Laserfiche WebLink
02/06/2008 18:26 3032315360 REG SOLICITOR DEN1/ER PAGE 05/09 <br />F[B. 6,2008 4c 18PM USD1 ~IBIA ~uu, o~+to r, ~i u <br />~1~ aoos 24 <br />for appropriate action or good cause, 30 C.F.R. § 84l.ll (b) (1,) (i~~ (B) (1) • "Good <br />cause" is d~.fined in the regulations to mean sevezal things, including chat "[u]nder <br />the State program, the possible violation does not exist." 30 C.F.R. ~ <br />§ 842.1~Z('f~) (1) (ii) (B) (4) (t). The standard for deter~misdng both "appropriate anion <br />and "good cause" is whether the State agenc}~s action or response to the TDN is <br />arbitrary, capricious, yr an abuse of discretion under tk~e State progzam~ 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 842.11(l~) (1) (ii) ($) (2); Marion Docks, Itu. v. OSM, ~, 68 IBi.A 47, 51-52 (2006). <br />ny ],after dated September 4, 2007, ez~etosing ARMS' response, DFD informed <br />Ann Tatum that it had determined that DBMS' response to the TDN established good <br />cause for =iot taking aany farther action, and that, therefore, OSM would not be taldxxg <br />any further action. <br />By ;letter dated September 10, 2007, Ann Tatum sought informal revi~aw by the <br />Regional Ihrector of DFD's determination. She argued that the named permittee for <br />the perrnil: should be Westmoreland. <br />Isi J~is declsion dated Oecol~er 12, 2007, the Regivnal Director provided a <br />detailed explanation fox af~S DPD's September 4, 2007, determination. He <br />~fovnd that BRI had demonstxated that BRi was in compZfance with Colorado <br />Rule 2.08.6, and, therefore, the alleged violation clid not exist <br />Ann Tatum filed a timely appeal oa behalf of her husband, Jim Tatum, and <br />herself. 'I'liac appeal challenged the AeRional .Director's decision only as it relates to <br />the permit issue (Violation I). <br />It i~s readily apparent in this case that appellants have not provided an <br />adequate reason for ovesttuning the decision from which this appeal is taken. <br />Discussion <br />In essence, the Tatums contend that because Westmoreland owns BR1, <br />Westmoreland has therefore succeeded to the rights granted under the permit, so that <br />there has been a change of ownerslrip of the right to conduct mining operations <br />under a I>ezznit that requires the approval of DRNiS. In other woxds, t11ey equate <br />ownership of BfZI with ownership of the rights under its permit OSM contends that <br />Elie rights granted wader the permit and the right to conduct opez~adonS under that <br />permit r#:r~aaiu with $~ so.there was ao transfer of those rights to Westmoreland that <br />required approval by D~tMS. <br />In. support of their argument, the Tatums refer to a response OSM made to a <br />comment when, it published rules implementing 51VlCRA in 2400. The corameut <br />4 <br />