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

Heading: Pre-Subsidence Survey

Text: Appellant challenges the regulation requiring all applicantsfor a mining permit to conduct, inter alia, a pre-subsidencesurvey of the condition of all non-commercial buildings oroccupied residential dwellings and structures related thereto,that may be materially damaged or for which the reasonablyforeseeable use may be diminished by subsidence, within thearea encompassed by the applicable angle of draw. 30C.F.R. s 784.20(a)(3) (1998). Appellant's principal objectionis that, when promulgating this regulation in 1995, the agencyfailed adequately to explain its deviation from its prior policynot to require pre-subsidence surveys. The government responds with two internally inconsistent arguments: that thechange in policy was justified (if not mandated) by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and that the requirement of a presubsidence survey of the condition of structures is not achange of position at all because the regulation has alwaysimplicitly required such a survey. We take this latter argument as an alternative one (though it would have been helpfulif counsel had designated it as such). Even so, it is plainlywrong, and we are surprised that the government wouldchoose to advance it. It cannot seriously be maintained thatprior to 1995 the regulation required a pre-subsidence survey. The government admits as much in describing the preEnergy Policy Act regulatory regime: beginning in 1983,[i]nstead of conducting a pre-subsidence survey, the applicant was now only required to identify any lands or structures that could be materially damaged by subsidence. Andin the preamble to the proposed version of the currentregulation, the Secretary explained that the survey itself[required by the prior regulation] is proposed to be changedfrom a mere inventory of structures, and renewable resourcelands, to a survey of the condition of structures, facilities, andsurface features. 58 Fed. Reg. at 50,179 (emphasis added). The government's argument that a pre-subsidence survey ofthe condition of structures has always been implicitly required is palpably in conflict with its own account of theregulatory history. Much the better argument is that the change in policy wasjustified by Congress' explicit instruction to the Secretary inthe Energy Policy Act to promulgate regulations to implement the new Act, which conferred greater protection tostructures and land from subsidence-caused damage. Onceagain, however, the government overplays its hand and suggests that Congress' instruction to promulgate new regulations completely absolves the agency of the requirement tosupply a reasoned explanation for its change in policy. Thegovernment relies for this proposition on our decision in Cityof Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1989), in whichwe stated that [a] change in congressional instructions, ofcourse, absolves the Secretary from explaining why his policyhas changed, if indeed it has, id. at 934. But Lujan involveda specific congressional instruction to take a precise agency action--issuing emergency regulations--more readily thanthe Secretary previously had seen fit to take. See id. TheEnergy Policy Act does not refer to pre-subsidence surveysat all, and so we do not see how Congress' general instructionto implement statutory protection of structures through arepair or compensate obligation absolves the government ofexplaining its decision to require a pre-subsidence survey thatit previously had opted against. Be that as it may, the agency did actually say in thepreamble to the final rule that the new policy was necessaryto effectively implement the requirements of the EnergyPolicy Act, 60 Fed. Reg. at 16,730, and more specifically thatthe information gathered was essential to establish a baseline against which the effects of subsidence may be measuredand to ensure full implementation [of the Energy PolicyAct], id. at 16,729. Consistent with the notion that theEnergy Policy Act's mandate justified the Secretary's decision to increase mining companies' information-gathering responsibilities, the agency limited the survey requirement tostructures and water supplies protected by the Energy PolicyAct. See id. at 16,730. Greater protection for structures(albeit only through a repair or compensate obligation) wasthe main impetus of the Energy Policy Act, and we think theagency's reliance on that impetus is a satisfactory explanationfor its change of policy. Appellant also contends that the agency failed to respondadequately to comments that the regulation is overly burdensome, and that it irrationally requires information about thecondition of structures at the time of the permit application,rather than at the time (often years later) when miningoperations actually commence. In our view, the agency hassaid enough and its regulations are not unreasonable. TheSecretary specifically responded to the comments complaining about the cost of the survey by limiting the structures towhich the requirement applied, and by modifying some of themapping requirements of the survey. See id. We do notagree with appellant, moreover, that the timing of the survey(pre-application as opposed to pre-mining) is without purpose. As the government points out, the results of the presubsidence survey are used to determine whether the applicant is also required to submit a subsidence control plan withthe application. See 30 C.F.R. s 784.20(b). The agencyconcluded that, based on its experience in this area, theproposed format for the survey information is the minimumneeded to adequately assess the need for a subsidence controlplan. 60 Fed. Reg. at 16,730. The government also explainsthat the possible effects of subsidence is a relevant factor inits determination of whether to grant a permit in the firstplace. We see no reason why the agency should be precludedfrom requiring all of this information at the time of theapplication just because conditions might change before mining begins. As the Secretary explained, the mining companycan always supplement outdated information later in theprocess. See 60 Fed. Reg. at 16,730. Nevertheless, the regulation as currently written must bevacated along with the first one discussed because it definesthe area within which the pre-subsidence survey is requiredby reference to the angle of draw. The government did notargue that the survey requirement could be sustained independent of the angle of draw--and we do not see how it could.