Laserfiche WebLink
02/06/2008 18:26 <br />F[4. 6.2008 4:18PM <br />3032315360 <br />USDI IBLA <br />REG SOLICITOR DENVER <br />PAGE 02/09 <br />IVV, O'tL0 r,. i~ u <br />united States Department of the ~riterior <br />OFFICE OF I-1LATZtNGS AND APPBA):.S <br />Interior Butiu:d of Land Appe~.1G <br />801 N. Quincy St. Suite 300 <br />Arlinston, VA 7.2203 <br />703 235 3750 <br />February 6, 2008 <br />IBLA 2008-24 <br />JIM AND .~~NN TATUM <br />I <br />703 235 8349 (fax) <br />petniit No. c-8i-o13 <br />Surface Mining; <br />Motion fox Eupedited Consideration <br />~~~ <br />Decision Affirmed as Modified; <br />Motion foz' 5ra~ Denied as Moat <br />ORDER <br />Jina.an.d AuA Tatum have appealed from art October 7.2, 2007, decision of the <br />Regional 'Director, Western Regional Coordinating Centex, Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Etii'oz~cement (OSM), on informal review of the S hat~thezr s~ponse~ <br />decision of OSM's Denver, Colorado, Field Division (DFD), finding <br />oEthe state regulatory a»thority, Colorado Division of fterlamation, Mining, and <br />Safety (p~RMS), to Ten-Day~Notice (TDN) X07.^14U-13.6-002 was not orb naa ~t <br />capricious, or as abuse of discretion under the approved State program, <br />DBMS hz~d good cause for talang no further action on the two violations alleged in <br />the TDN. ~'xhose violations were failure to have a valid DBMS wrltCeta approval for a <br />pem~tit (~Iiolation 1) and failure to provide a valid public liability insurance <br />cergficate. (Violation 2)1 Tk~e Tacums filed a motion For stay and a tnodon for <br />expedited consideration together with tl~eix appeal <br />H~~secl un pz~liminazy review of the case recr~rd anal pleadings, we conclude <br />that the 'Tatums have failed to show any error in the Regional Director's decision <br />finding that ARMS showed good cause for taldn zatiofu fth~the pela-mri t Accordingly, <br />yiolatioi>.1. The ,case record. shows vaUd authorl <br />we gxaa~t the motion for expedited consideration, affirm the Regional Director=s <br />decision as it relates to Violation 1, and deny the motion to stay as moot. <br />`+ cal, tb~e Tatwms challenge the Regional DireCtol'8 decision only as it relates <br />~' Ors aPP <br />to DRM,S' xesponse to Violation 1. Therefore, his ruling regarding Violation 2 is final <br />agaacy ;~cdoa and is not before us on appeal. This order wl]l. not include nay <br />discussi~~n of Violation 2 and DBMS' response thereto. <br />