USDA AMS administers the National Organic Program (NOP) under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501-6524). The regulations implementing the NOP, also referred to as the USDA organic regulations (7 CFR part 205), were published on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80548) and became effective on October 21, 2002. Through these regulations, AMS oversees national organic standards for the production, handling, and labeling of organically produced agricultural products. Since October 2002, the USDA organic regulations have been frequently amended, mostly for changes to the National List in 7 CFR 205.601 through 606.

The National List identifies the synthetic substances allowed to be used and the nonsynthetic substances prohibited from use in organic farming. The National List also identifies synthetic and nonsynthetic nonagricultural substances, and nonorganic agricultural substances that may be used in organic handling. The OFPA and USDA organic regulations specifically prohibit the use of any synthetic substance in organic production and handling unless an exemption for using the synthetic substance is provided on the National List. Section 205.105 of the USDA organic regulations also requires that any nonorganic agricultural substance and any nonagricultural substance used in organic handling be listed as allowed on the National List.

The OFPA at 7 U.S.C. 6518 authorizes the NOSB, operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (§  1 et seq., 5 U.S.C. App.2), to assist in evaluating substances to be allowed or prohibited for organic production and handling and to advise the Secretary on the USDA organic regulations. The OFPA sunset provision (7 U.S.C. 6517(e)) also requires a review of all substances included on the National List within five years of their addition to or renewal on the list. During this sunset review, the NOSB considers any new information pertaining to a substance's impact on human health and the environment, its necessity due to the unavailability of wholly natural substances, and its consistency with organic production and handling. The NOSB subsequently votes to remove a substance allowance or prohibition from the National List.

The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 amended the OFPA at 7 U.S.C. 6518(i)(2) to specify that any vote on a motion proposing to amend the National List requires 2/3 of the votes cast at a meeting of the NOSB at which a quorum is present to prevail. A substance remains listed on the National List unless an NOSB motion to remove that substance carries with 2/3 of votes cast, and the Secretary subsequently renews or amends the listing for the substance. The NOSB submits its sunset review and recommendations to the Secretary. As delegated by the Secretary, AMS evaluates the sunset review and recommendations for compliance with the National List substance evaluation criteria set forth in the OFPA at 7 U.S.C. 6518(m) and other federal statutes or regulations. AMS also considers public comments submitted in association with a specific sunset review process.

AMS published an updated sunset review process in the Federal Register on September 16, 2013 (78 FR 56811). 1 In accordance with the sunset review process, AMS published two notices in the Federal Register announcing the NOSB meetings on April 25-27, 2018, and October 24-26, 2018, and inviting public comments on the 2020 sunset review process (January 17, 2018 (83 FR 2373)  2 and August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39376)). 3 AMS also hosted two public webinars (April 17 and 19, 2018, and October 16 and 18, 2018) to provide additional opportunities for public comment. The NOSB received additional comment during the public meetings. At these public meetings, the NOSB reviewed substance listings scheduled to sunset from the National List and concluded that these listings should not be removed. Table 1 shows the current listings for these substances.

AMS has reviewed and accepted the NOSB's 2020 sunset review recommendations and is renewing the listings of these substances until 2025. 4 AMS has determined that the substance allowances listed in this notice continue to be necessary for organic production and/or organic handling because of the unavailability of organic forms or wholly natural substitutes for the specified uses (§ 6517(c)(1)(A)(ii)). The renewal of these substance allowances will avoid potential disruptions to the organic industry and consumers that may otherwise result from removal from the National List. AMS also has determined that the prohibited nonsynthetic substance listed in this notice should remain prohibited because use of this substance would be inconsistent with organic production (§ 6517(c)(2)(A)(ii)).

This final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No.984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California. Part 984 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Board locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers operating within California, and a public member.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this final rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule suspends regulations related to reserve walnuts under the Order. Section 984.89(b)(2) states that the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) “may terminate or suspend the operation of any or all of the provisions of this subpart, whenever he finds that such provisions do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act.” The current authority to establish a reserve obligation has not been used by the Board since the 1987-88 marketing year, when the Board began working toward increasing demand rather than controlling supply.

Section 984.21 defines “handler inventory” as “all walnuts, inshell or shelled (except those held in satisfaction of a reserve obligation), wherever located, then held by a handler or for his or her account.”

Sections 984.23 and 984.26 define “free” and “reserve” walnuts, respectively; and §  984.33 defines “hold,” the action that requires handlers to maintain possession of the kernel weight of walnuts necessary to meet his or her reserve obligation.

The reserve obligation requirements in §§  984.48 and 984.49 include provisions that require the Board recommend to the Secretary free, reserve, and export percentages of walnuts at the start of each marketing year (September 1). A recommendation for changes to the percentages must be made to the Secretary on or before February 15 of each marketing year, if such changes are prudent. The export percentages are reviewed by the Board's Export Committee, which is comprised of Board members who are industry experts in exporting walnuts.

Sections 984.49, 984.50, 984.51, 984.54, 984.56, 984.64, 984.66, 984.67, and 984.69 include establishing a free, reserve, and export percentage obligation; establishing minimum kernel content for any lot of walnuts acceptable for disposition for credit against a handler's reserve obligation; mandating inspection of walnuts; establishing the reserve obligation; instructions regarding the disposition of reserve and substandard walnuts; a requirement that the Board assist handlers in meeting their reserve obligation; various exemptions from the reserve obligation; and authorizing the Board to use funds derived from assessments to defray expenses related to reserve walnut pool expenses, respectively.

Sections 984.450, 984.456, and 984.464 establish requirements relative to grade and size, inspection, and disposition of reserve walnuts, respectively.

This suspension streamlines Board operations by eliminating the need for the Board's Export Committee to consider free, reserve, and export percentages at its meetings at the start of each marketing year.

The reserve obligation and its requirements are suspended but remain part of the Order until the Board makes a recommendation to reinstate or terminate them. This final rule also removes related references to the reserve obligation and its requirements. The Secretary reviewed any such recommendation by the Board.

This final rule suspends §§  984.23, 984.26, 984.33, 984.49, 984.54, 984.56, 984.66, and 984.456 in their entirety.

This final rule amends §§  984.21, 984.48, 984.50, 984.51, 984.64, 984.69, 984.450, 984.451, and 984.464 to remove references to the reserve obligation and its requirements.

This action requires no changes to any existing Board forms.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 90 handlers subject to regulation under the Order and approximately 5,000 walnut growers in the production area. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts of less than $30,000,000, and small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $1,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based upon information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the price reported for July 2019 was $7,060 per ton ($3.53 per pound) of walnuts. Data from NASS indicate that the average walnut production is 1.93 tons per acre. Given that volume and price, a grower would have to farm at least 74 acres to receive $1,000,000, not accounting for input costs. NASS data on farm size indicate that only approximately 42 percent of walnut growers farm more than 74 acres. Thus, most walnut growers may be considered small entities.

Given data from the Board regarding walnut receipts by handlers, including walnut acquisitions and the $7,060 per ton price, only 38 percent of handlers would have annual receipts of $30,000,000. Thus, most walnut handlers may be considered small entities.

This action is expected to positively impact the Board, including members of the Export Committee, by suspending regulations that have not been used in decades. No longer having to gather data, discuss the information, and then make recommendations to the Secretary regarding a reserve obligation allows the Board's meeting early in the marketing year to run more efficiently.

This final rule suspends the reserve obligation and its requirements under the Order for the 2019-20 marketing year and beyond, until the Board recommends to the Secretary that the requirements be reinstated or terminated. This action also removes related references to the reserve obligation and its requirements in the Order.

As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

The Board discussed this action at a strategic planning session held on February 12-13, 2019. The Board's Marketing Order Review Committee (MORC) met on August 14, 2019, to further discuss the reserve obligation and its requirements and made a recommendation for the change at the Board's September 13, 2019 meeting. The strategic planning sessions, the MORC meeting, and the Board meeting on September 13, 2019, were public meetings widely publicized throughout the California walnut industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in Board deliberations.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2020 (85 FR 3551). Copies of the proposed rule were provided to Board members and California walnut handlers. Additionally, the proposed rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending February 21, 2020, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received. Accordingly, USDA makes no changes to the rule as proposed.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 984 as follows:

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2019-0119-E, dated May 29, 2019 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The EASA AD refers to Leonardo Aircraft, formerly Aermacchi S.p.A., as the design approval holder (DAH). The FAA type certificate holder of record for these models is AERMACCHI S.p.A. Therefore, this AD specifies AERMACCHI S.p.A. as the type certificate holder. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0419.

