Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reshaping Cut and Fill Slopes (Roads and Underground Mines)

Text: 251 Industry appeals the Secretary's regulations regarding the reshaping of cut and fill slopes. Because those regulations were remanded pursuant to another proceeding, and not repromulgated by the Secretary, we find the present appeal misplaced. Accordingly, we hold Industry's challenge moot. 252 The Secretary promulgated national program regulations requiring the reclamation of roads at underground mine sites in accordance with the same standards applied to roads at surface mining sites. The regulations, which were identical to those applied to surface mining sites, mandated, inter alia, the reshaping [of] all cut and fill slopes to be compatible with the postmining land use and to complement the drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 817.150 (1984). 253 Industry challenged the regulation on the ground that its application to underground mines, where roads might have been in place for forty years and might have become settled and revegetated, would be unnecessary and possibly harmful. It claimed the reclamation standards of Sec. 515(b)(3), applicable to surface mines, could not be applied to underground mines through the catchall language of Sec. 516(b)(10) 75 because of that section's requirement that the distinct differences between surface and underground mining be accommodated. The district court rejected that challenge, concluding that the Secretary had made an appropriate finding that as far as roads were concerned, different regulations for surface and underground mines were unwarranted. 254 In a separate challenge, however, the district court remanded the Secretary's road classification system because it had been promulgated without proper notice and comment. Because the regulations establish performance standards for a primary road, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 817.151 (1984), not applicable to ancillary roads, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 817.150(b)-(f), the Secretary suspended the road regulations in their entirety. He announced his intent to propose new regulations which define the term 'road' and which address the design, construction, use and maintenance of roads used in surface coal mining operations. 50 FED.REG. 7276 (1985) (emphasis added). Consequently, the Secretary now argues that in light of the suspension, Industry's challenge is moot. Industry disagrees, asserting that the Secretary clearly intends to repropose the same regulation, as evidenced by his promulgation of regulations for the Tennessee federal program incorporating the requirements of Sec. 817.150, and the issue is one capable of repetition, yet evading review as in Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911). 255 Industry's claim notwithstanding, the Secretary's withdrawal of the regulation was not a clever manipulation of regulatory and appellate procedure designed to escape review; it was merely a prudent response to the district court's remand order. Although the road reclamation requirement is certainly capable of repetition, if and when the Secretary repromulgates Sec. 817.150, the regulation will be reviewable at that time. Unlike the ICC order at issue in Southern Pacific, SMCRA regulations are in no danger of expiring before judicial review is complete. It would be entirely inappropriate for this court to do as Industry suggests and issue an advisory opinion to guide the Secretary's rulemaking. 76 256