Laserfiche WebLink
08/07/2001 15:03 FAd 303 834 2020 SHELL & IPILA[ER <br />5. On March 14, 2001, the Commissioner of Ittsuranee, Colorndo Division <br />lastusnoe, simrmarily suspended Fmntl~'s Colorado Ceriificate of Authority. Froatler~ <br />-eatiNed to a hearing on the summary suspensio <br />6. As a result of the suspension of Pmntler's Colorado Certificate of Authority, the <br />Division served on Powdcrhorn NOV No. CV-2001-005 for failure to maintain an adequate <br />rochunation bond in violations o£, in part, § 34-33-113, C.R.S., and Coal Rule 3.02.4(2)(b), on <br />Apri113, 2001. In NOV No. CV-2001-005, the Division ordered Powderhorn to abate the <br />violation by replacing the Frontier Bond with a perfomranx bond that complies with all <br />applicable statutes and regylntions. <br />7.. Pursuant to § 34-33-113(2), C.R.S, bonds for noel reclamation permits must be <br />executed by a corporate surety licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. flrrthcrmnre, <br />pursuaut to Coal Rule 3.02:4(2)(b)(v)(C), "Upon the incapacity of a surety by reason of .. . <br />suspension or revocation of its license, the permittee shall be deemed w be without bond <br />wverage in violation of 3.02.1(2). Tbo Division sbnll issue a notloe of violation against any <br />permlttee WhO 1S W1ih0ut bond CtlVefagO." <br />faj 005 <br />deferred <br />right <br />8. Because the: Bond is a joint bond held in favor of both the Board and the BLM, <br />Fromtita's iacapacities by mason of nwocation of its ftxlefal Certificate of Authority and <br />suspension of its Colorado Certificate of Authority constitute grounds for two separate violations <br />pursuant to Coal Rule 3.02:4(2)(bXv)(C). <br />9. NOV Nos. CV-2000-010 and CV-2001-005 were both validly issued by the <br />Division p~ss~rt to Coal Rule 3.02.4(2xb)(vxC). <br />10. Powderhom her failod to abate NOV Nos. CV-2000-010 snd CV-2001-005. <br />11. Oa June 16, 2000, Powderhom Sled a petition in banlauptcy in JGerrtttcky. As a <br />r+osutt of the banknrpGcy proceedings, Powderhom has boon unable tc secure a replaoemant bond <br />es xequit+ed by the NOV's. ; Ia light of theso facts, rho Board finds that it is in the bast itttersst4 of <br />all parties that the Division and its Attorney Qeneral representatives work through the <br />bankruptcy proooedings with Powderhom to addross the Division's and Board's concerrta <br />regarding Powdedrorn's reclamtaHon liability at the silo operated pursuant to the Permit.. <br />tyres a award .._ _ oaring in this mattes that Powderhotn will <br />file a petition for judicial review is the District Court, Musa County, Colorado, in order to <br />t ability to continue to challenge the NV's in the fnttae should it ~e uch action <br />The Board owdorhom old-fje.t0 StiDUlate to a <br /> <br />reViGWaaB~ pendrng <br />13. Powderhom has to darn nsmiained in oompliaace with its reclanation <br />rtspQnsibllities at the site as sat forth in the Permit. <br />14. Powderhorn ceased coal production at the property on or <br />about December 2, 1999. 2 <br />b0'd 95:Si T0. t ~f tT695998£OEcxej <br />