Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Concerning Basin's alleged violation of State Rule <br />2.05.3(2), which requires the applicant to submit detailed plans <br />of the underground workings with the permit application, DMG <br />asserted that Basin had submitted such plans. DMG provided <br />documents with'its response to support this assertion. <br />5. Informal Review <br />By letter dated December 2, 1994, the Appellant requested <br />informal review of the OSM-AFO decision that the DMG's response <br />to the TDN was appropriate (AR III-20). By letter dated January <br />18, 1995, OSM Deputy Director Ed Kay sent an "interim response" <br />to the Appellant (AR III-13). In his letter, the Deputy Director <br />informed the Appellant that he was requesting that DMG conduct a <br />thorough investigation to determine whether Basin had caused <br />subsidence-related damage to the Tatum house. The Deputy <br />Director asserted that OSM, through its Western Support Center, <br />would provide technical assistance to DMG during the <br />investigation and that, once the investigation was complete, OSM <br />would issue a final decision on the request for informal review. <br />Id. <br />If found, subsidence damage to the Tatum house would have <br />indicated a violation of State Rule 4.20, which provides that <br />underground coal mine operators must take all measures <br />technologically and economically feasible to prevent subsidence <br />from damaging structures on the surface, or, if such measures <br />33 <br />