FEDERAL REGISTER: 47 FR 33424 (August 2, 1982)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)

30 CFR Parts 700 and 825

Permanent Regulatory Program: Two-Acre Exemption

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is amending 30 CFR 700.11(b) which 

relates to exemption from the requirements of the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1977 (the Act) for the extraction 

of coal where a coal mining and reclamation operation affects two acres or less. The final rule provides criteria for 

determining when an operation qualifies for the exemption. 

 The rule also establishes a procedure by which the regulatory authority may make a determination that an operation is 

exempt. These changes are made to clarify the existing rule and as a result of litigation on the Permanent Regulatory 

Program regulations. 

 OSM also is amending 30 CFR Part 825 which provides for alternative permanent program performance standards for 

special bituminous coal mines in Wyoming. Pursuant to the changes, OSM will make clear that authority to regulate such 

mines is with the State of Wyoming. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1982. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Pavetto, Division of Regulation and Inspection, Office of Surface 

Mining, U.S. Department of the Interior, Phone: 202-343-4217. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background. 

II. Rules Adopted and Responses to Public Comments on Proposed Rules. 

III. Procedural Matters. 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

 

A. INTRODUCTION 

 On January 4, 1982 (47 FR 41), OSM published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 30 CFR Chapter VII 

relating to the two-acre exemption and definition and use of the terms "adjacent area," "affected area," "permit area" and 

"road." OSM also proposed to delete the term "mine plan area" and replace it where appropriate with either "permit 

area," "permit area and adjacent area" or "permit area and potentially impacted offsite areas." The proposed rule also 

included two alternatives for a new term, "area of expected subsidence" or "area of potential subsidence." Finally, OSM 

proposed to amend 30 CFR Part 825 to eliminate unnecessary regulations regarding special bituminous coal mines in 

Wyoming. 

 OSM today is issuing final rules with respect to the two-acre exemption and special bituminous coal mines in 

Wyoming. Final action on the other proposals in the January 4, 1982 notice is being deferred for a latter final rulemaking 

notice. 

 

B. TWO-ACRE EXEMPTION 

 Section 528(2) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. (the Act), exempts from 

the requirements of the Act "the extraction of coal for commercial purposes where the surface mining operation affects 

two acres or less * * * " Regulations implementing this provision (30 CFR 700.11(b)) were originally published on 

March 13, 1979 (44 FR 15311). This regulation has a complicated history which is set forth fully in the January 4, 1982 

notice of proposed rulemaking. See 47 FR at 41. 
 In view of the complex history of the two-acre rule, OSM proposed on January 4, 1982, to completely revise the 

two-acre rule. Public comments were solicited for 30 days ending on February 3, 1982. This period was subsequently 

extended to February 16, 1982. Those persons offering comments during this time included industry representatives, 

State officials, citizens and environmental groups. A public hearing was scheduled for January 25, 1982, but no testimony 

was offered. OSM carefully considered all comments received on the proposed two-acre rule in drafting these final rules. 

II. RULE ADOPTED AND RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES 

A. REORGANIZATION OF SECTION 700.11 

 30 CFR 700.11 has been reorganized so that the exemptions provided for in the Act (other than the two-acre 

exemption), which were in subsections (a) and (c)-(g), have all been put into a new subsection (a) as paragraphs (1)-(6). 

No substantive change is intended by this reorganization. The two-acre exemption remains in subsection (b) but is 

amended as described below. A new subsection (c) providing for determination of exemption by the regulatory authority 

has been added and is discussed later in this preamble. 

 

B. CHANGES TO TWO-ACRE EXEMPTION RULE (SECTION 700.11(b)) 

1. General. OSM proposed various alternatives for the two-acre exemption rule. OSM has chosen among these 

alternatives and the rule being adopted is essentially the same as the alternatives proposed except as noted below. The 

reasons for the proposal were set forth fully in the preamble to the January 4, 1982 notice of proposed rulemaking. 

 Although the final rule adopts specific criteria to identify operations that qualify for a two-acre exemption, it is 

interpretative in the sense that it clarifies, but does not change the ambit of, an exemption that currently exists. 

 Section 700.11(b) is being revised to provide that the requirements of 30 CFR Chapter VII do not apply to the 

extraction of coal for commercial purposes where the surface coal mining and reclamation operation (together with any 

"related" operations) has or will have an "affected area," as defined in Section 701.5, of two acres or less. In other words, 

"related" operations, discussed in detail below, are considered as part of one operation for purposes of determining the 

"affected area" and hence the application of the exemption. 

 Other principal changes to the two-acre exemption are the addition of criteria for determining (1) the method of 

treating haulage or access roads used by two or more operations and (2) whether two or more operations are related. 

These changes are described below. 

 A determination of whether an operation qualifies for the two-acre exemption is a determination whether that 

operation must comply with the requirements of the remainder of 30 CFR Chapter VII. Therefore, if an operation were 

determined not to be exempt, it would be subject to, among other requirements, the performance standards in Subchapter 

K and the requirements to pay abandoned mine land reclamation fees under Subchapter R. 

 In the proposed rule, the term "coal mining operation" was used instead of the term "surface coal mining operation." 

The omission of the word "surface" in the use of the term was inadvertent and the final rule uses the correct term: 

"surface coal mining operation." As used in this preamble, the term has the meaning set forth in Section 701(28) of the 

Act and Section 700.5 of OSM's regulations. 

 For purposes of this preamble, the term "operator" is used to refer to all persons conducting surface coal mining 

operations. Use of the term is not meant to be limited to the definition of "operator" in 30 CFR 701.5, i.e., a person 

removing at least 250 tons of coal in a twelve month period. 

2. Intent to Affect ( Section 700.11(b), introductory clause). The introductory clause to Section 700.11(b) indicates that 

the requirements of Chapter VII do not apply to the extraction of coal for commercial purpose where the surface coal 

mining operation, together with any related operations, has or will have an affected area of two acres or less. 

