Laserfiche WebLink
C. SCC requests an expedited determination of the Motion. <br />The APA, the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, and the provisions of the <br />Coal Mining Rules 2 CCR 407-2, do not entitle Fontanari to a reply right. Nonetheless, <br />Fontanari has stated he will be filing a Reply to this Response Brief. This again suggests <br />Fontanari is seeking to further delay the MLRB's determination of the matter. Because the <br />March 22 and 23 hearing required by statute and rules is fast approaching, SCC requests that the <br />MLRB resolve the Motion for Clarification on an expedited basis. <br />III. CONCLUSION <br />WHEREFORE, SCC requests that the MLRB deny Fontanari's request to suspend the <br />hearing on the DRMS's Proposed Decision on TR -69, and instead enter an order clarifying that <br />the hearing will be held on March 22 or 23, 2017, under the procedures established in Rule <br />2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) and, where not in conflict with that specific Rule and C.R.S. §34-33-116, <br />pursuant to the procedures set forth in C.R.S. § 24-4-105. The law on these matters is clear and <br />Fontanari has had the assistance of counsel. SCC's statutory right to an expedited resolution of <br />the objections to TR -69 should not be delayed as a result of Fontanari's alleged "confusion" <br />regarding the applicable procedures for the hearing he has demanded before the MLRB. Further, <br />SCC requests that the motion for clarification be resolved on an expedited basis to avoid any <br />further delay or potential arguments that the hearing should be continued to a later date. <br />31 <br />