C.F.R. » Title 43 » PART 4—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HEARINGS AND APPEALS PROCEDURES › Subpart L—Specific Rules Applicable to Hearings and Appeals Concerning Surface Coal Mining

43 C.F.R. § 4.1374

Burdens of proof

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) OSM shall have the burden of going forward to present a prima facie case of the validity of the notice of proposed suspension or rescission or the notice of suspension or rescission.

(b) The permittee shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence that the notice is invalid.

[59 FR 54326, Oct. 28, 1994, as amended at 67 FR 61512, Oct. 1, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1999–2011 · leading case: Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 251 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 251 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “Because rules of the Interior Department’s Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) were not changed by the new rule-making, NMA’s original challenge to those rules — 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.1374 and 4.1384— presents a live controversy.”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 177 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “The challenged burden framework is set out not in the IFR but in OSM's procedural rules, see 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.1374 (b), 4.1384(b), which are subject to appeal in a separate pending action.”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Off. of Hearings & Appeals, 777 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “DOI 2001, NMA challenged, among other things, the burden of proof allocations contained in two OHA regulations: 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.1374 and 4.1384. Neither of these regulations is being challenged by NMA in the instant case.”
Natl Mining Assn v. DOI, 251 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “17 Because rules of the Interior Department's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) were not changed by the new rulemaking, NMA's original challenge to those rules--43 C.F.R. 4.1374 and 4.1384--presents a live controversy.”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Off. of Hearings & Appeals (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “DOI 2001, NMA ORDER-12 challenged, among other things, the burden of proof allocations contained in two OHA 1 regulations: 43 C.F.R. §§4.1374 and 4.1384. Neither of these regulations is being challenged by 2 3 NMA in the instant case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.