Laserfiche WebLink
states that a request for an adjudicative hearing must be received by the Division <br /> within thirty days of the first publication of the proposed decision. The letter stated <br /> that requests for an adjudicatory hearing must be received within thirty days of the <br /> first publication of the proposed decision in The Daily Sentinel. <br /> 6. Notice of the proposed decision was first published in The Daily <br /> Sentinel, the newspaper in Grand Junction, on September 20, 2019. The notice was <br /> published once weekly for two consecutive weeks. <br /> 7. On October 21, 2019, Fontanari submitted a four-paragraph objection <br /> to the approval of SL-11, incorporating Fontanari's previously submitted objections <br /> to SL-11 and requesting an adjudicatory hearing. <br /> 8. On November 8, 2019, Operator filed its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of <br /> Jurisdiction (the "Motion"), requesting that the Board dismiss Fontanari's request for <br /> an adjudicative hearing because it was not filed within the time provided for such <br /> requests by section 34-33-125(6), C.R.S. of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining <br /> Reclamation Act (the "Act"), which requires that all requests for adjudicative <br /> hearings be received by the Division within thirty days of the issuance of the <br /> proposed decision. Operator argued that, under well-established Colorado law, the <br /> Act controls regardless of conflicting deadlines in the Rules. Operator argued that, <br /> given the structure of the Act, the Board only had jurisdiction to hold an adjudicatory <br /> hearing if such a request was received by the Division within thirty days of the <br /> issuance of the Division's proposed decision on the bond release application. Because <br /> Fontanari had not met this deadline, the Board did not have jurisdiction to hold an <br /> adjudicative hearing. <br /> 9. Fontanari filed an opposition to Operator's Motion on November 22, <br /> 2019, arguing that Rule 3.03.2(6) could not be invalidated outside of a proceeding <br /> brought against the Division and the Board. Fontanari also argued that Rule <br /> 3.03.2(6) was a reasonable interpretation of section 34-33-125(6), C.R.S., which it <br /> claimed was silent as to the meaning of"issuance," and that there was no conflict <br /> between the Rule and the Act. Fontanari also argued that it had followed Rule <br /> 3.03.2(6), which had been in effect since 1980. <br /> 10. The Division filed a response to the Motion on December 2, 2019, <br /> acknowledging the time line of the Division's proposed decision on SL-11, the date of <br /> publication, and that Fontanari had submitted the request for an adjudicative <br /> hearing within thirty days of publication of notice regarding the proposed decision. <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> 11. The Act provides a specific process and deadlines for the release of an <br /> operator's performance bond or deposits. § 34-33-125, C.R.S. (2019). <br /> 12. Any operator seeking the release of a bond must first publish notice of <br /> the application in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality of the operation <br /> Snowcap Coal Company, Inc. <br /> C-1981-041 2 <br />