Laserfiche WebLink
RC\~ 9~' : D. G. &S. W -?~.~- a :7:2y1'\I 3U3 231 5:163 D. G. &S.: N 8 <br />IBL.A 96-90A, 96-91R <br />CAS has raised a trffier of other arguments. These have been <br />considered and rejected. The Tatums filed a motion to strike certain <br />arguments raised by Cf3Yf in its resporue to the TatuZw' oppositirn to the <br />petition. illat motion is denied as root. <br />ACOardingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Iand <br />Appeals by the Se¢etary cf the In*..erior, 43 C.F.R. 5 9.1, CBI's petition <br />far reconsideration is aenied and the petition for stay is denied as moot. <br />~~~ <br />Bruce R. Harris <br />Deputy Chief ~+~*~~+Tative Judge <br />I acxtc~r: <br />~~ <br />James L. Byrnes <br />Chief Ac3uisus Judge <br />fn. 3 (con ) <br />that tho Regional Director applied bemuse that is what is required by the <br />requlationa at 30 C.F.R. § 842.11. (Response at 7.) FTe applied the proper <br />standard. Ili his decision the Regional Director aade two rulings. Fist, <br />he oCA1CULZEd Zn II~'s det~„e;r,nti~1 that Subsidence had not damaged the <br />Tatums' house. SeorncL he oamcluded that the AEt7 had properly de+~~:+ <br />~.Y~at DI3.,'s response . to the TfN was appropriate. We utilized the <br />preponderance o! evi.dPS.oa test to determine that subsidence had damaged the <br />Tatutas' house and that a violation o! state regulations had been <br />established. We then applied the regulatory standard in evaluating Lt's <br />rsspcrose to the TLN. <br />Bzxk Wood, Esq. <br />CkfioC oP the Regi.anal solicitor <br />U.S. Drpnx~mlt of the Interior <br />755 Parfet St., Suite 152 <br />Lakewood, C>J 80215 <br />Walbon D. I3~rris, Jr., Esq. <br />P.O. Haut 6804 <br />Charlottesville, ~P, 22906 <br />