Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 96-90R, 96-91R <br />OEM has raised;a number of other arguments. Those have been <br />considered and rejected. The Tatums filed a motion to strike certain <br />arguments raised by,CSM in its response to the Tatums' opposition to the <br />petition. That motion is denied as moot. <br />Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land <br />Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior, 43 C.F.R. § 4.1, OSM's petition <br />for reconsideraticn;is denied and the petition for stay is denied as moot. <br />Bruce R. Harris <br />Deputy Chief Administrative Judge <br />I concur: <br />James L. Byrnes <br />Chief Administr ' Judge <br />fn. 3 (continued) <br />that the Regional Director applied because that is what is required by the <br />regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 842.11. (Re--;ponse at 7.) We applied the proper <br />standard. In his decision the Regional Director made two rulings. First, <br />he concurred in DM's detenrunation that subsidence had not damaged the <br />Tatums' house. Secoib , he concluded that the AFtO had properly determined <br />that Dime's response to the TIN was appropriate. We utilized the <br />Preponderance of evidence test to determine that subsidence had damaged the <br />Tatums' house and that a violation of state regulations had been <br />established. We then applied the regulatory standard in evaluating Dl's <br />response to the TEN.! <br />APPEARANCES : <br />Brock Wood, Esq.' <br />Office of the Regional Solicitor <br />U.S. Department ;of the Interior <br />755 Parfet St., !Suite 151 <br />Lakewood, CO 80,215 <br />Walton D. Morris', Jr., Esq. <br />P.O. Box 6804 <br />Charlottesville,iVA 22906 <br />7