GENERAL37420 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-'.~r d D3LA 96-90, 96-91 violation to be corrected or "good cause" for failure to do so. 30 C.P.R. § 842.11(b)(ii)(B}(2). those regulations further state that "[a]ppro- priate action includes enforGem~t ar other action authorized ucsder the State progr-~ttto cause the violation to be. corrected." 30 C.F.R. $ 842.11(b) (ii) (B) (3) . In this case, there was no enfomarpnt ar other action by LNG to cause a violation to be corrected because LNG found that HRL's min- itx3 operation dial not cause subsidence damage to the Tatum residence. [hider the regulations, OSM was to determine "whether the standards far ammi,^iwrp action ar good cause Ear such failure" were met. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(ii)(1)(B)(1). Although II~G took nD action, the OS~I ABU concluded that LNG took appropriate action. 'Ihe Regional Director affirmed that cenclusirn. Fiaaever, if OSM considered ING's deterndnation not to be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion under the State pro- gram, it should have oaiclud~ that LNG's resp~aise constituted "good cause" far failure to rotas action because, in acoordanoe with 30 C.F.R. § 842.i1(b)(ii)(B}(4)(i), ucX]er the State progrmm the violation did not exist. See 8drls, 135 ffiA at 249-50. We believe, however, that the present r+eotrcd establishes by a pre- of the evidence that a violation did exist. Appellants have gzeseited a decision issued by a Colorado State taut in a case involving than and BRI. Althatt3h neither LNG nor OSN1 were parties to that pm- ceedisr3, the Judge determined that subsidence caused by BRI's mining operation did, in fact, damage appellants' residence. Stich a findi~ ~rat,i;c-,~ a violation of the Colorado state program under 2 Flo. Code Reps. 4.20, .as cited in the 'DZd. We eca~clude that LNG's der~+*+ation that no violation exis- ted, which served as the basis for OSM's actions under 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(ii)(B)(1), is, theneforie, not supported by the present record and is a~itrary, capricia~s, and an abuse of discretion. For that reason, we caiu~ot uphold the Regional Director's decision ant. hereby, vacate it. Itl addition, the u~erlying AFO decision is also vacated. Rte case is mended to 09N for a~pznpiiate action. Accordingly, pura~ant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interxar,.43 C.F.R. § 4.1, the deci- sion appealed frtm in D3LA 96-90 is affirmed as modified a~ the decision appealed from in IBLA 96-91 is vacate3 and the case ranairied to CS'd for Bruce R. Barrie Deputy Chief Administrative Jltdge I crncur: James L'.' Byrnes Q~f nr}irin; afratiVe I51 ffiA 308