Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99931264/Citizens-Coal-Council-v-Norton
Timestamp: 2014-10-31 09:26:58
Document Index: 641323711

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\n1291', '§\n1272', '§\n761', '§\n1201', 'art 761', '§\n761', '§\n700', '§\n761', '§\n1202', '§\n1201', '§\n1272', '§\n1291', '§\n1266']

P. 1Citizens Coal Council v NortonCitizens Coal Council v NortonRatings: (0)|Views: 3
|Likes: 0Published by Mark EpsteinCitizens Coal Council v NortonCitizens Coal Council v NortonMore info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Mark Epstein on Jul 12, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/99931264/Citizens-Coal-Council-v-Norton07/12/2014pdftextoriginal 5/2/12CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL v. NORTON, Nos. 02-5136, 02-5137, 02-5190, 1/9caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1136544.html
Unied Sae Co of Appeal,Diic of Colmbia Cici.
CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL . NORTON
CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Gale A. NORTON,Secretar of the Interior, and National Mining Association, Appellant/Cross-Appellees.Nos. 02-5136, 02-5137, 02-5190, 02-5232, 02-5244, 02-5245.Argued April 7, 2003. -- June 03, 2003
SENTELLE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.Kathryn E. Kovacs, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for federalappellant/cross-appellee Secretary of the Interior. With her on the briefs were William B.Lazarus and Robert H. Oakley, Attorneys.Thomas C. Means argued the cause for appellant/cross-appellee National Mining Association. With him on the briefs were J.Michael Klise, Kirsten L. Nathanson, and Harold P. Quinn, Jr.Walton D. Morris, Jr., arguedthe cause for appellees/cross-appellants. With him on the briefs were Paul W. Edmondson,Elizabeth S. Merritt, Howard I. Fox, and Glenn P. Sugameli.Gregory E. Conrad andChristopher B. Power were on the brief for amicus curiae Interstate Mining CompactCommission in support of the Secretary of the Interior and the National Mining Association.Henry M. Ingram entered an appearance.This is an appeal by the Secretary of the Interior and intervenor National Mining Association(NMA) from a judgment of the District Court. The District Court held that the Secretary'sinterpretation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's (SMCRA) section701(28), 30 U.S.C. §
1291(28) (2000), to exclude subsidence from the definition of surfacecoal mining operations regulated under section 522(e) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §
1272(e), wascontrary to the law and therefore invalid. Because we find that Congress did not speak unambiguously on this precise issue in the SMCRA and because we find the Secretary'sinterpretation to be reasonable, we defer to the Secretary and reverse the District Court.I.
5/2/12CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL v. NORTON, Nos. 02-5136, 02-5137, 02-5190, 2/9caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1136544.html
This case began with Citizens Coal Council's (CCC) challenge to the Secretary of theInterior's final rulemaking action by which she promulgated the regulation contained in 30C.F.R. §
761.200 (2003). The challenged regulation is an interpretive rule, based onsections 701(28) and 522(e) of the SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. §
1201, et seq. The regulationstates:761.200
Interpretive rule related to subsidence due to underground coal mining in areasdesignated by Act of Congress. OSM has adopted the following interpretation of rules promulgated in part 761.(a)
Interpretation of §
761.11-Areas where mining is prohibited or limited. Subsidence dueto underground coal mining is not included in the definition of surface coal mining operationsunder section 701(28) of the Act and §
700.5 of this chapter and therefore is not prohibited inareas protected under section 522(e) of the Act.30 C.F.R. §
761.200. CCC sought review of this rulemaking in District Court, after exhausting its administrative remedies. It claimed that the Secretary's interpretation of thecited provisions of the SMCRA was contrary to the clear law, and therefore, unworthy of anydeference by the courts. As a remedy, CCC requested that the court vacate the regulationand instruct the Secretary to impose instead, a regulation stating that subsidence was includedwithin 701(28)'s definition. The District Court granted CCC's motion for summary judgment holding that Congress has expressed its intent clearly on the precise point at issuehere and that the Secretary's interpretation of §
[701(28)
] and §
[522(e)
] is contrary to law.
