Laserfiche WebLink
89 <br />1 clear at this point and that is that the statute is <br />2 not clear, and I believe it's something that should <br />3 be addressed so that neither the division nor the <br />4 board gets itself caught up in something that will <br />5 lead to trouble later. <br />6 My reading of the statute is -- and I'll <br />7 try to put this as simply as possible and then I'd <br />8 like to address some of the comments that have been <br />9 made by the other attorneys. <br />10 Section 124 of the coal statute gives <br />11 the -- an operator issued a notice of violation the <br />12 opportunity to request, review thereof by the <br />13 board. A sentence further down in the same section <br />14 states, "Upon receipt of such a request for a <br />15 hearing, the hearing shall be held." <br />16 When I read that, and this is the reason <br />17 I raise this question in the first place, that says <br />18 to me that a request for review of a notice of <br />19 violation invokes the jurisdiction of the board as <br />20 the final adjudicator of the disposition of that <br />21 notice of violation . That's all I' m saying . <br />22 Jurisdiction of the board has been invoked by that <br />23 request. <br />24 As such my sense and my opinion has been <br />25 that from that point forward the division can't <br />