## Facts

- Environmental organizations, led by Citizens Coal Council, brought an APA challenge to a Department of the Interior interpretive regulation under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
- SMCRA § 522(e) prohibits “surface coal mining operations” in specified protected areas (e.g., certain parks and congressionally designated areas), subject to limited exceptions.
- SMCRA § 701(28) defines “surface coal mining operations,” creating a dispute over whether the term includes surface damage from underground mining, particularly subsidence.
- The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement issued 30 C.F.R. § 761.200, stating that “subsidence due to underground coal mining” is not included in the definition of “surface coal mining operations” and therefore is not prohibited in § 522(e) protected areas.
- The National Mining Association intervened in support of the Secretary of the Interior to defend the regulation.
- The parties treated the case as turning on the administrative record and the legality of the agency’s interpretation.

## Issues

1. Whether “surface coal mining operations” in SMCRA §§ 701(28) and 522(e) includes surface subsidence and other surface effects caused by underground coal mining.
2. Whether 30 C.F.R. § 761.200, which excludes subsidence from “surface coal mining operations” for purposes of § 522(e) protected areas, is contrary to SMCRA and invalid under the APA.

## Decision

- The court held that SMCRA § 522(e)’s ban on “surface coal mining operations” in protected areas covers both surface mining and the surface effects of underground mining, including subsidence.
- The court concluded the Secretary’s contrary interpretation in 30 C.F.R. § 761.200 was inconsistent with SMCRA and therefore unlawful.
- The court vacated the interpretive rule and remanded the matter to the agency for further action consistent with the court’s statutory reading.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, agency action must be set aside when it is contrary to law.
- Statutory interpretation begins with the text and is informed by statutory purpose, structure, and legislative history when relevant to determining congressional intent.
- Where Congress’s intent is sufficiently clear, an agency may not adopt a regulatory interpretation that narrows statutory protections in a way that conflicts with that intent.
- For SMCRA § 522(e), “surface coal mining operations” may include surface impacts traceable to underground mining when those impacts would defeat the statute’s protected-area restrictions.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Interior’s interpretive rule allowing subsidence in SMCRA § 522(e) protected areas by holding that the statutory ban on “surface coal mining operations” extends to the surface effects of underground mining, including subsidence, and remanded the issue to the agency.


Citizens Coal Council v. Norton, 193 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D.D.C. 2002)