ENFORCE28355 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~'~~ IBLA 96-90, 96-91 violation to be corrected or "good cause" for failure to do so. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b) (ii) (B) (2). 'Those regulations fi,rrhor state that "[a]ppro- priate action includes enforcement or other action authorized under the State progsa<n to cause the violation to be. corrected." 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b) (ii) (B) (3) . In this case, there was no enforcerent or other action by I]~G to cause a violation to be corrected because LNG found that BRI's min- ing operation did not cause subsidence damage to the Tatum residence. Under the regulations, OSM was to determine "whether the sta*~~**aG for app+~+r+ate action or good cause for such failure" were met. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b) (ii) (1) (B) (1) . Although LNG took rno action, the QSN1 AFO conclvoied that II~G took appropriate action. 'The Regional Director affirmed that conclusion. However, if 09~I ocrosidered LNG's detPrn+~*+~tion not to be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion under the State pro- gram, it should have ccmclvoied that LNG's response om~stituted "good cause" for failure to take action because, in accordance with 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(ii)(B)(4)(i), under the State program the violation dial not e~dst. See Fr*+?sr_ ?~~k, 135 IBLA at 249-50. We believe, however, that the present reooni establishes by a pre- pcmderance of the evidance that a violation did exist. Appellants have presented a decision issued by a Colorado State cau.-t in a case inwlving them and BRI. Although neither LNG nor OSM were parties to that pro- ceeding, the Judge determined that subsidence caused by BRI's mining operation did, in fact, damage appellants' residence. Stich a finding establishes a violation of the Colorado State program under 2 Colo. Code Begs. 4.20, .as cited in the TIFI. We conclude that LNG's determination that no violation exis- ted, which served as the basis for OSM's actions ulYier' 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b) (ii) (B) (1) , is, therefore, not supported by the present record and is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. For that reason, we cannot uphold the Regional Director's decision and, hereby, vacate it. In addition, the underlying AFU decision is also vacated. 'Ihe case is rater>ded to OSM fora~+r+ate actin. Accmiiir3ly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Iacnd Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior,. 43 C.F.R. § 4.1, the deci- siom appealed frun in IBLA 96-90 is affirmed as mx3ified arnd the decision appealed fran in IBLA 96-91 is vacated and the case ra[nar><1ed to 0.SM for a~ ate action. D .. - ~~-~.C.(r~~ Bruce R. Harris Deputy Chief Administrative Judie I concur: .~'~'^ Jamnes L'. 'Byrnes Chief Ac~idrtistrative 151 IBLA 308