My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE24741
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE24741
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:24 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:47:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
11/6/2007
Doc Name
Correspondence Letter (faxed)
From
Ann Tatum
To
DRMS
Violation No.
CV2007001
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The regulations establish requirements and criteria for the regulatory authority to <br />approve an application for permit transfer. However, the regulations do not <br />prescribe conditions under which a permit transfer must occw, only how the <br />regulatory authority must respond once application is filed". (a copy of the United <br />States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining (OSM) October 12, <br />2007 letter is attached and incorporated for all purposes as Exhibit G) See <br />Exhibit G . A permit transfer by definition must occw when ownership or other <br />effective control is changed. <br />8. The enclosed "Notice to Regulatory Agencies of Closing" (a copy of the "Notice" <br />is attached hereto and incorporated for all purposes, and marked as Exhibit Fl) <br />See Exhibit H. The "Notice", is signed by Paul W. Durham as Secretary for <br />Westmoreland Coal Company and the same Paul W. Dwham as Assistant <br />Secretary for Basin Resowces, Tnc, and states " .... post closing details associated <br />with the change of control of Basin, such change of control being effective as of <br />the date indicated above". The date reflected in the Notice is April 30, 2001 when <br />the change of control became effective. Again, the obvious azgument is that <br />Westmoreland Coal Company acknowledged that a change of control has <br />occwred, ergo a transfer is required. <br />COIVCLUSIOIV: <br />OSM's finding for violation number one (1) (see Exhibit G is misplaced aud, if <br />left standing, would render 30CFR 774.17 irrelevant along with any and all other <br />regulations that place a mandatory standard on a perrnittee to obtain a Regulatory <br />Authority approval prior to that pernvttee taking unilateral actions -such as, but <br />not limited, to mining without a permit. OSM apparently believes that 30 CFR <br />774.17, and the Colorado Program counterpart, is only applicable if a permittee <br />unilaterally decides to submit an application for a permit transfer. If the permittee <br />decides to forgo this procedure the regulation is of no effect. This is ludicrous. <br />The regulation begins by stating "No transfer, assignment, or sale of rights <br />granted under a permit shall be made without the prior written approval of the <br />regulatory authority." The remainder of the regulation outlines the procedure the <br />permittee and regulatory authority must follow to request and ultimately obtain <br />that approval. . <br />Tn the instant case, the permittee, Basin Resources, sold the rights gratrted within <br />their permit to VJestrnoreland Coal without first obtaining Colorado's written <br />approval. As such, the sale of the permit tights is invalid and in violation of both <br />the Colorado Program and Federal regulations. To be in compliance with the <br />program, Colorado should have issued a Notice of Violation to Basin for its <br />failure to obtain the written approval. <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.