ENFORCE33167

• Permit No: C1981041
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 6/7/2001
• Doc Name: POWDERHORN-COMMENTS TO PROPOSED BOARD ORDER FOR NOV 2000-010 & 2001-005 & REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
• From: SNELL & WILMER LLP
• To: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
• Violation No.: CV2001005
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

68/07/2001 15:01 FA% 303 834 2020 SNELL & WIL1tER III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII f~002
Snell &Wilmer
LLE
raw art7ces
1200 Seventeendt Stray Suite 1950
Tabor Center
Dover, Colorado 80202
poi) e3a-2aoo
Fex: [phone]
June 7, 2001
Robert D. Comer (303) 63¢2015
Internee rmrtrs~swlaw.com
Mazk Held, Esq
Office of the Attorney General
1525 Sherman St., Fifth floor
Denver, CO 80203
Via Facsimile
[phone]
etrtvatmaanoo
nt~rucnxaoan
7txxot nwwn
utvaacwlm7ltwn
snvtwremr,vrnx
Re: Powderhom -Comments to Proposed Boazd Order for NOV #s 2000-010 and
2001-005 and Request for Extension of Time to Finalize the Order Pending
Release of Relevant Additional Portions of the Transcript
Deaz Mazk:
We are in receipt of the proposed order of the Board pertaining to NOV numbers 2000-
010 and 2001-005 issued to Powderhom Coal Company ("Powderhom"). We appreciate the
effort you have takes to prepare the proposed order and the willingness of the Division and the
Board to work through this difficult issue.
With the proposed order, you included five pages of transcript reporting the closing
minutes of the full day hearing. However, significant additional commitments were made by the
Boazd prior to its recessing the hearing so that the parties could seek to resolve the outstanding
issues. For example, I believe the Board committed not to seek penalties, not to issue a cessation
order and not to list Powderhor on the AVS. I also believe that the Division was required to
obtain Board approval, and presumably notice Powderhor, at least five days before it could
further pursue any enforcement proceedings against Powderhom based on the status of Frontier.
In addition, during the recess discussions, the Division had agreed not to seek bond forfeiture.
These commitments are an essential part of the Boazd decision and should be
incorporated into the final order of the Board. In order to expedite the process, I have enclosed
suggested changes based upon my recollection of the commitments made at the hearing.
However, due to the importance of these issues, Powderhom requests that the five day review
period not begin to run until the balance of the transcript relevant to these Boazd discussions is
provided to Powderhom, unless of course consensus can be achieved without need for the
transcript. In addition, we have identified several other modifications we believe are important
to the order.
13J76.1
Snell S Wilmer is a member of I.E%MUNO~, a leading association ofindependent law (inns.