Laserfiche WebLink
T <br />2. On .December 7, 1993, OSM-AFO, in response to the <br />Appellant's citizen's complaint, issued Ten Day Notice No. 93- <br />020-370-005, violations no. 1 and 3 of 3, to DMG. The violations <br />were written as follows: <br />[Violation 1 of 3:] <br />Failure to properly conduct a subsidence survey, <br />subsidence monitoring, and a subsidence control plan. <br />Jim Tatum property. (Includes subsidence inventory of <br />structures). <br />[Violation 3 of 3:] <br />Failure to provide a detailed operations plan of the <br />proposed (or actual) underground workings. Jim Tatum <br />property. <br />The portions of the State program alleged to have been violated <br />for violation 1 of 3 were State coal mining regulations (State <br />rules) 2.05.6(6) and 4.20. The portion of the State program <br />alleged to have been violated for violation 3 of 3 was State Rule <br />2.05.3(2). All of these State regulations are attached hereto as <br />Exhibit A. <br />The TDN required the State, within ten days, to take <br />"appropriate action" to cause the alleged violations of the State <br />program to be corrected or to show "good cause" for failing to <br />take such action. See AR III-28. <br />3. By letter dated December 20, 1993, DMG responded to the <br />TDN. In the letter, DMG asserted that Basin had not violated <br />State Rule 2.05.6(6), as alleged in violation 1 of 3. In the <br />letter, DMG also asserted that Basin had previously violated <br />3 <br />