Opinion ID: 1197882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: The objectors, Roger D. and Linda Jo Pfeil, Joseph M. Gilsdorf, and Karla J. Oksanen, supply this statement of the issues: 1. Were Gilsdorf and Oksanen denied proper statutory notice of their right to object to Amax's Form 11 Revision application? 2. Did the public notice provided by the EQC and Amax to [objectors] deprive them of full and fair notice of the proceedings as required by statute, DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) rules and Wyo. Const. Art. 1, § 6? 3. Is the mandatory twenty (20) day time limit set forth in W.S. § 35-11-406(k) unconstitutional under Wyo. Const. Art. 1, § 6 as applied to citizen objectors? 4. Did the EQC commit reversible error when it denied the Pfeils' motion for a continuance? 5. Was the EQC's decision making process arbitrary and capricious? The EQC states these issues: I. Whether [objectors] received adequate notice of the AMAX permit revision. II. Whether holding a hearing within twenty days after the objection period closed violated [objectors'] procedural due process [rights]. III. Whether the [EQC's] denial of [the Pfeils'] motion for continuance was proper. IV. Whether the [EQC's] decision that the permit revision be approved should be affirmed. Amax summarizes the issues, thus: A. Did the method Amax used to mail notice of the permit revision comply with applicable law? B. Did the content of the notice of the permit revision comply with applicable law? C. Did the [EQC's] decision to deny... Pfeils' motion for a continuance constitute an abuse of discretion? D. Is the statutory procedure for permit revisions constitutional? E. Was the [EQC's] decision to grant the permit revision supported by substantial evidence?