The FAA reviewed Leonardo Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin No. 260SB-166, dated May 27, 2019. The service information contains procedures for inspecting the flap actuators, part numbers SF260-12-215-01, SF260-12-215-101, and SF260-12-215-09, for cracks and damage and taking necessary corrective action. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because it evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA considers this AD interim action. The MCAI requires an initial fluorescent dye penetrant inspection within a short compliance time and repetitive visual inspections thereafter every 100 hours time-in-service (TIS). This AD requires the initial fluorescent dye penetrant inspection. The FAA plans to issue a superseding Notice of proposed rulemaking for the longer-term repetitive visual inspections to provide the public an opportunity to comment. In addition, the inspection reports required by this AD will provide Leonardo Aircraft and the FAA better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the cracking. If final action is identified to address the unsafe condition, the FAA may consider further rulemaking for this reason as well.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the flap actuator could cause the flap actuator to fail and result in reduced control of the airplane. Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-0419; Product Identifier 2019-CE-029-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 54 products of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the fluorescent dye penetrant inspection requirement and 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the initial inspection and reporting requirement required in this AD on U.S. operators to be $22,950, or $425 per product.

In addition, the FAA estimates that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost of $5,680 per product. The FAA has no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

The ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD) 2019-12-01, effective December 9, 2019 (“Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Yaborã Indústria Aeronáutica S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 and ERJ 190-400 airplanes.

This AD was prompted by a failure propagation test, which revealed that when complete loss of the electrical DC essential bus 2 was induced, the smoke detection system of the forward and aft electrical bays erroneously indicated the presence of smoke via the respective EICAS messages. When these messages are displayed the existing AFM procedures require the flightcrew to turn off the essential electrical buses DC ESS BUS 1 and DC ESS BUS 3, which would result in a loss of all electrical DC essential buses, causing loss of electrical power for critical systems of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this AD to provide the flightcrew with revised AFM procedures for responding to erroneous indications of smoke in the electrical bays presented on the EICAS. If the flightcrew followed the existing AFM procedures, it could result in a loss of all electrical DC essential buses, causing loss of electrical power for critical systems of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 describes revisions to the existing AFM procedures associated with messages of smoke in the electronic bays presented on the EICAS.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after evaluating all pertinent information and determining the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and the European Union Safety Agency (EASA) to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, ANAC Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 is incorporated by reference in this final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with ANAC Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Service information specified in ANAC Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 that is required for compliance with ANAC Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0340.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of these products, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-0340; Product Identifier 2019-NM-203-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this AD.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0010 in the Federal Register (85 FR 3301; January 21, 2020), removing Jet Route J-105 and amending VOR Federal airways V-15, V-63, V-272, and V-583 in the vicinity of McAlester, OK, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the McAlester, OK, VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2018-0817 in the Federal Register (85 FR 3814; January 23, 2020), amending VOR Federal airway V-15 by removing the airway segment between the Hobby, TX, VOR/DME and the Navasota, TX, VOR/DME. That airway amendment, effective March 26, 2020, is included in this rule.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 and VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Jet Route and VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Jet Route J-105 and modifying VOR Federal airways V-15, V-63, V-272, and V-583. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the McAlester, OK, VORTAC NAVAID has made this action necessary. The Jet Route and VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.

J-105: J-105 extends between the Ranger, TX, VORTAC and the Badger, WI, VOR/DME. The jet route is removed in its entirety.

V-15: V-15 extends between the Navasota, TX, VOR/DME and the Neosho, MO, VOR/DME; and between the Sioux City, IA, VORTAC and the Minot, ND, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the McAlester, OK, VORTAC between the Bonham, TX, VORTAC and the Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-63: V-63 extends between the Bowie, TX, VORTAC and the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC; and between the Wausau, WI, VORTAC and the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the McAlester, OK, VORTAC between the Texoma, OK, VOR/DME and the Razorback, AR, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-272: V-272 extends between the Dalhart, TX, VORTAC and the Fort Smith, AR, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the McAlester, OK, VORTAC between the Will Rogers, OK, VORTAC and the Fort Smith, AR, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-583: V-583 extends between the Centex, TX, VORTAC and the McAlester, OK, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the McAlester, OK, VORTAC between the Paris, TX, VOR/DME and the McAlester, OK, VORTAC is removed. Concurrent changes to other portions of the airway are not being made, at this time, as noted in the NPRM. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of removing Jet Route J-105 and modifying VOR Federal airways V-15, V-63, V-272, and V-583 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the McAlester, OK, VORTAC NAVAID qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

We are adopting amendments to 17 CFR 227.100 (“Rule 100”), 17 CFR 227.201 (“Rule 201”), 17 CFR 227.301 (“Rule 301”), 17 CFR 227.303 (“Rule 303”) and 17 CFR 227.304 (“Rule 304”) of 17 CFR part 227 (“Regulation Crowdfunding”) under 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. (the “Securities Act”) and to 17 CFR 239.900 (“Form C”) as temporary final rules.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has had far-reaching effects, with small businesses being particularly affected by the closures and safety measures designed to slow the spread of COVID-19. 1 The Commission recognizes that, in the current environment, many small businesses are facing challenges accessing urgently needed capital in a timely and cost-effective manner. A securities offering under Regulation Crowdfunding may be an attractive fundraising option for some small businesses at this time, particularly as a means of allowing an issuer to make use of the internet to reach out to its customers or members of its local community as potential investors as well as to existing investors. However, based on feedback that the Commission has received from its Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee and other outreach conducted by SEC staff, the Commission understands that certain Regulation Crowdfunding requirements may make it difficult for an issuer affected by COVID-19 to launch an offering and see it to completion within a time frame that meets its urgent capital needs. 2

In light of the challenges facing small businesses, the Commission has determined that temporary relief from certain requirements of Regulation Crowdfunding is necessary and appropriate to provide issuers with the opportunity to access capital on an expedited basis while maintaining investor protections. The temporary rules provide flexibility for issuers who meet certain eligibility criteria  3 to assess interest in a Regulation Crowdfunding offering prior to preparation of full offering materials, 4 and then once launched, to close such an offering and have access to funds sooner than would be possible in the absence of the temporary relief. 5 The temporary rules also provide an exemption from certain financial statement review requirements for issuers offering $250,000 or less in reliance on Regulation Crowdfunding within a 12-month period. 6 The following table summarizes the amendments:

Section 28 of the Securities Act  7 provides the Commission with general exemptive authority to conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Securities Act, or of any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.

The Commission intends to monitor the current situation and may, if necessary, extend the time period during which this relief applies, with any additional conditions the Commission deems appropriate and/or issue other relief.

The temporary relief we are providing in this release will be available to issuers who meet certain eligibility criteria. Specifically, in addition to the current eligibility requirements for Regulation Crowdfunding, 8 to rely on the temporary rules for an offering an issuer must have been organized and have had operations for no less than six months prior to the commencement of such offering. 9 We believe that this limitation on eligibility is appropriate because the temporary relief is intended primarily to assist existing businesses that require additional funds because of adverse effects caused by the closures and safety measures designed to slow the spread of COVID-19. In addition, limiting the relief to issuers that had been organized and had operations for at least six months prior to the offering should help mitigate risk to investors associated with use of the temporary accommodations by newly formed businesses. New businesses are not foreclosed from conducting an offering under Regulation Crowdfunding, but will need to comply with existing rules.

In addition, an issuer will be ineligible to rely on the temporary rules for an offering if the issuer has previously sold securities under Regulation Crowdfunding and, in connection with such prior offering(s), did not comply with the requirements in 15 U.S.C. 77d-1(b) (“Section 4A(b)”) of the Securities Act and the related requirements of Regulation Crowdfunding. 10 This limitation will prevent an issuer with a history of non-compliance in Regulation Crowdfunding offerings from taking advantage of the temporary exemptions.

In connection with this temporary amendment, we are making a related amendment to Rule 301 to require that an intermediary  11 involved in an offering by an issuer that is relying on the temporary relief must have a reasonable basis for believing that the issuer has complied with the requirements of Section 4A(b) and the related requirements of Regulation Crowdfunding in prior offerings. 12 For this requirement, the intermediary may reasonably rely on the representations of the issuer concerning compliance with these requirements unless the intermediary has reason to question the reliability of those representations.

In order to conduct a Regulation Crowdfunding offering, an issuer must electronically file its offering statement on Form C with the Commission and provide it to the intermediary facilitating the crowdfunding offering prior to commencing its offering. 13 The offering statement must include specified information, including a discussion of the issuer's financial condition and financial statements. 14 The financial statement requirements are based on the amount offered and sold in reliance on Regulation Crowdfunding within the preceding 12-month period:  15

• For issuers offering $107,000 or less: Financial statements of the issuer and certain information from the issuer's Federal income tax returns, both certified by the principal executive officer. If, however, financial statements of the issuer are available that have either been reviewed or audited by a public accountant that is independent of the issuer, the issuer must provide those financial statements instead and will not need to include the information reported on the Federal income tax returns or the certification by the principal executive officer.

