Laserfiche WebLink
One such commenter asserted that a parent company which owns or controls a <br />subsidiary does not necessarily own or control the operations of the subsidiary. <br />The government disagreed and stated:.Pa ge 79621 Federal Register Vol. 65 <br />second column, final paragraph: "We disagree. This argument was advanced <br />and rejected in NMA v DOI II. If the parent company owns or controls the <br />subsidiary under the definitions we adopt today, the parent company, de facto,. _.. <br />also owns or controls the subsidiary's operations. In upholding our previous <br />construction of section 510(c), w/:iclz ~~n this point we import into this final rule, <br />the AC. Circuit explained that our view is "consistent with, if not mandated by <br />the statutory language, tivhicl: as noted, applied to any violating operations <br />controlled by the applicant, not only those directed by him. Accordingly, the <br />agency's construction must be upheld. " <br />Regazding proposed rule § 778.14 ~;oncerning the collection of information <br />concerning violators and permit control, Commenters said that the controller of a <br />violation should mean the person who did not abate the violation, not the person <br />who created it. The government disagreed b. Page 79651 Federal Register Vol. 65 <br />first column, first pazagraph: "We disagree. The person w/:o caused, or was <br />initially cited for, the violation and any persons who subsequently had the <br />authority to correct the violation are collectively responsible for abating or <br />correcting the violation, unless a`herwise provided for by the Act, its <br />implementing regulations, or establis{~ed principles of business law." <br />As it is the States obligation to review and update this information I am requesting <br />that this be as soon as possible. I would like to receive a copy of DRMS' determination <br />and update. <br />Thank you. <br />I <br />Very truly yours, ~~ <br />~L. !~~ <br />Tatum <br />AT/ah <br /> <br />