comment_details: AMS-2006-0079-0007

Full comment text and metadata for a subset of Regulations.gov comments, from the regulations.gov API channel. Includes submitter type and organization. Includes attachment counts and links; the attachment files themselves are not included. Where the served build also carries the bulk-export merge (build_metadata.bulk_merge), most comments have text in comment_texts (reached through comment_bodies.body_sha256); DataDawn serves the API text where it exists, else the bulk text, and labels which. Withdrawn comments carry no text in either table by policy (decisions_log §128). ⚠ PARTICIPATION: where an agency folded a mass-comment campaign into a single record carrying an asserted count (comment_details.duplicate_comments), the same campaign usually also appears as thousands of individual records — measured 2026-08-30 across the regulations.gov bulk exports, 94.1% of dockets with a folded campaign also hold an unfolded one. Neither the record count nor the asserted count is the number of people who commented, and the two must never be summed. https://datadawn.org/methodology.html#participation

Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API

This data as json

id comment_text organization organization_normalized first_name last_name city state_province zip country subtype category tracking_number duplicate_comments comment_on_document_id receive_date postmark_date gov_agency gov_agency_type page_count attachment_count attachment_urls
AMS-2006-0079-0007 At a time when virtually most of the world is coming to an accord about finding <br/>alternative energy sources instead of those which are polluting our planet--coal <br/>being demonstrably the worst offender--I am disappointed to find out that the Office <br/>of Surface Mining is considering changes to the stream buffer zone rule that would <br/>make it easier for coal companies to pollute and degrade our nation?s streams. I <br/>urge you to abandon this proposal and instead focus on enforcing the current <br/>protections on the books.<br/><br/>Regardless of the blandishments and &quot;encouragements&quot; of lobbyists, it really is <br/>time to stop catering to the me-first, money-in-my-pocket-first interests of the coal <br/>corporations and look beyond their wallets to the future of all of us. Even though <br/>some of you in the Office of Surace Mining may disregard what will happen if <br/>companies keep spoiling our environment on the grounds that you won&#39;t be alive <br/>long enough to see it happen, perhaps some of you have children and grandchild-<br/>dren who will be alive on a less habitable world.<br/><br/>According to government studies, the failure to enforce the stream buffer zone rule <br/>has already allowed companies to damage more than 500 miles of streams <br/>between the years 2001 and 2005 alone. Mining companies continue to fill entire <br/>streams with mining waste during mountaintop removal mining in violation of the <br/>rule, but the federal government has turned a blind eye to this practice for years. It <br/>really is the time to stop catering to the me-first, money-in-my-pocket-first <br/>interests of the coal corporations and look beyond their wallets to the future of all <br/>of us.<br/><br/>The purpose of maintaining a stream buffer zone is exactly as it seems -- to <br/>provide a buffer, or protection zone, around streams and make sure they are not <br/>polluted or destroyed. The proposal currently under consideration would do nothing <br/>more than take the buffer out of the picture. I urge you to reject these changes.<br/><br/>     Stephaney Lloyd Damascus PA   United States     8028c692 0 AMS-2006-0079-0004 2007-09-19T14:04:22Z   OSM Federal 0 0