Laserfiche WebLink
37 <br /> 1 objection to what John--what Snowcap has 1 the burden of the applicant is specifically found in <br /> 2 requested; that the General Assembly has spoken, and 2 114(1) and 114(2)(a) and (2)(b). <br /> 3 we must interpret all statutes together, very 3 However, it's the Division's position <br /> 4 material, and you cannot select them out and pick 4 that the rest of 114 does not apply. When we look <br /> 5 and choose -- cherry-pick what you want to use. 5 at (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), these are -- these <br /> 6 May we hear from Mr. Schultz, then? 6 are specifically talking about proposed operation, <br /> 7 MR. SCHUTLZ: Maybe clarify my 7 granting the permit, proposed surface coal mining <br /> 8 position after looking over the lunch hour a little 8 operations, the applicant, to extract coal. <br /> 9 bit. So I do -- I agree with both; Mr. Justus in 9 These are provisions that were -- <br /> 10 some parts, and Mr. Beckwith in some parts. 10 that are on point with a technical -- with an <br /> 11 The General Assembly did clearly 11 application for a technical revision. <br /> 12 distinction between a minor revision and a technical 12 MS. VAN NOORD: So I would be curious <br /> 13 revision, and section 116 refers to specifically a 13 to hear what the -- haw the Division applies these <br /> 14 technical revision of the permit. However, when we 14 standards when they get a technical revision. When <br /> 15 look at (2)(a), (b) and (c), those requirements are 15 the Division gets a technical revision application, <br /> 16 rather perfunctory with really -- there's no burden. 16 what do they look at? <br /> 17 And it talks about -- in 116(4), it 17 MR. SCHUTLZ: They have been applying <br /> 18 talks about the Board pramarlgating regulations. 18 these -- 114(1) and 114(2)(a) and (b). <br /> 19 When we go to -- to the regulations and we go to 19 MS. VAN NOORD: Okay. <br /> 20 Rule 2.08.4, which is, again, specifically dealing 20 MR. SCHULTZ: And in this specific <br /> 21 with technical revisions, again we do not find any 21 case -- not to get into the facts -- but there was <br /> 22 sort of burdens on behalf of the applicant. 22 adequacy reviews of this application, and that's the <br /> 23 Now, the General Assembly, again, did 23 standard that the Division utilized in those <br /> 24 see a distinguish between a revision and a technical 24 adequacy reviews of the application. <br /> 25 revision and a minor -- not a minor revision, 25 MS. VAN NOORD: Okay. Thank you. <br /> 37 39 <br /> 1 although in the statute only "technical revision" is 1 MR. SINGLETARY: Any other comments <br /> 2 defined. 2 or questions or thoughts? <br /> 3 So it's the Division's position that 3 MR. RANDALL: I think I understand <br /> 4 the burden of the applicant, Snowcap Coal Company, 4 the issue. <br /> 5 in this case can be found in 34-33-114 at (1) and 5 MR. SINGLETARY: Good. <br /> 6 (2)(a) and (2)(b). 6 MR. RANDALL: Does that make one of <br /> 7 And specifically 114(1) states, "The 7 us? <br /> 8 applicant for a permit or for a revision of a permit 8 MR. SINGLETARY: So we need a motion <br /> 9 shall have the burden of establishing that such 9 here, right? <br /> 10 application is in compliance with all the 10 MR. ROBERTS: You will need a motion <br /> 11 requirements of this article." 11 to adopt the draft prehearing order as is or if you <br /> 12 We go to 114(2), it talks about "The 12 propose to amend it based on the request, then as <br /> 13 application is accurate and contains all information 13 amended. <br /> 14 required under this article and regulations 14 MR. SINGLETARY: Okay. Is there <br /> 15 promulgated thereunder," and (b), "The applicant has 15 somebody who will formulate that motion? <br /> 16 demonstrated that reclamation as required by this 16 MS. VAN FORD: Yeah. I think given <br /> 17 article can be accomplished under the reclamation 17 what the Division has said in their interpretation <br /> 18 plan contained in the permit application." 18 in how it's -- how they have been applying it <br /> 19 Which trying to get into the minds of 19 throughout, I think we should adopt the prehearing <br /> 20 the General Assembly is difficult; however, it makes 20 order as drafted. <br /> 21 sense that a permit -- a technical revision of an 21 MR. RANDALL: I'll second. <br /> 22 application would be in compliance with the act and 22 MR. SINGLETARY: Been moved and <br /> 23 the rules. And 114(2)(a) and 2(b) and also (1) do 23 seconded. All those in favor signify by saying <br /> 24 that. 24 aye. <br /> 25 So it's the Division's position that 25 (All Board members were in favor of <br /> 38 40 <br />