Laserfiche WebLink
tion has continued, OSM must issue an NOV. <br />The distinction between whether the first or second <br />provision applies is significant. If no ten-day notice is re- <br />quired, OSM may immediately issue an NOV to the operator. If a <br />ten-day notice is required, OSM must notify the DMG in writing <br />whether OSM believes DMG's response to its notice is adequate. <br />If it notifies the state that its response is inadequate, the <br />state can then seek informal review by OSM's Deputy Director. 30 <br />C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(1)(iii)(A). During this informal review <br />process, OSM may not issue a notice of violation. 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 842.11(b)(1)(iii)(B). <br />In the present matter, OSM asserts that it was not required <br />to give the DMG ten days of notice because it was conducting a <br />Federal inspection during the enforcement of a Federal lands pro- <br />gram, i.e., that the first provision applies. However, OSM's ar- <br />gument overlooks the very heart of the cooperative agreement and <br />undermines the very purpose of the agreement, which is to give <br />the state the program under which mining operations on federal <br />lands is regulated. <br />Just as SMCRA allows OSM to delegate to the state primary <br />enforcement authority over mining operations conducted on state <br />lands, the act allows OSM to delegate primary authority over <br />-7- <br />