ENFORCE37501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

should DMG determine that unforeseen circumstances warrant such a result. Similarly, Basin contests OSM's determination only to the extent that it implicitly approves DMG's refusal to foreclose future enforcement action. This Court has already addressed the issues raised by the June order. xn response to the Tatums' request for temporary relief from an earlier Board order, this Court found it substantially likely that the Tatums would prevail on arguments that (1) the administrative record does not contain substantial evidence to support Basin's claim that it would be adversely affected by DMG's vacation ofNotice ofViolation No. CV-2000-009 and (2) Colorado statutes empower DMG to vacate its own enforcement orders without prejudice at anytime prior to a decision of the Board on administrative review. Tatum v. Colorado Mined Land Reclanralion Board, No. O1-CV-38 (Apr. 27.2001) (order granting temporary relief). In light of the Court's preliminary findings in the Tatums' judicial revicw action, the Board obtained a remand for reconsideration. After a brief heating in which Basin offered no additional evidence, the Board adopted this Court's preliminary findings and incorporated them into the final order that Basin attempts to challenge in this action. Basin is not entitled to judicial review of the June orderbecause the company has not alleged -- and certainly cannot demonstrate -- injury to any cognisable legal interest as the result of that action. Similarly, with respect to OSM's "good cause" determination, Basin has failed to allege -- and cannot show -- that it qualifies as a "person who is or may be adversely affected by a coal exploration or surface coal mining operation." See 30 C.F.R. § 842.15. Consequently, Basin does not meet the regulatory test for standing to challenge OSM "good cause" determinations. -3- !lS-d sl0/900'd OE9-1 ESSE99EEOE S378I10E3tl 1tl801tlN 100-WOtld EI~Z! 1002-EZ-9fltl