 The phrase "has or will have an affected area" has been adopted in Section 700.11(b) to clarify that the first two acres 

of a larger operation, or a series of less-than-two-acre operations that are actually one large operation, would not be 
exempt. Accordingly, under this revised Section 700.11(b), if an operation was intended from its beginning to affect 20 

acres it will not be entitled to the exemption at any time. If an operation were originally intended to affect less than two 

acres, but the person conducting the operation changed his or her intention and decided to mine a total of four acres, at 

the time that intent changed the operation would cease to be exempt. This is a change in wording, not a change in 

substance, from the previous regulation. OSM believes that this is the proper interpretation of the Act and its legislative 

history, which makes it clear that Congress intended to provide an exemption only for small operations and not for the 

first two acres of any larger operation. See the preamble to the proposed rule for a complete discussion of the legislative 

history of the two-acre exemption. 

3. Roads ( Section 700.11(b)(1)). Two issues were addressed in the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the 

treatment of a road used by a surface coal mining operation for access or haulage. The first issue is at what point a public 

road should be considered independent of a surface coal mining operation, such that it should not be included in the 

"affected area" of that operation. For purposes of clarity in understanding this rule, this issue is discussed in this preamble 

below; however, the final amendment to the definition of "affected area" in 30 CFR 701.5, will be deferred for a later 

final rulemaking because the remainder of the definition, not dealing exclusively with roads, is closely tied to, and should 

be considered with, the other definitions that were proposed. 

 The second issue is whether a road used by more than one operation should be included in whole or in part in the 

affected area of each such operation. Section 528(2) of the Act provides an exemption from the requirements of the Act 

for "the extraction of coal" where the surface mining operation "affects" two acres or less. Under 30 CFR 700.11(b), as 

revised, in determining whether a coal mining operation affects two acres or less, the regulatory authority must first 

determine the affected area of the surface coal mining operation and any related operations. If a road used by a surface 

coal mining operation is part of its "affected area," it is counted for purposes of determining whether that operation 

affects two acres or less. Conversely, a road which is not part of the "affected area" of an operation is not counted. 

 Often, however, portions of the same road are used by more than one operation for access or haulage. Under Section

700.11(b)(1) as previously in effect, it was not clear to which operation the road should be attributed, or whether the 

road should be attributed to each operation that "affects" it. The previous regulation was silent as to which of these 

interpretations was correct. 

 The proposed rule provided five alternatives for treating segments of roads used by more than one operation for 

purposes of determining the "affected area" of each operation and whether the two-acre exemption applies. Of the five 

alternatives considered in the proposed rule, OSM has determined that the best choice is the second alternative, which 

provides that the entire area of any segment of a road used by more than one operation will be included in the "affected 

area" of each of those operations. Thus, for example, if four operations use a segment of a road, the entire segment is to 

be treated as part of the "affected area" of each of those four operations for purposes of determining whether any of 

those operations is exempt under Section 700.11(b). 

 There is one exception to this rule. When two or more operations are considered "related" under Section

700.11(b)(2), as discussed below, they are considered to be one operation for purposes of the two acre rule. Thus, if two 

or more "related" operations use the same segment of a haulage or access road, the entire area of that segment will be 

included only once in their combined acreage to avoid counting the same segment of road more than once in the acreage 

of the same operation. 

 The other proposed alternatives and the comments are described below, followed by OSM's response to the 

comments. 

 Under the first proposed alternative, if one operation owned and used a segment of a road which was also used by 

other operators, the segment would be attributed to the operation that owned it. If the segment was not owned by one of 

the operations using it or if more than one of such operations owned the road, it would be attributed to the operation 

which made the greatest use of the road. No commenters supported this alternative. Several said that it would be difficult 

to implement because, as usage changed, the road would have to be reattributed, and thus an operator might not know in 

advance whether he was subject to the Act, which would be unfair. 

 OSM agrees that this alternative would be difficult to implement because ownership of the road could change possibly 

necessitating a change in status of the other operations using the road even though their operation was not related to the 
new owner and had not changed. Also, in the event that no operation owned the road or ownership was divided, it would 

be administratively impractical to attribute the road to a particular operation based on usage because usage can change 

daily. Therefore, this alternative was rejected. 

 Under the second alternative, which OSM has adopted, the entire segment of the road used by more than one 

operation is included in the "affected area" of each of those operations. Two commenters supported this alternative as the 

only one consistent with the Act because any coal operation using a road for access "affects" the road. One commenter 

stated that this alternative is unworkable because, should more than one operator permit the same road and fail to 

maintain it appropriately, the regulatory authority would have a dilemma as to whom to cite. 

 OSM is adopting this alternative because it is most consistent with the language and purpose of the two-acre 

exemption and does not present the administrative problems discussed above with regard to the usage. 

 The commenter who was concerned about enforcement misunderstood the proposal. Section 700.11(b) states that the 

attribution of roads is only "(for) purposes of this paragraph," i.e., to determine whether the affected area of the 

operation exceeds two acres. If an operation using the road is less than two acres, there is no enforcement problem 

because the enforcement regulations are inapplicable. If, on the other hand, a permit is required, it is no different from the 

situation where any two or more operations share a road. In such a situation the operator to whom the road is permitted 

is responsible for compliance. 

 Under the third alternative, it was proposed that the area of the commonly used segment would be divided equally 

among the users so that the total area attributed to the users would not exceed the actual area of the road. No 

commenters supported this alternative. One commenter stated that since shares could change with the number of 

operations beginning and ending, it would not allow an operator to know in advance whether the total acreage affected 

by his operation would exceed two acres, and thus the legal responsibilities which may apply. Another stated it would be 

unfair for an operator at the road's mouth to be assigned a segment of the road used by many, while the operator at the 

head is assigned a segment only he uses. Another stated that it would violate Sections 528(2) and 701(28) of the Act. 

 As with the first alternative, OSM agrees that the third alternative would be difficult to implement. The addition or 

deletion of any surface coal mining operation using the road would require the status of the other operators using the 

road to be reevaluated according to the increase or decrease in the size of their share of the commonly used segment. 

OSM agrees that this would cause uncertainty for operations as to whether they come under the requirements of the Act. 

The commenter who stated that the operator at the road's mouth would bear a disproportionate amount of responsibility 

for maintaining the road did not understand that only that segment of the road used by an operator would be attributed to 

him; if he used only the first 500 yards of a 1500-yard road, only his share of the first 500 yards would be attributed to 

him. See the preamble to the proposed rule for a complete analysis of the implementation of each alternative. 

