Laserfiche WebLink
See 30 U.S.C. § 1259(a); 30 C.F.R. § § 800.17, 800.1 I(a), (b) (2000)"; C.R.S. § 34-33-113; <br />30 C.F.R. § 906.30, Article IX (2000). <br />Bonds in favor of the United States, including reclamation performance bonds, must <br />be issued by surety companies holding a valid and current Certificate of Authority From the <br />U. S. Department of Treasury. See 31 U.S.C. § § 9304-9308 and 31 C.F.R. Part 223 <br />(2000). Surety companies who aze so certified are listed in the U.S. Department of Treasury <br />Circular 570. <br />In the present case, the Powderhom mine site covers approximately 7,760 acres of <br />BLM land. Powderhom chose to post only one reclamation bond as to both the BLM land <br />and the nonfederal land and that bond is the one that the Division now holds.s Since the <br />Powderhorn mine site involves federal and nonfederal land, the bond is required to be <br />payable to OSM and the State of Colorado. Accordingly, Powderhom must have a bond <br />issued by a surety listed on the X70 Circular. Here, Frontier has been decertified by the <br />Department of Treasury and is no longer on the 570 Circular. Accordingly, Powderhom's <br />bond is out of compliance with federal law as well as state law.b <br />° All citations to 30 C.F.R. Part 800 are to the 2000 Edition. <br />5 Powderhom Properties Company, a sister company to Powderhom Coal Company and the <br />company that actually held the coal leases for the BLM land, posted a sepazate performance <br />bond payable to the BLM, and notjointly and severally to BLM and the Division, for <br />Powderhor Properties Company's non-environmental remediation liabilities. The two <br />bonds cover different obligations. <br />6 The fact that Powderhom Properties Company rejected its coal leases from BLM <br />concerning the Powderhom mine site afrer it petitioned in bankruptcy does not mean that <br />federal requirements no longer apply to the Frontier bond. Under SMCRA and federal <br />12 <br />