REV10838 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

z Based on our evaluation of SMCRA, its legislative history, past regulatory actions on this issue, and relevant case authority, we conclude that subsidence from underground mining is properly regulated solely under SMCRA section 516 and not under section 522(e). For subsidence, section 516 gives all of the protection ~~ intended by Congress for the same environmental values served by section 522(e). SIIMHARY OF ANALYSI6 In any question of statutory interpretation, such as the one you have posed, the threshold question is always whether Congress has directly spoY.en to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific ise~,ue, the question is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Chevron. U.S.A.. Inc. v. Natvra7. Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 84Z-43 (1984) (hereine'ifter "Chevron. U.S.A."). .. ._.With.,respect.to.the applicabilii:y of section 522(e).~to subsidence from underground mining,^ we conclude that''Congress has spoken to ''"~'`.' the question at issue. .Section 522(e) prohibits only "surface coal mining operations" within iireas designated by Congress as needing special protection, subject to certain exceptions:' Neither section 522(e) nor the ciefinition of "surface coal mining operations" in section 701(28) inentions subsidence, nor does the legislative history of either provision. As is explained at length below, section 701(28) d~afines "surface coal mining operations" to include "activit:ies conducted on the surface of lands in connection with ~. surface operations and surface impacts incident to an underground mine." 30 U.S.C. - J (...continued) • • ~ ~ Cthe prohibitions of section 522 (e) (4) .and _{5)____50 Fed. Reg.- 13250 (April 3, 1985).- JJ OSM subsequently proposed a rule on this subject. 53 Fed. Reg. 52374 (December 27., 1988). The~comments.received on 'that proposed rule, and OSM's analysis of the issues, indicated~to oSM that this was fundamentally a liegal issue. OSM therefore decided to seek a formal Solicitor's Opinion on this matter. In light of~ the conclusion we have reached din this Opinion, no changes will be necessary in the regulations; on this issue, at 30 CFR Part 761.