OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 1 of 10

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT – 148

August 7, 1990

Michael Lepchitz, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Drawer U

Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219

TOPICS: CONTRACTOR LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS; OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL 

OF OPERATIONS

INQUIRY: Virginia statutes and regulations require applications for mining permits (or 

significant revisions) to be denied if it is determined that the applicants own or control other 

operations currently in violation of SMCRA. Please locate Interior administrative decisions as 

well as federal and state cases which interpret the phrase "own and control" in the context of 

SMCRA. What are the facts and circumstances of these opinions?

SEARCH RESULTS: A number of relevant opinions were identified using the COALEX 

Library and the other materials available in LEXIS. The retrieved opinions are listed below. 

Copies are attached.

Discussed first are the opinions whose fact situations are the most similar to those in the inquiry 

[Section I], followed by opinions which discuss related issues, e.g., which party controls an 

operation, owns a company or is responsible for violations and civil penalties [Section II]. 

SECTION I

PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD DECISIONS

1. WILLIAM J. MCINTIRE COAL CO. v COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES (DER), Docket No. 83-180-M, slip op (July 7, 1986). 

The Board upheld DER's refusal to renew the mining license of R.G. McIntire Coal Co, Inc. 

because Ronald McIntire, sole officer and shareholder of the corporation at the time of the 

denial, "was in violation of the Commonwealth's mining laws by virtue of his being a partner in 

the partnership which [was] responsible for the violations existing at the Heilman mine." 

In addition, the transfer of stock to Mrs. McIntire was "a sham transaction designed to 

circumvent the requirements" of SMCRA.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 2 of 10

William J. Mcintire Coal Co., Inc. was the permittee of the Heilman mine. The mining 

operations at Heilman were subcontracted to M & M Coal Co., a partnership of the brothers 

William and Ronald McIntire. The Board ruled that the permittee, William J. McIntire Coal, and 

the subcontractor, M & M Coal were "jointly and severally liable" for all violations of SMCRA 

associated with surface mining at the Heilman mine. "Since M & M [was] a partnership, any 

legal responsibility attributable to it [was] attributable to its partners", William and Ronald 

McIntire, both of whom "personally supervised the day-to-day operations" at the site. 

Cites to BLACK FOX MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v COMMONWEALTH OF 

PA., and KEYSTONE MINING COMPANY, INC. v COMMONWEALTH OF PA., below.

2. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP V COMMONWEALTH OF 

PA., DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND GRINDSTONE COAL CO., 

Docket No 83-269-G, slip op (March 5, 1986). 

The Board ruled that the Concerned Citizens failed to meet the burden of proof on their claim 

that DER had not been given all of the information it needed to make an informed decision on 

the Grindstone Coal permit application. The Concerned Citizens claimed that Thomas Firestone, 

as the person in charge of Grindstone's daily operations, should have been listed on the permit 

application. Had he been listed, Firestone's "past conduct would have precluded issuance of the 

permit under the requirements" of SMCRA. The Concerned Citizens tried to prove that the 

corporate officers of Grindstone served "in name only" and that is was Thomas Firestone who 

actually carried out the "normal corporate functions."

3. KEYSTONE MINING COMPANY, INC. V COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, 1985 EHB 542, Docket No. 83-241-G (June 19, 1985). 

Keystone, as a subcontractor for Calvin Smith Coal Co., was cited for failure to complete 

reclamation of the minesite which it had previously mined. Keystone subsequently breached the 

agreement it made with DER to reclaim the property. The Board granted DER's summary 

judgement in the appeal of DER's denial of a surface mining license to Keystone, stating: "DER 

must deny the license if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated [and admitted] a lack of 

ability or intention to comply with the Act as indicated by past or continuing violations."

Cites to BLACK FOX MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. V COMMONWEALTH OF 

PA., below.

4. PARKER SAND AND GRAVEL v COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, 1893 EHB 557, Docket No. 83-134-G (September 9, 

1983). 