 Under the fourth proposed alternative, the segment of the road used by more than one operation would have been 

prorated among the users, but the proration would have been based on usage. Usage could be measured by various 

methods such as vehicular traffic or coal production. The measure of usage would have been determined by the 

regulatory authority. No commenters supported this alternative. Two stated it would pose administrative problems, 

violate the Act, and be unduly complicated. One commenter described this alternative as the worst because it not only 

presents problems of determining frequency of use, but would lead to arbitrary enforcement against an operator for 

failure to maintain his permitted area without giving him control over the use of that area. 

 As discussed above, OSM agrees that the usage test is administratively impractical. Therefore, this alternative was 

rejected. 

 Under the fifth alternative, the regulatory authority could have adopted any method for attributing a road segment 

used by more than one operation, so long as the entire segment was allotted by the regulatory authority and the method 

was consistent with the Act. Thus, the regulatory authority could have adopted a procedure similar to the other 

alternatives proposed for this subsection, or could have developed a different approach. 

 Several commenters supported this alternative because it gave a State the opportunity to maintain current practices 

and was consistent with the Act. Another commenter stated that it was the "least objectionable" alternative. Those 
opposing this alternative stated that it would have violated OSM's duty in Section 304(a) of the Act to prescribe 

necessary rules and would allow unequal application of the two-acre exemption throughout the nation. 

 The fifth alternative is being rejected by OSM. To allow the States to maintain current practices would tend to 

continue and encourage unequal administration and enforcement of the two-acre rule since every State could require 

different criteria for dealing with the roads. (See discussion of past problems in implementation of the existing rule at 47 

FR 41, January 4, 1982.) 

 OSM received a number of other comments on the issue of attributing haul roads for the two-acre exemption. Several 

commenters stated that none of the alternatives was acceptable because double bonding and permitting of any roads is 

administratively cumbersome and inconsistent with Section 528(2) of the Act. One commenter stated that since the 

alternatives represent arbitrary enforcement, each would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property of persons 

entitled to the two-acre exemption. One of these commenters stated that the regulatory authority should be able to assign 

segments of a haulage road on a case-by-case basis, rather than trying to cover all situations with general language. 

 Another commenter stated that it would be fairer and simpler to allocate the haulage road to the first affected operator 

with the legal right to permit the road. 

 Several other commenters stated that the operators should work out among themselves who will be responsible for 

the various parts of the road, such as permitting, bonding and maintenance, and the agreement would be subject to the 

approval of the regulatory authority. They stated that this procedure would be flexible and also beneficial to operators 

since the two-acre exemption might be more valuable to one operator who would be willing to compensate another 

operator (who may not care about the two-acre exemption) for assuming entire responsibility for the road. 

 OSM rejected the idea of assigning segments of haulage roads on a case-by-case basis to the operators using the road 

because it could lead to arbitrary enforcement and unequal application of the two-acre rule. 

 Allocating the road to the first operator with the right to permit the road could also lead to abuse of the exemption. It 

would allow one operator to include the road in its affected area; then a whole series of different operations along the 

road which in fact "affect" the road would be able to exclude the road for purposes of calculating the two-acre 

exemption. 

 Allowing the operators to work out an agreement among themselves may also lead to arbitrary enforcement and abuse 

of the exemption. Furthermore, it would not be consistent with the purposes of the Act to, in effect, allow an operator to 

"buy" an exemption through an agreement with other operators with regard to responsibility for roads. 

 The alternative selected will not require double bonding or double permitting of any segment of a road. The 

attribution to more than one operation of a segment of a road is done for purposes of determining the size of the affected 

area. Only one operation at a time is required to actually permit or bond any segment of such a road. 

4. Related Sites ( Section 700.11(b)(2)). Congress' intent in adopting Section 528(2) of the Act was to avoid imposing 

the Act's requirements on "the one-man operation." Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Hearings on 

S. 7 before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Resources of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 95th 

Cong., 1st Sess. 436 (1977). Congress' rationale for the exemption was that it "would cause very little environmental 

damage and that regulation of [such operators] would place a heavy burden on both the miner and the regulatory 

authority." S. Rep. No. 95-128, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 98 (1977). 

 In promulgating both the previous regulations to implement Section 528(2) of the Act, and the revisions discussed in 

this document, OSM has been concerned that the limited exemption provided by Congress not be abused by operators 

seeking to evade the permitting and environmental protection performance standards of the Act. OSM is concerned 

primarily with situations where an operator tries to claim the exemption by dividing what is essentially one mine site into 

numerous sites of two acres or less. In Section 700.11(b), as originally adopted, OSM attempted to avoid extension of 

the exemption to such operations by excluding from the scope of the exemption operations "conducted by a person who 

affects or intends to affect more than two acres at physically related sites, or any such operation conducted by a person 

who affects or intends to affect more than two acres at physically unrelated sites within one year." 44 FR 15312, 15315

(March 13, 1979). The Commonwealth of Virginia challenged this provision, alleging that the exemption should not be 
denied to operators with physically unrelated sites which in total area exceed two acres, but individually are less than two 

acres. In re: Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, No. 79-1144 (D.D.C. 1979). In response to this legal 

challenge, OSM agreed to change Section 700.11(b). 

 Section 700.11(b) as proposed on January 4, 1982 provides that two or more surface coal mining operations should 

be considered as one for purposes of the exemption if they were "related;" operations were deemed "related" only if they 

occurred within 12 months of each other and met both the physical relatedness test in proposed Section 700.11(b)(2)(i) 

and the common ownership or control test in proposed Section 700.11(b)(2)(ii). OSM received several comments on this 

proposed change and has decided to adopt the "related operations" concept with changes discussed below. The rules 

adopted, and the comments received, are discussed in terms of the three major components of the "relatedness" test: the 

temporal (twelve-month) limitation; physical relatedness; and relatedness through "ownership or control." Under the final 

rule two or more operations will have to meet all three components before they will be deemed "related" for purposes of 

the two-acre exemption. 

 Several commenters stated that relating two operations if they occur within 12 months is unrealistic because the 

operations may be some distance apart and owned by different people. One of these commenters stated that if a limit is 

needed, three months should be adequate. Another commenter, however, appeared to state that 12 months is too short. 

