My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35247
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35247
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:53 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:32:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/13/2007
Doc Name
Board Order - Petition for Review of Proposed Civil Penalty
Violation No.
CV2007001
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
6. By letter dated Apri125, 2007, Basin sent to the Division a check in the amount of <br />$1,750.00 for deposit in escrow and notified the Division that Basin wished to contest the <br />amount of the penalty pursuant to Coal Regulation Rule 5.04.4(1). Basin also filed a <br />Petition for Review and Motion to Consolidate on Apri123, 2007. In an accompanying <br />Statement of Reasons for its position, Basin azgued that because the NOV was precluded <br />by a prior settlement agreement, the NOV and the resulting civil penalties should be <br />vacated. <br />7. The Tatums filed responsive pleadings to both the Petition for Review and the Statement <br />of Reasons filed by Basin.' In response to Basin's Petition for Review, the Tatums argued <br />that the abatement period for the NOV expired on May 15, 2007, and that none of the <br />reasons for granting extensions in the Coal Regulations applied. In response to Basin's <br />Statement of Reasons, the Tatums azgued that the settlement agreement did not baz claims, <br />including enforcement actions (such as NOVs), arising from their lawsuit for damages, and <br />that the Division was acting within its statutory and regulatory authority in taking the <br />actions it did. <br />8. The Division filed two briefs, one of which azgued in support of the NOV (the Division's <br />other brief addressed the bond increase only). The Division argued that the Boazd should <br />uphold its decision to issue the NOV because the settlement agreement entered into by the <br />parties preceded the court's ruling that the Division properly dismissed an eazlier NOV <br />related to subsidence. The earlier NOV had been dismissed without prejudice, which <br />meant that the Division reserved the right to pursue an enforcement action again. <br />' Under the Act, a person "having an interest which is or may be adversely affected by [a notice <br />of violation] ... or by any modification, vacation or termination of such notice ... may request <br />review thereof by the board within ninety days after the issuance of the notice ...." Section 34- <br />33-124(1)(x), C.R.S. <br />Basin Civil Penalty Appeal, C-1981-013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.