Laserfiche WebLink
This brief responds to Powderhorn's arguments in the sequence in which they are <br />presented in Powderhorn's March 14, 2001, Petition for Formal Review. The Division will <br />respond separately to Powderhorn's May 4, 2001, Petition for Formal Hearing regazding <br />NOV #CV2001-005 issued on April 13, 2001. <br />I. <br />TI3E FRONTIER BOND REMAINS IN EFFECT. FIOWEVER, IT DOES NOT <br />MEET REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. <br />The Division agrees with Powderhom that the Frontier bond remains in effect. Under <br />Colorado regulations, the Division cannot release a bond until an acceptable replacement <br />bond is submitted. 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule 3.02.4(2)(a). In addition, the surety remains liable <br />for disturbed lands unless a replacement bond covers the entire liability for all the land <br />disturbed prior to replacement. 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule 3.02(2)(a) and (b). <br />That Frontier's bond remains in effect, however, does not mean it meets regulatory <br />requirements. Frontier at the present time has lost its license to do business with the federal <br />government and, because of Frontier's fmancial situation, the bond does not provide the <br />financial assurance Colorado regulations require. Accordingly, Powderhom does not have a <br />bond that complies with regulatory requirements and must replace the bond with one that is <br />compliant with such requirements. <br />its current policies, nor does it change the fact that Frontier's license is suspended in <br />violation of the Coal Act. <br />