ENFORCE30782 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S Sericusness In the proposed penalty, the assessment officer deemed the violation to be in the category of significant serousness, based on the obstruction of the Division's ability to verify compliance with State and Federal law, on the part of owners and controllers. I agree that it is very important for the Division to have accurate information on owners and controllers, in order to insure that permits are not improvidently issued to applicants who are owned or controlled by individuals who, by law, are prohibited from obtaining such permits. In this case, I believe the potential for such an occurrence was low. With respect to John R. Adams, the Division was aware of his affiliation with the Marr Strip Mine and the Raton Creek Mine, and he was listed within each application a5 an officerldirector for that particular operation. Had violations gone unabated, civil penalties unpaid, etc. at any one of the three operations, the Division would have taken steps to block future permitting actions at the other two, until the problems were resolved. Had Mr. Adams been involved as an owner/controller of coal operations in other states (he was not) the potential for an improvident permit issuance would have been significantly greater, although with recent modifications to the OSM AVS system, state regulatory agencies are becoming less dependent on applicant provided information. Based on the extent to which enforcement of the law was potentially obstructed given the circumstances of this case, I find the seriousness to be low/moderate rathe than significant, and propose a 5500.00 assessment for seriousness. Fault In the proposed penalty, the assessment officer concluded that the failure to provide the listing of other coal operations for which John R. Adams was an owner/controller appeared to constitute an intentional violation. Based on Mr. Weaver's statements during the assessment conference, and my subsequent review of the pertinent documents, I do not believe this to be the case. I find it plausible that the applicant believed that information provided in the April, 1990 revision application on Identification of Interests adequately addressed the regulation requirements which were in effect at that time. The applicable regulations have subsequently been revised, but coal operators have been allowed a period of time to comply with the new regulations, and that time period has not yet expired. Further, there is no evidence that the applicant or Mr. Adams would have gained any benefit, with respect to the Coal law, by intentionally omitting the information concerning Mr. Adams' involvement with the other Colorado coal operations. This involvement was known to the Division and documented in each of the permit applications, individually. I find the violation to have occurred due to a lack of reasonable care, and propose an assessment of $250.00 for fault.