Laserfiche WebLink
R. 8477 at ¶ 20. In so ruling, the Board was interpreting its own procedures under <br />Colorado Coal Program, and this ruling is entitled to judicial deference. Integrated <br />Network Services, Inc. v. Public Utility Comm., 875 P.2d 1373, 1377 (Colo. 1994); <br />Citizens for Clean Air & Water v. Colo. Dept. of Public Health, 181 P.3d 393, 396 <br />(Colo. App. 2008). <br />The Board's finding that it lacked jurisdiction is correct for at least two <br />reasons: (1) the Board does not have statutory authority to consider an alleged <br />violation of the Colorado Coal Program without giving the operator an opportunity <br />to be heard in the first instance before DRMS, with all the procedural safeguards <br />provided by C.R.S. § 34 -33 -123; and (2) the primary violations plaintiffs allege, <br />having to do with the use of Bench 1 material as subsoil, had been reviewed and <br />approved by the Board in prior permit action to which plaintiffs had expressly <br />agreed, and which at the time PR -6 was presented to the Board was beyond appeal <br />or review. <br />First, the Board's conclusion is correct because the hearing concerning PR -6 <br />was a permit approval hearing, not an appeal of a Notice of Violation. DRMS <br />never found Western Fuels - Colorado to be in violation of the Colorado Coal <br />Program or its permit, and therefore never issued the required Notice of Violation <br />pursuant to C.R.S. § 34 -33 -123. As a consequence, Western Fuels- Colorado had <br />100 145923 2 } 19 <br />