ENFORCE35456 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. On March 14, 2001, the Colorado Commissioner of insurance summarily suspended Frontier's Colorado Certificate of Authority. Frontier was entitled to a hearing on the summary suspension, but Frontier waived its right to a hearing. 6. As a result of the suspension of Frontier's Colorado Certificate of Authority, the Division served on Powderhom NOV No. CV-2001-00~ fur failure to maintain an adequate reclamation bond in violation of § 34-33-113, C.R.S., and Coal Rules 3.01, 3.02.1, 3.02.2, 3.02.4(1)(a) and 3.02.4(2)(6), on April 13, 2001. In NOV No. CV-2001-005, the Division ordered Powderhor to abate the violation by replacing the Frontier Bond with a performance bond that complies with all applicable statutes and regulations. 7. Pursuant to § 34-33-113(2), C.R.S., bonds for coal reclamation permits must be executed by a corporate surety licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. Furthermore, pursuant to Coal Rule 3.02.4(2)(b)(v)(C), "Upon the incapacity of a surety by reason of .. . suspension or revocation of its license, the petmittee shall be deemed to be without bond coverage in violation of 3.02.1(2). The Division shall issue a notice of violation against any permittee who is without bond coverage." 8. Because the Bond is a joint bond held in favor of both the Board and the BLM, Frontier's incapacities by reason of revocation of its federal Certificate of Authority and suspension of its Colorado Certificate of Authority constitute grounds for two separate violations pursuant to Coal Rule 3.02.4(2)(b)(v)(C). 9. NOV Nos. CV-2000-010 and CV-2001-005 were both validly issued by the Division pursuant to Coal Rule 3.02.4(2)(b)(v)(C). 10. Powderhor has failed to abate NOV Nos. CV-2000-010 and CV-2001-005. 11. On June 16, 2000, Powderhom filed a petition in bankruptcy in Kentucky. The Board finds that the Division and its Attorney General representatives should work through the bankruptcy proceedings with Powderhom to address the Division's and Boazd's concerns regarding Powderhom's reclamation liability at the site operated pursuant to the Petmit. 12. The Board was made aware at the hearing in this matter that Powderhom will likely file a petition for judicial review in the District Court, Mesa County, Colorado, in order to protect its ability to continue to challenge the NOV's in the future should it find such action necessary. The Board was also made aware that Powderhom would be willing to stipulate to a stay of the judicial review case pending further attempts to address the Division's and Board's concerns regarding Powderhom's reclamation liability through Powderhorn's bankruptcy proceeding in Kentucky. 13. Powderhom is out of compliance with its bonding requirements, but has to date remained in compliance with its on-the-ground reclamation responsibilities at the site, as set forth in the Permit.