30 C.F.R. § 723.16

Waiver of use of formula to determine civil penalty

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Director, upon his own initiative or upon written request received within 15 days of issuance of a notice of violation or a cessation order, may waive the use of formula contained in 30 CFR 723.13 to set the civil penalty, if he or she determines that, taking into account exceptional factors present in the particular case, the penalty is demonstrably unjust. However, the Director shall not waive the use of the formula or reduce the proposed assessment on the basis of an argument that a reduction in the proposed penalty could be used to abate violations of the Act, this chapter, any applicable program, or any condition of any permit or exploration approval. The basis for every waiver shall be fully explained and documented in the records of the case.

(b) If the Director waives the use of the formula, he or she shall use the criteria set forth in 30 CFR 723.13(b) to determine the appropriate penalty. When the Director has elected to waive the use of the formula, he or she shall give a written explanation of the basis for the assessment made to the person to whom the notice or order was issued.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1982–1994 · leading case: United States v. Hill, 533 F. Supp. 810 (E.D. Tenn. 1982).
United States v. Hill, 533 F. Supp. 810 (E.D. Tenn. 1982). · cites it 2× “30 C.F.R. § 723.16 (a). Within 30 days of the issuance of the notice or order, the Assessment Office must inform the permittee of its decision to assess a penalty and must serve on the permittee a copy of the proposed assessment.”
United States v. Log Mountain Mining Co., 550 F. Supp. 811 (E.D. Tenn. 1982). · cites it 2× “30 C.F.R. § 723.16 (a). Within 30 days of the issuance of the notice or order, the Assessment Office must inform the permittee of its decision to assess a penalty and must serve on the permittee a copy of the proposed assessment.”
Maynard C. Graham & Graham Bros. Coal Co. v. Off. of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enf't, 722 F.2d 1106 (3rd Cir. 1983). “30 C.F.R. § 723.16 (a) (1977) (now codified at 30 C.”
B & M Coal Corp., Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Off. of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enf't, Counter-Claimant-Appellee, 699 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1983). “30 C.F.R. § 723.16 (a). OSM must consider any information submitted in determining whether to assess a civil penalty and the amount of the penalty.”
United States v. Thompson Bros. Coal Co., Inc., 532 F. Supp. 979 (W.D. Pa. 1982). “30 C.F.R. 723.16(a). Furthermore, upon receipt of the proposed penalty assessment the operator may seek an informal conference to haggle over the amount of the penalty to be assessed.”
B & M Coal Corp. v. Off. of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enf't, 531 F. Supp. 677 (S.D. Ind. 1982). “30 C.F.R. § 723.16 (a). The Secretary must determine within thirty days of issuing the notice whether to assess a civil penalty, calculate it and inform the operator of the amount.”
John Walters Coal Co. v. Watt, 553 F. Supp. 838 (E.D. Ky. 1982). “30 CFR § 723.16 (a). Within 30 days of the issuance of the notice or order, the Assessment Office must inform the permittee of its decision to assess a penalty and must serve on the permittee a copy of the proposed assessment.”
United States v. Stanley Finley, 835 F.2d 134 (6th Cir. 1987). “30 C.F.R. § 723.16 (a). The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) must consider such information in determining whether to assess a civil penalty and in determining the amount of the penalty.”
St. James v. Dep't of Env't Prot. & Energy, 646 A.2d 447 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994). “30 C.F.R. § 723.16 (a) (1977) (now codified at 30 C.”
— 30 C.F.R. § 723.16(a) — 1 case
United States v. Thompson Bros. Coal Co., Inc., 532 F. Supp. 979 (W.D. Pa. 1982). “30 C.F.R. 723.16(a). Furthermore, upon receipt of the proposed penalty assessment the operator may seek an informal conference to haggle over the amount of the penalty to be assessed.”
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.