One commenter said a time shorter than 12 months is unlikely to deter subterfuge. 

 OSM has determined that a time limit is necessary in order to properly implement the two-acre rule. Without such a 

limitation, if an operator of a less-than-two-acre site returned to the same vicinity five or ten years later to mine another 

less-than-two-acre site, in the absence of a time limit, those sites could be "related" under the other portions of the rules 

being adopted. The time limit will allow a small operator to return to the vicinity of a previous operation without having 

these sites deemed related. OSM has decided to adopt 12 months as the time limitation. A shorter time limit may allow 

operators to circumvent the two-acre rule by mining two acres or less, waiting a few months, and then returning to mine 

an additional two acres. OSM received no specific comments suggesting a specific longer time period. 

 The 12-month requirement does not stand alone as the sole criterion of determining related sites, as some commenters 

seemed to believe. In addition to the 12-month requirement, two or more operations cannot be considered to be related 

unless they also meet both the physical relatedness test and the common ownership or control test. 

 The second major component of the relatedness test is a physical relatedness criterion, proposed in Section

700.11(b)(2)(i). OSM proposed two alternatives for determining when two sites are physically related. The first 

alternative provided that two or more operations would be deemed physically related if they were contiguous. Under the 

second alternative, as proposed, operations would be deemed physically related if they met any one of three tests: (A) 

Any portion of one site was in the same or adjacent counties as any portion of the other site and drainage from both sites 

flowed into the same watershed at or before a point located in the same county as, or within ten aerial miles of, either

site, (B) they shared the same equipment or personnel or used some of the same access or haulage roads, or loading, 

processing, shipping or other handling facilities, or (C) they were situated so that surface coal mining operations at one 

site could cause harm to some of the same persons or environments as operations at the other site or sites. 

 The first alternative for physical relatedness was not adopted by OSM because it would not adequately define when 

two operations, each claiming the exemption, were in reality two parts of a larger non-exempt operation. OSM has 

already encountered situations in which an operator mined two acres, skipped 50 feet and mined two more acres, and 

then claimed the exemption for each "operation." 

 The second alternative was selected with modifications discussed below, because OSM believes this alternative will 

provide uniform and understandable rules for determining when two operations should be regarded as one for purposes 

of the exemption. 

 Section 700.11(b)(2)(i), as amended, will provide one test for physical relatedness. Two operations will be deemed 

"physically related" if drainage from the two (or more) operations in question flows into the same watershed at or before 

a point within five aerial miles of either operation. OSM determined that the 10-mile limit contained in the proposed rule 

was too large. Also OSM did not adopt the proposed requirement that the operations had to be in the same or adjacent 

counties or that physical relatedness be based on the common use of equipment, roads, support facilities, etc. Finally, 
OSM omitted the proposed paragraph (C) criterion, relating to operations that may harm the same persons or environs, 

because the test is too vague and difficult to implement. 

 With these changes, the "physical relatedness" criterion will be easier to administer, but will ensure that two or more 

operations that are distant from each other or that do not impact the same environmental resources are not treated as one 

for purposes of the two-acre exemption. Thus, under the final rule the test will be whether drainage from the two sites 

flows together in a local watershed within five miles of either operation. This test is consistent with the intent of 

Congress to exempt only operations which have minimal effects on the environment. If two operations owned or 

controlled by the same person are sufficiently close to have more than minimal cumulative effects on a local watershed, 

then they should be considered as one operation for purposes of the two-acre exemption. (See the discussion of the 

legislative history in the preamble to the proposed rule.) 

 OSM believes that a geographical relationship is the most appropriate measure of physical relatedness. Consideration 

of common use of equipment, personnel and facilities is more appropriate in the context of the third aspect of relatedness; 

that is, whether the two or more operations are under common ownership or control. Moreover, the watershed drainage 

test set out in the final rule will likely encompass many operations that are using common equipment, personnel and 

facilities. 

 OSM received many comments on the proposed "physical relatedness" test. Several commenters supported the first 

alternative (contiguity) as more realistic than the second (watershed test). They found the second alternative arbitrary 

because the ten-mile and county criteria are unrelated to the topography of an area and because watersheds vary 

substantially and depend on subjective judgments. As discussed above, the contiguity test is too narrow, but OSM agrees 

that the county criterion is not valid and has dropped it from Section 700.11(b)(2)(i) as adopted; OSM also reduced the 

ten-mile limit to five miles. 

 Several other commenters favored the second alternative, although a few had reservations. One commenter stated that 

the ten-mile limit would exempt some operations that should not be exempt, but would cover most related operations and 

would represent a reasonable way to draw the line. This commenter stated that OSM should clarify that the "local" 

watershed used in the regulation refers to the ten-mile circle. Another commenter stated that the test as proposed would 

end the common practice of creating multiple mines in contiguous areas, while insulating bona fide separate, small 

operations from the full rigors of the law. Another would omit the requirement that sites need to drain into the same 

watershed since the coal fields of Appalachia contain many small watersheds which eventually feed into a larger 

watershed, and it would therefore be easy for illegal miners to first mine one side of a hill draining into one creek and 

then go a short distance to the other side of the hill which drains into another creek. One commenter recommended 

deleting the ten-mile limit. 

 As discussed above, OSM believes that the five mile watershed test adopted will carry out the intent of Congress to 

exempt small operators which cause minimal environmental damage. Measurement of the five mile limit will be based on 

aerial distances and not the distance that may be covered by a stream or other watercourse within the watershed. 

Furthermore, OSM believes that the five mile limit is broad enough to prevent abuse of the exemption by related 

operations. It would be a rare occasion when a single operation could move into a separate watershed to avoid the Act's 

requirements. 

 One commenter stated that neither the first nor the second alternative is necessary for a determination of physical 

relatedness because if two operations are not close enough to use common facilities or personnel (paragraph (B) of the 

second proposed alternative) or be under common control, then they should not be considered related even though they 

may be in the same or adjacent counties. 

 OSM does not agree. If two operations owned by the same owner have an additive environmental effect, they should 

be treated as one. Thus, a geographical criterion in establishing whether two or more operations are related is 

appropriate. Also, as indicated above, it is believed that the five-mile watershed test is broad enough to encompass those 

operations that use common equipment, personnel and facilities. 

