Laserfiche WebLink
is required to be consistent with: the. Federal. law." .Absent strict <br />enfnrcament .hy MT.RR of 30 ::C:FR §, R17 121. (c) [5),:it.,wrnild <br />appear that Federal intervention: would be reclutre~" ~ FurEher~ the <br />mere~filing of an appeal at eithex the ML.RB onlJxstrsc G`buxt level <br />cannof in and `of itself constitute`a stay to any requirement found <br />within DRMS's written decision. ' <br />6. Tatums include herein as Exhibit 2, page 16733 Federal Register <br />Vol. 60 No. 62, Friday March 31, 1996, Exhibit 3, page 16734 <br />Fodcrtil Rcgistcr. Vol. 60 No. 62, Friday March 31, 199'6, Exhibit 4 <br />page 16735 Fe~eral Register Vol. 60 No. 62, Friday March 31, <br />1996, Exhibit S; page 16736 Federal Register Vol. 64 No. 62, <br />Friday March 31~ 1996, Subsidence Control. <br />Basin/Westmoreland has introduced an "agreement" wherein they <br />are attempting' . to state, .that. such . ,agreement waives <br />Basin/Westmoreland froze future subsidence claims by the Tatums. <br />T'atums addressed this issue in their April 26, 2007 response. <br />T'atums would fiu-ther shave the MLRB that: Exhibit 5, first <br />column "floe commenter asked that USM make clear that any and <br />all subsidence damage is subject to the requirements to repair and <br />compensate indefinitely into the future, even if the permtttee has <br />previously repaired or setfled with the affected property owner or <br />pipeline operat r; and that OSM clarify that the obligation to <br />repair is not de~endent on active mining or an active permit or <br />upon terminatio..ofjurisdiction by USM,. OS1tif agrees, that once <br />damage occurs, an underground mining operation has a <br />statutory obligation to repair, which may not be negated by a <br />prior agreement." <br /> <br />Tatums disagree that the settlement Agreement in case O1 CV 38 <br />bars the current NOV. Should the MI,RB consider that the <br />Settlement Agreement in O1 CV 38 has any impact on the current <br />NOV, the Federal Rules preclude consideration of such an <br />agreement and states that "an underground mining operation has <br />a statutory obligation to repair, which may not be negated by a <br />prior agreemcnt. " <br />7, Exhibits 2, 3 andl4 discuss the adoption of 30 CF §$17.121 <br />1 <br />3 <br />be ~tid <br />wnlel wir <br />65L09b86IL Ib~ZS L00Z/l0/50 <br />