Opinion ID: 184828
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Planned Subsidence Minimization

Text: The Association next challenges two provisions of the newregulations that impose an obligation on mining permitteeswho use a planned subsidence mining technique to minimizesubsidence damage. If a permittee employs mining technology that provides for planned subsidence in a predictable and controlled manner, the permittee must take necessary and prudent measures, consistent with the mining method employed, to minimize material damage to the extent technologically and economically feasible to non-commercial buildings and occupied residential dwellings and structures related thereto.... 30 C.F.R. s 817.121(a)(2); see also 30 C.F.R. s 784.20(b)(7)(providing that mining companies required to submit a subsi- dence control plan and projecting to use planned subsidencemust, with certain exceptions, include a description of methods to be employed to minimize damage from planned subsidence to non-commercial buildings and occupied residentialdwellings and structures related thereto). Planned subsidence refers to mining methods that make it possible topredict the time and manner of the resulting subsidence (onesuch method is longwall mining). Appellant disputes the regulation's damage minimizationrequirement for planned subsidence on the ground that sucha requirement is contrary to s 516(b)(1) of the Mining Act,which provides that any permit issued must require the operator to adopt measures consistent with known technology in order to prevent subsidence causing material damage to the extent technologically and economically feasible, maximize mine stability, and maintain the value and reasonably foreseeable use of such surface lands, except in those instances where the mining technology used requires planned subsidence in a predictable and controlled manner.... 30 U.S.C. s 1266(b)(1) (1994) (emphasis added). Since Congress explicitly approved longwall mining, notwithstanding that, by definition, it causes subsidence, appellant argues that the regulation would frustrate Congress'intent. The government's minimization of damage requirement, we are told, is merely a paraphrase of the prevention ofdamage requirement from which longwall mining is exempted. The government argues that it is entitled to Chevrondeference in interpreting the statutory language for thephrase predictable and controlled manner can be interpreted as a manner that restricts collateral damage. Appellant,by contrast, would read predictable and controlled manner asnot imposing any separate obligation but as words that simplydescribe longwall mining. If we were interpreting the statutede novo, we might well agree that appellant has the betterargument. But we are not. And although the government'sreading is a bit of a stretch, we think it passes the Chevrontest. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).