ENFORCE29353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARGUMENT Rule 5.03.5 states, in relevant part that; "(1)(a) an operator or person issued any notice eof violation or cessation order, or any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected by such notice or order or by any modification, vacation, or termination of such notice or order may request review thereof by the Board within 90 days of the issuance of the notice or order or within 90 days after its modification, vacation, or termination." (Emphasis supplied) Similar to the requirement of a court to give meaning to all provisions of a statute so that each provision is given effect, see Fanners Group, Inc, v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419, 420 (Colo. 1991), the Board must give meaning to all the language of this Rule, or render it meaningless. This rule expressly states that NOV's may be modified, vacated or terminated prior to a Board hearing on an NOV. Under the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act (Act), 34-33-101 et seq., C.R.S., and the Rules, the only entity that can vacate an NOV after issuance other than the Board is DMG. See Rule 5.04.3. If the Board decides that DMG cannot vacate an NOV after the operator asks for a hearing before the Board, then the above language in Rule 5.03.5(1)(a) is largely meaningless. The above-referenced rule provides that any person "adversely affected" by the vacation of an NOV by DMG may appeal such vacation to the board, so appellate rights are still protected. In this particular instance, and generally, DMG's position is that Basin or any coal operator cannot be "adversely affected" by the vacation of the NOV against it and so has no standing to appeal DMG's vacation of the NOV. See Response of DMG to Motion of Basin Resources to Have Notice of Vacation Adjudicated or, in the Alternative, to Vacated with Prejudice, filed sepazately from this Response. That appeal right to the Boazd, however, is different from an interpretation of the Rules that divests DMG from ever vacating an NOV either at the operator's request or for other reasons after an operator has requested a hearing before the Board. Again, such an interpretation by the Board would render meaningless the above-referenced portion of Rule 5.03.5(I)(a). For example, if only the Board has the authority to vacate an NOV after an operator asks for a hearing, then DMG has no authority to hold Assessment Conferences after such a request, which makes that portion of the Act, § 34-33-123(8), C.R.S., and the Rules virtually meaningless. Rule 5.04.3, which is entitled "Procedures for Assessment of Civil Penalties," provides for Assessment Conferences at which the operator may request that DMG modify, suspend, or vacate the NOV and some or all of the civil penalty portion of the NOV. Rule 5.04.3(2) provides that after a request by the operator, "DMG shall consider any information [submitted by the operator] in determining the facts surrounding the violation and the amount of the civil penalty to be proposed under (2) below." (emphasis supplied). Obviously, this provision