Laserfiche WebLink
capricious standard does not require a state to make the "best" <br />decision possible when responding to a TDN, but simply to make a <br />decision that is defensible under the state program and shows <br />"proper consideration of the relevant factors." Id. The <br />arbitrary and capricious standard arises from the deference SMCRA <br />provides to state regulatory authorities in primacy states. As <br />stated by OSM in the preamble to the 1988 promulgation of the <br />Federal TDN regulations, <br />[o]nce a state has been granted primacy, the <br />federal role becomes one of oversight. As <br />described by the U.S. Court of Appeals, <br />"[tlhe Secretary is initially to decide <br />whether the proposed state program is capable <br />of carrying out the provisions of the Act, <br />but is not directly involved in local <br />decisionmaking after the program has been <br />approved." In re: Permanent Surface Mining <br />ReQUlation Litigation, 653 F.2d 514, 518 (D.C <br />Cir., 1981). The court further stated that <br />"[o]nce a state program has been approved, <br />the state regulatory agency plays the major <br />role, with its greater manpower and <br />familiarity with local conditions. It <br />exercises front-line supervision, and the <br />Secretary will not intervene unless that <br />discretion is abused. <br />See 53 Fed. Reg. 26728 at 26729 (July 14, 1988). <br />In this case, the State's explanation for not taking <br />enforcement action against Basin, as contained in the TDN <br />response of December 20, 1993 (AR III-26), is that, under the <br />State program, the alleged violations by Basin do not exist. The <br />State has thus attempted to show good cause pursuant to 30 <br />C.F.R. ~ 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(4)(i). In the following discussion, <br />OSM will show that the State response to the TDN was not <br />19 <br />