My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-03-09_REVISION - C1981041
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981041
>
2017-03-09_REVISION - C1981041
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2017 12:40:21 PM
Creation date
3/29/2017 12:24:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/9/2017
Doc Name
Requests for Hearing before MLRB
From
Scott Schultz
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR69
Email Name
JHB
JRS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Thus, Fontana does not know answers to the following questions: which are posed by this <br />motion: <br />• Is the hearing a de novo presentation by all parties of witnesses (both lay and expert) <br />together with submission of exhibits (in which event parties have the right of subpoena <br />and pre -hear discovery); OR, <br />• Does the Board confine itself to a pre -hearing review of the Official Record of <br />Proceedings' and then, at hearing, receive oral arguments from the various parties <br />favoring or disfavoring the proposed TR? <br />To extend the confusion still further. Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) requires the Board to make its <br />decision "...at that hearing...". The Rule does not provide any "grace period" to the Board. <br />Moreover, Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) merely states that the Board, at the conclusion of the hearing, <br />will render its decision: without further elaboration. This Rule does not require a written <br />decision in any form. <br />By contrast, Rule 2.07.4(3)(b) allows the Board to either render the decision at the <br />hearing or within 30 days thereafter. Moreover, Rule 2.07.4(3)(b) specifically requires the Board <br />to: <br />...furnish the applicant and all persons who participated in the hearing with a <br />copy of the written decision, reversing, affirming or modifying the proposed <br />decision of the Division and stating the reasons therefore (sic). <br />If the Board's sole concerns are the speed by which a hearing is scheduled and <br />conducted, together with the simplest form of decision ("All those in favor of the TR raise your <br />hands"), then it would appear the hearing in this matter will not involve discovery, subpoenas, <br />direct or cross-examination of witnesses. Even under the best of circumstances, these procedures <br />The official record would include Snowcap's April 29, 2016 Report of Investigation; Fontanari's May <br />6, 2016 Comments to Snowcap Report of Investigation; Snowcap's September 29, 2016, Repair Plan <br />(which included the TR request); Fontanari's October 7, 2016, Comments to Repair Plan and Submission <br />of Fontanari Repair Plan; the January 30, 2017, Proposed Decision; and, Fontanari's February 6, 2017, <br />Comments to Proposed Decision. Notably, the Division's Proposed Decision does not identify, cite or <br />incorporate these statutorily authorized pleadings and comments. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.