C.F.R. » Title 30 » CHAPTER VII—OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER G—SURFACE COAL MINING AND RECLAMATION OPERATIONS PERMITS AND COAL EXPLORATION SYSTEMS UNDER REGULATORY PROGRAMS › PART 773—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS AND PERMIT PROCESSING

30 C.F.R. § 773.15

Written findings for permit application approval

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

No permit application or application for a significant revision of a permit shall be approved unless the application affirmatively demonstrates and the regulatory authority finds, in writing, on the basis of information set forth in the application or from information otherwise available that is documented in the approval, the following:

(a) The application is accurate and complete and the applicant has complied with all requirements of the Act and the regulatory program.

(b) The applicant has demonstrated that reclamation as required by the Act and the regulatory program can be accomplished under the reclamation plan contained in the permit application.

(c) The proposed permit area is—

(1) Not within an area under study or administrative proceedings under a petition, filed pursuant to parts 764 and 769 of this chapter, to have an area designated as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, unless the applicant demonstrates that before January 4, 1977, he has made substantial legal and financial commitments in relation to the operation covered by the permit application; or

(2) Not within an area designated as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations under parts 762 and 764 or 769 of this chapter or within an area subject to the prohibitions of § 761.11 of this chapter.

(d) For mining operations where the private mineral estate to be mined has been severed from the private surface estate, the applicant has submitted to the regulatory authority the documentation required under § 778.15(b) of this chapter.

(e) The regulatory authority has made an assessment of the probable cumulative impacts of all anticipated coal mining on the hydrologic balance in the cumulative impact area and has determined that the proposed operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.

(f) The applicant has demonstrated that any existing structure will comply with § 701.11(d), and the applicable performance standards of subchapter B or K of this chapter.

(g) The applicant has paid all reclamation fees from previous and existing operations as required by subchapter R of this chapter.

(h) The applicant has satisfied the applicable requirements of part 785 of this chapter.

(i) The applicant has, if applicable, satisfied the requirements for approval of a long-term, intensive agricultural postmining land use, in accordance with the requirements of § 816.111(d) or § 817.111(d).

(j) The operation would not affect the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats, as determined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

(k) The regulatory authority has taken into account the effect of the proposed permitting action on properties listed on and eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This finding may be supported in part by inclusion of appropriate permit conditions or changes in the operation plan protecting historic resources, or a documented decision that the regulatory authority has determined that no additional protection measures are necessary.

(l) For a proposed remining operation where the applicant intends to reclaim in accordance with the requirements of § 816.106 or § 817.106 of this chapter, the site of the operation is a previously mined area as defined in § 701.5 of this chapter.

(m) For permits to be issued under § 785.25 of this chapter, the permit application must contain:

(i) Lands eligible for remining;

(ii) An identification of the potential environmental and safety problems related to prior mining activity which could reasonably be anticipated to occur at the site; and

(iii) Mitigation plans to sufficiently address these potential environmental and safety problems so that reclamation as required by the applicable requirements of the regulatory program can be accomplished.

(n) The applicant is eligible to receive a permit, based on the reviews under §§ 773.7 through 773.14 of this part.

[48 FR 44391, Sept. 1983, as amended at 65 FR 79663, Dec. 19, 2000; 81 FR 93324, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54937, Nov. 17, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1985–2015 · leading case: Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 177 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 177 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 (b)(1) (“Based on a review of all reasonably available information con- *5 eerning violation notices involving either the applicant or any person earned or controlled by the applicant, .”
Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Va. 1992). · cites it 6× “Therefore, under 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 (b)(1), if the Contractors have outstanding violations “the regulatory authority shall not issue the permit.”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 105 F.3d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “The ownership and control rule, however, sweeps much more broadly — blocking permits if an operation owned or controlled “by either the applicant or by any person who owns and controls the applicant” is currently in violation of SMCRA, 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 (b)(1) (1995) (emphasis…”
Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. United States Off. of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enf't, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (D. Colo. 2015). “18 Because OSM has the authority to deny NTEC’s Permit Revision Application based on its consideration of combustion-related effects, it was obligated to consider the combustion-related effects in its EA for the proposed expansion.”
In Re Permanent Surface Mining Reg. Litig., 620 F. Supp. 1519 (D.D.C. 1985). “30 C.F.R. § 773.15 (c)(ll). The court concludes that the definition promulgated by the Secretary is inconsistent with law.”
Arch Mineral Corp. v. Babbitt, 894 F. Supp. 974 (S.D.W. Va 1995). “See 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 (a). This would have an immediate and severe impact on Arch’s continued ability to engage in its sole business, the production and sale of coal.”
Bragg v. Robertson, 72 F. Supp. 2d 642 (S.D.W. Va 1999). “d; 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 . This is a non-discretionary duty.”
Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Kempthorne, 453 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2006). “The final regulation cited by the agency, 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 , adds little, as it merely identifies the requirements for approving a permit application.”
Coteau Props. Co. v. Dep't of Interior, 53 F.3d 1466 (8th Cir. 1995). “2-10-03; 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 (b) (1989). The events leading to this appeal took place against this statutory background.”
Arch Mineral Corp v. Babbitt, Sec, 104 F.3d 660 (4th Cir. 1997). “(citing 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 (a)). The court properly noted possible effects of an AVS listing on Arch’s present and future mining and reclamation projects through canceled or scaled back projects, increased costs for operation, loss of business reputation, disruptions in coal…”
Ballmer v. Babbitt, 926 F. Supp. 575 (S.D.W. Va 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 1260 (c), and its implementing regulations, 30 C.F.R. §§ 773.15 (b)(1) 6 and 773.5. 7 Plaintiff seeks relief from this decision.”
— 30 C.F.R. § 773.15(b) — 1 case
Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Va. 1992). “Therefore, under 30 C.F.R. § 773.15 (b)(1), if the Contractors have outstanding violations “the regulatory authority shall not issue the permit.”
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.