding three oversight hearings with the Director of the
Office of Surface Mining (OSM), issuing two subpoenas,
receiving over 13,500 pages of documents and 25 hours of audio
recordings. However, this witch hunt uncovered no misconduct on
the part of the Department of the Interior (DOI) or the Office
of Surface Mining--a conclusion also reached by the DOT Office
of Inspector General in a report released in December 2013.
However, the investigation did succeed in delaying the
Department from issuing the proposed rule and wasting taxpayer
money; the Department reported that in 2013, responding to all
the document requests from the Majority took over 19,000 staff
hours at a cost of nearly $1.5 million.
The complaints from the Majority are also inconsistent with
their actions and this bill. While they protest that the
Administration has been too secretive about the rule and is
hiding data, they have also sent a letter requesting four extra
months to comment on the proposed Stream Protection Rule
because the Administration has put out over 2,500 pages of
information on it. While they say that this rulemaking has
taken far too long, Section 3 of H.R. 1644 would add an
additional three years and millions of dollars to that process.
During that time, streams will continue to get buried, habitat
will continue being destroyed, threatened and endangered
species will continue being harmed, and communities throughout
the region will continue to suffer from degraded water quality,
flooding, and health impacts.
During markup up on H.R. 1644, the Majority rejected an
amendment by Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking
Member Lowenthal that would have allowed the Secretary of the
Interior to take into account the growing body of peer-reviewed
scientific evidence that mountaintop removal mining is harmful
to the health of people living in nearby communities.
For these reasons, we strongly oppose H.R. 1644, a bill
that would prohibit the Administration from implementing
thoughtful protections for the environment and communities from
the impacts of mountaintop removal mining.
Raul M. Grijalva.
Jared Huffman.
Don Beyer.
Alan Lowenthal.
Grace Napolitano.
[all]