ENFORCE20916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IBLA 96-90R, 96-91R did not identify damage to the Tatum home as a violation, even though a reference to 2 Colo. Code Regs. 4.20 was included in the TLN. CSM does admit, however, that "nn~ch of the subsequent review in response to the Tatums' December 1994 request for informal review of C14~4's initial decision focused on the question of whether or not the Tatums' bane had been damaged by subsidence." (Petition at 6, n.5.) But ~I asserts "that issue was never part of the TLY~I for which IMG's response is being judged in this decision." Id. Although the TI:N did not specifically allege damage to the Tatums' bane as a violation, the TLN did include a citation to 2 Colo. Code Regs. 4.20, which is entitled "Subsidence Control," and includes a subsection, 4.20.3, entitled "Surface Owner Protection." Moreover, the ~i Deputy Director in his January 18, 1995, "interim response" informed the Tatums that II~ had coa¢tutted to undertake a thorough technical investigation to detP*~TM+~ne whether BRI's mining operation had caused subsidence damage, that OSM kould carefully monitor IMG's investigation efforts, and that C6hI would provide technical assistance to IMG. Finally, he stated that following canpletion of the technical investigation, "we will review subsequent actions taken by the II~ and will pra~tly notify you of our decision in response to each of the violations alleged in the TLN." If, as CHd now asserts, the issue of damage to the Tatums' house "was never a part of the TLN," the question is why would II~ and OSM, as explained by the C6M Deputy Director, seek to undertake an extensive investigation of that very issue? We believe the answer is that subsumed in the TLN was the issue of subsidence damage to the residence, which was understood by all parties to be at issue and was being investigated by all parties. In his September 18, 1995, decision, the Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center, OSM, stated that "the State has concluded that the Tatum residence is not within an area where mine subsidence is occurring or has occurred. This is the same conclusion reached by each of three C6M experts reviewing the site conditions and modeling analysis. I concur with their detP**~~*~~tion." He further stated that "I find that the AFtO Director properly detP*m~ned that II~'s response to the alleged violation 1 of 3 relating to damage to yTiur residence cue to s~;`,side;.ce contained in the ten-day notice constituted appropriate action." (g[g~hasis added.) 1/ 1/ In this case, there was no enforcement or other action by IS4G to cause the violation to be corrected. The reason is that LIB found no violation. Accordingly, CfiM should have concluded that LMG's response constituted "good cause" for failure to take action because, in aco~rdance with 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(ii)(B)(4)(i), under the State program the violation did not exist. See Betty L. & Moses Tennant, 135 TRT11 217, 227-28 (1996); Patricia A. Marsh, 133 ISIA 372, 376-77 (1995). 3