GENERAL49608 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 March 1, 2007 While 1 was loathe doing so, given my previous experience with both OSM and bRM5, I submitted a citizens complaint relaying what I believed to be two separate and distinct violations of the mining regulations at the Golden Eagle Permit # C-1981-013. While not agreeing with your process, 1 was thankful for your issuance of the Ten-Day Notice to DRMS and their subsequent issuance of a Notice of Violation regarding Basin's failure to compensate. As for the regulatory requirement for Basin to increase its' performance bond in the amount of the decrease in our homes value, on February 12, 2007, you sent DRMS a "732" Letter requiring them to submit a proposed written amendment to their Program consistent with 30 CFR 817.121 (c)(5). This "732" letter reads almost exactly like the one OSM sent to Colorado regarding this same issue back in 1996. As you are both fully aware, OSM failed to finalize the "732" process at that time and took no action over the past 10 years to correct that oversight. On February 27, 2007, Mr. Fulton authored a letter to me stating that on February 15, 2007 bRMS responded to the most recent "732" letter by indicating that they could implement the requirements of 817.121 (c)(5) through the existing Colorado Act and regulations. Mr. Fulton, however, did not indicate if the position taken by DRMS regarding their current regulations was corrector when OSM would so decide. i believe the OSM Directive system requires that Mr. Kline be presented with a "732" response review within 30 days of receipt of such response by OSM. I presume Mr. Fulton, along with the Office of the Solicitor, have completed, or are near completing, that review given the simplicity of the issue. Also on February 27th Mr. Fulton informed me that ii was his position that the requirement of 30 CFR 817.121 (c) (5) is a "permitting" issue and not a performance standard. As such, he referred me to a document authored by a Ms. Watson regarding OSM policy involving oversight of state permitting decisions. While Ms. Watson's 2005 letter made for interesting reading I fail to see how it pertains to the issue of the performance bond or, for that matter, how Mr. Fulton can possibly believe that it does. It is painfully Clear in the federal regulations that permitting issues are found at 30 CFR Subchapter G and deal with the requirements needed to obtain a permit. Performance Standards are found at 30 CFR Subchapter K and deal with those requirements that must be complied with after the issuance of a permit. !t is under Subchapter K that you will find 30 CFR 817,121 (c) (5). Further, the preamble to the 1995 federal regulations implementing the requirements of the 1992 Energy Act clearly states that OSM was amending its regulations through the adoption of permitting requirements, performance standards and implementation procedures. The preamble then goes onto clearly address those three separate and distinct areas. The need to increase an C00 ~ %V3 ZS-ST LOOZ/TO/CO