• Issuers offering more than $107,000 but not more than $535,000: Financial statements reviewed by a public accountant that is independent of the issuer. If, however, financial statements of the issuer are available that have been audited by a public accountant that is independent of the issuer, the issuer must provide those financial statements instead and will not need to include the reviewed financial statements.

• Issuers offering more than $535,000:

○ For first-time Regulation Crowdfunding issuers: Financial statements reviewed by a public accountant that is independent of the issuer, unless financial statements of the issuer are available that have been audited by an independent auditor.

○ For issuers that have previously sold securities in reliance on Regulation Crowdfunding: Financial statements audited by a public accountant that is independent of the issuer. 16

In light of the challenges that small businesses are experiencing as a result of COVID-19, we believe that temporary, limited exemptive relief from certain Regulation Crowdfunding requirements for issuers that meet the enhanced eligibility requirements discussed above may help provide timely access to capital, while maintaining appropriate investor protections.

An issuer that seeks to conduct an offering under Regulation Crowdfunding to address urgent funding needs arising from or relating to COVID-19 but that does not have current financial statements available, or that is facing challenges in obtaining reviewed or audited financial statements due to COVID-19, may find it difficult to prepare the required financial statements in order to launch a timely offering. Further, the issuer may be more reluctant to undertake the cost of the preparation of such financial statements during the pandemic without some indication that the securities offering has a chance of succeeding. In light of this, we are providing temporary relief from certain financial information requirements in an issuer's initial Form C filing. The temporary relief will allow an issuer to provide offering information through the intermediary's platform and informally gauge investor interest in an offering before going through the effort and expense of preparing financial statements.

Temporary Rule 201(z)(2) allows an issuer that meets the eligibility requirements described above to (i) omit the financial statements required by Rule 201(t) in its initial Form C filed with the Commission, to the extent such financial statements are not otherwise available; and (ii) commence its offering of securities through the intermediary's platform. Such financial statements are, however, required to be included in an amendment to the Form C and provided to investors and the intermediary before the intermediary accepts any investment commitments in the offering. 17

An issuer relying on this temporary rule must prominently disclose that:

• The financial information that has been omitted is not otherwise available and will be provided by an amendment to the offering materials;

• The investor should review the complete set of offering materials, including previously omitted financial information, prior to making an investment decision; and

• No investment commitments will be accepted until after such financial information has been provided. 18

We believe that this clear disclosure to potential investors, along with the enhanced eligibility requirements and the inability of an intermediary to accept any investment commitment prior to an investor's receipt of all required information, will provide appropriate protections to investors involved in such offerings.

Market participants have indicated to the Commission that a temporary change to the offering threshold that triggers the requirement to include financial statements that are reviewed by a public accountant that is independent of the issuer could facilitate capital raising by issuers affected by COVID-19. 19 In response, we are adopting temporary Rule 201(z)(3), that would apply to an eligible issuer  20 in an offering or offerings that, together with all other amounts sold in Regulation Crowdfunding offerings within the preceding 12-month period, have, in the aggregate, a target offering amount of more than $107,000, but not more than $250,000. 21 Such an issuer may provide financial statements of the issuer and certain information from the issuer's Federal income tax returns, both certified by the principal executive officer, in accordance with 17 CFR 227.201(t)(1) (“Rule 201(t)(1)”), instead of the financial statements reviewed by a public accountant that is independent of the issuer that would otherwise be required by 17 CFR 227.201(t)(2) (“Rule 201(t)(2)”). This temporary relief would apply only if reviewed or audited financial statements of the issuer are not otherwise available.

An issuer relying on this temporary rule would be required to provide prominent disclosure that financial information certified by the principal executive officer of the issuer has been provided instead of financial statements reviewed by a public accountant that is independent of the issuer. 22

We are of the view that the financial statement requirements of Rule 201(t)(1), although less rigorous than Rule 201(t)(2), provide appropriate information and protection to investors in offerings up to the higher $250,000 threshold, when considered in conjunction with the prominent disclosure to investors and other conditions to an issuer's reliance on the temporary rule.

Regulation Crowdfunding requires that the information in an offering statement be publicly available on the intermediary's platform for at least 21 days before any securities may be sold, although the intermediary may accept investment commitments during that time. 23 In addition, Regulation Crowdfunding includes specific requirements with respect to cancellation of investment commitments and the ability to close an offering prior to the originally announced deadline once the target amount is met. 24

Market participants have indicated that these timing requirements, in light of business disruptions resulting from COVID-19, may make it difficult for issuers with urgent funding needs to make use of Regulation Crowdfunding to receive funds promptly. 25 As a result, we are adopting the following temporary relief from these timing requirements for offerings initiated between May 4, 2020, and August 31, 2020.

Rule 303(a) of Regulation Crowdfunding sets forth the requirements applicable to an intermediary with respect to the availability of specified issuer information to the Commission and to investors. This includes a requirement that the information be made publicly available on the intermediary's platform for a minimum of 21 days before any securities are sold in the offering. During this time, the intermediary may accept investment commitments. 26 In addition, Rule 303(e)(3)(i) similarly imposes a 21-day requirement with respect to the availability of issuer information when a funding portal is directing a qualified third party to transmit funds to an issuer. Rule 304(b), as discussed below, also requires that an offering remain open for a minimum of 21 days pursuant to Rule 303(a).

This 21-day time period, particularly when considered alongside the time required for an issuer to prepare its offering materials and commence an offering under Regulation Crowdfunding, may diminish the utility of Regulation Crowdfunding for issuers with urgent capital needs as a result of COVID-19. Therefore, we are adopting temporary Rule 303(g), under which an intermediary is not required to comply with Rule 303(a)(2)'s 21-day requirement, but instead must make the required issuer information publicly available on the intermediary's platform before any securities are sold in the offering. 27 The intermediary may accept investment commitments beginning when such information is made available, but only if the issuer has provided the financial information required by Rule 201(t). 28 Similarly, a funding portal is not required to comply with the 21-day requirement in Rule 303(e)(3)(i) with respect to directing a transmission of funds after a sale has occurred and the cancellation period has elapsed.

An issuer may not rely on the temporary rules unless it meets the temporary eligibility requirements and provides prominent disclosure that the offering is being conducted on an expedited basis due to circumstances relating to COVID-19 and pursuant to this temporary relief.

While the Commission continues to believe that the 21-day time period provides important investor protections by helping to ensure that an investor has an adequate opportunity to evaluate an investment opportunity, 29 we believe the prominent disclosure required by the temporary rules will make clear to potential investors that there may be a compressed time frame for the offering, and allow them to take that information into consideration when determining whether or not to invest. For instance, the disclosure will put investors on notice that they may have a shortened time frame within which to consider information about the type of offering the issuer is conducting. 30

Section 4A(b)(1)(G) of the Securities Act requires an issuer, prior to sale, to provide investors “a reasonable opportunity to rescind the commitment to purchase the securities.” Rule 304(a) of Regulation Crowdfunding gives investors an unconditional right to cancel an investment commitment for any reason until 48 hours prior to the deadline identified in the issuer's offering materials. Thereafter, an investor is not able to cancel any investment commitments made within the final 48 hours of the offering (except in the event of a material change to the offering).

Rule 304(b) provides that if an issuer reaches the target offering amount prior to the deadline identified in its offering materials, it may close the offering once the target offering amount is reached, provided that: (1) The offering remains open for a minimum of 21 days; (2) the intermediary provides notice about the new offering deadline at least five business days prior to the new offering deadline; (3) investors are given the opportunity to reconsider their investment decision and to cancel their investment commitment until 48 hours prior to the new offering deadline; and (4) at the time of the new offering deadline, the issuer continues to meet or exceed the target offering amount.

These requirements relating to an investor's ability to cancel an investment commitment and an issuer's ability to close an offering once the target offering amount has been met provide protections to investors by enabling them to reconsider investment decisions with the benefit of the views of the crowd or other information that may come to light during the offering period. However, these requirements may, like the 21-day requirement, diminish the utility of Regulation Crowdfunding for issuers with urgent capital needs as a result of COVID-19.

To facilitate the use of Regulation Crowdfunding to address urgent funding needs, we are adopting temporary Rule 304(e) and a related disclosure requirement in temporary Rule 201(z)(1)(iv). These rules would permit an investor in an offering conducted under the temporary rules to cancel an investment commitment for any reason within 48 hours from the time of his or her investment commitment (or such later period as the issuer may designate). 31 After such 48-hour period, an investment commitment may be cancelled only if there is a material change to the terms of an offering or to the information provided by the issuer, as provided in Rule 304(c). In addition, once an issuer has received binding investment commitments (that is, investment commitments for which the 48-hour cancellation period has run) that equal or exceed the target offering amount, the issuer may close the offering on a date earlier than the deadline identified in its offering materials. 32 In order to do so, the issuer must comply with additional disclosure requirements described below and the intermediary must provide notice that the target offering amount has been met. The intermediary is not required to provide five business days' notice of the earlier closing deadline, as would normally be required under Rule 304(b). At the time of the closing of the offering, the issuer must continue to have binding investment commitments that meet or exceed the target offering amount.

