Laserfiche WebLink
42 <br />1 administrative record that was made before the <br />2 board in March simply doesn't have any evidence or <br />3 appear to have any evidence and, in fact, it does <br />4 not have any evidence to support the notion that <br />5 Basin was harmed. <br />6 So that even if the board were to <br />7 conclude that sometimes under some circumstances a <br />8 coal operator might be injured by the vacation of a <br />9 notice of violation, there's nothing in the <br />10 administrative record here to show that Basin in <br />11 this instance has been harmed. <br />12 And I think that the -- that the board <br />13 ought to make that clear in its order, that Basin, <br />14 I believe, as a matter of law could not have been <br />15 harmed by the vacation of the notice of violation, <br />16 but even if it could, that Basin has produced no <br />17 evidence to show that it might be harmed. <br />18 The time for producing that evidence has <br />19 passed, and I concur with both Mr. Brown and <br />20 Mr. Anderson that the board's order on this, in <br />21 order to finally pass this along to the Court and <br />22 hopefully put an end to it from the board's point <br />23 of view, ought to speak to those issues and ought <br />24 to make clear to the Court that Basin really lacked <br />25 a substantial enough interest to raise this -- this <br />