Laserfiche WebLink
08/07/2001 15:03 FAS 303 834 2020 SHELL & F1ILMER I~J005 <br />5. On Marc614, 2001, the Conrmisaioaer of Insurance. Colorado Division <br />lnsuraaoe. aunrmarily suspended Finatiar's Colorado Certificate of Authority. Finatle~ <br />-m1E1Hed to a hearing on the Stnmaaary suspensio <br />6. As a result of the suspension of Frontier's Colorado Certificate of Authority, the <br />Division served on Powderhom NOV No. CV-2001-005 for failum tD maintain an adequate <br />reclamation bond in violation of, in part, § 34-33-113, C1LS., and Coal Mule 3.02.4(2xb~ on <br />Apri113, 2001. In NOV No. CV-2001-005, the Division ordered Powderhorn to abate the <br />violation by replacing the Fionticr Bond with a performance bond that complies with all <br />applicable statubos and cegtiletioas. <br />7.. Pursuant to § 34-33-113(2), C.R.S., bonds for coal nxhnmation permits must be <br />croecrrtcd by a corporate arnety lioeased to do business in tlu state of Colorado. firrthermore, <br />pursuant to Coal Role 3.02s4(2)(bxv)(C), "Upon the incapacity of a surety by r~eavoa of .. . <br />suspension or revoc~tioa of its license, the permittee shall be deemed to be without bond <br />coverage in violation of 3.02.1(2). Tho Aivision sbinll issue a notice of violation against any <br />permittee who is without bond coverage." <br />deferred <br />right <br />8. Because the: Bond is a joint bond held in favor of both the Board sect the BJ.M, <br />Fro~er's inc~pacities by mason of rtvoeation of its fedmal Certificate of Authority and <br />suspension of its Colorado,Cortificate of Authority constitute gmunda for two aeperam violations <br />pursuant ~ Coal Rule 3.02:4(2)(bxv)(C). <br />9. NOVNos. CV-2000-010 and CV-2001-005 were both validly issuod by the <br />Division pursuant to Coal Rule 3.02.4(2)(bxvxC). <br />10. Powderhom her failed to abato NOV Nos. CV-2000-010 and CV-2001-005. <br />11. On June 16, 2000. Powderhont Sled a petition in bankruptcy in Keotrrcky. As a <br />result of the bankruptcy proceodings. Povrdeahorn has been unable to secure a replaoament bond <br />es required by the NOV's. , In light of those facts, the Boatel finds that it is in the bast interests of <br />all parties that the Division and its Attorney Cienaal representatives work Wrough the <br />baailauptcy proceedings with Powderhom to address the Division's and Board's concerns <br />regarding Powderhom's reclamation liability at the silo operated pursuant m the Permit. <br />In the a owderho n <br />was a aware earirrg in this mattes that Powderhotn will <br />file a petition for judicial review in the District Court, Mora County. Colorado, in order to <br />ability W constuuue to challenge the V's in the fimae should it Sad such action <br />nocessary. 7~lre Board~sidee•saad~ss~Powdethorn.Yeuld-bs~o stipulate to a <br />stay oftgsludreial raviewaaea pending _ _ <br />13. Powderbom has to date rooaaeined in compliance with its reclamation <br />tsspgnsibillttes at rho site as set forth is the Permit. <br />14. Powderhorn ceased coal production at the property on or <br />about December 2, 1994. 2 <br />bo'el 95:ST t0. S ~f Li695998£0£:~~ <br />