Laserfiche WebLink
notice of violation is only implied by operation of the statute's grant of authority to the Boazd to <br />hold hearings on notices of violations. <br />The statute states that `'[a]n operator issued a notice of violation ...may request review <br />thereof by the board within ninety days after the issuance of the notice ... or within ninety days <br />after its modification, vacation, or termination." § 34-33-124(1)(a), C.R.S. Because the starute <br />affords an operator the opportunity to appeal a vacation of a notice of violation to the Board, it is <br />a logical conclusion that the language therefore gives rise to an implied authority on the part of <br />the Division, at ]east in some cases, to vacate a notice of violation. <br />The statute goes on to say, however, that "[u)pon receipt of [a] request for a hearing, the <br />hearin¢ shall be held ...." § 34-33-124(1)(a), C.R.S. (emphasis added). It is this language that <br />lies at the core of the cturent dispute. The Boazd interprets the mandate that a hearing "shall be <br />held" when an operator or other party so requests to mean that, once a request for hearing on a <br />notice of violation is submitted pursuant to § 34x3-124(])(a), C.R.S., the Board's jurisdiction <br />over the final disposition of that notice of violation has been invoked in the same way that this <br />Court's jurisdiction is invoked upon the filing of a complaint and answer in a civil action. The <br />statutes and regulations for the Coal regulation program certainly provide that the Division has <br />the authority to carry Hilt many functions related to the enforcement of the notice of violation <br />even after the Board's jurisdiction has been invoked by a request for hearing. Once the Board <br />has jurisdiction over the notice of violation hearing, however, it would be illogical and <br />unreasonable to interpret the statute to extend the Division's implied authority so far as to allow <br />the Division to unilaterally terminate both the notice of violation as well as the Board's <br />jurisdiction, in the face of the explicit language in the statute that states that, once requested, a <br />13 <br />