The Board granted Parker's petition for supersedeas. DER had denied Parker's application for 

renewal of its sand and gravel surface mining license. DER claimed that Byron Henderson, the 

sole owner and principal officer of Parker, "engaged in unlawful conduct" while manager of 

supervisor day-to-day operations of Lucinda Coal, Inc.: during his tenure at Lucinda, it received 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 3 of 10

a number of citations for violations of its mining permits. Henderson was also responsible for a 

number of "environmentally positive accomplishments". Balancing these facts, the Board 

determined that it did "not believe that DER (at a hearing on the merits of this appeal) [would] be 

able to sustain its burden of showing that Henderson engaged in unlawful conduct."

STATE CASE LAW

5. JANE BURNS, et al. v GEORGE DIALS, COMMISSIONER, 378 SE 2d 665 (W Va 

1989). 

The court determined that, pursuant to state regulations, the application form used to apply for a 

mining permit under SMCRA "must require the applicant to list environmental violations 

committed by 'any subsidiary, affiliate or persons controlled by or under common control with 

the applicant'....[the] form used by the Commissioner and completed by [the two coal mining 

companies] falls short of the requirements" of the state regulations.

SECTION II

INTERIOR OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

IBLA AND IBSMA DECISIONS (includes some companion ALJ Decisions)

6. CLARK COAL CO. v OSM, 102 IBLA 93, IBLA 86-627, 87-348 (1988). 

Clark, the permittee, was held responsible for violations despite the fact that the coal was 

removed by Brooks-Long Coal Co. Clark had an agreement with Brooks-Long to remove coal; 

there was no request for approval of a transfer or assignment of the permit. In addition, the 

permit had been renewed in the name of Clark Coal. Cites WILSON FARMS COAL CO., see 

below. 

7. SHELBIANA CONSTRUCTION CO. v OSM, SAMMY GOFF v OSM, 102 IBLA 19, 

IBLA 85-88, IBLA 87-307 (1988). SAMMY GOFF v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 5-49-R, NX 5-

102-R (1987). 

The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, ruling: "Where the evidence in a case shows the 

complete merger of the ownership and control of a corporation, such that the corporation is 

merely acting as the individual's alter ego, the individual cannot be allowed to escape 

responsibility for the statutory requirement to eliminate highwalls by hiding behind the corporate 

entity."

One tract was individually owned by Goff; The coal in the contiguous tract was leased to 

Shelbiana Construction. Goff, the sole officer and sole shareholder of Shelbiana, took no salary 

or fee from the corporation and had "absolute authority over what was done". He used his 

equipment without rental fee for work on the Shelbiana property, commingled assets, owned the 

coal being mined and had total "control over the entire minesite". Goff was "the Shelbiana 

permittee for purposes of the Act." Cites S & M COAL CO. v OSM, see below.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 4 of 10

8. TENNESSEE CONSOLIDATED COAL CO.(TCC) v OSM, 99 IBLA 274, IBLA 85-351 

(1987). TENNESSEE CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. AND WALNUT COAL COMPANY, 

INC. v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 1-87-R, NX 1-147-P (1985). 

TCC owned the minesite; Walnut Coal was lease holder, permittee and operator. TCC owned a 

60% interest in Walnut's stock and provided technical assistance to Walnut. Walnut sold its coal 

to TCC. Walnut maintained its own equipment, payroll and insurance. The ALJ determined that 

Walnut, alone, was responsible for the violations of SMCRA; he ruled that: "mere ownership of 

a substantial interest in a particular corporation is not enough to shift responsibility to the owners 

absent some specific regulatory device or some abuse of the corporate form which will allow a 

piercing of the corporate veil."

The Board dismissed OSM's appeal: Walnut had corrected the violation and paid the civil 

penalty, and the Board failed "to see how consideration of whether or not TCC was properly 

dismissed from the proceeding advances the purposes of SMCRA...." The question of whether 

TCC was properly charged with violations and civil penalties, the Board stated, will be more 

appropriate in the future if a new operator applies for a permit to mine that site. Cites to S & M 

COAL CO. v OSM.

