Laserfiche WebLink
. ., <br />Hearings and Appeals, then the solution lies with Congress <br />and not by ignoring the clear wording of sections 518 and <br />525 of the Act and administratively construing the intent of <br />Congress on a theory of "bad policy." <br />I recognize that the petitioner may have suffered adversely <br />by the issuance of the notice of violation and that it may <br />suffer increased penalties in the future as a result of the <br />history of past violations criteria. However, these factors <br />do not constitute a monetary civil penalty within the pur- <br />view of section SI8 of the Act and they do not operate in <br />such a manner as to permit the petitioner to ignore and <br />render meaningless the remedy provided by section 525 of the <br />ACt. <br />Wyoming Fuel Company's petition for review is dismissed <br />because it is not charged with a civil penalty; there is no <br />proposed assessment of a civil penalty that can be reviewed; <br />and the only relief requested, i.e., the vacation of the <br />notice of violation, is properly the subject of a section <br />525 proceeding and not a section 518 proceeding. <br />Wyoming Fuel Company may petition the Interior Board of Land <br />Appeals to review this order by filing a petition with the <br />Board within 30 days from the receipt of this order. See 43 <br />CFR 4.1270, <br /> <br />Robert W. Mesch <br />Administrative Law Judge <br />Distribution <br />By Certified Mail: <br />Richard L. Fanyo, Esq. <br />Welborn, Dufford and Brown <br />1700 Broadway <br />Denver, Colorado 80290-1199 <br />Gerald A. Thornton, Esq. <br />Office of the Regional Solicitor <br />U. S. Department of the Interior <br />P. O. Box 3156 <br />Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 <br />R <br />