Laserfiche WebLink
_~ <br />2. IIsiaq such a method to determine AOC issues <br />[i.e., determining AOC by reference to landforma <br />in the surrounding countryside] is not arbitrary <br />or capricious. See Consolidated Coal Company v. <br />Office of Surface Minina Reclamation and <br />Enforcement [Consolidated Coal], No. CH. 94-6-R <br />(Judge Torbett, July 28, 1994). <br />DMG's October 5, 1994, brief at 13. <br />DMG, in its October 5, 1994, brief, takes the position that <br />determining AOC by reference to surrounding landforms is not <br />arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. In support of that <br />position, DMG cites, without elaboration, AL7 Torbett's July 28, <br />1994, decision in Consolidated Coal, a copy of which is attached. <br />The Interior Board of Land Appeals has repeatedly held that <br />a decision by an ALJ "is the law of the case only and is not <br />binding upon future decisions of OSM, the Hearings Division, or <br />the Board." Rebel Coal Co., Inc., 4 IBSMA 69, 92 (1982). See <br />also Delta Mining Corp., 3 IBSMA 252, 255 (1981). Thus, the ALJ <br />in this proceeding is neither bound by ALJ Torbett's decision in <br />Consolidated Coal nor precluded from deciding the law apart from <br />that case. <br />In any event, Consolidated Coal does not support DMG's <br />position that the basis for determining AOC is the surrounding <br />countryside. Consolidated Coal involved a notice of violation <br />issued by OSM to Consolidated Coal Company (Consolidated) for <br />failing to achieve AOC at its Burning Star minesite, as required <br />by the Illinois regulatory program approved by OSM under SMCRA. <br />Consolidated challenged the NOV essentially on the basis that the <br />Illinois regulatory authority (the State) determined, in contrast <br />5 <br />