9. MCWANE COAL CO., INC., 95 IBLA 1, IBLA 85-621 (1986). 

The Board ruled that McWane Coal was the operator and was responsible for paying outstanding 

reclamation fees. Omega Fuels, Inc., the coal producer, was McWane's "agent". Regarding the 

definition of "operator", the Board quoted from the preamble to the 1977 reclamation fee 

regulations: "We believe that Congress intended the burden of fee payment to fall upon the 

person who stands to benefit directly from the sale, transfer, or use of the coal...The 

identification of operators will be made in light of the realities of the business world and will not 

turn solely on a literal interpretation of the word 'removes.' 42 FR 62713 (December 13, 1977)."

After comparing the McWane facts to US v RAPOCA ENERGY CO. and S & M COAL CO. v 

OSM (see below), the Board concluded that "the business reality of the contractual arrangement 

between McWane and Omega belies McWane's characterization of Omega as an 'independent 

contractor'": McWane's superintendents controlled Omega' day-to-day operations; McWane had 

the right of first refusal to the coal fines Omega removed; and McWane's pricing restricted 

Omega's ability to sell coal rejected by McWane on the open market.

10. S & M COAL CO. & JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CO. v OSM, 79 IBLA 350, IBLA 

83-620, 82-20 (1984). 

Jewell owned the coal which S & M mined pursuant to an oral lease; there was no valid mining 

permit. S & M had day-to-day control over the operations and sold coal "to parties other than 

Jewell"; however, Jewell had the right to exercise control over the operations "by virtue of the 

ability to terminate the [oral] lease without cause". The Board held that if there was a question as 

to who was the permittee in determining responsibility for compliance with performance 

standards, it was "proper for the inspector issuing the notice of violation to cite all of the parties 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 5 of 10

who may be responsible. If a cited party can submit sufficient proof that it is not responsible for 

compliance, the violation will not be considered a violation by that party....[Here,] both the party 

extracting the coal and the lessor can be considered to be permittees, as both have the ability to 

exercise control over the operations."

The mining operations were found to disturb less than two acres and the NOV was vacated. 

Cites to WILSON FARMS COAL CO.

11. KIMBERLY SUE COAL CO., INC., 74 IBLA 170, IBLA 83-619, 82-19 (1983). 

Kimberly Sue and High Point Coal Company received similar violations for failure to maintain a 

haul road. Kimberly Sue argued that because it was "economically integrated with High Point", 

High Point was the responsible party. Kimberly Sue sublet the minesite from High Point, paid 

royalties to High Point for coal removed and was charged for use of High Point's engineers. Each 

company was independently owned. The Board ruled there was no economic integration between 

companies; each was liable for its own violation.

12. VIRGINIA FUELS, INC., 4 IBSMA 185, IBSMA 82-18 (1982). MOLE COAL CO., 

INC. AND VIRGINIA FUELS, INC. v OSM, Docket Nos. CH 2-21-R, CH 2-33-R (1982). 

The total disturbed area of the minesite owned by Virginia Fuels was greater than two acres; 

therefore, Virginia Fuels was found liable for violations of SMCRA performance standards. The 

IBSMA affirmed the ALJ's determination that there was insufficient evidence to find Mole Coal, 

a contract miner, liable for the violations.

13. PIERCE COAL AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., 3 IBSMA 350, IBSMA 81-33 (1981). 

The Board affirmed the ALJ decision finding Pierce Coal the permittee of record. Pierce signed 

an "Application for Operator Reassignment" with MLM Corp., the operator. There was no 

indication that this document was approved by the State of West Virginia. The Application 

contains a notation, signed by the president of Pierce, stating that "this application transfers the

mining rights only and that this permit is non-transferable." The Board cites to the WILSON 

FARMS COAL CO. and discusses cases relating to the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act which 

ruled that "the owner or lessee of a mine may be liable for actions of a construction company". 

14. WILSON FARMS COAL CO., 2 IBSMA 118, IBSMA 80-33 (1980). WILSON FARMS 

COAL CO. v OSM, Docket No. NX 9-88-R (1980). 

The Board affirmed the ALJ decision which determined that Wilson Farms, the permittee, was 

the proper party to be issued an NOV. The lease agreement between Wilson Farms and Kitov 

Corporation did not "relieve the permittee from its responsibilities under the Act" even though 

the agreement stated that the lessee [Kitov, and later Shannon Coal] was responsible for all 

"obligations and responsibilities of the lessors, including compliance with all present and future 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 6 of 10

state and Federal laws." Wilson had not assigned the permit to Kitov. In addition, Wilson had 

paid Kentucky civil penalties on the same lands.

