Laserfiche WebLink
.° 02/06/2008 18:26 3032315360 REG SOLICITOR DENVER PAGE 08/09 <br />H FEB, 6,008 ~~:19PM USDI IBIA Nu.64ZO r, r/o <br />,~, ;~~ . <br />IBLA 2008-24 <br />others if it has disclosed its relationship with those other entities tv the extent <br />required b~~ the applicable State program. Northern PIains Resotvice Council v, OSM, <br />11~ IBLA, x!66, Z71-72 (1990).' Similarly, the fact that li1~I is owned by . <br />Westmoxel,art~l does not make SRI ineligible fox a permit or require that the permit be <br />txaasferred to west~tuoreland. Moreover, we note that SRI way awholly-awned <br />subisidiary~ of Eateeh at the time of permit issuance yet $RI, not Entech, was granted <br />the permit. <br />A~ ~zoted above, OSM is required to determine whether the recpanse of DBMS <br />to the TATT is arbitrary, capricious, or as abuse of discretion under the State program. <br />Scc 3o C.F.R, § 842.11(6) (X) (ii) (R) (2) , C)SM concluded that it'was not; the Tatums <br />have not shown any error in that detemninaClon. QSM's decision is pz~operly affirmed <br />as zn~dified herein. <br />ThE,refore> pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals. <br />by the Secretary of the Interior, 43 C.F.R § 4.1, tha motion for expedited <br />consideration is granted, and the deasion appealed from is affirmed as modified. <br />The motion for stay is denied as moot. <br />Bruce R, Harris <br />Deputy Chief Administrative Judge <br />I concur: <br />~7 <br />H, Barry ;Holt <br />Qhier Adminis .fudge <br />,APPEAR~E~NCES: <br />~ The permit in that case was issued to Montco, a Montana general partb,etship <br />composed of two 50 pexcent pazmers that were corporations, Thermal Energy, Inc., <br />and Toni;ue River Resources, Inc. We have recognized that a parent corporation and <br />subsidiaz~y are separate entities that can do business with one another, even if not at <br />arm°s length. E,g., ASARCO, tree ,1s2 ia~ 20, a6 (~ooo), <br />7 <br />