Laserfiche WebLink
• (D-W.Va.) called for flexibility in requiring return to AOC. <br />The Senate version (5.425) passed Congress but was vetoed <br />by President Ford. <br />During the following session, the Senate again attended <br />to the issue with 5.7 but was willing to accept some laxity <br />in AOC requirements, allowing local interpretation and <br />creating more debate. This version was passed but again <br />received a presidential veto. <br />The call for a national law governing m al mine reclama- <br />tion was again made in the 1976-77 session of Congress. <br />Elimination of highwalls and return to AOC requirements were <br />among the issues receiving the most attention during congres- <br />sional hearings. More exceptions and procedures for variances <br />• were introduced and debated than were the previous bills. <br />Ultimately, SMCRA was passed in 1977 and approved by President <br />Carter. <br />As evidence that the concept of "approximate original <br />contour" is extremely difficult of expression, much less <br />implementation, are the numerous, protracted hearings and <br />comments addressing the exceptions and variances to AOC <br />requirements during consideration of SidCRA. Judge Flannery, <br />(USDC-D.C.), in discussion of certain variance issues before <br />his Court in 1984 (citation not available) upon consideration <br />of regulations, refers to the "muddled legislative history" <br />of the AOC function. To demonstrate that even the Court <br />had difficulty in finding congressional intent in the use <br />r~ <br />L <br />-4 - <br />