GENERAL42264 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Qne such commenter asserted that a parent company which owns or controls a subsidiary does not necessarily own or control the operations of the subsidiary. The government disagreed and stated: ,Pa ge 796?1 Federal Register Vol. ti5 second column, feral paragraph: "We disagree. Thu argument was advanced a~:d rejected in NMA v DO! !I. If the parent company owns or Controls the subsidiary under the defrnitions we adapt today, the parent company, de facto, also owns or controls the subsidiary's operations. In upholding our previous construction of section SI p(c), which on this point we import into this final rule, the ,U.C. Circuit explained that our view is "consistent with, if not mandated by the statutory langaage, which as noted, applied to any violating operations controlled by the applicant, not only those directed by hirn. Accordingly, the agency's cunstructiun mint be upheld. Regarding proposed rule § 778.14 concerning the collection of information concerning violators and permit control, Commenters said that the controller of a violation should mean the person who did not abate the violation, not the person who created it. The government disagreed b. Page 79651 Federal Register Vol. 65 ftrst column, first paragraph: "We disagree. The person who caused, or was initially cited for, the violation and any persons who subsequently had the authority to correct the violation are collectively responsible for abating or cwrec[ing !hr violation, unless otherwise provided for Gy the Act, its implementing regulations, or establuhed principles of business law." As it is the States obligation to review and update this information I am requesting that this be as soon as possible. I would like to receive a copy of DRMS' determination and update. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~~ ~-i l~C.~..-~ Tatum AT/ah E0 3~JCd Wf11Cl WIP 655096865E b£~EZ L00Z/E0/b0