OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 1 of 14

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 165

March 1991

Stephen C. Keen, Director

Mines and Minerals

Division of Energy

1615 Washington Street, East

Charleston, West Virginia 25311

TOPIC: PERMIT REVISIONS; INCIDENTAL BOUNDARY REVISIONS

INQUIRY: 30 CFR 774.13(d) ["Requests to change permit boundary" under "Permit 

revisions"] states that "Any extensions to the area covered by the permit, except incidental 

boundary revisions, shall be made by application for a new permit." Please locate any material 

which defines "extensions". Does this mean acreage added to the permit area? If the same 

number of acres are added as are deleted from a permit, is a new permit required? How do the 

other IMCC states interpret this section? 

SEARCH RESULTS: COALEX Reports providing Legislative History, Regulatory History 

and state regulations for incidental boundary revisions (IBRs) were identified. Using the 

COALEX Library and other materials available in LEXIS, relevant OSM Directives and Federal 

Register preambles, discussing OSM rationale for approving or disapproving state IBR 

requirements, were retrieved. A survey of eleven IMCC member states provides information on 

current state regulations and their implementation. In addition, administrative and state decisions 

are included to indicate situations where IBRs or revised permits were required. Copies of the 

materials listed below are attached.

OSM DIRECTIVES

Subject No REG-19, Transmittal No 387, "Incidental Boundary Revisions" (October 19, 

1987).

The purpose of the Directive is to establish policy for determining when an extension of the area 

covered by a federal permit constitutes an incidental boundary revision.

Nine criteria are listed for when a proposed boundary revision would be considered incidental. 

Some of the criteria are: 

1. When the proposed change would not increase the area of land available for coal removal 

unless the increase would be a secondary impact of and incidental to the primary purpose 

of the revision; 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 2 of 14

2. When the proposed change would only involve lands for which the analysis of probable 

hydrologic consequences is applicable; 

3. When the proposed change would not constitute a change in the method of mining; 

4. When the proposed change would be contiguous with the permit area of a surface mine, 

but need not be contiguous with the permit area of an underground mine. 

Some of the examples provided include:

1. The addition of areas to expand support facilities; 

2. The addition of areas to improve the alignment of a road or diversion ditch or the 

placement of a soil stock pile area of a sedimentation control structure; 

3. The addition of areas to make minor adjustments in the area permitted for coal extraction 

so long as the total area permitted for extraction is not increased. 

Subject No REG-21, Transmittal No 398, "Findings and Determinations for Revisions and 

Renewals of Federal Permits" (November 10, 1987).

PREVIOUS COALEX REPORTS

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 34, "Incidental boundary revision" (1985).

This Report provides Legislative History on the phrase "incidental boundary revisions"; a copy 

of the 1983 federal regulatory revision which added a new section establishing minimum criteria 

for approval of permit revisions; and copies of state regulations.

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 118, "Major/minor permit revisions" (1989).

Included in this Report is a survey of regulations that define "major" or "significant" permit 

revision for five states: Indiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, Montana and Wyoming.

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ON FEDERAL REGULATIONS 

48 FR 44344 (SEPTEMBER 28, 1983). Final rule. Requirements of applications. 

See COALEX Report - 34.

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES ON STATE REGULATIONS

In the following Federal Register preambles, OSM discusses approval or disapproval of state 

program requirements for incidental boundary revisions or permit revisions:

ILLINOIS

53 FR 43112 (OCTOBER 25, 1988) [Excerpts]
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 3 of 14

INDIANA 

51 FR 17478 (MAY 13, 1986) [Excerpts]

IOWA 

51 FR 17176 (MAY 9, 1986) [Excerpts]

KENTUCKY 

55 FR 46054 (NOVEMBER 1, 1990)

55 FR 24113 (JUNE 14, 1990) [Excerpts]

48 FR 21574 (MAY 13, 1983) [Excerpts]

48 FR 22711 (MAY 20, 1983) [Excerpts]

OHIO 

52 FR 26959 (JULY 17, 1987) [Excerpts]

TENNESSEE 

53 FR 49104 (DECEMBER 5, 1988) 

WEST VIRGINIA

55 FR 23703 (JUNE 12, 1990) [Excerpts]

55 FR 21304 (MAY 23, 1990) [Excerpts]

54 FR 16136 (APRIL 21, 1989) [Excerpts]

INTERIOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

TURNER BROTHERS, INC. (TBI) v OSM, Docket No. TU 6-51-R (1987).

TBI had obtained an incidental boundary revision requiring them to follow a specific cut 

sequence, progressing south; TBI had made cuts progressing west. The ALJ affirmed the 

issuance of the NOV because TBI had not followed their mine plan. 

ROCKY COAL CO., INC. v OSM, Docket No. NX 7-90-R (1987).

Rocky Coal was cited for having failed to permit all areas which had been disturbed, by the 

placement of overburden and spoil. The corrective action required a permit revision. The CO was 

affirmed because Rocky Coal failed to correct the inadequacies in its permit revision application 

that had been resubmitted to the state regulatory authority.

MULLINS COAL CO., INC. v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 5-29-R, NX 5-41-R (August 23, 

1985).

The ALJ found that Mullins had failed to apply for an amendment to its permit to incorporate all 

areas that had been affected by its operations: a landslide occurred on a portion of Mullins' haul 

road.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 4 of 14

ISLAND CREEK COAL CO. v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 9-106-R, NX 0-35-P (1981).

Island Creek was found to have disturbed an area off the permitted area. They did receive 

permission from the regulatory authority to add the disturbed area to their permitted acreage.

PENNSYLVANIA ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

KOCHER COAL CO. v COMMONWEALTH OF PENN., DEPT. OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (DER), EHB Docket No. 82-073-W (1986).

Kocher was directed to discontinue mining activities being conducted outside the boundary of 

Kocher's approved mining permits. Kocher had submitted an amended permit application to 

DER for additional acreage for its mining activities and although DER had not approved the 

amended permit, Kocher believed that DER had approved it. During the appeal process, DER did 

grant the permit for the additional acreage. The board dismissed the appeal as moot.

ROCKWOOD INSURANCE CO. (BLUE COAL CO.) AND ROCKWOOD INSURANCE 

CO. (NORTHWEST MINING CO.) v COMMONWEALTH OF PENN., DEPT. OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (DER), 1981 EHB 424, Docket Nos. 78-168-S, 78-166-S 

(1981).

The two coal companies bonded by Rockwood increased their permitted acreage by applying for 

and receiving amended permits. Both companies later failed to comply with the state 

performance standards and their bonds were forfeited. DER proved that the bonds were properly 

forfeited in their full face amounts.

STATE DECISION

OOTEN v FAERBER, COMMISSIONER, W. VA. DEPT. OF ENERGY, AND MAGNET 

COAL, INC., 383 SE 2d 774 (W Va 1989).

"SYLLABUS: 2. Where consideration of the reinstatement of an area deleted from a surfacemining permit is conditioned upon (1) completion of mining and reclamation on a significant 

portion of the approved area and upon (2) a further determination of the possible effect of mining 

on the deleted area, there must be compliance with both of these conditions, including 

revegetation, prior to reinstatement, unless the permit conditions are modified in accordance with 

the statute."
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 5 of 14

SURVEY 

SURVEY QUESTIONS

A. Do you literally apply the provisions of 511(a)(3), to your program, thereby mandating 

acquisition of a new permit if a permit boundary is to be extended other than through an 

IBR?

B. Do you interpret the term "extension" as it is used in 511(a)(3) to mean an increase in size 

of the permit, or to encompass any boundary change in the permitted area?

C. Are incidental boundary revisions allowed within your program as a means of changing 

permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage? If so, are there any restrictions on the 

scope or use of IBRs?

D. Is there any other mechanism within your program whereby a permit may be revised or 

amended to change permit boundaries or to increase permitted acreage? If so, what is the 

mechanism, and what are the limitations, if any, which apply to its use?

E. Do you allow permit revisions or amendments which exchange previously permitted and 

bonded acreage, which has not been and will not be disturbed due to a change in plans, 

for new acreage of equivalent or lesser acreage? Such as "add/delete" revision would 

result in either no net change in permitted area, or a decrease in total permitted area. 