INTERIOR OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE OPINIONS 

15. H.C. BOSTIC COAL CO., INC. AND WAYNE BOSTIC v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 88-8-

R, NX 88-33-R, NX 88-34-R, NX 88-38-R, NX 88-46-R (1988). 

Wayne Bostic, vice president of Bostic Coal, owned the mineral rights to the area being mined 

and leased mining rights to Hansonville Enterprises, the permit holder. All coal mined was 

delivered to Bostic's tipple; Hansonville had to absorb losses for coal rejected by Bostic; 

securing permits and bonds, paying taxes and reclamation were Hansonville's responsibility. 

Bostic provided engineering assistance and equipment; retained "all depletion and depreciation 

allowances"; Wayne Bostic was the "holder of a power of attorney given by Hansonville". The 

ALJ denied temporary relief from enforcement of the NOV and CO concluding the following: 

"[I]n serving the citations at issue on Wayne Bostic and H.C. Bostic Coal Company, Inc., 

OSMRE has served the 'operators'...as that term is defined in section 701(13) of the Act, as well 

as having served those citations upon the 'permittee,' as that term is defined in section 521(a)(3) 

of the Act. This because of the relationship of the applicants and the named and nominal 

permittee, Hansonville Enterprises, Inc., has been shown to be such that the latter firm was 

merely the instrumentality, or the alter ego, by and through which the applicants acted in order to 

attain the maximum financial advantages or removing the coal in question without assuming any 

of the concomitant environmental obligations imposed under the provisions of the Act and the 

implementing regulations." 

Cites to US v RAPOCA ENERGY and US v DIX FORK COAL CO., see below.

16. ROY E. MEHAFFEY v OSM, Docket No. NX 7-35-R (1987). 

In sustaining the CO, the ALJ held that the agreement Rich Mountain Coal, the permittee, had 

with Diamond Capitol was a royalty agreement, not a sale or permit assignment; therefore, Rich 

Mountain was liable for violations. Mehaffey, as a partner in Rich Mountain, was liable for its 

acts even though he sold his interest in Rich Mountain before mining operations began. He was 

responsible because there was no evidence of sale and he signed the permit application. 

17. BERNOS COAL CO. AND EXCELLO LAND MINERAL CORP. v OSM, Docket Nos. 

NX 1-118-R, NX 3-10-P (1985). 

The ALJ ruled that the CO was properly issued to Bernos, the permittee, and Excello. Excello 

leased the mine site and was in complete charge of the mining operations. The ALJ determined 

that Excello was an agent of Bernos and as such "could be required to alleviate an imminent 

danger, which the agent had created....In terms of agency law, an agent of a corporation in 

addition to the principal is liable for wrongful acts committed by the agent on behalf of the 

principal." 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 7 of 10

See US v DIX FORK COAL, below.

18. GRUNDY MINING CO. AND TENNESSEE CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. v OSM, 

Docket No. NX 1-146-P (1985). 

The NOV was properly issued to both Grundy, the permittee, and Tennessee Consolidated, its 

agent in charge of the mining operations. The ALJ explained: "The liability of Tennessee 

Consolidated in relation to the Act must be determined by its factual relationship to Grundy 

Mining and Tennessee Consolidated's participation in the acts which led to the issuance of the 

violation in question."

The employees at the minesite were paid by Grundy and were seen "being directed in their work 

by Tennessee Consolidated employees." Tennessee Consolidated performed such services as 

water and coal analyses; hired the contractor "to do the work that resulted in the subject 

violation"; and dealt with the OSM inspectors. Tennessee Consolidated functioned as an agent 

for Grundy Mining. See WILSON FARMS COAL CO., above and US v DIX FORK COAL 

CO., below. 