We believe that it is appropriate to provide temporary relief from these requirements so that issuers can more readily raise capital to meet their urgent funding needs, while providing protections in the form of prominent, clear disclosure to investors of the changes in the process and preserving the rules that permit cancellations when there has been a material change in the offering.

The temporary rule requires the issuer to provide a prominent description of the process to complete the transaction or cancel an investment commitment, including a statement that:

• Investors may cancel an investment commitment for any reason within 48 hours from the time of their investment commitment (or such later period as the issuer may designate);

• The intermediary will notify investors when the target offering amount has been met;

I. Background

On January 6, 2015, at 80 FR 423, HUD proposed a rule to implement several statutory changes made in the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2014 and also make multiple administrative streamlining changes across several HUD programs. In that proposed rule, some of these additional streamlining changes applied only to the HCV and PH programs, not MFH programs.

Prior to the issuance of the final rule, on December 4, 2015, the President signed the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94). While primarily a transportation law, section 78001 of the FAST Act also amended the United States Housing Act of 1937 to allow PHAs and owners in the HCV, PH, and project-based rental assistance (PBRA) programs to eliminate annual income reviews in some years by applying a cost of living adjustment (COLA) determined by the Secretary to fixed-income sources for families with incomes that are made up of at least 90 percent fixed income. The PHA or owner is not required to verify non-fixed income amounts for these families in years where no fixed-income review is required but is still required to use third-party documentation for a full income recertification every 3 years.

On December 12, 2017, at 82 FR 58335, 1 HUD published an interim final rule to implement the statutory provisions of the FAST Act and modify the earlier streamlining regulations so that the procedures for families meeting the 90 percent fixed-income threshold of the FAST Act are as similar as possible to those for families who receive some, but less than 90 percent, of their income from fixed-income sources. This rule finalizes that interim final rule, along with one clarification.

In response to public comment and as a result of further consideration of certain issues by HUD, this final rule makes one change to the December 12, 2017 interim final rule.

In § 5.657, the December 12, 2017 interim final rule made changes to an owner's option to apply a streamlined income determination to families receiving fixed income. In paragraph (d)(3)(i), the interim final rule stated that “[f]or non-fixed income, owners may choose, but are not required, to make appropriate adjustments pursuant to” the owner's obligation to conduct reexaminations and redeterminations of family income and composition. In this final rule, HUD is revising this sentence to read that “[f]or non-fixed income, owners are not required to make adjustments pursuant to” the owner's obligation to conduct reexaminations and redeterminations of family income and composition. HUD is making this change at the final rule stage to clarify that owners are not required to make such adjustments.

Identical changes are made to the language regarding the PHA's option to apply a streamlined income determination to families receiving fixed income. These changes affecting PHAs are made to §§ 960.257(c)(3)(i) and 982.516(b)(3)(i).

The public comment period on the interim final rule closed on January 11, 2018, and 15 public comments were received. Comments were submitted by individual members of the public, Fair Housing advocacy groups, housing associations, and PHAs. The following presents the significant issues and questions related to the interim final rule raised by the commenters, and HUD's responses to these issues and questions.

The comments were generally supportive. Commenters noted that it would reduce costs and make it easier for seniors to recertify income. Others supported the expansion of flexibilities and the streamlining of administrative changes across the HCV, PH and MFH programs, as it would reduce administrative burden on PHAs and MFH owners to make annual rental assistance adjustments and make it easier for program staff to apply consistent regulations.

Issue: Single-family housing. Commenters asked whether the rule includes residential single-family housing.

HUD Response: The FAST Act interim rule was, and this final rule is, only intended to include units assisted by multifamily housing programs overseen by the Office of Housing, as well as all Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher units (both single- and multifamily).

Issue: Project-Based Voucher (PBV) recertifications. Commenters stated that the rule does not explicitly state that families with PBV assistance qualify for triennial recertifications and requested that the rule include specific language stating that PBV-assisted households are eligible for triennial recertifications.

HUD Response: Income recertification requirements for the PBV program follow HCV program rules and guidelines; therefore, the provisions related to reexamination of income apply to the PBV program.

Issue: Additional guidance. Commenters asked that HUD include with each provision the program office to which the provision applies, a description of change, background information, effective date, and whether the provision is mandatory or discretionary.

HUD Response: Applicability, description of change, background information, and effective dates will be further defined in program guidance. All provisions of this rule are discretionary.

Issue: Plans. Commenters asked whether, outside of Section 202 or Section 811, an owner would need to create a policy or update their Tenant Selection Plan to reflect their choice of implementing the streamlined method.

HUD Response: If an owner chooses to implement streamlined methods, the tenant selection plan should be updated where the property's annual recertification requirements and interim recertification reporting policies are discussed.

Issue: Contract amendments. A commenter asked how HUD plans to amend assistance contracts of owners.

HUD Response: HUD does not believe that the changes made by the FAST Act interim rule necessitate a change in the assistance contracts of owners. The FAST Act interim rule made the following changes, none of which is addressed in a Housing Assistance Payment contract: (1) Streamlining certification of fixed income; (2) allowing for family declaration for assets under $5,000; and (3) allowing owners to make a utility reimbursement of $45 or less on a quarterly basis. For the Section 202 and Section 811 programs, the current regulations do not contain the requirements around utility reimbursements in general, leaving such requirements in the assistance contracts. Therefore, HUD is not including regulatory text to implement these new flexibilities in the final rule, but rather would be open to amending the assistance contracts of any owners interested in taking advantage of this flexibility. Owners of Section 202 and 811 properties should contact their Contract Administrator or Account Executive if they wish to request a contract amendment. To amend the 202 or 811 assistance contract, owners will need to submit the standard form of contract amendment which will be provided by HUD upon request. HUD will provide instructions for execution and submission with the standard contract amendment.

Issue: Software. Commenters asked how the streamlining provisions will be implemented with MFH's Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). They asked whether the software packages will know what to do if owners and agents either opt in or out of the streamlined certifications. They suggested that some type of structure be implemented so that Management Occupancy Reviews can be conducted consistently across portfolios.

HUD Response: The provisions in this rule can be handled by the current iteration of TRACS. Although streamlining certifications is now permitted by owners, form HUD-50059 is still required to be completed by owners and signed by tenants and submitted to TRACS. HUD will consider changes to TRACS that may make tracking streamlined years easier.

Issue: Medical expenses. Some commenters were concerned that the rule does not address how to treat medical expenses for residents with fixed income. They asked whether owners and agents should conduct full recertifications for residents with medical expense claims while conducting streamlined recertifications for residents that do not claim medical expenses. They suggested that HUD specifically address the fact that, while this rule does not incorporate the increased standard medical deduction and new threshold for deduction of allowable medical expenses or incorporate authority to use the past year's income and expenses that will be coming as the Housing Opportunity through Modernization Act (HOTMA) changes are implemented, HUD intends owners and agents to continue to provide annual adjustments for verified allowable medical expense deductions.

HUD Response: The FAST Act and the interim rule provide administrative relief to PHAs and owners. PHAs and owners may elect a streamlined income determination for families on a fixed income. However, the provision only pertains to the verification of sources of income. PHAs and owners must continue to conduct third-party verification of deductions, including medical expenses deductions.

HUD proposed a rule to implement income changes made by HOTMA, including medical expense deductions, published on September 17, 2019, at 84 FR 48820. HUD does not perceive a conflict between the FAST Act and HOTMA.

Issue: Relationship with current regulations. Commenters asked that HUD reiterate that Notice H 2016-09 is still applicable and that owners may continue streamlined verification for all fixed income sources, regardless of overall percentage of total income.

HUD Response: The Streamlining Administrative Regulations for PH, HCV, MFH, and Community Planning and Development programs final rule (81 FR 12353) and its implementing guidance in Notice H 2016-09 are still in effect alongside the provisions found in this rule.

Issue: Fixed-income sources. Commenters asked that HUD expand qualified fixed-income sources to include Retirement Survivors and Disability Income and income from Federal, State, local and private pension plans if a family member receives such income through periodic payments at reasonable predictable levels.

HUD Response: The definition of fixed income found in 24 CFR 5.657(2)(iv) includes “other sources” that are subject to adjustment by a verifiable COLA or current rate of interest. Therefore, other sources of fixed income are already included, if the source falls within the framework established under this provision.

