Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 96-90R, 96-91R <br />OSM has raised a nimmber of other arguments. Those have been <br />considered and rejected. The Tat>nns filed a rmtion to strike certain <br />argmmments raised by CSM in its response to the Tatums' opposition to the <br />petition. That motion is denied as moot. <br />Accrordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land <br />Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior, 43 C.F.R. § 4.1, C6M's petition <br />for reconsideration is denied and the petition for stay is denied as imot. <br />Bruce R. Harris <br />Deputy Chief Achninistrative Judge <br />I concur: <br />~`• <br />James L. Byrnes <br />Chief Adminis Judge <br />fn. 3 (continued) <br />that the Regional Director applied because that is what is required by the <br />regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 842.11. (ResporLSe at 7.) We applied the proper <br />standard. In his decision the Regional Director made tto rulings. First, <br />he incurred in II~'s determination that subsidence had not damaged the <br />Tatimms' house. Second, he wncluded that the AFO had properly determined <br />that I2~'s response to the TIN was appropriate. We utilized the <br />preponderance of evidence test to determine that subsidence had damaged the <br />Tatutns' house and that a violation of state regulations had been <br />established. We then applied the regulatory standalli in evaluating II~'s <br />response to the TLN. <br />APPFARFINC~S <br />Brock Wood, Esq. <br />Office of the Regional Solicitor <br />U.S. I~partrnent of the Interior <br />755 Parfet St., Suite 151 <br />Lakewood, CO 80215 <br />Walton D. Morris, Jr., Esq. <br />P.O. Pox 6804 <br />Charlottesville, VA 22906 <br />7 <br />