ENFORCE35557 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

j151 Interior Dec. 286 (Cite as: 151 Interior Dec. 286, *297, 2000 WL 1740340, **9 (D.O.I.)) Page 10 ~Ealling water table; and "[t]he owner of the well has not made a demonstration pf injury, or that the capacity of the saturated thickness of the formation is now unable to meet historic usage." **10 By letter dated June 28, 1995, the Denver Field Office (DFO), OSM, determined, on the basis of DMG's June 6, 1995, letter and report, that DMG had taken appropriate action in response to Violation 2 of TDN No. 93-020-370-005. y letter of the same date, DFO informed the Tatums that it found DMG's actions appropriate with regard to Violation 2 and that OSM would not be conducting a ederal inspection or taking any enforcement action. In a letter dated August 12, 1995, the Tatums requested informal review of PFO's June 28, 1995, decision, pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 842.15. By decision dated August 24, 1995, the Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center, OSM, issued a decision affirming the DFO's decision. The Tatums filed a timely appeal of the Regional Director's decision. The Board docketed that appeal as IBLA 96-90. *298 II. Discussion [1] In accordance with section 503 of the Surface Mining Control and Zeclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. § 1253 (1994), a state with an ~pproved state program has primary responsibility for enforcing SMCRA within its boundaries. However, notwithstanding the fact that a state may have been granted ~rimary enforcement authority, OSM retains a significant oversight role to rnsure compliance with SMCRA's mandates. Thus, where, pursuant to a citizen's (:omplaint, OSM has reason to believe that a permittee is in violation of a state regulatory program, OSM is required to issue a TDN to the appropriate state egulatory authority. See 30 U.S.C. § 1271(a)(1) (1994); 30 C.F.R. § ~42.11(b)(1) Under 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(1)(ii)(B)(1), unless the state takes "appropriate action" to cause the violation to be corrected or shows "good cause ~or the failure to do so" within 10 days of receiving the TDN, OSM is required So conduct an immediate Federal inspection of the surface coal mining operation. See 30 U.S.C. § 1271(a)(1) (1994); 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(1); Frank [ubbard, 145 IBLA 49, 52-53 (1998); Ambleside, Ltd., 135 IBLA 51, 57 (1996). The applicable regulations further provide at 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(3), that "appropriate action" includes "enforcement or other action authorized under the State program to cause the violation to be Rorrected." At 30 C.F.R. § 642.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(4), the regulations list five situations which are considered to constitute "good cause" for a failure to take nforcement action. See Morgan Farm, Inc., 141 IBLA 95, 100 (1997); Ambleside, ~td., supra at 58. "Good cause" is properly found when the State establishes that the violation of the State surface mining law "does not exist." 30 C.F.R. § 8i42.11(b)(1)(ii)(B)(4)(i); Morgan Farm, Inc., 141 IBLA at 100. In deciding whether the State took appropriate action or demonstrated good ~ause for not taking enforcement action, the State's conduct will be judged by OSM, in its oversight role, not by what OSM would have done in the lircumstances, but by whether the State acted arbitrarily or capriciously or bused its discretion under the State surface mining program law in its actions in response to the TDN. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(2); Morgan Farm, Inc., i ~ Copr. m West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works