FEDERAL REGISTER: 53 FR 994 (January 14, 1988)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 

30 CFR Part 800

Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations; Permanent Regulatory Program; 

Performance Bonds; Bond Release Application

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI) is amending the rules that govern the information required in an application to release a performance bond 

to include the name of the permittee and amending the bonding rules to allow third parties to guarantee a self-bond. 

These revisions are in accordance with the Secretary's brief of March 5, 1984, in which the Secretary addressed the 

National Wildlife Federation's challenge to the omission of the permittee's name in the published notice of bond release 

and in response to a June 16, 1986, petition for rulemaking from the National Coal Association/American Mining 

Congress (NCA/AMC) Joint Committee on Surface Mining Regulations requesting that OSMRE amend its rules to allow 

third parties to guarantee a self-bond. The rules were proposed on November 26, 1986, with a comment period that 

closed on February 5, 1987. Six parties commented on this proposal. These final rules are adopted for the permanent 

regulatory program. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on February 16, 1988. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Mancino, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20240; telephone No. (202) 343-7952. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Discussion of Comments and Rules Adopted 

III. Procedural Matters 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (the Act, Pub. L. 95-87), 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., sets forth 

the general regulatory requirements governing surface coal mining operations and the surface impacts of underground 

coal mining. OSMRE has by regulation implemented the general requirements of the Act and established performance 

standards to be achieved by different operations. The regulations dealing with the requirements for performance bonding 

are contained within 30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter J, Part 800. This part was revised on July 19, 1983 (43 FR 32932)

and August 10, 1983 (43 FR 36429). 

 SECTION 800.40 of 30 CFR contains the requirements for release of performance bonds. Sections 800.5 and 800.23 

of 30 CFR contain the requirements for acceptance of a self-bond. On November 26, 1986 (51 FR 42985) OSMRE 

proposed to revise these sections. 

 SECTION 800.5 was proposed to be revised by the removal of the term "parent corporation" from the definition of 

self-bond, and replaced by the term "corporate guarantor." 

 SECTION 800.23 was proposed to be revised by the removal of the term "parent corporation" and replaced by the 

term "corporate guarantor" in the requirements for obtaining a self-bond. 

 The changes proposed in Sections 800.5 and 800.23 resulted from the acceptance by OSMRE of a petition to change 

the regulations filed by the Joint National Coal Association (NCA)/American Mining Congress (AMC) Committee on 

Surface Mining Regulations. This petition, filed according to the rulemaking provisions of 30 CFR 700.12, was published 

in the Federal Register on October 29, 1985 (50 FR 43722) for public comment. On June 16, 1986, OSMRE made a 
decision to accept one proposal and to reject two other proposals of the petition. Notice of OSMRE's decision was 

published in the Federal Register on July 7, 1986 (51 FR 15047). 

 SECTION 800.40(a)(2) was proposed to be revised by the addition of the words "the permittee's name" to the 

requirements for release of performance bonds. This change was made in response to a commitment made by the 

Secretary in In Re: Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation (II), Civil Action 79-1144 (D.D.C. 1984). 

 

II. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS AND RULES ADOPTED 

 The public comment period for these rules opened on November 26, 1986, and closed February 4, 1987. The 

commenters generally favored the proposed changes in the bonding rules, with one exception discussed below. A total of 

six commenters filed written statements resulting in over 12 comments. Two were from State regulatory authorities, two 

were from coal operators, one was from a national coal industry trade organization, and one was from an environmental 

group. Five of the commenters favored the change in the self-bonding sections of the rules and one opposed the changes. 

Two of the commenters supported the change in the requirements for bond release notice and the other four did not 

comment. No public hearings or meetings were requested and none were held. After considering all the comments on the 

proposed rulemaking, OSMRE is finalizing the rule with some minor changes based on the comments received. 

 Some industry commenters proposed that OSMRE reconsider various proposals to revise the existing bonding 

regulations, discussed in the rulemaking petition of September 19, 1985 (51 FR 15047). These comments were not 

directed to the proposed rulemaking herein and are thus not relevant nor appropriate to this rulemaking. 

