Laserfiche WebLink
The federal regulations provide additional direction as to when OSMRE had "reason to believe." As you note on <br />page 5 of your Request for Informal Review, 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(2) states that OSMRE "shall have reason to <br />believe that a violation, condition or practice exists if the facts alleged by the informant would, if true, constitute <br />a condition, practice or violation referred to in (b)(1)(i)." The cross-referenced section -30 C.F.R <br />§ 842.11(b)(1)(i)—restates the standard in 30 U.S.C. § 1271(a)(1) that OSMRE must look at the information <br />available before determining whether a reason to believe exists such that a TDN must be issued. To the extent <br />there is any conflict between §§ 842.11(b)(2) and 842.11(b)(1)(i), these two provisions are easily reconcilable. <br />OSMRE's duty is to presume the truth of the allegations presented in a citizen's complaint and consider that <br />information along with any other information that is available before it determines whether it has a reason to <br />believe there is a violation of SMCRA, the regulations, the State program, or a permit condition. If it does have <br />reason to believe, OSMRE must issue a TDN. Pursuant to the regulations, OSMRE would not conduct a federal <br />inspection until after it has reviewed the RA's TDN response and made determination as to whether the RA has <br />taken appropriate action or has good cause. <br />My review indicates that the DFB followed the appropriate process. Nothing in the DFB's response indicates it <br />considered your factual allegations about the VOCs emissions to be untrue. However, DFB properly based its <br />decision on whether it has reason to believe a violation of SMCRA, the regulations, or a permit condition existed <br />after it considered all the evidence it had available, including the January 11, 2017 letter from CDPHE. <br />In your Request for Informal Review, you maintain that MCC is violating SMCRA, the SMCRA regulations, and <br />applicable permit conditions because of MCC's alleged noncompliance with state and federal air quality laws <br />and regulations. Request for Informal Review at p. 9. Your Request for Informal Review, however, did not specify <br />what provision of SMCRA, the implementing regulations, or the permit that MCC is violating assuming that MCC <br />is not in compliance with its clean air requirements. Your Complaint, however, alleged various violations of the <br />Clean Air Act and state air laws. Complaint at 9-14. None of those requirements are SMCRA requirements, and <br />we have no jurisdiction over those matters even if they occur on surface coal mining operations. 30 U.S.C. <br />§ 1292(a)(4). The only provision in SMCRA that specifically requires compliance with the applicable air quality <br />laws is section 508(a)(9), which states that a reclamation plan must describe "the steps to be taken to comply <br />with applicable air and water quality laws and regulations and any applicable health and safety standards." 6 30 <br />U.S.C. § 1258(a)(9). Moreover, the only relevant regulation requires an air pollution control plan, which requires <br />monitoring for the purpose of evaluating "the effectiveness of the fugitive dust control practices proposed under <br />paragraph (a)(2) of this section to comply with Federal and State air quality standards." 30 C.F.R. § 780.15 <br />(emphasis added). Thus, SMCRA's air monitoring requirements are limited only to fugitive dust, not VOCs or <br />federal and state clean air quality standards' See also In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig. 1, Round <br />6 In contrast, there is a federal regulation that specifically states that "[d]ischarges from areas disturbed by surface mining <br />activities shall be made in compliance with all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and regulations.. .." 30 <br />C.F.R. § 816.42. Furthermore, as explained in the DFB's Response, OSMRE once tried to regulate air pollution from surface <br />coal mining operation, and a court determined that doing so was beyond its authority. DRS's Response at p. 3 (citing In re <br />Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig. 1, Round ll, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17660 (D.D.C. May 16, 1980)). <br />As DFB noted, SMCRA does not provide state or federal regulators with authority to regulate air pollution on surface <br />mining and reclamation operations except as attendant to erosion. See In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig. 1, <br />Round//, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17660, *40-45 (D.D.C. May 16, 1980) ("[T]he legislative history [of SMCRA] indicates that <br />D <br />