 Several commenters stated that proposed paragraph (C) of the second alternative was too broad in covering all harm 

that "could" occur. These commenters also stated that operations should not be deemed "related" unless "all," not "any," 

of the criteria in proposed paragraphs (A) through (C) are met. 
 OSM agrees with the first comment and has deleted paragraph C. With regards to the second comment, OSM 

disagrees. It is OSM's view that the "physical relatedness" test would be too narrow if operations had to meet all three of 

the proposed criteria. Such a requirement would frustrate OSM's attempt to limit the scope of the two-acre exemption to 

those small operations for which it was intended. 

 Before two or more operations which meet the temporal and physical relatedness tests described above are deemed 

"related," the operations must also be related by ownership or control, the third component of the relatedness test. 

Section 700.11(b)(2)(ii) has been adopted as proposed. This section provides that two or more physically related 

operations are deemed "related" for purposes of the two-acre exemption if they are owned or controlled, directly or 

indirectly, by or on behalf of: (A) The same person; (B) two or more persons one of which controls, is under control 

with, or is controlled by the other, or (C) members of the same family and their relatives, unless the person conducting 

surface coal mining operations establishes that there is no direct or indirect business relationship between or among them. 

For purposes of this section, "control" is defined as ownership of 50 percent or more of the voting shares of, or general 

partnership in, an entity; any relationship which gives one person the ability in fact or law to direct what another does; or

any relationship which gives one person express or implied authority to determine the manner in which coal at different 

sites will be mined, handled, sold or disposed of. 

 The most important aspect of this section is the definition of "control". If one person exercises sufficient authority 

over another (whether by contract, lease, other agreement, or implied authority) to determine how that person mines, 

handles, sells or disposes of coal from a site, there is "control." By way of illustration, if company A owns 100 acres and 

leases two acres each to operators X, Y, and Z for a prescribed fixed fee unrelated to the amount of coal extracted, and 

company A has no authority to direct operators X, Y, or Z as to how the coal should be mined, handled, sold or 

disposed, then operations X, Y, and Z (absent meeting one or more of the other control tests) would not be considered 

"controlled" by company A. However, if company A and operators X, Y, and Z are part of the same corporate structure, 

the operations are "controlled or owned, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of the same person." 

 Under the definition of "control" which is adopted, ownership of 50 percent or more of the voting shares in a 

company is not necessarily required for control. "Control" exists if enough shares are owned by a person to give him the 

"ability in fact or law to direct" what the company does. As previously stated, to be related for purposes of the two-acre 

rule, two or more operations must be related both "physically" and through "ownership or control." 

 Control is determined solely for the purposes of deciding whether the two-acre exemption applies. If two or more 

operations are deemed "related" under the criteria in revised Section 700.11(b)(2) and therefore not exempt because their 

combined "affected areas" exceed two acres, this would not prevent owners of coal from subcontracting the mining of 

the coal to one or more operators. The only effect is that those operators would have to comply with the regulatory 

program if the relatedness tests are met. 

 One commenter suggested that OSM should delete the proviso defining "control" because how the coal is sold or 

disposed of is irrelevant to the mining operations and potential environmental harm. Another commenter stated that all 

leases contain some provisions that control mining operations to prevent loss of reserves, and thus this proposed 

paragraph would in fact eliminate the two-acre exemption. OSM does not intend the control test to extend to standard 

arm's length lease agreements that are designed to ensure payment of royalties or prevent loss of reserves. However, 

OSM believes the control test should be broad enough to encompass those relationships that evidence an interrelationship 

of the parties beyond the transfer of rights to a mineral reserve. 

 One commenter stated that operations should be considered "related" if either the physical relatedness or the common 

ownership or control test is met because otherwise persons would establish numerous shell corporations and abuse the 

two-acre exemption. 

 OSM believes that the term "direct or indirect" in the "ownership or control test" is enough to prevent any attempt at 

circumvention of the exemption by operators through the use of "shell" corporations. OSM does not believe that 

operators which meet the "physical relatedness" test but not the "ownership/control" test, or vice versa, should be treated 

as related. If only one of the tests were necessary to establish relatedness, the two-acre exemption would be too narrowly 

defined; an operator who through ownership had two independent operations on opposite sides of the State would not be 
able to qualify for the exemption, and operations which were close to each other but independent in every other way 

could not qualify for the exemption. Thus, this comment was not accepted. 

5. Regulatory Determination of Exemption ( Section 700.11(b)(3)). OSM has adopted this section in the final rule as 

proposed. OSM believes that the criteria adopted should operate to assure that the exemption will apply to all operations 

intended by Congress to be exempt and to no others. OSM recognizes that there is a great variety of possible legal and 

factual situations to which the rule may apply, and there may be situations where, through the application of Section

700.11(b)(2), an operation is treated as non-exempt where in fact it is the type of operation Congress intended to 

exempt. Therefore, OSM has adopted this provision under which the regulatory authority can determine that two or 

more operations are entitled to the exemption despite being "related" within the meaning of Section 700.11(b)(2). The 

regulatory authority may make such a determination after considering the entire circumstances surrounding the 

operations and their history. The determination must be consistent with the purposes of the Act. The determination must 

be made in writing and after public notice. It is expected that this provision would be used only in rare cases. 

 Several commenters stated that this provision creates a loophole which would negate national uniformity and allow 

abuse of the two-acre exemption. One commenter stated that the Act is remedial legislation, and thus exemptions should 

be narrowly construed. This commenter stated that this provision is unnecessary because if an operator believes he should 

not be "related" to another, he can petition for an emergency rulemaking. 

 Another commenter stated that the policy of paragraph (b)(3) should be expanded beyond the two-acre rule to exempt 

from the Act environmentally beneficial activities which, like that commenter's landfill, are only incidentally related to 

mining coal. 

 It is the belief of OSM that this provision would be used only rarely and after appropriate investigation and 

documentation by the regulatory authority. If the provision should result in abuse, OSM will reexamine it. There is no 

basis in the Act for expanding the policy beyond the two-acre rule that Congress has mandated. 

