Laserfiche WebLink
action instead. Indeed, the Rules expressly establish what constnntes msuffictent <br />grounds to vacate NOV's, seeRule 5.03.?, and none of these "insuf icirnt" grounds <br />include vacating the NOV because the citizen who miriated the :dOv' process has <br />witharawn her complaint so that she may pursue a com-t action instead. <br />Finally, even though i' is not required by the Act o; the Rules, DMG has <br />artiEUlated a "good reason" to r•acate this NOV without prejudice. DMG originally <br />invesrigated this matter and issued the NOD/ based on :he citizrn'a complaint broueitt <br />by Ann Tatrm DMG issued the NOV, as stated in the inspection report <br />accotttpaaying the NOV, based on Ann Tatum's stateraettts that nea subsidence- <br />related damage was occurring and because the Tatutns had prevailed in retxnt court <br />and 1BLA decisions against Basin that held that Basin's underground coal operarions <br />had caused subsidence-rela*ed damage to the Tatum's house. <br />When Atm Tatum, through her counsel, requested that DMG vacate the VOV without <br />prejudice and withdrew her original complaint DMG had no reason to ptnsue the <br />NOV. As stated in the DMG letter accompanying its NOV vacation without <br />prejudice, there has been no allegation of and DMG's inspection revealed no <br />itmninent or substantial endangerment to the health or safety of the public (Rule <br />5.03.2(11(a)1; or signiticant ltatm to lead, air or water resources {id.); and there are no <br />state-re'ated resources that are or wi;l be allegedly damaged. See DMG's letter <br />accompanying the vacanon of 1`OV 2000-OOS (attachment to Basin's Motion). <br />not 1~`OV's, and DMG's tiOV C~~ 2000-009 dial not include a cess2tion order <br />component. <br />