Comment on FR Doc # E9-19362

I do not believe Montana's proposal under HB 278 complies with SMCRA. I believe ND has been operating in violation of SMCRA on this issue for 20 years. The ND version of HB 278 was an under the table approval by an OSM director who had other problems. ND allows a larger area to be release, but it has a lot more weasel words and complexities to indicate that it is not a routine application. Just because ND has been allowed to do this does not mean the policy complies with SMCRA rules and regs. SMCRA is very clear that in areas with less than 26 inches of rain a year, the minimum bond release time is 10 years. Time is integral to meeting SMCRA standards. CFR Section 816.111(a) is controlling here. The water features and roads permitted to be left without vegetation or vegetation less than the stardard are those planned for in advance and left for postmining land use. I think the proposal in HB 278 and ND represent faulty permit planning that has been left unremediated for close to 30 years. Rather than encapsulating program failures in amber, OSM and the states should be cleaning up the permitting and reclamation processes. HB 278 grants a bonus for failing to plan properly under SMCRA and the regs. If the implications from 30 CFR Section 816.181 are correct, a support facility could be anything, including buildings and parking lots---very vague. HB 278 and the ND "policy" are attempts to guarantee bond release on areas which may or may not meet the full standards of SMCRA. The companies and the states have had the last 20 years to have done something creditable to deal with this rather than trying to blow a regulatory hole through SMCRA now.