6. Activities Other Than Coal Extraction ( Section 700.11(b)(4)). One commenter stated that the language of proposed 

Section 700.11(b)(4) should be reworded for clarity to say simply that the exemption applies only to operations involving 

extraction of coal and not others such as coal processing. In response to this comment the proposed language has been 

revised to clarify the meaning of the section. 

 The exemption set forth in Section 528(2) of the Act applies to "the extraction of coal" where the "surface coal mining 

operation" affects two acres or less. It is not clear from that statute what is meant to be included in the term "extraction 

of coal." The title of Section 528 is "Surface Mining Operations Not Subject To This Act." The term "surface mining 

operations" presumably has the same meaning as "surface coal mining operations," which is defined in Section 701(28) of 

the Act. However, there are some activities covered by Section 701(28) which can exist independently of extraction of 

coal, such as coal processing plants. OSM believes that the most reasonable interpretation of the Act is that "extraction 

of coal" does not cover such facilities where they exist independently of extraction of coal. This position is reflected in 

Section 700.11(b)(4) which is being adopted generally as proposed. However, OSM believes that support facilities 

incidental to the extraction of coal on a less than two-acre operation would be exempt as well as the extraction of coal. If 

this were not so, such facilities on a less than two acre site would have to be permitted while the coal extraction activities 

themselves would be exempt. Such an anomalous result was not intended by Congress. OSM believes Congress intended 

to exempt all facilities on a two-acre site incidental to the extraction of coal for commercial purposes on the same two 

acres. 

7. Notice and Determination of Exemption ( Section 700.11(c)). The previous regulations did not provide for a person 

who intends to conduct surface coal mining operations on two acres or less, or pursuant to an exemption in Section

700.11(a), to be able to request a written determination of exemption in advance from the regulatory authority. The 

previous regulations also did not contain a formal procedure for the regulatory authority to make such a determination on 

its own initiative. OSM is adopting a provision in Section 700.11(c) that allows the regulatory authority on its own 

initiative to make a written determination that an operation is exempt and gives any person who intends to conduct 

exempt surface coal mining operations a right to receive a written determination. An advance determination of an 

operation's status might be desired, for example, by a person who intends to conduct surface coal mining operations on 

two acres or less, because it would provide a measure of certainty about the proposed operation's status. A sentence is 

added in the final rule that was not in the proposal which provides that a person requesting that an operation be declared 
exempt shall have the burden of establishing the exemption. this language is consistent with holdings of the Interior 

Board of Surface Mining Appeals, including Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation, IBSMA 81-39, 81-47 (decided June 

18, 1982). 

 OSM also is adopting a provision addressing the situation where a person in good faith accurately presents all of the 

relevant facts, obtains a determination of an exemption, then later has it reversed. OSM believes that in such cases the 

operation or person conducting the operation should not be cited for violations or otherwise penalized for regulatory 

program violations during the time it relied upon the regulatory authority determinations of exemption. For example, 

where administrative or judicial action results in a reversal of the regulatory authority's determination that an operation is 

exempt, the surface coal mining operation will become subject to the applicable regulatory program requirements only as 

of the date the final determination is rendered. 

 One commenter supported Section 700.11(c) in concept, but stated that Section 102(i) of the Act requires any person 

to be able to request a determination on exemption, that there should be a right of appeal regarding OSM decisions as 

under 30 CFR 776.11, and that failure to cite violations where an exemption is reversed violates Section 521(a)(3). 

 Another commenter stated that Section 700.11(c) should be deleted because it places an undue burden on the 

regulatory authority to ensure that the operator remains exempt when it should be the operator's responsibility to comply 

with the Act at all times. 

 Another commenter stated that Section 700.11(c) should be clarified to provide that although the operator should not 

be cited for violations during the exempt status, the operator must upon reversal begin to comply with all standards or 

face penalties. 

 OSM believes that this provision as proposed is satisfactory and does not impose an undue burden on the regulatory 

authority. Persons other than the operator who want the regulatory authority to review an operation's status can do so 

through the citizen complaint provisions in 30 CFR 721.13 and 842.12. OSM also believes that it is clear from the 

adopted language that if a decision of exemption is reversed, the operator must immediately begin to comply with the 

Act's requirements. 

 

C. DISCUSSION OF ROADS AND THE AFFECTED AREA 

1. General. 30 CFR 701.5 was proposed to be amended by revising the definition of the term "affected area." Because 

this definition is closely related to the other proposed definitions which are deferred to a later final rule, this rule will not 

amend the definition of "affected area." However, because the portion of the definition of "affected area" which pertains 

to roads is closely related to the two-acre exemption, this issue is addressed in this preamble. When the definition of 

"affected area" is revised, it will be consistent with the findings and discussion contained herein. 

 Under previously promulgated rules the definition of the term "affected area" specified that it included any area where 

surface coal mining activities are conducted or located. The basis for this definition was the definition of "surface coal 

mining operations" in Section 701(28) of the Act. (See 44 FR 14920, March 13, 1979.) In practice, OSM has found 

difficulties and ambiguities in the application of this definition. As a result, OSM proposed a revised definition of 

"affected area" to more closely reflect the scope of areas covered in Section 701(28) of the Act. The definition of 

"affected area" proposed on January 4, 1982, also was intended to clarify possible ambiguity concerning its application to 

roads. See the preamble to the proposed rule, 47 FR at 44-45, for a discussion of the legislative history and of the term 

"affected area." 

 OSM proposed four alternatives for the definition of which roads are to be considered included in the "affected area." 

 The first alternative would have excluded from the "affected area" any part of a road used for coal haulage or access 

which is owned unconditionally, controlled and maintained by a public entity, used frequently for purposes other than 

coal haulage or access, and maintained (using public funds) in a manner similar to other public roads of a similar nature in 

the jurisdiction. 

 The second alternative would have excluded from the "affected area" any part of a road which (a) was designated as a 

public road pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which it is located; (b) is maintained with public funds in a manner 
similar to other public roads of the same classification within the jurisdiction; (c) there is substantial (more than 

incidental) public use; and (d) meets road construction standards at least as stringent as the standards applicable to access 

and haul roads under the State program. 