F. Whatever permit boundary or size revision procedures exist within your program, are 

they approved by OSM? 

SURVEY RESULTS

ALABAMA

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

No. To do so would result in an unmanageable permit load and an unreasonable and unnecessary 

cost in time and money.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Any change in boundary.

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope?

Yes. The acreage must be minimal in comparison to the original permit size. Baseline 

information in the original permit must cover the extension area. The operation and reclamation 

plans in the original permit must be applicable to the extension areas.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 6 of 14

No. 

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision? 

Yes, if conditions stated above, in C., apply.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM? 

All are policy or procedural interpretations of state regulations which mirror federal regulations. 

ARKANSAS

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

No. New permits are not required; however, all provisions of permitting process are required, as 

if a new permit would be issued. This would be called a "significant departure" and the permit 

revised.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Use the term as it is used in 511(A)(3).

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope?

Yes, depending on site specific conditions and circumstances. State generally does not allow 

more than a 5 - 10 % increase in acreage.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

Unaffected acreage may be reduced from permit; otherwise, any changes are according to 

511(a)(3).

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

Swapping or adding acreage would either be treated as a "significant departure" or IBR.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Yes.

ILLINOIS

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 7 of 14

Yes, for surface mines and surface facilities of underground mines. For underground works of 

underground mines (shadow areas), areas may be added as a significant revision to an existing 

permit.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

An extension would be an area subject to permitting which was not previously permitted. This 

would involve both a change in size as well as a change in boundary.

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope?

IBRs allow both. It does not seem possible to add acres without adding permit boundaries. IBRs 

are granted in accordance with 62 Ill. Adm. Code 1774.13(d). No other restrictions apply.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

Other than IBRs and the methods described in A., above, or as part of a provision in the Illinois 

program allowing for the separate permitting of minor underground facilities (MUF), no other 

methods for adding acres exist. MUFs are limited to small areas not adjacent to the major 

permitted facilities. MUFs include air shafts, fan and ventilation buildings, small support 

buildings, access power holes, etc.

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

No. Such additions and deletions may only be accomplished through two distinct and separate 

actions.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Yes.

INDIANA

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

No.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Increase in acreage of permit area.

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope?
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 8 of 14

IBRs are used to increase acreage, with a maximum of 20 acres per IBR. The aggregate of all 

IBRs cannot be more than 15 % of original permit. The maximum increase for coal removal 

acreage is 10 %.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

No.

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

No.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Yes.

KENTUCKY

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

No. State regulations allow for an amendment. Amendments must meet the same criteria as a 

new permit.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Any boundary change.

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope? 

Yes. Only restriction is 10 % or 20 acres in size, whichever is less.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

See answers to A., B. and C., above.

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

Yes. State will allow deletion for undisturbed acres. The acreage limitations in C., above, do not 

count in the deletion of acreage.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Yes. 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 9 of 14

MARYLAND

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

Maryland requires a permittee to apply for and obtain an amended permit for any change in the 

boundaries of a permitted area. A "new" permit application and bond is required prior to issuing 

a new permit or amendment that allows the change to occur on the ground. However, such 

procedures as advertisement (public notice and opportunity for a hearing) are not required when 

the area change is less than 10 acres and the Bureau determines the change is insignificant. 

Maryland will allow a permit to be increased in area, using this procedure, a total of 10 acres 

over the permit's entire life.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Maryland requires application for, approval of, and issuance of an amended permit for all 

changes to a mine permit that results in different area being affected than was previously 

approved.

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope? 

A permittee is allowed to move a permit boundary a maximum of 250 feet from its original 

position. The new area covered by this shift must be countered by a deletion of an equivalent 

acreage elsewhere in the permit. To obtain this type of boundary revision, there must be 

equivalent undisturbed area available to delete. An application must be filed for such a permit 

boundary revision and all applicable aspects of the permitting program addressed. An amended 

permit will be issued if the proposal is approved.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

Maryland allows area amendments to all mining permits. Amendments determined to be 

significant revisions require the same application forms, review procedures, public notice 

requirements, PHC, CHIA, written findings, and AVS compliance review as an original permit. 