 OSMRE wishes to emphasize that although OSMRE has not proposed to include certain provisions in its national 

rules, States may submit for OSMRE's approval alternative systems under section 509(c) of the Act that will achieve the 

objectives and purposes of the bonding program as set forth in section 509. 

 

SECTIONS 800.5 AND 800.23 - DEFINITIONS AND SELF-BONDING. 

 Section 800.5 contains definitions applicable to this section. OSMRE proposed to revise the definition of self-bond, to 

include a corporate guarantor in place of a parent corporation. Based on the comments received, as discussed below, 

OSMRE has adopted the proposal to define a self-bond to include a corporate guarantor but has revised the definition to 

require the permit applicant to execute the indemnity agreement as well as the corporate guarantor. The term "applicant" 

has been used instead of the term "permittee" in the definition to reflect the language of section 509 and to label more 

accurately the status of the potential permittee at the time the indemnity agreement is executed. 

 Section 800.23 contains the requirements for the qualification, acceptance and replacement of self-bonds. OSMRE 

proposed to revise this section by replacing the term "parent corporation guarantor" wherever it appeared with the term 

"corporate guarantor". The changes would have occurred in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (f) and (g). 

Based on the comments received, OSMRE has retained the original provisions of 30 CFR 800.23 for those paragraphs 

dealing with parent guarantors of a self-bond, but has added new language concerning non-parent guaranteed self-bonds 

and included requirements for the self-bond applicant whenever a non-parent entity guarantees the self-bond. One new 

provision relating to non-parent guarantors is contained in new paragraph 820.23(c)(2). 

 Section 800.23(g) obligates a permittee to post an alternate bond in the same amount as the self-bond if the financial 

conditions of the permittee or corporate guarantor no longer satisfy the financial criteria of Sections 800.23(b)(3) and 

800.23(d). OSMRE wishes to clarify that under Section 800.12(d) the alternate bond may consist of a self-bond 

guaranteed by a non-parent corporate guarantor and one or more of the other types of bonds. However it should be 

emphasized that under such circumstances a self-bond can only be used in an amount which will satisfy the applicable 

financial criteria and that the total amount of the combination bond must be equivalent to the self-bond being replaced. 

 OSMRE also wishes to clarify that the "continuous operation" requirement of Section 800.23(b) that must be satisfied 

by the applicant and each guarantor may be satisfied by continuous operation as a business entity. It does not mean that 

the entity must have been in the coal mining business for five years. 

 One regulatory authority commenter suggested that OSMRE require in these final regulations that any corporate or 

third party guarantor must comply with State licensing requirements applicable to corporations which underwrite bonds, 
if fees are charged for their services. OSMRE did not accept this proposal because it is beyond the intent of SMCRA to 

deal with corporate licensing requirements that are the subject of State laws and regulations other than SMCRA. This 

rule is not intended to affect the applicability of any state licensing requirement. 

 One environmental organization commenter opposed the proposed revisions to both Sections 800.5 and 800.23 on the 

grounds that: (1) The proposal was not consistent with the Act; (2) the third party guarantor would have no interest in 

the successful mining and reclamation of the guaranteed operation; (3) the signing of an indemnity agreement by a utility 

or other non-parent guarantor might not be legally enforceable; (4) OSMRE or the States have no practical experience of 

non-parent guarantees of self-bonding and parent company self-bonding; (5) self-bonds are inherently riskier than surety 

bonds; (6) Congress intended that the objectives of self-bonding to be the same as for other types of bonding; and (7) the 

proposal decreases the permittee's responsibilities for reclamation. These issues will be discussed in turn. 

1. CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WITH THE ACT 

 The commenter opposed this proposal on the grounds that section 509(c) of the Act does not authorize the 

acceptance of a self-bond by a party other than the permit applicant. OSMRE believes that the final rule is consistent with 

section 509(c) of SMCRA and is promulgating the rule as revised in response to many of the suggestions of the 

commenter. Section 509(c), which provides general guidance on self-bonding, neither prohibits a system that allows for a 

written guarantee on an applicant's self-bond nor limits the Secretary's discretion to provide for such a guarantee of a 

"self-bond". The intent of the performance bonding provision of section 509 is to provide a means of ensuring that 

reclamation requirements established by the Act will be fulfilled. The intent is not to financially penalize permittees but to 

have their performance guaranteed. Such guarantees can be obtained through a corporation licensed to do business as a 

surety, through posting of collateral or through filing a "self-bond", as defined by OSMRE. In developing the bonding 

regulations over the years, OSMRE has promulgated various provisions for achieving the intent of section 509. 

 In response to the commenter's concerns, the language being adopted in the final rule has been modified in a number 

of respects to emphasize that it is the permittee who posts the self-bond and that the third party functions as the 

guarantor. As mentioned above, the definition of "self-bond" reflects that in each instance, the permit applicant must be a 

person who executes the indemnity agreement, and not just the non-parent guarantor, as was proposed. Also the final 

rule recognizes that in situations involving non-parent corporate guarantors, the applicant must meet the "history or 

financial solvency and continuous operation" requirements of section 509(c) in order to become eligible for self-bonding. 

Thus, under new paragraph 800.23(c)(2) the applicant must meet the requirements of solvency and continuous operation 

set forth in 30 CFR 800.23(b) (1), (2) and (4). However, the final rule allows the "assets test" of 30 CFR 800.23(b)(3) to 

be met by the non-parent corporate guarantor. The regulatory authority may require additional financial information from 

the applicant under paragraph (b)(3), when such information is needed. The non-parent corporate guarantor must meet 

the standards of Section 800.23(b) (1) through (b) (4) to serve in that capacity. 

2. THIRD-PARTY GUARANTOR'S INTEREST IN THE MINING OPERATION 

 The commenter cited preamble language from OSMRE's bonding rulemaking of 1983 (48 FR 36424) to support the 

view that OSMRE should not accept third party guarantees for self-bonds, on the basis that self-bonds did not provide 

sufficient assurance of a direct interest in the successful mining and reclamation operations of the permittee. OSMRE 

believes that its policy position in 1983 is no longer appropriate due to recent events in the bonding and surety industries. 

 Bonding regulations, as well as other OSMRE regulations have changed over the years and the policy set forth in the 

previous rulemaking have changed with changing conditions, new data and information. A regulatory agency is not 

bound by previous positions merely on the basis of consistency and should adjust its policy on the basis of experience and 

new information. Regulatory changes can be made on the basis of experience of new information on the operation of 

performance bonding in coal mining reclamation, an area that has changed considerably since the passage of the first set 

of OSMRE bonding regulations on in 1979. The assertion by the commenter that OSMRE must not change the 

regulations because of assumptions by OSMRE in previous rulemaking actions is not reasonable in view of new 

information and data contradicting those assumptions. 

 Recent events have shown that surety bonds do not always provide risk-free guarantees of reclamation. Guarantees 

provided by a surety company usually become worthless when the surety experiences bankruptcy and/or liquidation. At 

least 9 sureties and two banks have recently failed, affecting more than 400 mining companies, 25,000 permitted acres 
and over 8 million tons of annual coal production. These surety and bank failures have resulted in regulatory authorities 

not having the necessary funds to perform reclamation. Based on this experience and new information, OSMRE has 

concluded that a financially sound corporate guarantor may be in as good or better position to guarantee reclamation 

than some surety companies. In all its previous rulemaking, surety guarantees were considered by OSMRE to contain 

minimal risk and that they would almost always provide the funds needed for reclamation, in the event of forfeiture (44 

FR 15114, March 13, 1979). However, the recent surety failures demonstrate that the issue of direct interest in an 

operation is less important than the financial soundness of any guarantors, be they parent, non-parent, surety or banks. 

OSMRE believes that the regulatory authority needs to monitor and track all such guarantors' financial soundness 

through either its State insurance commission, or the Treasury Circular 570 which lists those sureties authorized to do 

business with the Federal government. The issue of the non-parent corporation's lack of interest in successful reclamation 

is directly addressed by making such a corporation party to the indemnity agreement. Once legally bound to ensure 

reclamation, the corporate guarantor should have the requisite interest in the permittee fulfilling its reclamation 

obligations. Therefore, the commenter's objection on the basis of direct interest in the operation is rejected. 

