Laserfiche WebLink
Temporary Relief, Hunt pro ups to August 23, 1994, are pending. <br />16. OSM issued the CO to Kerr for failure to abate the NOV on August <br />24, 1994. <br />II. GROUNDS FOR CONTESTING THE CO <br />A. OSM Lacked Authorily_ to Issue the NOV and. Therefore. Lacked AuthoritX <br />to Issue the CO <br />1. Under ¶ 19 of the Cooperative Agreement, 30 CFR §906.30, OSM <br />may take enforcement action as a result of a joint inspection with the DMG where the two <br />agencies fail to agree on the propriety of enforcement action. Paragraph 19 states, <br />however, that OSM's enforcement action "shall be taken using the procedures and penalty <br />system contained in 30 CFR parts 843 and 845." <br />2. Section 843.12(x)(2) sets forth the applicable procedures in this case. <br />Since no imminent danger or harm is involved, that regulation requires OSM to: <br />a. Give Kerr and the DMG a written repoR of the alleged <br />violation and give DMG ten days to respond; <br />b. Before reinspecting and issuing an NOV, to follow the <br />procedures of 30 CFR §842.11(b)(1)(iii); <br />c. Under subsection 842.11(b)(1)(iii), to advise the DMG in <br />writing why its response to the ten-day notice is inappropriate and to allow the DMG five <br />days after receipt thereof to seek informal review by the Deputy Director. <br />3. Section 842.11(b)(1)(iii)(B) states that "no Federal inspection action <br />shall be taken or notice of violation issued regarding the ten-day notice until the time to <br />request informal review ...has expired or, if ...requested, until the Deputy Director has <br />completed such review." <br />1~I0./. 9/IL91 <br />