30 C.F.R. § 730.5
Definitions
As used in this subchapter unless otherwise indicated Consistent with and in accordance with mean:
(a) With regard to the Act, the State laws and regulations are no less stringent than, meet the minimum requirements of and include all applicable provisions of the Act.
(b) With regard to the Secretary's regulations, the State laws and regulations are no less effective than the Secretary's regulations in meeting the requirements of the Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1980–2006 · leading case: Peabody Coal Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Nat. Resources, 629 N.E.2d 925 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
Peabody Coal Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Nat. Resources, 629 N.E.2d 925 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “30 CFR § 730.5 (a) & (b). 3 The Interior Board of Land Appeals [IBLA] has analyzed the federal regulations promulgated under the SMCRA which are analogous to the regulations promulgated under the ISMCRA at issue in the present case.”
Canestraro v. Faerber, 374 S.E.2d 319 (W. Va. 1988). “The terms "consistent with” and "in accordance with” are synonyms defined as follows, at 30 C.F.R. § 730.5 : (a) With regard to the Act, the State laws and regulations are no less stringent than, meet the minimum requirements of and include all applicable provisions of the Act.”
Cat Run Coal Co. v. Babbitt, 932 F. Supp. 772 (S.D.W. Va 1996). “§ 1253 (a)(7), and “no less effective than” OSM’s own regulations, see 30 C.F.R. § 730.5 . Concerning West Virginia’s proposed “alternative bonding” regulations, OSM is required to fulfill this duty by making two determinations.”
Pennsylvania Coal Mining Assoc. v. Watt, 562 F. Supp. 741 (M.D. Penn. 1983). “30 C.F.R. § 730.5 , as amended by 46 Fed.”
Pennsylvania Coal Ass'n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231 (3rd Cir. 1995). “§ 1268 (f) meant that the Pennsylvania law and regulations do not include “all applicable provisions” of the SMCRA and therefore the amended civil liability regulations were “defective” under 30 C.F.R. § 730.5 (a). Id. at 18 . The district court cited various provisions of the…”
Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Hodel, 640 F. Supp. 334 (W.D. Va. 1985). “30 C.F.R. § 730.5 . Where there are differing interpretations on the meaning of the federal or state regulations, can the state make an interpretation, or is OSM’s interpretation the binding one? The State’s program was carefully patterned after the then-current regulations of…”
Ohio River Valley Env't Coalition, Inc. v. Kempthorne, 473 F.3d 94 (4th Cir. 2006). “30 C.F.R. §§ 730.5 , 732.15(a). B. In January 1981, West Virginia received primacy in the form of a conditional approval pending correction of a number of deficiencies in its program.”
West Virginia Mining & Reclamation Ass'n v. Babbitt, 970 F. Supp. 506 (S.D.W. Va 1997). “§ 1253 (a)(7), and ‘no less effective than’ OSM’s own regulations, see 30 C.F.R. § 730.5 .”). Further, the proposed amendments may not supersede, amend, modify or repeal the enforcement mechanisms contained in other federal environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, 33 U.”
Citizens for Responsible Resource Dev. v. Watt, 579 F. Supp. 431 (M.D. Ala. 1984). “” 30 C.F.R. 730.5 (1981). In 1980 Alabama submitted its permanent regulatory program to the Secretary for review.”
Illinois South Proj., Inc. v. Donald P. Hodel, Sec'y of the Interior, 844 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir. 1988). “30 C.F.R. § 730.5 . One difference is that the federal regulation defines “completeness” in terms of approval by the agency; the state regulation defines completeness in terms of the information content of the application.”
United States v. Camp Coal Co., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 336 (N.D. Ala. 1986). “30 C.F.R. § 730.5 . Where there are differing interpretations on the meaning of the federal or state regulations, can the state make an interpretation, or is OSM’s interpretation the binding one? ****** The sole basis for the issuance of this Notice of Violation is that OSM…”
No. (Colo. Att'y Gen. 1980). “131(b) In this opinion the terms "consistent with" and "in accordance with" have the meanings set forth in 30 C.F.R. 730.5 . In those terms, my conclusion is that the state program, consisting of the State Act and regulations in process of adoption, is no less stringent than,…”
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.