19. Q & G COAL CO., INC. v OSM, Docket No. CH 1-200-P (1982). 

Q & G requested an amended permit substituting Little Moe Coal Corp. as the operator and 

approving the use of an additional area for slate disposal. Little Moe began its operation prior to 

the receipt of the amended permit. Q & G was held responsible for the NOV. The ALJ stated: 

"[N]o coal mining operation (which includes a slate dump) may begin until a permit has been 

issued...a substitute operator will not be recognized as a permittee until its permit is issued -- not 

merely filed....The permittee [Q & G] must be held liable because if this were not so, any 

permittee could escape liability for performance standard violations by having a succession of 

'independent' operations mine the coal on their permit and claim 'I didn't do it!'...Little Moe 

simply became an alter ego for petitioner leaving petitioner with full liabilities under the Act."

20. L & R MINING CO., INC. v OSM, Docket No. CH 1-222-P (1982). 

L & R, the permittee, sold its mine and equipment to Continental Enterprises, which was 

conducting the mining operations at the time the NOV was issued. The permit was later changed 

from L & R to Continental. The ALJ determined that L & R was responsible for the NOV, 

stating: "L & R cannot escape liability by selling assets to another corporation."

PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD DECISIONS

21. BLACK FOX MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. V COMMONWEALTH OF 

PA., DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, 1985 EHB 172, Docket No. 84-114-G 

(April 29, 1985). 

Black Fox was held to be responsible for the violation - mining without a permit - despite the 

fact that it was a subcontractor under the direct control of the operator, Allegheny River Mining 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 8 of 10

Company. Allegheny River had not applied for a mining permit nor had Black Fox inquired as to 

the existence of a mining permit before beginning its operations. Black Fox's subcontractor 

relationship with Allegheny River was "no defense to the DER actions appealed here, which 

were taken in response to a clear violation of the law". The Board noted that a "better practice" 

would have been the issuance of compliance orders to both Black Fox and Allegheny Mining.

STATE CASE LAW

22. DRESSLER COAL CORP. v DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, slip op (Ohio Ct App 

1984). 

Dressler Coal leased land from P.D.H Farms and obtained a strip mining license. Subsequently, 

Dressler Coal executed an agreement assigning the P.D.H. lease to Muskingum Valley Augering 

Corp. No attempt was made to have the mining license transferred to Muskingum Valley. 

Requests to modify the license, prepared reports and other documents were signed by employees 

of Dressler Coal. On appeal, the Board found Dressler Coal responsible for violations even 

though the actual mining and reclamation was performed by Muskingum Valley Coal: "A 

permittee cannot transfer reclamation liability through private agreement." Cites to WILSON 

FARMS COAL CO., above. 

FEDERAL CASE LAW

[In order of relevance.]

23. US v RAPOCA ENERGY CO., 613 F Supp 1161 (D C VA 1985). 

The court ruled that "a large coal company that contracts with independent companies to produce 

coal that it owns or leases is an "operator" responsible for the payment of reclamation fees." The 

independent contractor "owned no economic interest in the coal in place but merely enjoyed an 

economic advantage derived from production, through a contractual relation to [the] coal 

company".

This case met the two test that determine whether an agency relationship has been established: 

(1) The independent contractor was an agent subject to the principal's control; though the "right 

to control" not actual control "is determinative." (2) "[T]he work was done on the business of the 

principal or for his benefit." 

24. US v DIX FORK COAL CO., 692 F2d 436, 13 ELR 20244 (6th Cir 1982). 

Using the definition of "agent" from a "parallel statutory framework embodying a similar policy, 

purpose and structure", the Coal Mines Health and Safety Act, the court ruled that Wilford Niece 

was an agent of Dix Fork Coal and was "subject to any 'appropriate' district court order."

25. INTERNATIONAL UNION v FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW 

COMMISSION, 840 F2d 77 (D C Cir 1988). 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 9 of 10

The court reversed a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission when 

it ruled that a mine owner is liable to miners for wages lost as a result of the Secretary of Labor's 

closing of a mine for safety reasons under Section 111 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Act of 1977. The owner, "concededly an 'operator' under the meaning of the Act", is liable 

despite "the Secretary's decision to cite only the independent contractor operating the mine for 

the safety violation that prompted the closure."

26. ANNOTATION. "Who is 'operator' of coal mine within the meaning of the Federal 

Coal Mine Safety and Health Act (30 USCS Sec. 802(d))", 54 ALR Fed 792 (1989). 

