Laserfiche WebLink
COAL CO. 11 ~ CR 94-6-R <br />The sole iaeue in this ease is whether NOV No. 93-050-101- <br />001 was properly issued. ' <br />Findiaq~ead C~clnsioa <br />In review of 5 511 Notices of Violation, the Reepoadaat has <br />the burden of going forward to establish a prima !Weis case ae to <br />the valiflity of the notice. The ultimate burden of persuasion <br />rests with the applicant for review. 43 C.F.R. 3 4.1171 (2993), <br />A prima' facie case is shows when sufficient evidence is preaeated <br />to establish aufficieat !acts which, if sot contradicted, will <br />justify a fiadiag in favor of the party presenting the ease. If <br />evidence sufficient to present a prima facie case ie not <br />rebutted, the violations will be suataiaed. 86lS r~,,Qel Co., 79 TSLA <br />350 (1984)p T aer Corn., 4 I8M3A 101 (19Sa). <br />This iaeue is governed by 30 C.P.R. B 841.11 (1993),. which <br />directs that a 8tite's response to a tea day notice that is sot <br />arbiCxary,~aapricious. or as abuse of discretion under the state <br />program shall be aoasiderad na appropriate action or good cause <br />!Or failure to act. Ia this case, a ten day aotica wan issued tc <br />Illiaoie for failing to take Further action on Dane Lyach''s <br />complaint. The regulations advise us that examples of •good <br />cause• far failure to act include the alternative that the <br />possible violation does not exist under the State program. <br />(emphasis added). <br />Ia this case, 08M employees xnre sot satisfied with the <br />State's reepongq to the TDN. However, OSM was is poeaersioa o! <br />ID?Dd iavestigatioa =sanlts of Lynch'e coezplaiat. It appears from <br />the record that OSK disagreed rith IDD~S om the matter of <br />approsims.ta original contour sad did sot think the State had <br />abawa good Gauss !or failure to take action agaiaat <br />Coasolidatioa. 11)DQt's position then sad sow ie that <br />Consolidatioa'^ mine site dose not violate AOC uadar its approved <br />state regulatioae. Therefore, the gusatioa beco~mns whether 1'DD'~S <br />arbitrarily or capriciously deoidad that the Applicant's site met <br />AOC. <br />Arbitrary or oapricioua action is that Mhiab ie not <br />supportable oa say rational basis. Decisions which ran counter <br />to the evidence before as agency are therefore arbitrary <br />dezieioas. A willful sad uareasoaing disregard of Eacte sad <br />oircumataaces or an implausible deeigioa ere also arbitrary sad <br />eapricivns actions. Z ARi. JIIR. 1D A~in4atrat ve Law B 530 <br />(1994). <br />