3. LEGALITY OF UTILITY OF OTHER NON-PARENT GUARANTOR SIGNING AN INDEMNITY 

AGREEMENT 

 The commenter asserted that signing of an indemnity agreement by a utility or other non-parent guarantor might not 

be legally enforceable. The proposed rule has been revised to respond to the comment. Paragraph (e)(2) has been revised 

to require the filing of an affidavit certifying that the signing of the indemnity agreement by the guarantor is valid under 

existing State and Federal law. Such an affidavit would preclude the unlawful agreement hypothesized by the commenter. 

This paragraph also contains a requirement that such guarantor provide a copy of the corporate authorization 

demonstrating that the corporation may guarantee the self-bond; this provides additional protection against possible legal 

conflicts. 

4. OSMRE AND STATE EXPERIENCE WITH NON-PARENT GUARANTEES OF SELF-BONDING AND 

PARENT COMPANY SELF-BONDING 

 The commenter asserts that, because OSMRE and the States have no practical experience of non-parent guarantees of 

self-bonding and parent company self-bonding, it should not promulgate the proposed revision. The commenter cited 51 

FR 42985 (November 26, 1986) and takes exception to the example of non-parent, self-bond envisioned by OSMRE. 

OSMRE believes that self-bonding with parent or non-parent guarantor as allowed by this final rule is as effective as 

surety bonding and will fully meet the intent of SMCRA to ensure that reclamation occurs in the event of operator 

non-performance. Mining operators have alleged to OSMRE that the reason for lack of applications for self-bonds at the 

Federal level is the high standard of the financial criteria of the regulations. It is important to note that these financial 

criteria are not changed by the proposed rulemaking for self-bond guarantees. Under the proposed rule, any party that 

seeks to guarantee the self-bond of a permittee must qualify according to the financial standards of 30 CFR 800.23, 

including the execution of an indemnity agreement to bind equally the permittee and the guarantor. This legally binding 

agreement is not changed by this revision to the OSMRE rules. Such an indemnity agreement binds all parties, be they 

corporate sureties, partnerships, public utility corporations, or other corporate guarantors regardless of their interest in 

the mining operation. 

5. SELF-BONDS ARE INHERENTLY RISKIER THAN OTHER BOND TYPES 

 The experiences of the previous five years do not bear out the generalization that self-bonds are riskier than surety 

guarantees. Surety failures have occurred in a number of States. The commenter's contention that surety bonds can be 

covered by reinsurance has not been the experience in recent surety failures in the area of surface mining operations. 

OSMRE and State regulatory authorities have initiated forfeiture proceedings on some mining operations which were 

guaranteed by those sureties now out of business. As discussed above, the probability of collecting funds to perform 

reclamation from these sureties is quite low. The previous fears that self-bonding would be abused as a means to 

circumvent reclamation requirements have not materialized. Moreover, whatever concerns may exist concerning 

non-guaranteed self-bonds, this final rule authorizes a category of self-bonds which are guaranteed in every instance by a 

financially sound corporation. In fact such corporations may be more financially sound that certain sureties. 
6. CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT OBJECTIVES OF SELF-BONDING TO BE THE SAME AS FOR 

OTHER TYPES OF BONDING 

 The commenter asserted that the Congress intended the objectives of self-bonding to be the same as for other types of 

bonding, that is, the assurance of the completion of the reclamation plan, at no expense to the public. OSMRE agrees 

with this statement and this final rule reflects this objective. 

 OSMRE is changing the bonding regulations because experience and new information warrants change. These rules 

are consistent with the objectives of bonding, and continue to assure the completion of the reclamation plan at no 

expense to the public. At no time does OSMRE intend to deviate from the Congressionally mandated purpose of 

bonding. 

7. PERMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RECLAMATION 

 A commenter asserted that the proposed revisions to Sections 800.5 and 800.23 decreases the responsibility of a 

permit applicant to comply with the reclamation plan. OSMRE disagrees. This rule does not diminish the permittees's 

responsibility to perform reclamation. What it does do is to provide another class of financially responsible entities to 

guarantee that the permittee meets its obligations. In the earliest OSMRE rulemaking on self-bonding, OSMRE stated 

that "the indemnity agreement provides joint and several liability for all individuals involved in a particular operation 

(and) gives all of them a significant incentive to comply with the Act." (44 FR 15117, March 13, 1979). This has not 

changed. 

 In terms of permittee responsibility, a permit holder is liable for reclamation specified by his permit. The permittee is 

liable for correcting violations and payment of fines or penalties associated with such violations. In the event of a 

forfeiture, the permittee is the party declared in forfeiture. Under most circumstances, the permittee would be unable to 

obtain any other coal mining permit. The permittee will be obligated to the party guaranteeing its self-bond under the 

indemnity agreement and will also be liable under such an agreement. 

 

SECTION 800.40 - REQUIREMENT TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE BONDS. 

 Section 800.40 contains the requirements for release of performance bonds. Subsection 800.40(a)(2) contains the 

requirements for public notification of bond release. This notification must contain the permit number and approval date, 

the location of the area affected, the acreage affected, the type and amount of bond, the portion of the bond to be 

released, the reclamation work performed and the result achieved, and the name and address of the regulatory authority 

to whom comments, objections or requests for public hearings on the proposed release are sent. These requirements were 

originally found at Section 807.11, promulgated on March 13, 1979 (44 FR 14902). During the rule revisions of 1983, 

this section was incorporated into a new Section 800.40 and the phrase, "the permittee's name" was removed from the 

section. The proposed revision was to restore the phrase to the requirements of this section. No commenter was opposed 

to this revision and OSMRE is promulgation the rule as proposed. 

 

REFERENCE MATERIALS 

 Reference materials used to develop these final rules are as follows: 

 OSMRE, Proceedings of the Workshop on Coal-Mined Land Reclamation Bonding, September 11, 1986. 182 pp. 

 Washington Post, "Insurance Firm's Fall Raises Questions", "The Insurance Regulators", various articles on April 

11-17, 1986 Land Marc, "The Bonding Crisis", All articles of November/December 1986 Issue. 29 pp. 

 OSMRE, "Monthly bond Insolvency Report Summary", January 1987. 

 

III. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

 

Federal Paperwork Reduction Act 

 The information collection requirements contained in 30 CFR Part 800 have been approved according to Office of 

Management and Budget procedures under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned clearance number 1029-0043. 

 
Executive Order 12291 

 The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has examined the final rule according to the criteria of Executive Order 

12291 (February 17, 1981) and has determined that is it not major and does not require a regulatory impact analysis. The 

rule will provide an additional alternative method of bonding which may result in lower costs for bonding to the coal 

industry. 

 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

 The DOI has also determined, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that the final rule 

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will impact a relatively 

small number of coal operator the majority of which would not be small operators. 

 

National Environmental Policy Act 

 OSMRE has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) of the impacts on the human environment by this proposed 

rulemaking. This EA is on file in the OSMRE Administrative Record at the address listed in the "ADDRESSES" section 

of this preamble. Based upon this EA, OSMRE has made a Finding of No Significant Impact on the quality of the human 

environment (FONSI) in accordance with OSMRE procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c). 

 

Author 

 The principal author of this final rule is Frank Mancino, Physical Scientist, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: (202) 343-1475. 

 

LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 30 CFR PART 800 

 Insurance, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Surface mining, Underground mining. 

 Accordingly, 30 CFR Part 800 is amended to read as follows. 

Date: December 3, 1987. 

J. Stephen Griles, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. 

PART 800 -- BOND AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE COAL MINING AND 

RECLAMATION OPERATIONS UNDER REGULATORY PROGRAMS 

 1.The authority citation for Part 800 is revised to read as follows: 

 Authority: Pub. L. 95-87, as amended, (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Pub. L. 100-34. 

 2. Section 800.5 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

SECTION 800.5 - DEFINITIONS. 

 

* * * * * 

(c) Self-bond means an indemnity agreement in a sum certain executed by the applicant or by the applicant and any 

corporate guarantor and made payable to the regulatory authority, with or without separate surety. 

 

* * * * * 
 3. Section 800.23 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3) as (c)(1), 

(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii), by adding new paragraph (c)(2), by adding a new sentence at the end of paragraph (d), 

and by revising paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(4), (f) and (g), to read as follows: 

SECTION 800.23 - SELF-BONDING. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) The regulatory authority may accept a written guarantee for an applicant's self-bond from any corporate 

guarantor, whenever the applicant meets the conditions of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(4) of this section, and the 

guarantor meets the conditions of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section. Such a written guarantee shall be 

referred to as a "non-parent corporate guarantee." The terms of this guarantee shall provide for compliance with the 

conditions of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii) of this section. The regulatory authority may require the applicant to 

submit any information specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in order to determine the financial capabilities of the 

applicant. 

(d) * * * 

 For the regulatory authority to accept a non-parent corporate guarantee, the total amount of the non-parent corporate 

guarantor's present and proposed self-bonds and guaranteed self-bonds shall not exceed 25 percent of the guarantor's 

tangible net worth in the United States. 

(e) * * * 

(2) Corporations applying for a self-bond, and parent and non-parent corporations guaranteeing an applicant's 

self-bond shall submit an indemnity agreement signed by two corporate officers who are authorized to bind their 

corporations. A copy of such authorization shall be provided to the regulatory authority along with an affidavit certifying 

that such an agreement is valid under all applicable Federal and State laws. In addition, the guarantor shall provide a copy 

of the corporate authorization demonstrating that the corporation may guarantee the self-bond and execute the indemnity 

agreement. 

 

* * * * * 

(4) Pursuant to Section 800.50, the applicant, parent or non-parent corporate guarantor shall be required to 

complete the approved reclamation plan for the lands in default or to pay to the regulatory authority an amount necessary 

to complete the approved reclamation plan, not to exceed the bond amount. If permitted under State law, the indemnity 

agreement when under forfeiture shall operate as a judgment against those parties liable under the indemnity agreement. 

(f) A regulatory authority may require self-bonded applicants, parent and non-parent corporate guarantors to submit an 

update of the information required under paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section within 90 days after the close of 

each fiscal year following the issuance of the self-bond or corporate guarantee. 

(g) If at any time during the period when a self-bond is posted, the financial conditions of the applicant, parent or 

non-parent corporate guarantor change so that the criteria of paragraphs (b)(3) and (d) of this section are not satisfied, 

the permittee shall notify the regulatory authority immediately and shall within 90 days post an alternate form of bond in 

the same amount as the self-bond. Should the permittee fail to post an adequate substitute bond, the provisions of 

Section 800.16(e) shall apply. 
 4. Section 800.40 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

SECTION 800.40 - REQUIREMENT TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE BONDS. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Within 30 days after an application for bond release has been filed with the regulatory authority, the 

permittee shall submit a copy of an advertisement placed at least once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper 

of general circulation in the locality of the surface coal mining operation. The advertisement shall be considered part of 

any bond release application and shall contain the permittee's name, permit number and approval date, notification of the 

precise location of the land affected, the number of acres, the type and amount of the bond filed and the portion sought to 

be released, the type and appropriate dates of reclamation work performed, a description of the results achieved as they 

relate to the permittee's approved reclamation plan, and the name and address of the regulatory authority to which 

written comments, objections, or requests for public hearings and informal conferences on the specific bond release may 

be submitted pursuant to Section 800.40 (f) and (h). In addition, as part of any bond release application, the permittee 

shall submit copies of letters which he or she has sent to adjoining property owners, local governmental bodies, planning 

agencies, sewage and water treatment authorities, and water companies in the locality in which the surface coal mining 

and reclamation operation took place, notifying them of the intention to seek release from the bond. 

 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 88-667 Filed 1-13-88; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M