Laserfiche WebLink
Powderhorn's arguments and (a) find Powderhom in violation of regulatory <br />requirements and (b) initiate forfeiture proceedings immediately. <br />The Division wants to highlight to the Boazd that its request is bolstered by the <br />fact that in its first Petition for Formal Review, Powderhom concedes that suspension <br />of Frontier's surety license by the Colorado Commissioner of Insurance is a violation <br />of the Coal regulations. See Petition for Formal Review, page 5, pazagraphs 1-3. <br />Therefore, this Board should enter NOV 2001-005 against Powderhor and begin <br />forfeiture proceedings. <br />Powderhorn's request for consolidation of the two NOVs <br />Initially, Powderhom requests that the Board merge the December NOV and <br />the April NOV because, accordingly to Powderhor, the two NOVs are duplicative. <br />The Division disagrees. The December NOV cites different grounds from the ground <br />set forth in the April NOV. The requested abatement may be the same, but the <br />grounds for each NOV are different. Accordingly, the Division objects to <br />Powderhorn's request for merger. <br />The Division also objects to Powderhorn's alternate request to "consolidate" <br />the NOVs with the result that the abatement period for the first NOV also be the <br />deadline for the April NOV, i.e., May 31, 2001 rather than May 14, 2001. These <br />NOVs are separate and therefore have separate abatement deadlines. The Division <br />requests this Board deny Powderhorn's request for consolidation. <br />