My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-12-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2010-12-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:27:31 PM
Creation date
12/9/2010 12:35:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
12/2/2010
Doc Name
Comments of Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) on Draft Order
From
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
To
AGO
Email Name
DB2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Hobe Roberts & Owen Lur <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Ms. Jillian Allison <br />December 2, 2010 <br />Page 4 <br />other words, the Legislature determines the scope of an agency's authority and the <br />agency cannot by regulation expand its own limited authority. Cotter also disagrees <br />that "Cotter's failure to comply with the Board's August 11, 2010 Order is a violation <br />of its permit" or "the Act". In addition, please add "a portion of before "the Board's <br />August 11, 2010 Order" in the first sentence of paragraph 16. <br />With respect to paragraph 17 of the draft order, Section 34-32-124(7) does not <br />authorize imposition of a penalty on Cotter in this matter because it allows imposition <br />of a penalty only for violation of a permit. The September 16, 2010 Notice makes no <br />allegations about how Cotter's permit was allegedly violated. As with other portions <br />of the draft order, the record does not contain support for this assertion. <br />The draft order does not include the Board decision to deny Cotter the opportunity to <br />present a defense that it would have been impossible to comply with paragraph two of <br />the August 11, 2010 Order, which is a material issue of law. <br />The draft order also did not address the material issue of law presented in Cotter's <br />Reply that any statutory provision that imposes penalties on claimants seeking in <br />good faith judicial review of an agency award raises a serious question of whether the <br />statutory provision would be upheld as constitutional. <br />The draft order further does not reflect the Board's decision to exclude from the <br />record in this proceeding Cotter's evidence and pleadings presented to or filed in the <br />proceeding on which the August 11, 2010 Board Order was purportedly based and <br />Cotter's appeal of the August 11, 2010 Board order. The record in the previous <br />order's proceeding included the twelve documents presented by Cotter to the Board <br />on November 15, 2010.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.