My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE30425
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE30425
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:42:38 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:37:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980006
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/7/1994
Doc Name
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW & APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
Violation No.
TD1994020352002TV1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Thus, the Secretary clearly intends OSM's role in inspection and enforcement on <br />Federal lands in a cooperative agreement state to be one of oversight, not primary as it <br />would be if OSM was the regulatory authority and had continuing authority under <br />Section 521(a)(3) of SMCRA. <br />OSM's oversight inspection and enforcement authority is found in Sections 517(a) <br />and (e) and 521(a)(1). 30 U.S.C. §§1267(a) and (e), 1271(a)(1). Where a state is the <br />regulatory authority, Section 517(a) authorizes federal inspections "to evaluate the <br />administration of approved State programs," and Section 517(e) requires a federal <br />inspector to give the operator and the state regulatory authority a written report of any <br />violation found. Section 521(a)(1) complements and further explains this oversight <br />authority. In situations not involving an imminent danger, it requires OSM to give the <br />state regulatory authority written notice of any alleged violations, and then ten days to <br />take "appropriate action" to correct the violation or to show "good cause" for failing to do <br />so. Only then does Section 521(a)(1) authorize federal enforcement action. <br />These limitations, as pertinent to this case, have been implemented in 30 C.F.R. <br />§843. l2(a)(2) because such oversight inspections are "other than" Federal Lands Program <br />enforcement inspections. Thus, Section 843.12(a)(2) required OSM, before reinspecting <br />and issuing the NOV to Kerr on May 25, 1994, to give the DMG a written TDN of the <br />alleged violation, five days after rejection of the DMG's response to appeal to the Deputy <br />Director, and then to await the Deputy Director's decision before taking federal <br />enforcement action. See also 30 C.F.R. §842.11(b)(1)(iii). <br />When it disagreed with the DMG regarding Kerr's AOC compliance, OSM was <br />authorized to take enforcement action "using the procedures... contained in 30 C.F.R. <br />parts 843 and 845." 30 C.F.R. §906.30, ¶19. The procedures of §843.12(a)(1) and <br />Section 52l(a)(3) of SMCRA did not apply because: <br />The Federal Lands Program has not applied to the federal lands in Pit 1 <br />since the Cooperative Agreement was executed; <br />loJSa ~, la'pW <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.