Laserfiche WebLink
-~ ~ OSM disagrees with the Appellants' assertions on two counts. <br />First, OSM believes that, in the face of a factual dispute <br />between the parties as to whether or not mine-related subsidence <br />had caused damage to the Appellants' home, a violation could only <br />have existed after a responsible body, such as the State <br />regulatory authority, OSM, or a State court, had determined that <br />the mining operation was responsible for the damage. Second, <br />even if a violation did exist when the Regional Director made his <br />decision in 1995, contrary to the assertions of the Appellants on <br />pages 5 and 6 of their Opposition, there is no basis for issuing <br />a notice of violation in 2000 when the violation, if it did <br />exist, was abated in 1998 when the Appellants were compensated by <br />the mine operator. <br />The Appellants' arguments on this point (see pages 7 and 8 <br />of the Appellants' Opposition) actually support the need for the <br />Board to clarify its ruling. Without a clarification of the <br />Board's ruling, OSM, in response to the Board's order to take <br />appropriate action, will conduct an inspection as is required by <br />30 C.F.R. § 842.11. If OSM finds that no violation exists (which <br />is quite possible because, as stated above, it appears that the <br />Appellants have been compensated to the extent required by State <br />law), no enforcement action can be taken. As stated by the <br />Appellants in their Opposition, the Appellants would again appeal <br />OSM's determination and this issue would again be before the <br />6 <br />