Issue: Commenters asked when owners and agents can and cannot choose to verify non-fixed income. They asked whether owners and agents must always verify non-fixed income regardless of the percentage of the income that is fixed and if owners must adopt all provisions of the new rule if they choose to adopt any. They asked that HUD emphasize that housing agencies must apply annual reexaminations to households with 90 percent fixed income, but that PHAs have discretion to apply such reexaminations to households with 100 percent fixed income.

HUD Response: Section 78001 of the FAST Act amended the United States Housing Act of 1937 to allow PHAs and owners in the HCV, PH, and PBRA programs to eliminate annual income reviews in some years by applying a COLA determined by the Secretary to fixed income sources for families with incomes that are made up of at least 90 percent fixed income. The FAST Act did not require PHAs and owners to verify non-fixed income amounts in years where no fixed-income review is required, but did require them to use third-party documentation for a full income recertification every 3 years.

The interim final rule and this final rule both reflect the FAST Act by allowing PHAs and owners to use a COLA for fixed sources if such sources make up at least 90 percent of a tenant's income. HUD has made a slight adjustment in the regulatory text in this final rule to clarify the language in §§ 5.657(d)(3)(i), 960.257(c)(3)(i), and 982.516(b)(3)(i) to emphasize that PHAs and owners are not required to make adjustments for non-fixed income in such instances when using streamlined income determinations.

This rule does not alleviate the responsibility to conduct reexaminations each year, but rather changes the standards for income verification during those reexaminations. “Reexaminations” encompass more actions than income verifications. For example, reexaminations consider verifications of expenses related to deductions, verifications of family composition, compliance with the Community Service and Self Sufficiency requirement in the public housing program, etc.

Issue: Triennial certifications. Commenters requested clarification of the 3-year verification. They asked whether an owner or agent must verify income at the beginning of every third year of tenancy or every three calendar years from the date a tenant moves in. They requested that HUD provide a common use form as a template or subsequent guidance or examples for owners or agents.

HUD Response: The provisions of this rule are discretionary. Owners that choose to implement streamlined annual recertifications must use third-party verification of income at move-in for new tenants and for existing tenants at the first annual recertification after the rule becomes effective. Streamlined methods of verification of income may be applied to the annual recertification the year after third-party verified certification (year 2) and the next annual recertification (year 3). Third-party verification of income must be used for the following annual certification (year 4). HUD will not provide a common use form at this time.

Issue: Staggered certifications. Commenters requested that PHAs be allowed to stagger implementation of triennial recertifications of assisted households to mitigate substantial increases in work at the end of each triennial period.

HUD Response: Staggering recertifications has a potential impact of disparate treatment among similarly situated families. PHAs and owners choosing to implement triennial recertifications must afford all households the equal ability to utilize options in the final rule. HUD will not permit responsible entities to stagger recertifications.

Income verifications following new admissions or interim reexaminations will naturally be staggered. Existing families will have had the first triennial verification 3 years after implementation. Any new admissions in the year following initial implementation for existing families will have income verification in the year following initial implementation and then 3 years after that.

Issue: Using prior certifications. Commenters stated that HUD should allow the full certifications that owners and agents completed prior to the implementation of the rule on March 12, 2018, to qualify under the rule. They state that this would allow PHAs and owners to benefit from the rule despite its delayed implementation.

HUD Response: The authority to utilize provisions of this rule was not granted until March 12, 2018. Certifications completed prior to the rule's implementation date cannot be included in the year 3 streamline certification cycle. Additionally, the first eligible COLA-based certification is April 2019.

Issue: Timing of implementation. Commenters asked that HUD make clear that for housing agencies that choose to implement annual reexaminations for fixed sources of income, lower voucher payment standards for existing households under the lease will take effect on the second annual recertification and not at the third. They also ask that HUD clarify that housing agencies will not be required to wait to implement triennial certifications.

HUD Response: Payment standards and the timing of their application are not affected. PHAs are still required to process an annual recertification and submit to PIH Information Center. Triennial certifications may be implemented for new tenants at move-in and for current tenants on or after March 12, 2018, at the next annual recertification, following the update to the PHA's or owner's policy.

Issue: Previously reported income. Commenters stated that housing agencies, owners, and managers should be allowed to use previously reported income in years 1, 2, or 3 for purposes of calculating tenant rent share and rent subsidy if the tenant has a transfer of unit, relocation, or port-out.

HUD Response: For portability in the HCV program, the receiving PHA has discretion to accept the most recent calculation of income on the HUD-50058 or redetermine income. If the receiving PHA chooses to redetermine income, a full reexamination would need to be completed. For moves with continued assistance in the Voucher program or transfers within a Public Housing property, PHAs are permitted to continue with the streamlined schedule.

For MFH programs, unit transfers cannot occur between properties. The new property must process a move-in certification and begin the streamlined process from the third-party verified move-in certification. For unit transfers within the property, owners are permitted to continue with the streamlined schedule unless the transfer involves circumstances that result in the family being unable to certify that 90 percent of income is fixed and fixed sources have not changed from the prior year.

Issue: Increased fraud and unreported income. Some commenters stated that it will cause confusion and allow for mistakes, fraud, unreported income, and mass income discrepancies. They stated that decreased contact with households, especially non-elderly households with members who are able to function in the workplace while receiving traditional sources of fixed income, could create a rise of fraud, unreported earned income, and deceit in the recertification process. They also stated that confusion is more likely if some project residents verify annually while other verify every 3 years. They asked that bank statements continue to be reviewed to avoid fraud and unreported self-employment income.

HUD Response: HUD acknowledges the commenters' stated concerns. The stated elements of risk were reviewed prior to publication of the rule. Provisions of this rule are discretionary. Further guidance will be provided by program offices for PHAs and owners who choose to implement provisions of the rule.

Issue: Certifications. Commenters asked that the term “three-year certification” be clarified, as they state it is unclear whether residents must still provide annual certifications regarding assets and income. They recommend replacing the word “certification” with “declaration” to avoid confusion with historical uses for the word certification.

HUD Response: PHAs and owners must conduct reexamination of household income and composition at least annually. This requirement remains in effect and is completed during the annual recertification process. The rule streamlines the annual recertification process by modifying income and asset verification methods but does not impact the requirement to reexamine the household income and composition at least annually. Annual recertifications performed during the 3-year streamlined certification cycle will continue to be referred to as a certification.

Issue: Declaration of income. Commenters asked whether a tenant can provide a single document declaring income or if documents must be obtained for each source of fixed income.

HUD Response: For the annual recertification initiating the 3-year certification cycle, PHAs and owners must adhere to established verification methods. For the next two annual recertifications, if the tenant declares the income has not changed, there is no need to collect declarations for each source.

Issue: Enterprise Income Verification. Some commenters asked that HUD include language from Notice H 2016-09 and Notice H 2010-19 on the use of the Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) System in the rule so that it is clear that owners must continue full income verification for residents with more than 10 percent of income from non-fixed sources and that owners may use current applicable interest rates available from public sources or tenant-provided, third-party generated documentation to determine interest income on net family assets.

HUD Response: The provisions of the rule do not change established EIV requirements. EIV usage will be further defined in program guidance. Requirements related to determining interest income on net family assets are not changed are by this rule.

Issue: In general. Commenters stated that the changes seem more burdensome than the existing verification requirements and therefore owners and agents will be less likely to choose the proposed method. The commenters also stated that the rule would not be beneficial, as the COLA or rate of interest on an individual's source of fixed-income must be verified annually.

HUD Response: PHAs and owners have discretion in implementing provisions in this rule. If the PHA or owner determines that the rule's provisions are not beneficial, implementation is not required. To aid in implementation, further guidance will be provided.

Issue: 90 percent calculation. Commenters stated that the interim rule added the “90 percent or more” language to the streamlining final rule, which would cause owners and agents to conduct additional income calculations and could result in eligibility issues due to calculation errors.

HUD Response: The FAST Act only permits streamlined determinations for all income (including income from non-fixed-income sources) when the family's income is 90 percent or more from fixed-income sources, so the additional calculation is required by the statute. HUD recognizes that this requirement entails a determination whether the 90 percent threshold is met. However, PHAs and owners still retain the option to not streamline determinations pursuant to the FAST Act, but rather only streamline individual sources of income, per the March 8, 2016, final rule (81 FR 12353).

Issue: Layering of assistance. Some commenters stated that owners of projects with other affordability requirements or tenants who do not have 90 percent of income fixed may still need to certify annually, and therefore the proposed rule would not reduce burden. The commenters also stated that monitoring reporting cycles will be an increased burden to project owners, as not all project residents will be on the same 3-year reporting cycle.

HUD Response: It is understood that the streamlining efforts identified in the FAST Act may not be beneficial in all scenarios. Owners have the option of continuing to process annual recertifications of family income and composition as done prior to this rule being published. Owners must be aware of policies in other programs, however; HUD cannot comment on programs that are not subject to FAST Act provisions.

