Laserfiche WebLink
106 <br />1 to that I feel compelled to offer to Mr. Held's <br />2 point. I endorse Mr. Brown's arguments. I'd be <br />3 happen to answer any questions. <br />4 MR. JANOSEC: Mr. Brown. <br />5 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. <br />6 Just a couple of points. Regarding the <br />7 interpretation by Mr. Held on this statutory <br />8 provision under Section 124 on when and -- when the <br />9 board will conduct a hearing. I certainly respect <br />10 and admire Mr. Held, and I have for a number of <br />11 years. I think we just in this particular instance <br />12 disagree about what the statutory interpretation is <br />13 of this provision, and the way I read this, and I <br />14 think it's a reasonable reading. <br />15 An operator -- again, 34-33-124(1)(a). <br />16 "An operator issued a notice of violation" -- if <br />17 you read the whole sentence, may request review <br />18 thereof by the board or the other class, which I <br />19 would differ from Mr. Held on, is any person who is <br />20 adversely affected by the notice or a modification <br />21 or a vacation of the order can then appeal to the <br />22 board. <br />23 I think the two classes are someone <br />24 who -- either the operator or someone adversely <br />25 affected by the NOV, or in the second instance <br />