Opinion ID: 2448874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the informal conference

Text: ¶ 12 The Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Rules set out the objectives of the subchapter pertaining to the permit review and approval process at OAC 460:10-17-2, which provides: The objectives of this Subchapter are to: (1) provide for public participation in the review of applications and the issuance, or denial of permits; (2) ensure prompt and effective review of each permit application by the Department; and (3) provide the minimum requirements for the terms and conditions of permits issued and the criteria for approval or denial of a permit. ¶ 13 As stated above, the informal conference may be requested only by a resident or property owner within one mile of the proposed mining location. At the conference, a representative of ODM may accept oral or written statements and other relevant information from any party to the conference. A record is made of the proceeding and is accessible to the parties of the conference until the final release of the applicant's performance bond or other guarantee. See Rule 460:10-17-7(b)(2). [15] Once the Department completes the findings after the hearing, it determines whether to issue or deny the permit; it must then notify all parties of its decision. See 45 O.S. Supp.2008 724(H)(5). [16] Within 30 days of the decision, the applicant, permittee, or any person with an interest which is or may be adversely affected, may request a hearing on the reasons for the decision. Rule 460:10-17-15(a). [17] However, under Rule 460:10-17-11(c) [18] only the permit applicant and each person who is a party to the conference are required to be notified of the Department's decision. Thus, a person in Daffin's position will not be personally notified of the decision, but he must act within 30 days to request a hearing before the decision becomes final. ¶ 14 Appellant ODM contends the procedure for the informal conference is adequate because, at that point, no permit has been issued. ODM contends it has followed the statutory and regulatory requirements for considering a mining permit application which provides fairness and due process to all concerned. ODM further argues in its brief-in-chief that if the injunction is allowed to stand, ODM will face district court challenges, not to its decisions, not to permit issuances, but to the review of every single permit application submitted, without regard to administrative procedures. In fact, every regulatory agency will face district court actions for every review process without regard to administrative procedures. In effect, the APA will be voided. Accordingly, this temporary injunction should be dissolved. ¶ 15 Thus, ODM appears to argue that the State's interest in promoting a smooth administrative process for issuing mining permits outweighs the risk of harm of withholding meaningful due process from some, but not all, affected property owners.