ENFORCE36805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Steve Renner May 6, 1991 Page 4 inspection of the site and substantial evidence submitted by Rockcastle. Moreover, CMr.un thoroughly considered the bond release and its amount, and made a specific finding that the release was proper and in accordance with its rules. A TDN is inappropriate where the state program takes appropriate action to abate a violation. The alternative enforcement of the NOVs and the compliance schedule embodied in the Agreement constitute "enforcement or other action authorized under the state program to cause a violation to be corrected." 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(3) (1990). Thus, CMLRD's response is sufficient, and the TDN is inappropriate, because the Agreement is "appropriate action", as defined in 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(3). The TDN is also inappropriate because Colorado has shown good cause for not issuing a violation because the Agreement constitutes a CMLRB-approved compliance schedule under Rule 3.04.1(2). Further, the Agreement is an alternative enforcement mechanism which settles two NOVs issued by CMLRD. Rockcastle is complying with the terms of the Agreement, and thereby conforming with the compliance schedule and abating the violations, and therefore Rockcastle is not in violation of the Colorado program. Finally, CMLRD conducted the bond release in accordance with its own rules and common practices. Moreover, "[u]nder the State program, the possible violation does not exist...." 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(4) (1990). 5. OSM's Actions are Contrary to Important Policy Considerations. OSM's TDN is inappropriate because it unduly interferes with Colorado's ability to enforce the provisions of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act. OSM, through abuse of the TDN process, is attempting to avoid following proper oversight procedures for regulation of Colorado's program. This abuse constitutes undue interference with the operation of the Colorado program and impedes Colorado's ability to achieve the purposes of the Act. Further, as set forth above, OSM's use of the TDN raises questions regarding the validity, finality and judicial review of all CMr.un decisions under the Act. OSM's TDN is particularly inappropriate in the current circumstance, where Rockcastle has cooperated with the State to accomplish reclamation which might not otherwise be completed. 6. OSM's Concerns are Substantively Moot. OSM's concerns regarding the amount of bond release are substantively moot because OSM incorrectly assumes that Rockcastle only requested Phase I bond release. Rather, Rockcastle requested