Laserfiche WebLink
• ] <br />pursuant to 30 C.F.R. ~ 842.15. See letter to Jim Tatum dated <br />February 4, 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit C.' <br />6. By letter dated December 2, 1994, the Appellant <br />requested informal review of the February 4, 1994, decision of <br />OSM-AFO in which OSM-AFO concluded that the State had responded <br />appropriatelyto OSM TDN No. 93-020-370-005, violations 1 and 3 <br />of 3. See AR III-20. <br />7. By letter dated January 18, 1995, OSM Deputy Director <br />Ed Kay provided an "interim response".to the Appellant's December <br />2, 1994, request for informal review. In the letter, the Deputy <br />Director informed the Tatums that, since the issues in the case <br />were technical and complex, OSM had asked DMG to conduct a <br />thorough investigation of the possibility that subsidence had <br />damaged their home. The Deputy Director further informed the <br />Tatums that, upon conclusion of the technical investigation, OSM <br />would render a decision on their request for informal review. <br />See AR III-13. <br />8. On February 1, 1995, Mr. Jim Pendleton, DMG's Technical <br />and Scientific Coordinator, other employees of DMG, and OSM <br />' OSM inadvertently neglected to include the OSM-AFO <br />letters of February 4, 1994, attached hereto as exhibits B and C, <br />in the administrative record filed on June 7, 1996. OSM sincerely <br />apologizes for any inconvenience this error may have caused. <br />5 <br />