Laserfiche WebLink
RC1 HY: U. G. &:;. :lU-2G- n J:?GP11 ~. <br />TBLP. 96-90R, 96-91R <br />We reject 0.4~5's positior. in its petition :hat damace to the Tatums' <br />house was not an issue in the I'Z4. <br />Ikrler' the regulations at 43 C.F.R. § 9.21(c), reoonsiderati~ of a <br />decision may be granted only in extraortLinary circum9tances where, in the <br />judgement Of the Director of the Office of Hearings and P~peal or an <br />Appeals HOdrd, sufficient reaxm appears therefor. We will Prmn;ne Q4f's <br />petit10I1 In licit Of th15 standard. <br />Itt the petition, 0.41 states its belief *_hat the Board's decision <br />ositainc significant errors of .law, the first of which it asserts relates <br />to the fpllowing language from the decision: <br />We believe, however, that the present record establishes by <br />a prepondrranoe of The evic'aiee that a violation did exist. <br />Appellants have presented a decision issued by a cbloracb State <br />pour: (James tJim) Tatum and Ann Tatum v. Basin Resources, Inc., <br />No. 92 CV 127 (Dec. 1, 1997) ] in a case uwlviriq them aryl 8R2. <br />Although neither ~ nor 04~I were parties to that proceeding. the <br />Judge determined that s]bsldP~ce caused by BItT'a mini ~ oprsation <br />did, in fact, damage appellants' residence. S1x-h a finding <br />establishes a violation of the Colorado State program under Z <br />Colo. Cade Regs. 4.20, as dted ir_ the TDtI. <br />151 IBIA at 308. O6M alleges tt+at the Board's statement implies that a <br />mere finding that suosidence-related damage has occurred is sufficient to <br />support a finAin~ of viOlatlOn of the State program. OSM 00[ltendS that the <br />proper sTEildard is not whether damage has occurred but wi~etk:er the person <br />who has been subjected t0 subsidence-related damage has been oogag~sated <br />for the da®age. 2/ It states that because J1:c~e MerL3*+~*es' determined the <br />amoiait of satian due sari Basin paid it, no violation exists. <br />2/ The applicable State regulation, 2 Colo. Code R,egs. § 4.20.3(2) (1991), <br />specifically provides, in pertinetlt party that: <br />Fac.: pe-sscn ~o ~:c~-s. u-~,ergr~a:d mi*Li*~g activities sdiich <br />result in subsidence that cattsee material damage • + + shall, <br />with respect to each ~.irface area affected by subaidenr..e: <br />(a) Restore, r.h~hilitate, or move and replace each <br />damaged atrvCtUre + + pr.~tLy after damage is suffered, to the <br />canditiatl it would be as if no subsidence had oavxxed + + +~ <br />Ib) Purchase the damaged sr*+~^-t"*e + ' * far its fair <br />market, pxerubsidence value * * *; or <br />(c) Faeh perscu rt~o ~+,~-+~~ underg=otu~d mining activities <br />will ~en.°ate the owner of any surface structure in full amcns~t <br />Of the dimunzticsi in value rrsulting fray subsiderr_e + + +, <br />