Laserfiche WebLink
''~` 62/06/2008 18:26 3032315360 <br />FEB, 6,2008 4:19NM U5U1 1BlA <br /> <br />REG SOLICITOR DENVER <br />PAGE 07/09 <br />Nu. 04LD r, o/ n <br />ISI.A 2008-24 <br />change .in the ownership of the peradt holding subsidiary corpvradaxa. Just as SRI <br />held the permit when it was owned by Entech, BRI continues to hold the permit wh~e <br />it is owned lry weslrnvreland. It is only the transfer, assignment, or sale of the rights <br />granted udder the permit, which requires, in accordance with Colorado Rule <br />2.08.6 (1), prior writtca approval by DBMS . <br />The Tatums argue that "OSM freely admits that Wpct~rxaoreland is the successor <br />in irnerest" and point to 30 C.P.R. § 701.5 that defines successor in interest as "any <br />person who succeeds to tights granted under a permit, by transfer, assignment, or <br />sale of those rights.. They conclude that "OSM, therefore, has declatned that a <br />transfer, assignment, or sale of permit xights has occurred" and that Westmoreland <br />must be considered the pex~aaittee. 'T'hey contend that BRI violated Colorado <br />Rule 2.08.6 by failing to get prior approval of that transfer, <br />?he Tattuns' argument is based an the Regional Directoz's statement that "you <br />are wxreet that west=nvrelau~l Cual Cr~mpaziy is the successor in interest." Decsion <br />at 5, The Regional Director made that stateszien~t in the context of holding that <br />Colorado Rule 2.08.6(5), which requires that "[a]ny successor in interest" who seeks <br />to c'haage the conditions of n~aCaiztg or reclamation operations, or any'of the terms or <br />conditions of the r~zigin.a). permit rnusr. apply for a new or revised permit, was not <br />applicable because Westmoreland had not made any of the changes triggering the <br />necessity for a new permit or revised permit. While we understand how the Tatums <br />,~ey have been misled by .the Regional Duector's stateinextt, that statement is clearly <br />incorrect, and ~--e modify his decision accordingly, <br />Westmoreland is not a successor iat interest as that team is defined in the <br />regulations because in this case, as pointed out above, there was no transfer, <br />assignment, yr sale of rights granted under the permit. This is consistent with OSM's <br />position on appeal that Westmoreland is uvr d successor in interest- `~Nestrnorelaad <br />did not succeed to rights granted by transfer, assignment, or sale of the Stagy DRMS <br />permit for the Golden Ea8'le 1Vline:' Answer at ].9. <br />The regulations in 30 C.P.R. Part 778 set forth the minimum requirements for <br />permit applications under a Federal or State progxam, and those regulations <br />demonstrate the error in the Tatums' argument that ~IVestmozeland must tie the <br />permittee because they explicitly recognize that an applicant for a ~ezznit may be <br />owned or controlled by another person, Under 30 C.P.R. g 778.11 (c) (5), an <br />applicant is required to pror-ide, inter alia, information concerning any "[p]erson who <br />owns ar controls the applicant," This requirement would make no sense if the <br />Tatutns were correct in arguing that the permit must be transferracS tv the person <br />who owns ar controls the applicant. This Board has previously recognized that a <br />surface nuciing permit is properly issued to an entity that is owned or eoztbrolled by <br />6 <br />