Laserfiche WebLink
1 ~ <br />any stage of a proceeding in the Office of Hearings and Appeals <br />under the Surface Mining Control Reclamation Act ("SMCRA"). 43 <br />C.F.R. § 4.1110(a). A petitioner must set forth its interest <br />and, where required, a showing of why its interest is or may be <br />adversely affected. 43 C.F.R. § 4.1110(b) <br />The Code further provides that intervention shall be <br />granted where the petitioner either had a statutory right to ini- <br />tiate the proceeding in which it wishes to intervene or has an <br />interest which is or may be adversely affected by the outcome of <br />the proceeding. 43 C.F.R. § 4.1110(c). <br />5. In the present matter, according to the Code, the Divi- <br />sion has a right to intervene because it had a right to initiate <br />a review of the NOV under SMCRA. SMCRA provides that a permittee <br />issued an NOV or any person having an interest which is or may be <br />adversely affected by such notice may apply for review of the <br />notice. 30 U.S.C. § 1275(a). <br />Here, OSM's actions adversely affected the Division's <br />interests. OSM issued a notice of violation directly to Kerr <br />without giving ten days of notice to the Division as provided in <br />30 C.F.R. § 843.12(a)(2). The notice alleges that certain <br />reclamation performed by Kerr does not satisfy AOC standards. <br />OSM's actions raise issues concerning OSM's and the Division's <br />enforcement authority over mining operations done on federal <br />lands where the state has a cooperative agreement which provides <br />that the state regulates such operations. Furthermore, a poten- <br />tial ramification of OSM's position is that the action required <br />by OSM to abate the NOV issued to Kerr undermines prior permit- <br />ting decisions by the Division on this issue. OSM's NOV requires <br />Kerr to begin earth-moving work as of August 24, 1994, despite <br />the fact that such work may conflict with the requirements of <br />Kerr's state permit and despite the fact that the ordered abate- <br />ment may require a revision to the state permit. <br />Thus, given that OSM's actions called into question the Di- <br />vision's authority over permitting, reclamation, and enforcement <br />decisions under the cooperative agreement concerning federal <br />lands, OSM's actions created the basis for the Division itself to <br />seek review of the NOV issued to Kerr. That is, the Division's <br />interests were or may be adversely affected by the issuance and <br />enforcement of the NOV. Accordingly, the Division under the Code <br />has the right to now intervene as a full party at this stage of <br />the proceedings. 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.1105(a), (c) and <br />4.1110(c). <br />6. Alternatively, the above-described circumstances also <br />-2- <br />