Laserfiche WebLink
IBLi- 96-90, 96-91 <br />II. ni~ntacitm <br />(1] In accordance with section 503 of the Surface Mining Control <br />dr~d Reclamation Act of 1977 (SNXRA), 30 U.S.C. §1253 (1994), a state <br />with an approved state prngxam has primary responsibility for enforcing <br />SM32A within its boundaries. However, notwithstandisxJ the fact that a <br />state may have been granted primary enforcerent authority, OSM retains <br />a significant oversight role to ensure ccnQliance with SMl32A's mandates. <br />ZYnis, where, pursuant to a citizen's ecnQl.aint, OSM has reason to believe <br />that a permittee is in violation of a state regulatory nT*'~m, 03+1 is <br />required to issue a ~1 to the appropriate state r+~,~atory authority. S~ <br />30 U.S.C. §1271(a)(1)~ (1994); 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(1). ifiriar 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(1), unless the state takes "ar~*~ate action" to <br />cause the. violation to be corrected or shows "good cause for the failure <br />to do so" within 10 days of receiving the 'IL1~I, 031 is required to e~ct <br />an immediate Federal inspection of the surface coal mining operation. S~ <br />30 U.S.C. § 1271(a)(1) (1994); 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(1)(ii).(B)(1); F;anIS <br />145 Tara 49, 52-53 (1998); AmhleaiAo, r.rr~_, 135 IBIA 51, 57 <br />(1996). <br />The applicable regulations further provide at 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(3), that "appropriate action" includes "enforcarent <br />or other action authorized under the State program to cause the violation <br />to be corrected." At 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(4), the regtt~tians <br />list five situations which are cronsidere3 to constitute "good cause" for a <br />failure to take enforcement action. ~ ~ Farm. Inc., 141 IBIA 95, <br />100 (1997); Ambl c; P. . d., g~r3 at 58. "Good cause" is properly found <br />when the State establishes that the violation of the State surface minim <br />law "does not e~d.st." 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b) (1) (ii) (B) (4) (i); (yp~LP~ffi~ <br />~„ 141 IBLA at 100. <br />In deciding whether the State tooka*~*~++~~te action or demo~~strated <br />good cause for not taking enforcemrent action, the State's oonchict will be <br />judged by OSM, in its oversight role, not by what OSM would have done in <br />the cimanstances, but by whether the State acted arbitrarily or caprici- <br />ously or abused its discretion Under the State surface minim program law <br />ixl its acticros in response to the 'ILH~T. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b) (1) (ii) (B) (2) ; <br />Farm. Inc., 141 IBIA.at 100; pitra}+~m & hLdwav Coal -~n~ Cp. v. <br />4~7, 132 IBLA 59, 74, 102 I.D. 1, 9 (1995); x,'130 IBLA 260, <br />266 (1994). <br />A person challenging an (14"I decision not to order a Federal inspec- <br />tion or take FecL*ai enforcereat action in response to a citizen's can- <br />plaint, because the State regulatory authority's „A~+nca was appropriate <br />or showe3 good cause for not taking action, bears the burden of establish- <br />ing error in O5M's decision. ~3r~n ~~• Inc•, 141 IBLP, at 100; $o~a1$ <br />130 IBI,A, at 266. Irl order to do so in this case, the Tatums mist <br />show that LNG's action in resprmse to the ~ was a~itrary, capricious, or <br />~_. „ , <br />151.IBIi~;:298 _t <br /> <br />