_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 ‎(181)‎

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Name: Bid Documents ‎(IMP)‎ Court Appeals
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

order under this article, unless, prior thereto,
the district court granting such relief sets it
aside or modifies it.
(Emphasis added) .
The present suit was brought against the defendants as
agents of Resources. There is no definition of agent in the
statute. However, case law has interpreted this term to mean any
person charged with responsibility for the operation of all or a
part of a coal mine, or the supervision of the miners in a coal
mine. United States v. Peery, 862 F. 2d 567 (6th Cir. 1988) ;
United States v. Dix Fork Coal Co. , 692 F.2d 436 (6th Cir. 1982) .
The courts have held that this definition includes persons
charged with the responsibility of protecting society and the en-
vironment from the adverse effects of the surface coal mining
operation and particularly charged with effectuating compliance
with environmental performance standards during the course of a
permittee's mining operation. Id. The defendants fall within
this definition.
That the notices of violation were issued to Resources and
not specifically to the defendants, does not allow the defendants
to escape liability for reclamation as the agents of Resources.
In United States v. Dix Fork Coal Co. , supra, the court held a
person affiliated with the corporation liable for reclamation as
an agent even though the notices of violation and cessation
orders were issued only to the corporate permit holder. The
court found that it was not necessary to expressly name an agent
in the notices and orders where the agent pragmatically had as
much notice as the corporation. Such is the case here.
The defendants were on notice of the violations and orders
against Resources, and participated as agents concerning compli-
ance with the orders, environmental compliance and/or supervision
of the mine site. For example, Robert Delaney, Diane Delaney,
and John Reeves have represented the corporation in administra-
tive proceedings and in negotiations concerning environmental
compliance. Minerals, through it officers and directors i.e. ,
defendants Robert Delaney and John Reeves, also was on notice and
acted as an agent through decision-making regarding the mine
site. Accordingly, that the notices and orders were issued only
in Resources' name does not preclude liability of the defendants.
United States v. Dix Fork Coal Co. , supra.
Furthermore, there is no requirement that Resources be
joined in this suit in order to hold the defendants liable for
reclamation. The statute provides that the permittee or its
-4-