Amendments that are listed in Maryland's regulations as insignificant include revisions that 

allow up to 10 acres to be added to a permit (over the life of the permit). Insignificant revisions 

require the Bureau's approval, but are not subject to public notice requirements. There are no 

mechanisms, other than described above, to change permit boundaries or increase acreage.

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

Yes, if the boundary of the "add" area is not more than 250 feet from the original permit 

boundary, or a boundary that was established through significant revision procedures. An 

amended permit is issued for "add/delete" changes.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 10 of 14

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Yes.

OHIO

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

Yes.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

---

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope? 

Yes. See Division Advisory Memos #28 and #29 attached.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

No.

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision? No. 

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Yes.

OKLAHOMA

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

Yes.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Use the term as it is used in 511(a)(3).

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope? 

Yes. The operator can add 10 acres or 5 % of the permit whichever is less.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 11 of 14

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage? 

Boundaries can be decreased through the bond release procedure, if the land has not been 

disturbed. 

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

No.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Yes.

PENNSYLVANIA

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

Yes. Additional acreage may not be added to a permit other than through and IBR.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Pennsylvania's program does not use the term "extension" with respect to permit revisions and 

changes in permit boundaries. We would interpret the term "extension" as used in 511(a)(3) to 

mean an increase in the size of the permit. 

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope? 

Insignificant boundary corrections are allowed under the following conditions: 1) may be

considered only for areas where mining was intended at the time the permit was issued (i.e., 

irregular coal cropline); 2) correction must be small or inconsequential (in most cases, area 

substantially less than 5 acres and in no case would an area greater than 5 acres be considered 

insignificant); and 3) may not be used to correct violation where mined off permit area.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

None.

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

Areas under authorizations for bonding increments within a permit may be revised or amended 

but total permit acreage and permit boundaries remain unchanged.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 12 of 14

Yes.

NEW MEXICO

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

Other than IBRs, a permit revision (with notification to interested parties, opportunity for public 

hearing, etc.) is required if the new boundary is contiguous with existing boundary.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Any boundary change.

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope? 

IBRs are allowed for both. No definite criteria for IBRs, they are subject to the director's 

discretion.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

Other than IBRs, a permit revision is required. A new permit would be required if new area is not 

contiguous.

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

Other than IBRs, a permit revision is required even if total acreage in permit remains the same.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Yes, part of regulations. 

VIRGINIA

A. Does state require new permit if boundary extended other than through IBR?

Yes.

B. Interpretation of "extension".

Virginia interprets the incidental "extension" to mean any IBR that adds any previously 

unpermitted areas to the permit area.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 13 of 14

C. Does state allow IBRs to change permit boundaries or increase permitted acreage: restrictions 

and scope? 

The Virginia program allows IBR which may add incidental acreage or modify existing permit 

boundaries. However, Virginia restricts this revision to only incidental changes.

D. Are there other mechanisms for changing permit boundaries or increasing permitted acreage?

No. Any areas other than IBRs may be permitted only by applying for a separate permit or by 

applying for a new permit encompassing both areas. Either way, all new permit requirements are 

mandated.

E. Does state allow acreage exchange, e.g., "add/delete" revision?

Deletion of undisturbed permitted acreage is not restricted. However, additions of new areas 

must, independent of the deletion, meet the IBR test. Otherwise, the new area must be a new 

permit.

F. Are state's permit boundary or size revision procedures approved by OSM?

Virginia has not adopted specific criteria nor has OSM officially approved them. However, the 

Virginia IBR procedures have been used since December 16, 1981 without issue from OSM.

ATTACHMENTS

A. OSM DIRECTIVE, Subject No REG-19, Transmittal No 387, "Incidental Boundary 

Revisions" (October 19, 1987). 

B. OSM DIRECTIVE, Subject No REG-21, Transmittal No 398, "Findings and 

Determinations for Revisions and Renewals of Federal Permits" (November 10, 1987). 

C. COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 34, "Incidental boundary revision" (1985) 

A. S REP No 402, 93rd Cong, 1st Sess 57 (1973). [Excerpt] 

B. S REP No 128, 95th Cong, 1st Sess 79-80 (1977). [Excerpt] 

C. 48 FR 44376-78 (SEPTEMBER 28, 1983). Sec. 774.13 Permit revisions. 

[Excerpt] 

D. KENTUCKY Administrative Regulations, 405 KAR 8:010 Sec. 20 Permit 

Revisions. [Excerpts] 

E. ILLINOIS Coal Mining Regulations. Parts 1711, 1786, 1787 and 1788. [Excerpts] 

F. WEST VIRGINIA Surface Mining Reclamation Regs. Sec. 7D, IBRs; West 

Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act, Article 6, Sec. 20-6-19 

Permit Revision. [Excerpts] 

G. Annotated Code of MARYLAND, Sec. 7-505 (1979). Code of Maryland 

Regulations Sec. 08.13.09.08.[Excerpts] 

H. WYOMING Environmental Quality Act, Sec. 35-11-402. Land Quality Div. of 

the Dept. of Environmental Quality Regs., Sec. 6 (1980). [Excerpts] 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall

Survey conducted by: IMCC

Page 14 of 14

I. NORTH DAKOTA Admin. Code, Sec. 69-05.2-11-02 Permit Revisions. 

[Excerpt] 

J. COLORADO Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, Sec. 34-33-103. Colorado 

Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Regs., Sec. 2.08.4 (1982). 

D. COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 118, "Major/minor permit revisions" (1989).

A. SMCRA Sec. 511. 

B. 30 CFR 774.13 Permit Revisions. 

C. INDIANA Regulations and Statutes 

D. TENNESSEE Regulations and Statutes 

E. WEST VIRGINIA Regulations and Statutes 

F. MONTANA Regulations and Statutes 

G. WYOMING Regulations and Statutes 

E. ILLINOIS: 53 FR 43112 (OCTOBER 25, 1988) [Excerpts] 

F. INDIANA: 51 FR 17478 (MAY 13, 1986) [Excerpts] 

G. IOWA: 51 FR 17176 (MAY 9, 1986) [Excerpts] 

H. KENTUCKY: 

a. 55 FR 46054 (NOVEMBER 1, 1990) 

b. 55 FR 24113 (JUNE 14, 1990) [Excerpts] 

c. 48 FR 21574 (MAY 13, 1983) [Excerpts] 

d. 48 FR 22711 (MAY 20, 1983) [Excerpts] 

I. OHIO: 52 FR 26959 (JULY 17, 1987) [Excerpts] 

J. TENNESSEE: 53 FR 49104 (DECEMBER 5, 1988) 

K. WEST VIRGINIA: 

a. 55 FR 23703 (JUNE 12, 1990) [Excerpts] 

b. 55 FR 21304 (MAY 23, 1990) [Excerpts] 

c. 54 FR 16136 (APRIL 21, 1989) [Excerpts] 

L. TURNER BROTHERS, INC. (TBI) v OSM, Docket No. TU 6-51-R (1987). 

M. ROCKY COAL CO., INC. v OSM, Docket No. NX 7-90-R (1987). 

N. MULLINS COAL CO., INC. v OSM, Docket Nos. NX 5-29-R, NX 5-41-R (August 23, 

1985). 

O. ISLAND CREEK COAL CO. v OSM), Docket Nos. NX 9-106-R, NX 0-35-P (1981). 

P. KOCHER COAL CO. v COMMONWEALTH OF PENN., DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESOURCES (DER), EHB Docket No. 82-073-W (1986). 

Q. ROCKWOOD INSURANCE CO. (BLUE COAL CO.) AND ROCKWOOD INSURANCE 

CO. (NORTHWEST MINING CO.) v COMMONWEALTH OF PENN., DEPT. OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (DER), 1981 EHB 424, Docket Nos. 78-168-S, 78-166-

S (1981). 

R. OOTEN v FAERBER, COMMISSIONER, W. VA. DEPT. OF ENERGY, AND MAGNET 

COAL, INC., 383 SE 2d 774 (W Va 1989).