Laserfiche WebLink
• of AOC variance (and therefore AOC in general), the following <br />excerpt is helpful: <br />. The Secretary's argument then continues that <br />the Court can discern the legislative intent by looking <br />to the amendment as approved on the floor of the Senate <br />and comments by participants of the conference. Thus, <br />he points to the remarks of Congressman Udall on the <br />floor of the House explaining the conference committee <br />changes, in which he did not mention that the variance <br />applies only to steep slope mining. But the Court <br />notes that Congressman Udall did not mention that <br />it was broader than steep slope mining either...." <br />The focus of debate concerning the AOC requirements in <br />Congress before final passage and enactment of SbICRA was <br />the need to allow variances compatible with postmining uses. <br />The Conference Report on H.R.2 (123 Cong.Rec. 24419, 1977) <br />includes discussion of steep slope mining and backfilling <br />• of highwalls: "...includes a modified variance to the <br />approximate original contour standard...amounts to a variance <br />from the 'configuration' aspects." <br />In remarking on the Conference Report being prepared, <br />Senator Metcalf noted: ".... The environmental performance <br />standards are not inflexible, however, as the report provided <br />for variances from these standards in order to allow certain <br />planned postmining land uses." (123 Cong.Rec. 23609, 1977) <br />In a presentation on the Senate floor in May, 1977, <br />Senator Metcalf noted: "The Senator from Kentucky partici- <br />pated in the hearings where we were talking about highwalls, <br />we were talking about restoration to the original contour... <br /> and all these areas, many of which are new and different <br />. and significant technologies that we did not know about <br />-5 - <br />