Issue: Self-certification of assets. Commenters questioned whether allowing residents to self-certify assets of $5,000 or less will reduce administrative burden, as more effort may be used to monitor and determine the amount of tenant pension than just verifying the tenant pension.

HUD Response: PHAs and owners may accept tenant self-certification for assets of $5,000 or less for years 2 and 3 of the streamlined 3-year cycle. Provisions of the FAST Act affect the means by which income is identified. PHAs and owners have discretion in implementing provisions in this rule. If the rule's provisions are not beneficial, implementation is not required.

Issue: Form 9886. Commenters stated that HUD should not require fixed-income households to complete HUD's 9886 authorization form to access the Enterprise Income Verification each year. Instead, they state that the 9886 authorization form should only be required for full recertifications every 3 years. They ask that HUD extend the 9886 authorization form for at least 15 months to allow housing authorities to benefit from triennial recertifications in early 2018.

HUD Response: HUD acknowledges the stated concern and suggestion of the commenter. At this time, HUD is not extending the effective period of forms HUD 9886 and 9887.

Issue: Reducing the number of forms. One commenter stated that HUD should not require PHAs to collect all of the currently required certification forms from fixed-income households during years 2 and 3 of the triennial period.

HUD Response: The required certification forms are in connection with other HUD regulatory and statutory requirements. HUD does not have the authority under this rule to discontinue the requirement to collect these forms.

Issue: Bank statements. Commenters stated that it would be difficult to obtain six consecutive bank statements for family declarations of assets. They asked whether owners and agents would need to use the tenants' declaration of asset income similar to the tax credit program.

HUD Response: For move-ins and annual recertifications initiating the 3-year streamlining cycle, PHAs and owners or agents must adhere to current program guidance. For years 2 and 3, the rule requires households to complete a declaration of assets of $5,000 or less.

Issue: Setting allowances. Commenters stated that the utility allowance should not be a project-based allowance based on an artificial average. The commenters stated that the utility allowance should instead be based on the annual recertification process, wherein each resident provides its own bills in the annual certification process and the allowance is calculated as part of the resident's total tenant payment. The commenters stated that the utilities reimbursements should be made monthly, as it would otherwise be more difficult for accounting to issue checks.

HUD Response: The process of determining utility allowance is outside the scope of this rule. PHAs and owners have discretion to utilize the provision of issuing utility reimbursements equal to or less than $15 per month on a quarterly basis. If it is determined that the provision will create administrative hardships, implementation is not required.

Issue: Hardships. Commenters requested clarification on what policies owners/agents should adopt to assist tenants that might experience a financial hardship under the rule. They stated that a tenant that receives a utility reimbursement has very limited or no income and therefore it would be difficult to determine what would constitute a hardship. They asked whether HUD has analyzed or calculated the amounts at which tenants may claim a financial hardship.

HUD Response: Hardship policies for utility reimbursements will be addressed through program-specific guidance.

Issue: Contract amendments. Commenters asked HUD to provide clarity on the process for 202 and 811 Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRACs) to amend their assistance contracts to incorporate changes to utility reimbursement payments. They suggested HUD provide a centralized point of contact to assist owners with amending assistance contracts for this purpose.

HUD Response: The provisions of this rule do not affect the regulation and program guidance governing the requirements of adjusting utility allowances. PHAs and owners must perform utility allowance adjustments in accordance with established guidance.

Issue: Relationship with annual reexaminations. Commenters asked that HUD clarify that those housing agencies that implement annual reexaminations for fixed sources of income would still have to adjust tenant-paid utility allowances.

HUD Response: The provisions of this rule do not affect the regulation and program guidance governing the requirements of adjusting utility allowances. PHAs and owners must perform utility allowance adjustments in accordance with established guidance.

Issue: COLA adjustment. Commenters stated that COLA should be adjusted so that all households pay their fair portion.

HUD Response: The COLA is adjusted each year based on actual COLA. The changes in rent are based on the change in COLA. Changing the amount of the COLA is outside the scope of this rule.

Issue: Which COLA to use. Commenters asked that housing agencies, owners, and managers use the Social Security Administration's COLA as the single COLA, unless requested otherwise by a household.

HUD Response: The rule does not implicate the use of a single COLA. PHAs and owners or agents must use the COLA applicable to the income source.

Issue: When to start using COLA. Commenters stated that HUD should explicitly state that owners may begin to use the current SSA COLA as of the rule effective date of March 12, 2018, to adjust the overall total or each line item for the various sources of fixed sources of income. They also state that this factor should apply to all other income that comprise less than 10 percent of the total resident incomes, where the owner chooses not to verify them.

HUD Response: The authority to utilize provisions of this rule was not granted until March 12, 2018. Certifications completed prior to the interim rule's implementation date cannot be included in the second or third year of the streamline certification cycle. The first eligible COLA-based certification is April 2019. For families with 90 percent or more of their income from fixed sources, sources of non-fixed income need not be adjusted and must not be adjusted by a COLA, but the PHA or owner may choose to adjust sources of non-fixed income by the amount determined on the basis of third-party verification.

The rule does not allow the use of a single COLA. PHAs and owners or agents must use the COLA applicable to the income source.

Issue: Single COLA. Commenters asked that HUD provide more information on whether owners should use a current COLA and explicitly state that HUD will issue a notice before a single-value COLA can be implemented.

HUD Response: The rule does not implicate the use of a single COLA. PHAs and owners or agents must use the COLA applicable to the income source.

Issue: Required interim recertifications. Commenters stated that HUD should make explicit that interim recertifications are not required of housing agencies, owners, or managers when the COLA is to take effect, but the COLAs will instead be applied to household income on an annual basis at their lease anniversary.

HUD Response: This rule requires that an adjustment be made at annual recertification. HUD is not prohibiting interim recertifications as a result of a change in the COLA. Tenants and owners must continue to follow the income recertification requirements identified in the lease agreement, and PHAs must follow the income recertification requirements in their policies.

Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome,” and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This rule was not determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of the Executive order.

As discussed in more detail in the December 12, 2017, interim final rule, this final rule continues to further HUD's efforts to streamline administrative requirements for owners receiving subsidies under the HCV, PH, PBRA, Section 202 and Section 811 programs. Specifically, this final rule continues to give PHAs and owners greater flexibilities in determining tenant families' income and assets, and in issuing utility reimbursements. The final rule also continues to provide PHAs and owners with the discretion to implement these changes. Some may choose the status quo; others will choose the streamlining alternative. By allowing voluntary implementation, HUD enables participants to choose their desired method of administration, which in many cases will presumably be the least-cost method. Given that an unknown number of PHAs and owners may choose the status quo, it is difficult to estimate the savings with precision. Based on the assumptions above, the interim final rule and this final rule expect aggregate savings to be approximately $31.2 million ($24.9 million from income verification + $0.6 million from utility reimbursement + $5.9 million from asset verification).

Executive Order 13771 entitled, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. The interim final rule, published on December 12, 2017, at 82 FR 58335, was considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action based on the cost savings mentioned above. This final rule does not make substantive changes to the interim final rule, and therefore does not contribute any additional cost savings. However, the final rule continues the potential for future cost savings established by the interim final rule.

The information collection requirements contained in this final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2502-0204. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This final rule involves external administrative requirements and procedures related to calculation of HUD rental assistance that do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments nor preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers applicable to the program affected by this final rule are 14.157, 14.181, 14.195, 14.850, and 14.871.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 24 CFR parts 5, 891, 960, and 982, which was published at 82 FR 58335 on December 12, 2017, is adopted as final with the following changes:

I. Background on the West Virginia Program II. Submission of the Amendment III. OSMRE's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSMRE's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the West Virginia Program

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the West Virginia program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the West Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the West Virginia program in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5915). You can also find later actions concerning West Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 948.16.

By letter dated April 8, 2008, and received electronically on April 17, 2008 (Administrative Record Number WV-1503), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an amendment to its permanent regulatory program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). The amendment included changes to the West Virginia Code of State Regulations (CSR) and the West Virginia Code, as contained in Committee Substitutes for Senate Bills 373 and 751.

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 373 authorized revisions to the State's Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations at 38 CSR 2 and its Surface Mining Blasting Regulations at 199 CSR 1. Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 373 was adopted by the Legislature on March 6, 2008, and signed into law by the Governor on March 28, 2008. West Virginia Code at paragraphs 64-3-1 (o) and (p) authorized WVDEP to promulgate the revisions to its rules as legislative rules. This amendment included a variety of topics, including new language for technical completeness, sediment control, storm water runoff, blasting, excess spoil fills, bonding programs, water quality, seismograph records, and definitions.

In addition, the amendment included Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751, which was adopted by the Legislature on March 8, 2008, and approved by the Governor on March 27, 2008. Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751 amended and reenacted Section 22-3-11 of the WVSCMRA. As mentioned above, OSMRE approved, on an interim basis, under a separate Federal Register document a portion of the bill relating to the special reclamation tax and the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund (73 FR 33884-33888). The interim rule with request for comments was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008 (Administrative Record Number WV-1507). The public comment period closed on July 16, 2008.

We announced receipt of the remaining portions of the proposed amendment in the July 8, 2008, Federal Register (73 FR 38941-38951). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the proposed amendment (Administrative Record Number WV-1508). We did not hold a hearing or a meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period closed on August 7, 2008. We received comments from three Federal agencies and one industry group regarding the various provisions announced in the interim and proposed rules.

The following are the findings that we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. As discussed below, we are approving the proposed State amendment. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below, such as changes from “Office” to “Secretary,” “Office” to “office,” or “Office of Explosives and Blasting” to “Secretary” concern non-substantive wording or editorial changes and are approved here without further discussion. The full text of the program amendment is available online at www.regulations.gov or through OSMRE's West Virginia administrative record, upon request.

Pursuant to Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 373, West Virginia proposes the following revisions to its Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations at Title 38 CSR 2.

West Virginia proposes to change the references in Subdivisions 3.1.c and 3.1.d from subsection 2.87 to subsection 2.85. These changes are necessary to reference the correct subsection, which defines ownership and control.

We find that the proposed State revisions to Subdivisions 3.1.c and 3.1.d are not inconsistent with the Federal ownership and control requirements at 30 CFR 778.11, and the revisions are approved.

Notice of technical completeness is new language that is to be added to the State's regulations. It is to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on a permit application once technical review is completed by the State and the application has been supplemented by the applicant after the close of the public comment period.

Under the State's current regulations, after a permit application has been determined to be administratively complete and the initial public notice and review process has been initiated and in some cases completed, clarification information or additional material is sometimes submitted by the applicant to supplement that permit application in response to the State's technical review or public comments. While the State may require a re-advertisement with a 10-day comment period under the current provisions of Subdivision 3.2.e., these provisions do not provide the State sufficient authority to require that such applications be re-advertised once they are determined to be technically complete. While the term “technically complete” as used in the proposed rule is not defined, WVDEP provided further clarification regarding its use of the term in a conversation with the Charleston Field Office (Administrative Record WV-1515). The State would require readvertisement under this new provision if its technical review results in an applicant making revisions to the probable hydrologic consequences determination, storm water runoff analysis (SWROA), maps, designs or some other technical aspect of the permit application. In addition, if an application is determined to be technically complete and the applicant has failed to readvertise it for several months, the Secretary may require it to be readvertised in accordance with Subdivision 3.2.g.

Because this new proposed Subdivision 3.2.g creates opportunities for public review of permit applications that are in addition to those opportunities available under SMCRA or the Federal regulations, we find that it is not inconsistent with the Federal public notice provisions at section 513 of SMCRA and the Federal public participation requirements at 30 CFR 773.6, and it is approved.

This amendment proposes to delete language regarding incidental boundary revisions that provides “or where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary that limited coal removal on areas immediately adjacent to the existing permit.” This proposal is in response to earlier OSMRE concerns raised in the March 2, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 10768) about the State's incidental boundary revision requirements. In that notice, OSMRE indicated that the wording of the rule resulted in an incomplete sentence, which should be revised as the State has proposed in this amendment.

As mentioned, the proposed State revisions are in response to an earlier decision by OSMRE regarding the State's incidental boundary requirements. We find that the proposed revisions to Subdivision 3.29.a are no less effective than the Federal permit revision requirements at 30 CFR 774.13(d), and the revisions are approved.

This amendment proposes to delete language at Subdivision 3.32.b relating to required written findings for permit issuance.

The State is proposing to delete data collection requirements, which it has determined are no longer necessary for the administration of its approved permanent regulatory program. The requirements proposed for deletion have no counterparts in SMCRA or in its implementing Federal regulations. Moreover, the remaining State requirements still require the use of the Federal Applicant Violator System and other State databases to determine permit eligibility. Therefore, we find that the proposed revisions at Subdivision 3.32.b are no less stringent than the Federal permitting requirements at section 510 of SMCRA, no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulatory requirements at 30 CFR 773.8, 773.11, and 773.12, and the revisions are approved.

This amendment proposes to remove the words “Impoundments meeting” after “30 CFR 77.216(a).” This revision is to delete language that OSMRE previously disapproved relating to impoundments. See the March 2, 2006, Federal Register for further explanation (71 FR 10764).

As discussed in the March 2, 2006, Federal Register , OSMRE determined that the words “Impoundments meeting” confuses the intended meaning of the provision that identifies the impoundments that a licensed land surveyor may not inspect. Therefore, the words “Impoundments meeting” in Subparagraph 5.4.e.1 were not approved by OSMRE (71 FR at 10771). We find that the State's proposed revision to delete the words “Impoundment meeting” at Subparagraph 5.4.e.1 is no less effective than the Federal inspection requirements for impoundments at 30 CFR 816.49(a)(11)(iv) and 817.49(a)(11)(iv), and it is approved.

Furthermore, we are amending and reserving 30 CFR 948.12(i)(1) to implement this decision.

This amendment proposes to delete language and add new language regarding the construction of natural drain ways subsequent to sediment pond removal.

The State proposes to amend Subparagraph 5.4.h.2 by deleting the requirement that the channel sides and bottom of a natural drain way be rock riprapped, and by deleting the waiver of this requirement. The added provisions require that natural drain ways be returned as near as practicable to their premining condition with additional consideration given to channel and bank stability and habitat enhancement. We find that the revised State requirements at Subparagraph 5.4.h.2 regarding the abandonment of sediment control structures are no less effective than the Federal abandonment requirements at 30 CFR 816.46(b), 816.49(c), 816.56, 817.46(b), 817.49(c), and 817.56, and the revisions are approved.

This amendment proposes to clarify what operations may be exempt from conducting a “Storm Water Runoff Analysis” by adding new language.

Each permit application must include a storm water runoff analysis. However, like former Subparagraph 5.6.d.1.e, under proposed Subdivision 5.6.a, the State intends to exempt operators with mining operations of less than 50 acres from having to submit storm water runoff analyses. Furthermore, haulroads, loadouts and ventilation facilities, regardless of acreage, will be excluded from this requirement. The State will only grant exemptions for mining operations of less than 50 acres on a case-by-case basis. It is our understanding, based on conversations with the State, that this exemption will only apply to a mining operation with “total” permitted acreage of less than 50 acres. This is to prevent a mining operation with more than 50 permitted acres from getting an exemption from the State on a piecemeal basis during the life of its operation. The Federal regulations do not specifically provide for a storm water runoff analysis, and the State has discretion on how to evaluate storm impacts through its cumulative hydrologic impact analysis (CHIA). For this reason, we find that the reduced information for operations of 50 acres or less that would be submitted to the State, as described in revised Subdivision 5.6.a, is not inconsistent with the Federal hydrologic requirements at 30 CFR 780.21 and 784.14, and it is approved.

We must note that the proposed revisions to Subdivision 5.6.a do not exempt surface mining activities from any applicable regulations under the Clean Water Act, including the storm water regulations. Like 30 CFR 816.42 and 817.42, Subdivision 14.5.b provides that all discharges from areas disturbed by surface mining cannot violate effluent limitations or cause violation of applicable State or Federal water quality standards. In addition, monitoring frequency and effluent limitations are governed by standards set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued pursuant to the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Water Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

This amendment proposes to change the time period from twenty four (24) to forty eight (48) hours in which the monitoring results of a 1-year, 24-hour storm event or greater must be reported to the Secretary by the permittee.

As proposed, operators will be required to report to the State any 1-year, 24-hour storm event or greater within 48 hours and include the results of a permit wide drainage system inspection. The additional 24 hours is necessary to provide the operator sufficient time to collect and report the data to the State. The Federal rules lack the specificity of the State rules regarding information considered in storm water runoff analyses, therefore, we find that the proposed revision to Subdivision 5.6.b, as described above, is no less effective than the Federal hydrologic requirements at 30 CFR 780.21 and 784.14, and it is approved.

This amendment proposes to delete language regarding the phase-in compliance schedule for the submission of the storm water runoff analysis that expired in June 2006. Because the deadline for the submission of storm water runoff analysis has expired, the State is proposing to delete Subparagraphs 5.6.d, d.1, d.1.a, d.1.b, d.1.c, d.1.d, and d.1.e.

There is no direct Federal counterpart to this requirement, and we find that the proposed deletion of the State's compliance scheduling requirements at Subdivision 5.6.d does not render the remaining storm water runoff requirements at Subsection 5.6 less effective than the Federal hydrologic requirements at 30 CFR 780.21 and 784.14, and it is approved.

