Laserfiche WebLink
~~o~rd. See Opposition at 7-8. The Appellants' arguments, <br />therefore, actually support this request for reconsideration. <br />In addition to the need to clarify its decision, OSM urges <br />the Board to grant reconsideration.-for a reason not stated by the <br />Appellants: To correct three significant errors of law in its <br />decision. <br />First, OSM believes that the Board, in determining that the <br />Regional Director's decision was erroneous, used an incorrect <br />legal standard. The Board applied the "preponderance of the <br />evidence" standard in reviewing the Regional Director's decision. <br />See 151 IBLA 308. OSM believes the Board should have used the <br />"arbitrary and capricious" standard that the Regional Director <br />applied because this standard is required by OSM's regulations at <br />30 C.F.R. § 842.11. Under this standard, a State response to a <br />Ten Day Notice (TDN) must be accepted by OSM unless the response <br />is "arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion." See OSM's <br />answer at 15-20. This standard is much more deferential to the <br />State regulatory authority than is the "preponderance of the <br />evidence" standard employed by the Board. As long as the State <br />of Colorado's response to the TDN was cogently reasoned and <br />supported by the record (as was the case), the Regional Director <br />had no discretion to reject that response and order a Federal <br />inspection. This was true even if the Regional Director would <br />7 <br />