Laserfiche WebLink
<br />aetton instead. [ndeed, the Rules expressly establish what constttutes insuffictent <br />grounds to varzte NOV's, seeRule S.D3.7, and none of these "insuf:icirnt" grounds <br />include vacating the NOV becatue the citizen who mitiated the NOv process has <br />withdrawn her compltutt so that sire may pursue a cot>; t action instead. <br />Finally, even though i' is not required by the Act or L`re Rules, DMG has <br />atti6ulated a "good reasor:' to vacate this IvOV without prejudice. DMG originally <br />investigaud this mater and issued the NOV based on the citizca's wrrtplaint brouottt <br />by Ann Tatt:m. DMG issued the NOV, as stated in the inspection report <br />accotttpaaying the NOV, based on Ann Tatutn's statcmrnts that new subsidence- <br />related damage was occutr¢tg and because the Tatutns had prevailed in recent court <br />and IBLA decisions against Basin that held that Basin's undergrotatd coal operetians <br />had caused subrdence-related damage to the Tatum's house. <br />V/hea Atm Tatum, through her counsel, requested that DMG vacate the NOV without <br />prejudict and aZthdrew her original complaint, DMG had no reason to pursue the <br />NOV. As stated in the DMG letter accompanying its *IOV vacation without <br />prejudice, there has been no allegation of and DMG's inspection revealed no <br />inmunent or substantia'. endangerment to the health or safety of the public (Rule <br />5.03.1(11{a)); or stgaizicant harm to Iaad, air ar water resources {id.); and there are no <br />;rate-related resources that are or will be allegedly darnagcd. See DMG's letter <br />accompanying the vacatton of KOV 2000-OOS (attachment to Basin's Motion). <br />nor A'OV's. and DMG's ~iOV CV 2000-009 did not include a cessanon order <br />componcrt. <br />