115 S.Ct. 316, 130 L.Ed.2d 278 (1994), in support of its contention that, under SMCRA, administrative review of OSM orders is mandated. Southern Ohio is inapplicable to this case, because it concerned OSM enforcement under 30 U.S.C. § 1271(a)(2), for which administrative review is specifically mandated at § 1275. Id. at 1421. Section 1275 does not mandate administrative review for enforcement actions brought under § 1271(a)(1), as in this case. Darby, there fore, applies, and Coteau need not exhaust optional administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Second, OSM argues that Coteau does not have standing to contest OSM’s reversal of the PSC determination. According to the Department of the Interior itself, this is incorrect. See Brothers, Inc. v. OSMRE, 101 IBLA 84 (1988) (<HOLDING>). B. Preliminary Relief In determining whether
holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court holding that the federal action at issue must be authorized holding that if an individual is possessed of state authority and purports to act under that authority his action is state action holding that a mining operator subject to a federal enforcement action has standing based on the grounds that the state had taken appropriate action to challenge osms authority to issue a cessation order or notice of violation holding that the action taken need not be the substantial equivalent of dismissal in order to constitute adverse employment action