Laserfiche WebLink
affected by" an existing enforcement action to challenge iu "modification, vacation, or termination." <br />Contrary to Basin's interpretation, the Coal Act's narrower administrative standing provision for <br />challenging modifications, vacations, or terminations of enforcement action requires any person who <br />wishes to challeage such an action to show that it adversely affects the challenging party's legal <br />interests or may reasonably be expected to do so? <br />Basin's complaint fails to allege either injury-in-fact or an exi sting threat that DMG will take <br />additional enforcement action against the company. Instead, the company's initial pleading asserts <br />that "Basin seeks the hearing [on Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009] so that it may vindicate its <br />position that no violation took place and so that it may resolve once and for all the issue first raised <br />by the Tatums and pursued by the Board." Plainti„~"s Petition and Complaint forJudicia[ Review, <br />Introduction. Insofaz as its standing is concerned, the company alleges only that "Basin is the <br />operator of the Golden Eagle Mine, located in Las Animas County, Colorado: ' Plaintiff s Petition <br />and Complaint fnr Jttdicial Review, 9I ],that "the Board issued an order effective June 11, 2001. <br />vacating an earlier Boazd decision and vacating the Notice of Violation without prejudice; ' Id at 9I <br />5, and that "[t]he Boazd did not hold a hearing on the Notice of Violation," Id. at y[ 20. <br />These allegations are insufficient to establish $asin's standing to obtain judicial review of <br />the June order. Indeed, Basin's admission that it is the operator of the Golden Eagle Mine precludes <br />Z 1n concluding that Basin lacks standing to challenge DMG's decision to vacate Notice <br />of violation No. CV-2000-009, the June order necessarily rejects Basin's interpretation of the Coal <br />Act to allov+ coal operators to challenge such decisions absent a showing of injury-in-fact. As the <br />entity charged by the statute with admirtistering the Coal Act, the B oazd is entitled to deference with <br />respect to its interpretations of the statute. As this Court necessarily concluded in granting the <br />Tatums' request for temporary relief, the Board's interpretation of the Coal Act's standing <br />requirements is, at a minimum, a plausible construction of the statutory text. Accordingly, Basin's <br />contrary interpretation cannot stand. <br />-6- <br />1lS-d BIO/800'd 059-1 855599BE05 537800538 'IY801YN '100-Yi08d SI~ZI 1002-EZ-90tl <br />