30 C.F.R. § 773.5
Regulatory coordination with requirements under other laws
Each regulatory program shall, to avoid duplication, provide for the coordination of review and issuance of permits for surface coal mining and reclamation operations with applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.); The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); the Bald Eagle Protection Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668a); for Federal programs only, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.); and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.) where Federal and Indian lands covered by that Act are involved.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1992–2001 · leading case: West Virginia Div. of Env't Prot. v. Kingwood Coal Co., 490 S.E.2d 823 (W. Va. 1997).
West Virginia Div. of Env't Prot. v. Kingwood Coal Co., 490 S.E.2d 823 (W. Va. 1997). “2 ( quoting 30 C.F.R. § 773.5 (b)(6)). Though the Solicitor believed that the outcome of the Spur case should not be disturbed, he indicated that "its reasoning should not be followed in future applications except to the extent consistent with the analysis provided [in the…”
Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Va. 1992). “30 C.F.R. § 773.5 , 773.15(b). 2 At the same time, OSM established the Applicant/Violator System (“AVS”), a computer system that identifies whether an applicant for a permit is linked by ownership or control to any person having outstanding violations of federal or state surface…”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 177 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “NMA also challenges the IFR’s re-buttable presumptions of ownership or control set forth in 30 C.F.R. § 773.5 (b). IFR section 773.5(b) “presumes” ownership or control from certain relationships between the applicant and a downstream entity “unless a person can demonstrate that…”
Arch Mineral Corp. v. Babbitt, 894 F. Supp. 974 (S.D.W. Va 1995). “2 OSM alleges Arch is linked through ownership and control to Greendale’s liabilities for delinquent AML fees and civil penalty, based on (a) Arch’s contract to purchase Diamond Shamrock Coal and (b) OSM’s determination that Diamond Shamrock Coal was a presumed owner or…”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 105 F.3d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “38,868 (1988); see also 30 C.F.R. §§ 773.5 , 773.15(b) (1995). Section 773.”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 251 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “At any rate, by our count NMA specifically argued against the following old AVS rules issued by the Office of Surface Mining: 30 C.F.R. §§ 773.5 , 773.20(c), 773.23(b), 773.”
Coteau Props. Co. v. Dep't of Interior, 53 F.3d 1466 (8th Cir. 1995). “30 C.F.R. § 773.5 (b); see N.D.Admin.Code § 69-05.”
Arch Mineral Corp v. Babbitt, Sec, 104 F.3d 660 (4th Cir. 1997). “This ease arises from an attempt by the Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (“OSM”) to impose penalties upon Arch Mineral Corporation (“Arch”) under the OSM’s ownership and control rule, 30 C.F.R. § 773.5 (1995). OSM is responsible for…”
Fincastle Mining, Inc. v. Babbit, 842 F. Supp. 204 (W.D. Va. 1993). “The ownership or control link is determined by using the standards set forth in 30 C.F.R. §§ 773.5 and 773.15(b)(1). The ownership and control information in the AVS comes from two sources: 1) information submitted in applications for surface mining permits pursuant to § 507 of…”
Ballmer v. Babbitt, 926 F. Supp. 575 (S.D.W. Va 1996). “" 30 C.F.R. §§ 773.5 (b)(1) and (5). In order to rebut this presumption, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that he lacked the authority, directly or indirectly, to determine the manner in which the coal mining operation was conducted.”
— 30 C.F.R. § 773.5(b)(6) — 1 case
West Virginia Div. of Env't Prot. v. Kingwood Coal Co., 490 S.E.2d 823 (W. Va. 1997). “2 ( quoting 30 C.F.R. § 773.5 (b)(6)). Though the Solicitor believed that the outcome of the Spur case should not be disturbed, he indicated that "its reasoning should not be followed in future applications except to the extent consistent with the analysis provided [in the…”
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.