Laserfiche WebLink
<br />notice procedure mandated in 30 C.F.R. part 843.12(a)(2). <br />OSM argues that the notice procedure was not required be- <br />cause the NOV in this case was issued based on a federal inspec- <br />tion conducted during enforcement of a Federal lands program. <br />See 30 C.F.R. part 843.12(a)(1). However, by entering a coopera- <br />tive agreement with the state of Colorado, OSM assigned primary <br />enforcement authority over mines located on federal lands to DMG. <br />That is, OSM, under the circumstances here, gave up its direct <br />enforcement ability under 30 C.F.R. part 843.12(a)(1) Accord- <br />ingly, the inspection conducted by OSM was not to enforce a fed- <br />eral program; OSM delegated that program to the state and this <br />state program includes authority over mines located on federal <br />lands. <br />OSM's own argument appears to support this conclusion. In <br />its proposed brief, OSM argues that violations to the "Colorado <br />program"'gives OSM the right to issue the NOV in question (Brief, <br />pp. 9-10). Thus, OSM itself agrees that the program here is not <br />a federal one, but a state program which covers federal lands. <br />OSM here was required to comply with the ten-day notice <br />procedures. Not having done so, OSM's NOV was improperly <br />-2- <br />