ATTACHMENTS

1. WILLIAM J. MCINTIRE COAL CO. v COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES (DER), Docket No. 83-180-M, slip op (July 7, 1986). 

2. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP v COMMONWEALTH OF 

PA., DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND GRINDSTONE COAL CO., 

Docket No 83-269-G, slip op (March 5, 1986). 

3. KEYSTONE MINING COMPANY, INC. v COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, 1985 EHB 542, Docket No. 83-241-G (June 19, 

1985). 

4. PARKER SAND AND GRAVEL v COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, 1893 EHB 557, Docket No. 83-134-G (September 

9, 1983). 

5. JANE BURNS, et al. v GEORGE DIALS, COMMISSIONER, 378 SE 2d 665 (W Va 

1989). 

6. CLARK COAL CO. v OSM, 102 IBLA 93, IBLA 86-627, 87-348 (1988). 

7.

a. SHELBIANA CONSTRUCTION CO. v OSM, SAMMY GOFF v OSM, 102 

IBLA 19, IBLA 85-88, IBLA 87-307 (1988). 

b. SAMMY GOFF v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 5-49-R, NX 5-102-R (1987). 

8.

a. TENNESSEE CONSOLIDATE COAL CO. v OSM, 99 IBLA 274, IBLA 85-351 

(1987). 

b. TENNESSEE CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. AND WALNUT COAL 

COMPANY, INC. v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 1-87-R, NX 1-147-P (1985). 

9. MCWANE COAL CO., INC., 95 IBLA 1, IBLA 85-621 (1986). 

10. S & M COAL CO. & JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CO. v OSM, 79 IBLA 350, IBLA 

83-620, 82-20 (1984). 

11. KIMBERLY SUE COAL CO., INC., 74 IBLA 170, IBLA 83-619, 82-19 (1983). 

12.

a. VIRGINIA FUELS, INC., 4 IBSMA 185, IBSMA 82-18 (1982). 

b. MOLE COAL CO., INC. AND VIRGINIA FUELS, INC. v OSM, Docket Nos. 

CH 2-21-R, CH 2-33-R (1982). 

13. PIERCE COAL AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., 3 IBSMA 350, IBSMA 81-33 (1981). 

14.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Page 10 of 10

a. WILSON FARMS COAL CO., 2 IBSMA 118, IBSMA 80-33 (1980). 

b. WILSON FARMS COAL CO. v OSM, Docket No. NX 9-88-R (1980). 

15. H.C. BOSTIC COAL CO., INC. AND WAYNE BOSTIC v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 88-8-

R, NX 88-33-R, NX 88-34-R, NX 88-38-R, NX 88-46-R (1988). 

16. ROY E. MEHAFFEY v OSM, Docket No. NX 7-35-R (1987). 

17. BERNOS COAL CO. AND EXCELLO LAND MINERAL CORP. v OSM, Docket Nos. 

NX 1-118-R, NX 3-10-P (1985). 

18. GRUNDY MINING CO. AND TENNESSEE CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. v OSM, 

Docket No. NX 1-146-P (1985). 

19. Q & G COAL CO., INC. v OSM, Docket No. CH 1-200-P (1982). 

20. L & R MINING CO., INC. v OSM, Docket No. CH 1-222-P (1982). 

21. BLACK FOX MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v COMMONWEALTH OF 

PA., DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, 1985 EHB 172, Docket No. 84-

114-G (April 29, 1985). 

22. DRESSLER COAL CORP. v DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, slip op (Ohio Ct App 

1984). 

23. US v RAPOCA ENERGY CO., 613 F Supp 1161 (D C VA 1985). 

24. US v DIX FORK COAL CO., 692 F2d 436, 13 ELR 20244 (6th Cir 1982). 

25. INTERNATIONAL UNION v FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW 

COMMISSION, 840 F2d 77 (D C Cir 1988). 

26. ANNOTATION. "Who is 'operator' of coal mine within the meaning of the Federal Coal 

Mine Safety and Health Act (30 USCS Sec. 802(d))", 54 ALR Fed 792 (1989).