Citizens Coal Council v. Norton, 193 F.Supp.2d 159, 165 (D.D.C.2002). The DistrictCourt then remanded the regulation to the Secretary without instruction.CCC filed a notice of appeal on April 11, 2002, and intervenor NMA filed its notice thefollowing day. On June 5, 2002, the District Court granted the appellant's motion to stay theremand order, but vacated the regulation and stayed its judgment pending appeal. SeeCitizens Coal Council v. Babbitt, No. 00-0274 (June 5, 2002). On June 6, 2002, theSecretary filed a notice of appeal of both rulings. In the present case, the Secretary and NMA appeal the District Court's ruling that the regulation was invalid and its subsequentvacation of the regulation, and CCC appeals the District Court's refusal to grant the full relief it requested.B.
The Statutory SchemeWe recognize from the outset that the SMCRA is a complex and often puzzling statute, inmany cases raising a variety of questions as to its correct interpretation. SMCRA wasenacted in an effort by Congress to both protect society and the environment from theadverse effects of surface coal mining operations and to assure that the coal supply essentialto the Nation's energy requirements, and to its economic and social well-being is provided andstrike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural activity and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy. 30 U.S.C. §
1202(a), (f). As the
5/2/12CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL v. NORTON, Nos. 02-5136, 02-5137, 02-5190, 3/9caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1136544.html
District Court recognized and the parties do not dispute, the focus of the regulation inSMCRA was primarily on the surface mining techniques, such as strip-mining, and one of itsgoals was to encourage the development and application of underground mining technologiesas an alternative less likely to disturb lands used for other activities. See Citizens Coal, 193F.Supp.2d at 161 (citing 30 U.S.C. §§
1201, 1202(k)).To this purpose, SMCRA section 522(e) prohibits surface coal mining operations withcertain exceptions, in a number of protected areas, particularly within the boundaries of thenational parks system, national forests, and public parks and historic sites. In addition, theseoperations are also prohibited within [100] feet of the outside right-of-way line of any publicroad; within [300] feet from any occupied dwelling, unless waived by the owner thereof;and within [300] feet of any public building, school, church, community, or institutional building, public park, or within [100] feet of a cemetery. 30 U.S.C. §
1272(e)(4), (5).SMCRA section 701(28) defines surface coal mining operations as follows:(A)
activities conducted on the surface of lands in connection with a surface coal mine or subject to the requirements of section 1266 of this title surface operations and surface impactsincident to an underground coal mine, the products of which enter commerce or theoperations of which directly or indirectly affect interstate commerce. Such activities includeexcavation for the purpose of obtaining coal including such common methods as contour,strip, auger, mountaintop removal, box cut, open pit, and area mining, the uses of explosivesand blasting, and in situ distillation or retorting, leaching or other chemical or physical processing, and the cleaning, concentrating, or other processing or preparation, loading of coalfor interstate commerce at or near the mine site
the areas upon which such activities occur or where such activities disturb the naturalland surface. Such areas shall also include any adjacent land the use of which is incidental toany such activities, all lands affected by the construction of new roads or the improvement or use of existing roads to gain access to the site of such activities and for haulage, andexcavations, workings, impoundments, dams, ventilation shafts, entryways, refuse banks,dumps, stockpiles, overburden piles, spoil banks, culm banks, tailings, holes or depressions,repair areas, storage areas, processing areas, shipping areas and other areas which are sitedstructures, facilities, or other property or materials on the surface, resulting from or incident tosuch activities[.]30 U.S.C. §
1291(28). SMCRA section 516(a) requires the Secretary to promulgate rulesand regulations directed toward the surface effects of underground coal mining operationsembodying the requirements of section 516(b), but instructs the Secretary, in adopting suchrules, to consider the distinct difference between surface coal mining and underground coalmining. 30 U.S.C. §
1266(a). The permit requirement of section 516(b) mentionssubsidence specifically, in contrast to sections 522 and 701(28).516(b): Permit requirements
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Handbook on Coordinating NEPA and Section 106
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to Sect...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Bexley Historical Society Constitution and Bylaws
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Report to Congress on Historic Preservation
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection NEPA and FHWA project implementation
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection OAC Chapter 4906-17 Application Filing Requirements for W...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Lawriter - OAC - Chapter 4906-17 Application Filing Requi...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection General Contents Requirements for Permit Applications
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Sayler Park Village Council et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of ...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection 99-2047P
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection ANTHONY PALAZZOLO, PETITIONER v.
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Community Development Block Grant Program: Streamlining F...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection FW Senate Bill 193 - Potential Affect on OHS
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Sayler Park Village Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Committee to Save the Hulletts v. U.S. Army Corps of Engi...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Section 4(f) 2012 Policy Paper
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection National Mining Association v Fowler No 02-5041
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection National Historic Preservation Act
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation