Laserfiche WebLink
The only reference to which Powderhor cites to support its argument is commentary <br />to a federal regulation. However, this commentary does not change the plain language of the <br />regulation, nor could it. As it now stands, Powderhor is deemed to be without bond <br />coverage according to the plain language of the regulations because Frontier's bond does not <br />meet regulatory requirements. Moreover, the commentary itself does not apply to a situation <br />such as the one present in this matter. <br />The commentary addresses OSM's response to an industry concern about holding a <br />mining operator liable for the incapacity of a surety. OSM states in the commentary that it <br />decided to go with an approach that requires bond replacement but that if the operator failed <br />to replace the bond, the remedy was to require commencement of reclamation. However, the <br />commentary only addresses a situation in which extraction was still the predominant mode <br />the operator wanted to be in and the operator continued to have the financial means to <br />conduct reclamation. <br />In the commentary, industry's position was that an automatic NOV would serve no <br />purpose since the danger that reclamation will not be achieved is presented only when the <br />operator is unable to pay for the work. 48 Fed. Reg. 32,932 (1983) (attached). It goes <br />without saying that the danger to which industry itself referred exists in this case. <br />Powderhom is a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. Powderhom's only assets are a <br />few pieces of machinery and equipment. The proceeds from the sale of these assets, even if <br />they go toward reclamation, will not cover the expense of reclaiming Powderhorn's mine <br />site. Powderhom has no other means to pay for reclamation. This set of circumstances <br />17 <br />