Laserfiche WebLink
SENT BY~Xerox Telecopier 7021 ~ 8- 8-94 ~ 3~26PN : 3038323804y .303 832 6106#10 <br />®~p[~~ <br />Honorable Roy Romer <br />September 8, 1994 <br />Page 9 <br />In addition, Mr. Uram's letter states that the inspector's direct issuance of the <br />NOV without a TDN, while not his preference, `Sues authorized and consistent with our <br />e~sting policy guidance to inspectors." Ken's attorneys reviewed all cuaent <br />enforcement polity directives issued by the OSM Directors at the AFO on early July 6, <br />1994. Directive INFr35 is the only polity guidance addressing this issue. Paragraph 4(b) <br />of that Directive states: <br />...an authorized representative s}>$11 issue elan-day notice to <br />the regulatory authority whenever there is reason to believe <br />that a vio]ation of the Act, the. State program or a permit <br />condition exists. <br />That paragraph, as last revised in 1991, lists three exceptions to this polity regarding (1) <br />imminent danger Or harm situatiOnS, (2) defeaal to a state inspector who agrees to t81cb <br />prompt action to coaect a violation, (3) where the mine complies with a state regulation <br />which is being revised to wnform with OSM's regulations. None of these esceptiotis to <br />the TDN requirement applied at Kerr. Nor does the Directive distinguish between <br />alleged violations oa federal sad nonfederal lands.2 Consequently, there is ao need to <br />'fihe OSM inspectors claim they had authority to issue the NOV on the federal lands in <br />Pit 1, but not on the fee leads in Pit 1. They issued an identical Tm-Day Notice allegutg an <br />AOC violation on the fee lands. <br />C717J. is91 <br />