ENFORCE35557 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 18 X151 Interior Dec. 286 ((Cite as: 151 Interior Dec.. 266, *308, 2000 WL 1740340, **18 (D.O.I.)) ii'good cause" for failure to do so. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b).(ii)($)(2). Those Fegulations further state that "[a]ppropriate action includes enforcement or other action authorized under the State program to cause the violation to be ~COrrected." 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(ii)(B)(3). ~ In this case, there was no enforcement or other action by DMG to cause a violation to be corrected because DMG found that BRI's mining operation did not ause subsidence damage to the Tatum residence. Under the regulations, OSM was ~o determine "whether the standards for appropriate action or good cause for such failure" were met. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(ii)(1)(B)(1) Although DMG took no action, the OSM AFO concluded that DMG took appropriate action. The Regional mirector affirmed that conclusion. However, if OSM considered DMG's determination not to be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion under the State program, it should have concluded that DMG's response constituted '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 did not exist. See Ernest Back, 135 IBLA at 249-50. ~ We believe, however, that the present record establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation did exist. Appellants have presented a decision issued by a Colorado .State court in a case involving them and BRI. Although either DMG nor OSM were parties to that proceeding, the Judge determined that subsidence caused by BRI's mining operation did, in fact, damage appellants' 'residence. Such a finding establishes a violation of the Colorado State program finder 2 Colo. Code Regs. 4.20, as cited in the TDN. We conclude that DMG's determination that no violation existed, which served &s the basis for OSM's actions under 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 birector's decision and, hereby, vacate it. In addition, the underlying AFO decision is also vacated. The case is remanded to OSM for appropriate action. f **19 Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior, 43 C.F.R. § 4.1, the decision appealed from in IBLA 96-90 is affirmed as modified and the decision appealed from in ,CBLA 96-91 is vacated and the case remanded to OSM for appropriate action. 9ruce R. Harris beputy Chief Administrative Judge I concur: 1 I James L. Byrnes chief Administrative Judge I FN1. The Board docketed the appeal of the Aug. 24, 1995, decision as IBLA 96-90 ~nd the appeal of the Sept. 18, 1995, decision as IBLA 96-91. Those two appeals _aave been consolidated for purposes of this opinion. Copr. m West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works