 The third alternative replaced the public use and road construction criteria of the second alternative with a 

requirement that the road be paved. "Paved" meant that the entire length of the road be surfaced with all weather 

surfacing material of asphalt, concrete or similar consolidated, hard and durable material. The placement of gravel, rock 

or other unconsolidated material would not constitute paving. 

 The fourth alternative replaced the paving requirement of alternative three with the requirement that the road meet the 

road classification standards for a class 1, 2, or 3 road under the mapping system established by the U.S. Geological 

Survey for 7.5-minute topographic maps. 

 OSM intends to adopt a final rule that is similar to the second alternative. Specifically, a road will be excluded from 

the "affected area" for a mine if it meets three criteria: (a) The road has been designated as a public road pursuant to the 

laws of the jurisdiction in which it is located; (b) the road is maintained with the public funds, and constructed, in a 

manner similar to other public roads of the same classification within the jurisdiction in which it is located; and (c) there is 

substantial (more than incidental) public use of the road. 

 Several commenters supported the second proposed alternative because it is the most thorough and manageable, 

provides for input from the local jurisdiction, and uses "substantially" rather than "frequently" as proposed in the first 

alternative. One of these commenters, however, suggested that OSM delete any reference to the amount of public use of 

the road since determining "substantial use" may be impossible without an extensive road traffic survey, which was not 

contemplated by the Act, and the local jurisdiction has already considered the amount and type of use in designating the 

road as public. Those opposing this alternative stated that the construction standard requirement in proposed paragraph 

(d) is inappropriate since (1) in many cases the public authority is not required to upgrade township and county roads not 

meeting standards as stringent as those in the permanent regulatory program, and (2) the proposed paragraph (d) 

requirement would likely prevent counties from acquiring usable access roads whose construction costs would be 

prohibitive. One commenter stated that the phrase "pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction" could be abused by a locality 

adopting ordinances to accept any coal road as a public road. 

 As to the latter comment, OSM's revised definition of "affected area" will be adopted with the specific understanding 

that the States with the majority of two-acre operations have laws and regulations that limit the ability of local 

jurisdictions to accept public roads. OSM will continue to monitor the adequacy and implementation of these provisions. 

 OSM intends to adopt the second alternative with one modification. The term "road construction standards at least as 

stringent as the standards applicable to access and haul roads under the applicable State program" will be replaced by 

adoption of the road construction standards for other public roads of the same classification in the local jurisdiction. 

OSM recognizes that in some cases the public authority does not build or maintain public roads to the standards under 

States' programs. Roads such as State or Federal highways are clearly such roads, but when dealing with roads that are 

built and maintained at lower governmental levels, it is often necessary to find a touchstone for determining when a road 

should be treated as exempt. In view of Congress' recognition that roads are one of the most significant sources of 

environmental degradation associated with surface mining, OSM believes the most practical and effective test is that 

indicated above. The rule that will be adopted will not require that a road be constructed or maintained to any particular 

standard; it will just say that unless it meets and is maintained under that standard, it will be included in the operator's 

"affected area." 

 Several commenters supported the first alternative, provided that the requirement for "frequent" use for purposes 

other than coal haulage or access was deleted. These commenters stated that it was clearer and more specific than the 

other alternatives. Several of these commenters would also clarify that roads with minimal public maintenance which are 

used for access to a coal mine are nevertheless public roads if other public roads in the vicinity also receive only minimum 

maintenance. Another of these commenters would clarify that "controlled and maintained by a public entity" means that 

maintenance typical for State or Federal highways, not merely token maintenance. Another commenter also found this 

alternative acceptable, but noted that determinations as to "frequent" use would be difficult, and stated that places where 

the public authority does not adequately maintain the road should be considered part of the "affected area." One 

commenter opposed this alternative because "frequent use" is an ambiguous criterion subject to abuse, and another 
opposed it because coal company maintenance of roads is common and under the law of donation can be considered 

expenditure of public funds. Another commenter stated the first alternative is not feasible since typically the county does 

not hold "unconditional" title to the road, but rather an easement to the right-of-way. 

 OSM agrees that frequent use may impose an unreasonable level of public use required under the rule. Rather, OSM 

intends to use the phrase "substantial (more than incidental)" to indicate the necessary level of public use. Application of 

this standard will necessarily relate to uses of roads of a similar classification in the surrounding area. 

 Two commenters supported the third alternative since paving would reflect frequent public use, this alternative would 

be simple to administer, and it would clearly encompass the law's intent to protect the environment and public from harm 

because dirt roads are often the last leg of the haul road system and are apt to be heavily affected by dust, erosion, poor 

drainage, and fast wear. Those opposing this alternative stated that the paving requirement is inappropriate because (1) 

many existing legitimate township and county roads are not paved due to infrequent use or lack of funds, (2) it reflects a 

regional bias inappropriate for national rules since most roads near mines in the East are paved and many roads located 

near Western mines are not, (3) paved roads are usually damaged during the freeze-thaw periods in certain areas, and (4) 

it is unrealistic in light of "the pervasive conditions of areas in which mining generally takes place." 

 OSM rejected this alternative because, as discussed above, many legitimate public roads are not paved and paving is 

not required for access and haul roads. A properly constructed and maintained road is not necessarily paved. 

 Two commenters supported the fourth alternative because it recognizes the actual construction and condition of many 

roads in rural areas and would mean that public roads would not be deemed to include unimproved roads considered 

passable only in dry weather. Those commenters opposing this alternative stated that (1) many recent revisions to USGS 

maps have not been field-checked, (2) it is unclear, (3) it is too broad because some haul roads that would meet the Class 

3 criteria are used strictly as haul roads, and (4) it eliminates flexibility based on site-specific conditions. 

 OSM agrees with the comments opposing the fourth alternative. This alternative was rejected by OSM because some 

access and haul roads meet Class 3 requirements but are used exclusively for coal haulage, and many recent revisions to 

USGS maps have not been field-checked as the commenter indicates. Also, as discussed above, many county and 

township roads are unsurfaced and unimproved but still entail considerable public use. Under this alternative such a road 

may not be considered public although it actually is. 

 

D. AMENDMENT TO PART 825 

 30 CFR Part 825 is being amended by revising the entire part due to the adopted cooperative agreement between 

OSM and the State of Wyoming to provide for State regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on 

Federal lands in Wyoming. 

