Laserfiche WebLink
IffiA 96-90, 96-91 <br />II. nian+aainn <br />(13 7n acoordanoe with section 503'of the Surface Nbning Oazztml <br />and Reclaaeti.on Act of 1977 (3+XStA), 30 U.S.C. §1253 (1994), a state <br />with an approved state program has primary respm~sibility for enfo*'+~i <br />St43iA within its boundaries. However, notwithstanding the fact that a <br />state may have been granted prinery enforoetent authority, CLQ1 retains <br />a significant oversight role to ensvre oaiQlianoe with SN132A's mandates. <br />ztws, where, pursuant to a citizen's ornQlaint, 03d has reason to believe <br />that a petmittee is in violation of a state regulatary prograzn, CH'1 is <br />required to issue a aN to the appropriate state regulatory authority. SeE <br />30 U.S.C. § 1271(a)(1)~ (1994); 30 C.F.R, §842.11(b)(1). U'det 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(i), unless the state takes "appropriate action" t0 <br />cause the.vialation to be corrected or shows "good cause far the failure <br />to do so" within 10 days of reoeivirr3 the '11$1, OSC1 is requirt3d to oa¢xh~t <br />an imrediate Federal inspectirn of the surface ooal~muring operatics. Sep <br />30 U.S.C. §1271(a)(1) (1994); 30 C.P.R. §842.11 (b)(1)(13)(B)(1); Frdak <br />145 IBTA 49, 52-53 (1998); Artbl ci e. Lr~_, 135 IBLA 51, 57 <br />(1996). <br />'Ihe applicable regulations further provide at 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(3), that "appropriate acticai" includes "enforosn?nt <br />or other acorn authorized user the State pmgran to cause the violatim <br />to be corrected." At 30 C.F.R. §842.31 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(4), the regulations <br />list five situations which are o~nsidered to constitute "good cause" far a <br />failure to take enforcem~t actim. SEe MoZzTi~ Farm. Inc., 141 IBLA 95, <br />100 (1997); »~),esi~P. r•*~., ~ at 58. "Good cawae" is properly found <br />when the State establishes that the violation of the State surface mining <br />law "does not e~d.et." 30 C.P.R. §842.11 (b)l1)(ii)(B)(4)(i); MpxS~a.F37~n,. <br />$0., 141 I8T3~ dt 100. <br />In deciding whether the State toox~~-+~rp action ar dennnsttated <br />good cause for ~t taki~ enforcan~t action, the State's oorr3t:ct will be <br />Judged by OSNI, in its oversight role, not by what ~( would have dare in <br />the oimmstances, but by whether the State acted a~itrarily or capria- <br />ously or abused its discretirn un3er the State surface mining program law <br />in its actions in a to the '1L~T. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b) (1) (i.i.) (B) (2) ; <br />Moman Palm. inc., 141 IffiA,at 100: Pitts>;?gg &.Mi~~.~ Nti-^=m ~. v_ <br />~, 132 Iffier 59, 74, 102 I.D, 1, 9 (1995) ; ~, '130 IDT~ 260, <br />266 (1994). <br />A perscai challenging an 03+1 decision not to order a Ferderal inspec- <br />tion artake ~~~ enforoen~t action in response to a citi.zen's can- <br />plaint, because the State regulatory authority's reaporse was appropriate <br />ar steed good cause far not taking action, bears the burdei of establish- <br />ing error in Q4K's decision. Mn~n Farm. Inc., 141 IHI,A at 100; $pp73d <br />130 1>3LA at 266. In order to do so in this case, the Tatums mast <br />show that II~G's acticm in response to the '11x1 was athitrary, capricious, Or <br />151~.ffiA>298':.t <br />