(a) This chapter applies to all coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations except:
(b) The regulatory authority may on its own initiative and shall, within a reasonable time of a request from any person who intends to conduct surface coal mining operations, make a written determination whether the operation is exempt under this section. The regulatory authority shall give reasonable notice of the request to interested persons. Prior to the time a determination is made, any person may submit, and the regulatory authority shall consider, any written information relevant to the determination. A person requesting that an operation be declared exempt shall have the burden of establishing the exemption. If a written determination of exemption is reversed through subsequent administrative or judicial action, any person who, in good faith, has made a complete and accurate request for an exemption and relied upon the determination, shall not be cited for violations which occurred prior to the date of the reversal.
(c)(1) A regulatory authority may terminate its jurisdiction under the regulatory program over the reclaimed site of a completed surface coal mining and reclamation operation, or increment thereof, when:
(i) The regulatory authority determines in writing that under the initial program, all requirements imposed under subchapter B of this chapter have been successfully completed; or
(ii) The regulatory authority determines in writing that under the permanent program, all requirements imposed under the applicable regulatory program have been successfully completed or, where a performance bond was required, the regulatory authority has made a final decision in accordance with the State or Federal program counterpart to part 800 of this chapter to release the performance bond fully.
(2) Following a termination under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the regulatory authority shall reassert jurisdiction under the regulatory program over a site if it is demonstrated that the bond release or written determination referred to in paragraph (d)(1) of this section was based upon fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation of a material fact.
[47 FR 33431, July 2, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 40634, Sept. 8, 1983; 48 FR 44779, Sept. 30, 1983; 49 FR 38477, Sept. 28, 1984; 53 FR 44363, Nov. 2, 1988; 54 FR 52120, 54 FR 52120, Dec. 20, 1989; 81 FR 93319, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54924, Nov. 17, 2017; 90 FR 54573, Nov. 28, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Kempthorne, 569 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 6× “395, 397 (May 13, 2005) [hereinafter WVHC]; see also 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (d)(2). Accordingly, the DEP declined to reassert-jurisdiction over the LaRosa site or to otherwise take any action with respect to the violations alleged in WVHC’s citizen complaint.”
Jaward Corp. v. Watt, 564 F. Supp. 797 (W.D. Va. 1983).
· cites it 2× “” In essence, the plaintiff is challenging the OSM’s regulation which defines criteria for the two-acre exemption; to-wit, 30 C.F.R. 700.11. At the outset, the court considers it necessary to ascertain whether the court has jurisdiction to hear this petition for a temporary…”
Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel, 622 F. Supp. 1160 (D.D.C. 1985).
“30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (b) (1982). On November 27, 1979, OSM suspended a portion of that regulation which applied to “physically unrelated sites.”
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 797 (4th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 4× “In 1988, the Secretary of Interior, through OSM, promulgated a termination of jurisdiction rule, 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (d), for the purpose of defining the moment in time at which OSM and state agencies lose jurisdiction over surface mining and reclamation operations.”
State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Alternate Fuels, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “at 13819 , and regulatory jurisdiction only expires over reclaimed land according to 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (d) (2005). 16 “The permittee whose authorization to conduct surface coal mining operations has expired but who still has reclamation obligations to complete according to the…”
Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Va. 1992).
“In deciding whether jurisdiction was proper, the district court framed the plaintiffs’ argument as follows: The plaintiffs allege that the manner in which this cessation order was presented was a denial of due process in that the defendant denied plaintiff an opportunity for an…”
United States v. Shelton Coal Corp., 647 F. Supp. 264 (W.D. Va. 1986).
“There can be no question that haul roads were not expressly included in the computation of the two acres by regulations until amendments were made to 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 in July 1982. Therefore, the question arises as to whether or not the regulation of July 1982 is to be…”
United States v. Lambert Coal Co., 649 F. Supp. 1470 (W.D. Va. 1986).
· cites it 14× “This classification occurs because of 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (b). 1 Even *1472 though both mine # 44 and mine # 14 contain less than two acres, they are not exempt under 30 C.”
United States v. Beaird Coal Co., Inc., & Cordova Clay Co., Inc., 825 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1987).
“" 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (b) (1986). Mining operations are deemed related if drainage from both flows into the same watershed within five aerial miles of either operation or if the operations are under common ownership or control.”
Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Clark, 725 F.2d 1422 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
“The rule revises 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (b) by outlining specific guidelines for determining whether two or more operations are related for purposes of determining whether they comprise more than two acres.”
— 30 C.F.R. § 700.11(d) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Alternate Fuels, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
“at 13819 , and regulatory jurisdiction only expires over reclaimed land according to 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (d) (2005). 16 “The permittee whose authorization to conduct surface coal mining operations has expired but who still has reclamation obligations to complete according to the…”
— 30 C.F.R. § 700.11(d)(2) — 1 case
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 797 (4th Cir. 1998).
“In 1988, the Secretary of Interior, through OSM, promulgated a termination of jurisdiction rule, 30 C.F.R. § 700.11 (d), for the purpose of defining the moment in time at which OSM and state agencies lose jurisdiction over surface mining and reclamation operations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.