Laserfiche WebLink
requirements, including being licensed to do business with the federal government and <br />obtaining a bond from a surety that can provide the financial assurance required by <br />regulation. <br />IV. <br />POWDERHORN IS IN VIOLATION OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS <br />AND MUST REPLACE THE FRONTIER BOND <br />Powderhorn further argues that even assuming its Frontier bond does not meet <br />regulatory requirements, Powderhorn is not in violation of the regulations because it is not in <br />violation of Rule 3.02.1(2). Powderhorn's argument is misguided. <br />Rule 3.02.1(2) states that an operator shall not disturb surface acreage prior to <br />approval of the permit and receipt of approval from the Division of a performance bond <br />covering the surface acreage to be affected. The overall statutory and regulatory scheme is <br />that any disturbance of acreage must be covered by a bond. Thus, Rule 3.02.1(2) includes <br />acreage to be affected and acreage that has been affected. This reading of this rule is well <br />supported when read in the context of other regulatory provisions. <br />For example, Rule 3.02.4(2)(b)(v)(C), which deems Powderhorn to be without bond <br />coverage, applies to situations in which an entity has been granted a permit, has already <br />disturbed land, and then subsequently, the surety is found to be incapacited. Accordingly, <br />this rule's reference to Rule 3.02.1 indicates that this latter rule covers land already disturbed <br />its bond for its mine site in the present mattter. Consequently, Powderhorn must submit a <br />bond from a surety listed on the Department of Treasury's 570 Circular. <br />14 <br />