2017-05-24_REVISION - C1981041

• Permit No: C1981041
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 5/24/2017
• Doc Name: MLRB Hearing Transcripts
• Type & Sequence: TR69
• Email Name: JDM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

33
1 that we recess? It's 11:30. We can -- Mr. Randall 1 MR. ROBERTS: -- of the draft
2 can get back, and we can reconvene at 1 o'clock, 2 prehearing order, and his proposal was to strike the
3 because I see no reason to start the evidentiary 3 citation in the bottom-- in the last line to say
4 portion of the hearing until you square away the 4 34-33-116 instead of 114.
5 burden of proof that Mr. Justus may or nay not 5 I believe his arcgmnt to that
6 have. 6 respect is that 116 specifically addresses technical
7 MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. I tend to agree. 7 revisions and that any denial of the TR application
8 MR. SINGLETARY: I don't know. That 8 in this case should be based only on section 116,
9 okay with you timewise? 9 not section 114 which applies to applications,
10 MR. ROBERTS: It's fine with me. 10 revisions thereof, and renewals thereof. He's
11 MR. SINGLEPARY: Okay. All right. 11 saying, as I understand, that 14 (sic) is too broad
12 MR. ROBERTS: Make sure we have a 12 and inapplicable to TRs.
13 quorum to move forward. 13 Mr. Beckwith's counterargument to
14 MR. SINGLETARY: Okay. So we're 14 that respect is that 114 requires ccnpliance of
15 adjourned to 1:00? Is that — 15 applications with all provisions of the act and the
16 MR. BECKWITH: Well, the problem down 16 rules, and, therefore, 114 should apply.
17 here is everybody is down here, and you're trying to 17 Did I state your positions somewhat
18 find someplace to get lunch. May I suggest 1:30? 18 accurately?
19 MS. VAN NOORD: No. 19 MR. BECKWITH: You forgot
20 MR. BECKWITH: Or is that too long? 20 Mr. Schultz's position.
21 MR. SINGLETARY: Just takes too 21 MR. ROBERTS: To the extent he has
22 long. 22 one, we'll get to it.
23 MR. BECKWITH: Since it is 11:30 23 Mr. Justus, is that accurate?
24 now -- 24 MR. JUSTUS: I might --
25 MR. SINGLETARY: You've got an hour (25 mischaracterized as the General Asseirbly has chosen
33 35
1 and a half. 1 to define and limit technical revisions to a
2 MR. BECKWITH: 1 o'clock would be 2 specific category and type of revision. It has only
3 convenient. 3 addressed those in 116.
4 MR. JUSTUS: No objection from 4 The only other types of matters that
5 Snowcap. 5 may be addressed under 114 are those defined in that
6 MR. SINGLETARY: Okay. We stand 6 first sentence, which only includes other types of
7 adjourned until 1 o'clock. 7 permitting actions and does not include and
8 MR. BECKWITH: Thank you. May I be 8 exhibited in their choice by the General Assembly
9 excused? 9 not to include technical revisions in those matters
10 MR. SINGLETARY: You bet. 10 subject to 114.
11 (Break from 11:37 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) 11 MR. ROBERTS: Okay.
12 (Board Member Randall is present in 12 MR. SINGLETARY: Mr. Beckwith.
13 the hearing roam.) 13 MR. BECKWITH: Having made that
14 MR. SINGLETARY: Mr. Roberts, the 14 statement, clarification of my position is that 114
15 appropriate thing would be to just summarize where 15 refers to a revision. It does not distinguish
16 we were for the benefit of our returning member, 16 between technical or general. And 114 specifically
17 Mr. Randall. 17 states that this applies to the entire article, not
18 MR. ROBERTS: Of course. 18 just to the section itself.
19 MR. SINGLETARY: And me too. 19 Therefore, the standard and the
20 MR. ROBERTS: To the extent I can 20 burden of proof that the applicant must have must
21 su arize the parties' arguments about the draft 21 armply with 114, subdivision 2. I believe it was
22 prehearing order. So, Bob, where we are is Mr. 22 (a) and (b) that Mr. Schultz referred to fran the
23 Justus, for the operator, has suggested a change to 23 book.
24 the final paragraph on page 3 -- 24 It must establish that the proposed
25 MR. RANDALL: Okay. 25 reclamation satisfies that criteria. That is my
34 36