|
IBLA 96-90,96-91
<br />Il. Discussion
<br />[ I In accordance with section 503 of the Suutac:e Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C.
<br />§ 1253 (1994), a slate with an approved state program has primary responsibility for enforcing SMCRA within its
<br />boundaries. However, notwiths-Landing the fact that a state may have been granted primary enforcement authority, OSM
<br />retains a significant oversight role to ensure compliance with SMCRA's mandates. Thus, where, pursuant to a citizen's
<br />complaint, OSM has reason to'believe that a permittee is in violation ofastate regulatory program, OSM is required to
<br />issue a TDN to the appropriate, state regulatory authority. See 30 U.S.C. § 127l (aX 1) (1994); 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(bX 1).
<br />Under 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(bX 1'XiiX BX 1), unless the state takes "appropriate action" to cause the violation to be corrected or
<br />shows "good cause for the tai Wire to do so" within 10 days of receiving the TDN, OSM is required to conduct an
<br />immediate Federal inspection of the surface coal mining operation. See 30 U.S.C. § 1271(aX 1) (1994),30 C.F.R. §
<br />842.11(bX I XiiXBX 1); FiM Hubbard, 145 IBLA 49,52-53 (1998); Ambleside, Ltd, 135 IBLA 51, 57 (1996).
<br />"Ilse applicable regulations, further provide at 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(bX I XiiXBX3), that "appropriate action" includes
<br />"enforcement or other action auithorized under the State prop am to cause the violation to be corrected." At 30 C.F.R. §
<br />842.11(bX I Xi iX BX4)• the regulations list five situations which are considered to constitute "good cause" for a failure to take
<br />enforcement action. See Morgan Farm Inc., 141 IBLA 95,100 (1997); Ambleside, Ltd, summa at 58. "Good cause" is
<br />properly found when the State establishes that the violation of the State surface mining law "does not exist." 30 C.F.R. §
<br />842.11(bX 1 Xi1XBX4Xi); Morgan Farm, Inc., 141 IBLA at 100.
<br />In deciding whether the State took appropriate action or demonstrated good cause for not taking enforcement action, the
<br />State's conduct will be judged by OSM, in its oversight role, not by what OSM would have done in the circumstances, but
<br />by whether the State acted arbitrarily or capriciously or abused its discretion under the State stuface mining program law in
<br />its actions in response to the TDN. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(bX I XiiXBX2), Morgan Fame, Inc., 141 IBLA at 100: Pittsburg &
<br />Midway Coal Mining Co v OSM, 132 IBLA 59,74,102 I.D. I, 9 (1995), Ronald Ma Hard, 130 IBLA 260.266 (1994).
<br />. A person challenging an OSM decision not to order a Federal inspection or take Federal enforcement action in
<br />response to a citizen's complaint; because the State regulatory authority's response was appropriate or showed good cause for
<br />not taking action, bears the burden ofestablishing error in OSM's decision. Morzrn Farm, Inc., 141 IBLA at 100; Ronald
<br />Maynard, 130 IBLA at 266. In order to do so in this case, the Tatums must show that DMG's action in response to the
<br />TDN was arbi", , capricious, or
<br />151 IBLA 298
|