Laserfiche WebLink
generally entitled to great weight" and "will not be <br />disturbed upon review unless it is plainly erroneous or <br />inconsistent with such rule or the underlying statute." <br />Timberline Sawmill and Lumber Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 624 <br />P.2d 367 (Colo. App. 1981); Van Pelt v. State Board for <br />~mmuni~ Colleges and Occupational Education, 195 Colo. 316, <br />577 P.2d 765 (1978). This is especially true when the <br />regulation is promulgated pursuant to an explicit legislative <br />grant of regula*_ory authority, such as §34-32-108 of the <br />CMLRA. Orsinger Outdoor Advertising Inc. v. Department of <br />Highways, 752 P.2d 55, 65 (Colo. 1988). Because the MLRB's <br />interpretation of Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) is neither plainly <br />erroneous nor inconsistent with the MLRB Rules and <br />Regulations or the CMLRA, it is not~a basis to revez~se the <br />MLRB's approval of Battle Mountain's reclamation permit <br />application. <br />The MLRB's decision to conditionally approve Battle <br />Mountain's reclamation permit was based upon an <br />interpretation of Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) which reasonably <br />considered the statutory jurisdictional limits of the CMLRA. <br />It was not, as argued by CES, an abdication of statutory <br />authority. Rather, the Board's action reflected its <br />consistent interpretation of the rule since its promulgation. <br />The statements of members of the MLRB and MLRD at the March <br />22 hearing reflect the long standing policy of the Board. <br />- 31 - <br />