Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• successor that would have been required of the successor had <br />the successor been the original applicant, any challenge to <br />your required finding that the application is complete would <br />undoubtedly be successful. <br />We are also concerned about the implied possibility that the <br />interim permit may have been transferred improperly. Any <br />transfer of a Federal permit must comply with the requirements <br />of 30 C.F.R. 788.17 through 788.19. <br />The concurrence letter from Minerals Management Services iden- <br />tifies Sheridan Enterprises, Inc. as the Federal coal lessee. <br />The proposed permit identifies Salt Creek Mining Company as <br />the Federal coal lessee. This is an inconsistency that must <br />be reconciled. <br />Finally, the description of the mine in Public Notice of the <br />proposed decision is so radically different from the description <br />in the Public Notice announcing the application that it is un- <br />likely any interested party could relate the two. Although the <br />second notice is not a Federal requirement, since it is a require- <br />ment of Colorado's approved State program it is fully applicable <br />to this decision. There is a substantial risk a challenger would <br />• succeed with an argument there was inadequate public notice based <br />on the materials in this decision document. <br />/ // _ <br />Glenn F. Tiedt <br />For the Regional Solicitor <br />Rocky Mountain Region <br />• <br />2 <br />