ENFORCE26356 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Notice of Violation C-91-025 Conference Summary Notice of Violation C-91-025 was issued by Kent Gorham of the Division on October 23, 1991 for failure to maintain at the public site in the vicinity of the mine, a current copy of the certificate of liability insurance. Mr. Gorham indicated that the certificate on file at the Jackson County Courthouse when he conducted a complete inspection on October 17, 1991 had expired. Mr. Gorham further explained that the operator had been reminded in August of the need to provide an updated insurance certificate. A current certificate was received by the Division on August 26, 1991. The operator acknowledged that a copy of the current insurance certificate was not on file at the Courthouse when the inspection was conducted. Ms. James indicated that she thought the issue of concern had been resolved when the certificate was submitted to the Division on August 26, 1991 and that she did not recall that the Division had specifically requested that a copy of the certificate be placed on file in the Jackson County Courthouse. Mr. Patten and Ms. James requested that the violation be vacated, based on the fact that the notice of proposed civil penalty was not mailed out by the Division within the 30 day time period specified by Rule 5.04.3(2). Records indicate that the proposed civil penalty notice was in fact mailed out on the 32nd day following issuance of the Notice of Violation. The proposed civil penalty was: History $0.00 Seriousness $250.00 Fault $250.00 Good Faith $ 0.00 TOTAL $500.00 Fact of Violation The essential fact of the violation, that a current copy of the certificate of insurance had not been placed on file at the designated location (the Jackson County Courthouse) was not disputed by the operator. I find that a violation did occur. I do not recommend vacation of the Notice of Violation as requested by the operator. Rule 5.04.3(2)(c) requires an operator issued a notice of proposed penalty after the 30th day to prove actual prejudice as a result of the delay as grounds for dismissal of all or part of the penalty assessment. The operator did not demonstrate monetary or other damages resulting form the proposed penalty notice being sent out two days late. The operator is still entitled to all rights of appeal which would have been available had the proposed notice been issued within 30 days of Notice of Violation issuance.