ENFORCE35010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ r ~ V 98 FR 32932-01 (Cite as: 48 FR 32932, *32945) Pace COIS1D1et1Gn Gf tae °rEGlcmaLiOn plat:" '_5 2pOEd tG 6 £00.16(C) as 2 rECL_rcmEnt to make clEar that tae bond is conditicnEd on performance of the reclamation plan, as well as the other performance reeuirements. This parallels the addition of similar language at ~ 600.11(a). Section ~00.16(d) Section 800.16(d), which requires the bond to be held for a time period provided .n g 800.13, received no comments and is unchanged from the proposed rule. This paragraph follows Section 509(b) of the Act. Section 800.16(e) Proposed § 800.16(e)(1) required that the bond provide a mechanism for a bank or surety to give prompt notice to the regulatory authority and permittee of insolvency, bankruptcy or suspensions of license. Proposed § 800.16(e)(1) has been adopted without change. Proposed ~ 800.16(e)(2) would have required *_aat (1) a reculatory authority issue an NOV if the permittee is found to be without bond CG~EraGe~ (~) -- tnE ~iGlatlOn is abated ..___ _~':= c__., .'?~ __ _.c riGC th°_ GiO'_'atiGn neEu nGt r)°_ __pGrt2C _.. _"_...__ cbt__cat'_On5 c5 c past .%'_C_cL'_Cril and (3) if it is not abated a cessation order will be issued. In final § SOG.i6(e)(2) the tErm "person" has bEen dElEted, since the term could only have applied to a person who had posted collateral, and, in the case of a bankruptcy of such person, the regulatory authority is protected against claims on the collateral through possession or a perfected security interest. Industry commenters strongly objected to the proposed provision in § 800.16(e) for issuing an NOV for loss of bond coverage due to failure of the surety, a bank, a third party providing collateral or a guarantee, or the permittee's self-bond. The commenters noted that OSM has no power under Section 509 of the Act to issue notices of violation upon the incapacity of the operator's bonding agent. They said the proposed rule was unfair because the operator would have to suffe the civil penalties of Section 518 of the Act that the NOV automatically triggers. The operator must then defend against a penalty proceeding brought against him which may be based on an event that has nothing to do with his own compliance with mining and reclamation standards. The commenters said the proposed automatic NOV would have served no purpose, since the danger that the reclamation will not be achieved is presented only when the operator is unable to pay for the work. As long as mining and reclamation operations are being conducted in compliance with the rules, there is no need for issuing *_he NOV. The commenters suggested instead that to=_ regulatory authority "notify any operator who is without bond coverage and specify a r=_asonable period to replace bond coverage, not to exceed 90 days." A $tdte regulatory authority felt it should have the power to issue a notice o violation, including specific conditions for continued operation, and *32946 should also have the ability to terminate operations when necessary to protect _..e e^. •._r:nmer..t ar.d comply ~~ith the .-..._. In the final rule for ~ 800.16(e)(2), OSM has not adopted the provision for Copt. O West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Wcrks