 No comments were received on the amendment which is adopted generally as proposed, with editorial changes. 

 

III. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

 

Federal Paperwork Reduction Act 

 The Department of the Interior has determined that this final rule does not require the collection of information as 

defined under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

 

National Environmental Policy Act 

 An environmental assessment (EA) of the cumulative impacts on the human environment of these rules was prepared, 

together with a proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). These documents are on file in Room 5315, 1100 L 

Street, NW., Washington, D.C., and were made publicly available for comment on May 3, 1982 (47 FR 18920). A final 

FONSI covering this rule was issued on July 2, 1982. The two-acre rule is also examined in OSM's draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement on various proposed regulations that was made publicly available on June 18, 1982. 
 

Executive Order 12291 

 The Department of the Interior has determined that this document is not a major rule and does not require a 

regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12291. 

 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

 The Department of the Interior has determined that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities and therefore does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under Pub. L. 96-354. 

 

LIST OF SUBJECTS 

 

30 CFR Part 700 

 Administrative practice and procedure, Coal mining, Surface mining, Underground mining, Reporting requirements. 

 

30 CFR Part 825 

 Coal mining, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. 

 For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Parts 700 and 825 of Chapter VII, Title 30 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as set forth herein. 

Dated: July 29, 1982. 

Daniel N. Miller, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Energy and Minerals. 

PART 700 -- GENERAL 

 1. Section 700.11 is revised to read as follows: 

SECTION 700.11 APPLICABILITY. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this chapter applies to all coal exploration and surface coal mining

and reclamation operations, except: 

(1) The extraction of coal by a landowner for his or her own noncommercial use from land owned or leased by 

him or her. Noncommercial use does not include the extraction of coal by one unit of an integrated company or other 

business or nonprofit entity which uses the coal in its own manufacturing or power plants; 

(2) The extraction of 250 tons of coal or less by a person conducting a surface coal mining and reclamation 

operation. A person who intends to remove more than 250 tons is not exempted; 

(3) The extraction of coal as an incidental part of Federal, State or local government-financed highway or other 

construction in accordance with Part 707 of this chapter; 

(4) The extraction of coal incidental to the extraction of other minerals where coal does not exceed 16 2/3 

percent of the mineral tonnage removed for commercial use or sale; 

(5) The extraction of coal on Indian lands in accordance with 25 CFR Part 177, Subpart B; and 

(6) Coal exploration on Federal lands outside a permit area. 

(b) This chapter does not apply to the extraction of coal for commercial purposes where the surface coal mining and 

reclamation operation, together with any related operations, has or will have an affected area of two acres or less. For 

purposes of this paragraph: 

(1) Where a segment of a road is used for access or coal haulage by more than one surface coal mining 

operation, the entire segment shall be included in the affected area of each of those operations; provided, that two or 

more operations which are deemed related pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be considered as one 

operation for purposes of this paragraph. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, surface coal mining operations shall be deemed 

related if they occur within twelve months of each other, are physically related, and are under common ownership or 

control. 
(i) Operations shall be deemed physically related if drainage from both operations flows into the same 

watershed at or before a point within five aerial miles of either operation. 

(ii) Operations shall be deemed under common ownership or control if they are owned or controlled, 

directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of: 

(A) The same person; 

(B) Two or more persons, one of whom controls, is under common control with, or is 

controlled by the other; or 

(C) Members of the same family and their relatives, unless it is established that there is no 

direct or indirect business relationship between or among them; 

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph, "control" means: ownership of 50 percent or more of the voting 

shares of, or general partnership in, an entity; any relationship which gives one person the ability in fact or law to direct 

what the other does; or any relationship which gives one person express or implied authority to determine the manner in 

which coal at different sites will be mined, handled, sold or disposed of. 

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the regulatory authority may determine, 

in accordance with the procedures applicable to requests for determination of exemption pursuant to paragraph (c) of this 

section, that two or more surface coal mining operations shall not be deemed related if, considering the history and 

circumstances relating to the coal, its location, the operations at the sites in question, all related operations and all 

persons mentioned in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the regulatory authority concludes in writing that the operations 

are not of the type which the Act was intended to regulate and that there is no intention on the part of such operations or 

persons to evade the requirements of the Act or the applicable regulatory program. 

(4) The exemption provided by paragraph (b) of this section applies only to operations with an affected area of 

less than two acres where coal is being extracted for commercial purposes and to surface coal mining operations within 

that affected area incidental to such operations. 

(c) The regulatory authority may on its own initiative and shall, within a reasonable time of a request from any person 

who intends to conduct surface coal mining operations, make a written determination whether the operation is exempt 

under this section. The regulatory authority shall give reasonable notice of the request to interested persons. Prior to the 

time a determination is made, any person may submit, and the regulatory authority shall consider, any written information 

relevant to the determination. A person requesting that an operation be declared exempt shall have the burden of 

establishing the exemption. If a written determination of exemption is reversed through subsequent administrative or 

judicial action, any person who, in good faith, has made a complete and accurate request for an exemption and relied 

upon the determination, shall not be cited for violations which occurred prior to the date of the reversal. 

 

(30 U.S.C. 1201 et. seq.) 

 2. 30 CFR Part 825 is revised to read as follows: 

PART 825 -- SPECIAL PERMANENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS -- SPECIAL 

BITUMINOUS COAL MINES IN WYOMING 

Section 

825.1 Scope. 

825.2 Special bituminous coal mines in Wyoming. 

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

SECTION 825.1 SCOPE. 

 This part establishes requirements for certain bituminous surface coal mining activities located west of the 100th 

meridian west longitude in Wyoming which existed on January 1, 1972, and for surface coal mining activities immediately 

adjacent thereto which began development after August 3, 1977, in accordance with Section 527 of the Act. 
SECTION 825.2 SPECIAL BITUMINOUS COAL MINES IN WYOMING. 

 Special bituminous coal mines in Wyoming, as specified in Section 527 of the Act, shall comply with the approved 

State program, including Wyoming statutes and regulations, and revisions thereto. 

[FR Doc. 82-20842 Filed 7-29-82; 10:27 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M