Opinion ID: 184854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Improvidently Issued Permits

Text: Next, NMA contends the IFR regulations authorizing aregulatory agency to suspend or rescind an improvidentlyissued permit (IIP), see 30 C.F.R. ss 773.20(c), 773.21, areultra vires because section 510(c) authorizes only denials ofnew permits. While it is true that section 510(c) does notexpressly provide for suspension or rescission of existingpermits, the IFR rescission and suspension provisions reflecta permissible exercise of OSM's statutory duty, pursuant tosection 201(c)(1) of SMCRA, to order the suspension, revocation, or withholding of any permit for failure to comply withany of the provisions of this chapter or any rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. 30 U.S.C. s 1211(c). TheIIP provisions simply implement the Congress's general directive to authorize suspension and rescission of a permit forfailure to comply with a specific provision of SMCRA-- namely, section 510(c)'s permit eligibility condition. In addition, apart from the express authorization in section 1211(c),OSM retains implied authority to suspend or rescind improvidently provided permits because of its express authorityto deny permits in the first instance. See Gun S., Inc. v.Brady, 877 F.2d 858, 862 (11th Cir. 1989) (although neitherthe [Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. ss 921 et seq.,] nor itsregulations explicitly authorizes suspension of permittee'sfirearm importation permit, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms, which is authorized to grant permit, must necessarily retain the power to correct the erroneous approval offirearms import applications) (citations omitted). NMA also contends the IIP provisions impinge on theprimacy afforded states under SMCRA insofar as theyauthorize OSM to take remedial action against operatorsholding valid state mining permits without complying with theprocedural requirements set out in section 521(a) of SMCRA,30 U.S.C. s 1271(a). On this point we agree. Under SMCRA's state primacy regime, once a state permitplan is approved the Secretary's role is primarily one ofoversight and the state has the primary responsibility forachieving the purposes of the Act. In re Permanent SurfaceMining Regulation Litig., 653 F.2d at 519; see also 30 U.S.C.s 1201(f) ([T]he primary governmental responsibility for developing, authorizing, issuing, and enforcing regulations forsurface mining and reclamation operations subject to thischapter should rest with the States....). Even the Secretary's oversight role is strictly circumscribed by the Act. Aslong as the state properly enforces its approved program, it isthe exclusive 'on the scene' regulatory authority, 653 F.2d at519 (footnote omitted), and the Secretary's role is limited tomaking such inspections of any surface coal mining andreclamation operations as are necessary to evaluate the administration of approved State programs, 30 U.S.C.s 1267(a). Nevertheless, [i]n the event that a State has aState program for surface coal mining, and is not enforcingany part of such program, the Secretary may provide for theFederal enforcement, under the provisions of section 1271 of[title 30], of that part of the State program not being enforcedby such State. 30 U.S.C. s 1254(b). Section 1271 sets outspecific procedural requirements to be met before the Secretary may take remedial action against a state permittee(whether based on a federal inspection or section 1254(b) or inthe course of enforcing a state program under section1271(b)13). First, if the Secretary determines that any permittee is in violation of any requirement of [SMCRA] or anypermit condition required by [SMCRA] that does not createan imminent danger to health and safety,14 then the Secretarycan issue a notice of violation setting a time period in which to __________ 13 Section 1271(b) authorizes the Secretary, if he believes thatviolations have occurred because a state has failed to effectivelyenforce a state program, to assume enforcement of all or part of thestate program, enforcing permit conditions, granting new or revisedpermits and issuing necessary orders. 30 U.S.C. s 1271(b). 14 Section 521 provides for prompt remedial federal action in thecase of a violation that creates an imminent danger. See 30U.S.C. s 1271(a)(1)-(2). abate the violation and providing opportunity for public hearing. 30 U.S.C. s 1271(a)(3). Only after the abatement period has expired and upon a written finding ... that theviolation has not been abated can the Secretary suspend theviolating operations, in an order setting out the steps necessary to abate the violation in the most expeditious mannerpossible. Id. The IFR's IIP enforcement provisions, bycontrast, permit OSM to issue a notice of violation to apermittee and to order cessation of mining operations by aspecified date--unless the permittee by then undertakes remedial measures to the satisfaction of the responsible agency--when OSM has reason to believe that a State surfacecoal mining and reclamation permit meets the criteria for animprovidently issued permit in [30 U.S.C.] s 773.20(b) or theState program equivalent, and the State has failed to takeappropriate action on the permit under State program equivalents of [30 C.F.R.] ss 773.20 and 773.21. 30 C.F.R.s 843.21(a). Because the Congress established specific procedures in section 521(a)(3) of SMCRA that the Secretarymust follow before taking remedial action against a statepermittee, we conclude those procedures must be used whenOSM seeks to revoke a permit issued by the state under itsstate plan. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss as moot Appeal Nos.97-5202, 97-5203 and 97-5204. In Appeal No. 97-5248 wereverse the district court's judgment insofar as it rejectedNMA's claims that the IFR authorizes permit blocks basedon violations by operations no longer controlled by an applicant, establishes rebuttable presumptions of ownership andcontrol, allows impermissibly retroactive permit blocks andviolates state primacy and we remand to the district court forremand to OSM to amend its permit block regime accordingly. So ordered.