2016-02-19_ENFORCEMENT - C1982057 (5)

Home Browse Search

Ten -Day Notice Narrative: WildEarth Guardians February 8, 2016 Citizen Complaint Referral (Colorado) coal mining and reclamation operations shall not exceed 25 percent of the guarantor's tangible net worth in the United States. Colorado Rule §3.02.4(2)(e)(vii) sets forth a requirement for self -bonded guarantors to self- report and post a replacement bond when applicable criteria are no longer met, stating that: (vii) If at any time during the period when a self -bond is posted, the financial conditions of the applicant, parent or nonparent corporate guarantors change so that the criteria of paragraph (i)(C) and (iv) of this section are not satisfied, the permittee shall notify the Division immediately and shall within 90 days post an alternate form of bond in the same amount as the self -bond. Should the permittee fail to post an adequate substitute bond, the provisions of Section 3.02.4(2)(b)(v) shall apply. OSMRE believes it is most appropriate to forward the Citizen's Complaint to DRMS via the TDN process in order to provide DRMS the opportunity to respond to the allegations that the self -bonding requirements of its approved State program are being violated. WildEarth Guardians alleges potential violations of self -bonding requirements due to the deterioration of Peabody's financial health, as explained above. Therefore, OSMRE is issuing TDN's for each self -bonded Peabody Investments Corporation coal mining and reclamation permit in Colorado. DRMS may respond to these notices as directed in 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 within ten calendar days by taking appropriate action to cause the possible violations to be corrected, or to show good cause for such failure. Appropriate action and good cause are defined 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(1)(ii)(B)(3) and (4). Appropriate action includes enforcement or other action authorized under the State program to cause the violation to be corrected. Good cause includes showing that the possible violations do not exist under the approved State program, the State regulatory authority requires a reasonable and specified amount of additional time to determine whether a violation exists, the State regulatory authority lacks jurisdiction under its program over the possible violation or subject operation, the State regulatory authority is precluded by an administrative or judicial order from an administrative body or court of competent jurisdiction from acting on the possible violation where that order is based on the violation not existing or where temporary relief standards of section 525(c) or 526(c) of SMCRA have been met, or with regard to abandoned sites the State regulatory authority is diligently pursuing or has exhausted all appropriate enforcement provisions of the State program.