Laserfiche WebLink
.` <br />Bob Hagen - 3 - May 1, 1987 <br />operation are handled under one system. It would allow OSM to remove itself <br />from a direct role, it would eliminate the potential for duplication of effort <br />and would provide for better efficiency in the resolution process. It may <br />also reduce the potential for litigation, and reduce the amount of Federal <br />litigation overall. Such reasons would satisfy the good cause criterion for <br />the vacation of the C.O. by the Secretary. <br />Given the preceding discussion, I request that you reconsider the position you <br />have taken that a Federal C.O. cannot be vacated unless there is a finding of <br />no violation. An initial review of the legal aspects indicates that the <br />Secretary can vacate a C.O. for good cause. Good cause can be broadly <br />interpreted and gives the Secretary broad discretion as to when he can vacate <br />a C.O.. As a matter of policy, it would be prudent to allow a state C.O. or <br />comparable enforcement action to supplant a Federal C.O. It would satisfy the <br />objectives of the law and strengthen the concept of state primacy. In such <br />instances, the appropriate Federal response would be to vacate the Federal C.O. <br />Thank you for your reconsideration of this matter and I await your response. <br />Sincerely, <br />Z <br />so r, Coal Program <br />FRB/sak <br />cc: John Kunz, Solicitor <br />Stewart Sanderson, Solicitor <br />9334E <br />