Laserfiche WebLink
require more immediate on-the-ground attention. Under these circumstances, thirty <br />days is a reasonable amount of time to require abatement of the NOV. <br />V. <br />The two NOVs are not duplicative and <br />NOV 2001-005 should not be dismissed. <br />Powerhorn azgues that the April NOV is the same as the December NOV and <br />therefore the April NOV should be dismissed. The Division disagrees. Powderhom's <br />argument is merely an attempt to avoid the abatement deadline for the April NOVof <br />May 14. <br />In the present matter, different facts support the NOVs. The bases for the <br />December NOV were that the Department of Treasury revoked Frontier's Certificate <br />of Authority to conduct surety business with the federal government and that the <br />Frontier bond did not provide the fmancial assurance required by regulation. The <br />basis for the April NOV is sepazate from the grounds set forth in the December NOV, <br />specifically, that the Colorado Commissioner of Insurance suspended Frontier's <br />license to transact insurance business. The Commissioner's suspension occurred on <br />March 14, 2001, three months after the December NOV was issued. <br />These are separate violations supported by separate facts. The NOVs are not <br />one in the same as Powderhorn azgues. As stated earlier, the Division has no <br />objection to heazing both NOVs in May, but does object to dismissal of a valid NOV <br />and any extension of the abatement period for the April NOV. Powderhorn is simply <br />14 <br />