This amendment proposes to remove duplication of rules for blasting at Section 6. At Subsections 6.1 and 6.2, this amendment proposes to add at the end of the subsections, “and be in accordance with the requirements with Surface Mining Blasting Rule, Title 199 Series 1.”

The State is making changes to Subsection 6.1 to ensure that operators comply with all State and Federal blasting requirements, including the Surface Mining Blasting Rule at Title 199, Series 1. We find that the proposed State revision at Subsection 6.1 is no less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.61 and 817.61 and is approved.

The State is making this revision to Subsection 6.2 to ensure that all blasting plans that are submitted with permit applications are in accordance with the State's Surface Mining Blasting Rule, Title 199, Series 1. The State's blasting rules at Title 199, Series 1 are counterparts to the Federal blasting regulations at 30 CFR 816.61 through 816.68 and 817.61 through 817.68. We find that the proposed revision to Subsection 6.2 is no less effective than the Federal blasting plan requirements at 30 CFR 780.13(a), and it is approved.

Subsections 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8 are proposed to be deleted entirely. These provisions pertain to public notice of blasting operations, blast record, blasting procedures, blasting control for other structure, certified blasting personnel, and pre-blast survey, respectively.

The State is proposing to delete these blasting requirements because similar requirements are set forth in its Surface Mining Blasting Rule at Title 199, and the State does not want to have redundant blasting requirements in its Surface Mining Reclamation Rules. The deleted requirements are set forth in the State's Surface Mining Blasting Rule at Subsections 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 4. Because these blasting requirements are set forth in the State's Surface Mining Blasting Rule, we find that the deletion of these blasting requirements does not render the State's Surface Mining Reclamation Rules less effective than the Federal blasting requirements, and the deletion of these subsections is approved.

Proposed Subparagraph 3.6.c.1 differs slightly from deleted Subparagraph 6.5.c.1 in that the heading has been modified to read “Lower frequency limit of measuring system maximum level, in Hz (no more than −3 dB).” As discussed below in Finding 23, this revision is no less effective than the Federal airblast limits at 30 CFR 816/817.67(b), and the deletion of Subparagraph 6.5.c.1 is approved.

Proposed Subdivision 3.6.g does not include the provision in existing Subdivision 6.5.h that is to be deleted and which provides that, “The Secretary may prohibit blasting on specific areas where it is deemed necessary for the protection of public or private property or the general welfare and safety of the public.” A similar existing, unmodified requirement at Subsection 3.11 provides that the Secretary may prohibit blasting or may prescribe distance, vibration and airblast limits on specific areas, or on a case by case basis, where research establishes it is necessary, for the protection of the public or private property, or the general welfare and safety of the public. Although similar, this provision is less effective than the Federal requirements in that the Secretary's action is limited to where research establishes that a prohibition is necessary to protect the public, private property or general welfare and safety of the public. Unlike the existing State provision at Subsection 3.11, the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 816.64(a) provide in part that the regulatory authority may limit the area covered, timing, and sequence of blasting if such limitations are necessary and reasonable in order to protect the public health and safety or welfare. Therefore, we are not approving the State's proposed deletion of Subdivision 6.5.h, which provides that the Secretary may prohibit blasting on specific areas where it is deemed necessary for the protection of public or private property or the general welfare and safety of the public.

Proposed Subdivision 3.8.a, unlike existing Subdivision 6.8.a, neither requires the operator inform all residents or owners of manmade dwellings or structures located within one half ( 1/2 ) mile of the permit area on how to request a pre-blast survey nor requires the resident or owner of the structure to submit a written request to the Secretary for the operator to conduct such survey. The State's distance requirements regarding pre-blast surveys are set forth in State law at WVSCMRA 22-3-13a and are not repeated in the rules to avoid redundancy. As discussed in the November 12, 1999, Federal Register , OSMRE determined that the State's pre-blast survey requirements at WVSCMRA 22-3-13a(a) and (b) provide for no less effective blasting controls of surface coal mining operations than do the provisions of SMCRA section 515(b)(15)(E), and are, therefore, not inconsistent with section 515(b)(15)(E) (64 FR 61509). Based on this prior determination, the deletion of Subdivision 6.8.a is approved.

Unlike existing Subparagraph 6.8.a.1, proposed Subdivision 3.8.a does not require residents or owners of dwellings or structures to submit a written request to the Secretary for a pre-blast survey. Proposed Subdivision 3.8.a implies that either the operator or the operator's designee will perform the pre-blast survey without the written request of the occupant or owner of the dwelling or structure, unless said occupant or owner has waived the right to a pre-blast survey. In practice, we know that the operator submits a notice to the occupant or owner of the dwelling or structure, and the owner or occupant completes a pre-blast survey request (Form EB-39A) if they want a pre-blast survey or a waiver (Form EB-39B) if they do not want one. If a pre-blast survey is not conducted, the operator completes a pre-blast survey affidavit (Form EB-39C) explaining why it was not conducted. As discussed, the State's aforementioned forms provide that a pre-blast survey will be conducted by the operator or the operator's designee upon written request of the owner or occupant.

In addition, the State's statutory provisions at WV Code 22-3-13a provide that an operator or his designee must make, in writing, a notice to all owners and occupants of man-made dwellings or structures that the operator or his designee will perform the pre-blast surveys. Although the State's written notice requirements are somewhat different, we find that together the State's pre-blast survey forms, written notification requirements at proposed Subdivision 3.8.a, and its pre-blast survey requirements at WV Code 22-3-13a are no less stringent than and no less effective than the Federal pre-blast survey requirements at SMCRA section 515(b)(15)(E) and 30 CFR 816.62 and 817.62, and the deletion of existing Subparagraph 6.8.a.1 is approved. Any future change in the aforementioned forms by the State cannot be done without OSMRE's prior approval. Otherwise, the State will be expected to modify its pre-blast survey requirements at Subdivision 3.8.a to specifically provide that a resident or owner of a dwelling or structure within 1/2 mile of any part of the permit area may request a pre-blast survey. Therefore, we are approving proposed Subdivision 3.8.a and the deletion of Subparagraph 6.8.a.1 with these understandings.

Finally, proposed Subdivision 3.8.b, unlike existing Subparagraph 6.8.a.3, does not require that a written report of the pre-blast survey be prepared and signed by the person or persons approved by the Secretary who conducted the survey. However, the State statute at WVSCMRA 22-3-13a(f)(5) requires the pre-blast survey to include the name, address, and telephone number of the person or firm performing the pre-blast survey, and the statute at WVSCMRA 22-3-13a(f)(18) requires the signature of the person conducting the pre-blast survey. In addition, Subdivision 3.10.a requires that pre-blast surveys be submitted on forms prescribed by the Secretary. The State's pre-blast survey form (EB-40) requires the surveyor in training, if applicable, and the approved surveyor to sign and date the form. Therefore, we find that Subdivision 3.8.b, when read in combination with WVSCMRA 22-3-13a(f)(5) & (18) and Subdivision 3.10.a, is no less effective than the Federal pre-blast survey requirements at 30 CFR 816.62(b) and 817.62(b), and the deletion of Subparagraph 6.8.a.3 is approved.

This amendment proposes to add language that was previously removed and not approved by OSMRE in the March 2, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 10776).

West Virginia is proposing to amend Subparagraph 7.4.b.1.J.1.(c) by reinstating the following language:

As discussed in the March 2, 2006, Federal Register notice, the State revised Subparagraph 7.4.b.1.J by deleting the requirement that the surface material be composed of soil and the materials described in Subparagraph 7.4.b.1.D. The intent of the change was to ensure that fill faces do not have to be covered with four feet of surface material. However, the effect of the deletion of subparagraph (c) was that the front faces of fills were exempt from all of the requirements of this rule, except for those set forth in Subparagraph 7.4.b.1.J. The revised State rule would not require topsoil or topsoil substitutes to be redistributed on fill faces. Because OSMRE did not approve the deletion of Subparagraph 7.4.b.1.J.1.(c), the provision, in essence, remained in the West Virginia approved program.

WVDEP proposes to resolve this issue by reinserting Subparagraph 7.4.b.1.J.1.(c) into its commercial forestry and forestry rules. We find that the proposed State revision at Subparagraph 7.4.b.1.J.1.(c) is no less effective than the Federal topsoil redistribution requirements at 30 CFR 816.22(d)(1) and 816.71(e)(2), and it is approved. Furthermore, we are amending and reserving 30 CFR 948.12(i)(2) to implement this decision.

This amendment proposes to clarify contemporaneous reclamation rules and bonding of excess spoil disposal fills by deleting “area is available to do so;” and adding “first two lifts are in and are seeded” at the end of the subparagraph.

The provisions at Subparagraphs 14.15.c.1 through 14.15.c.4 set forth the criteria for that area which is not to be included in the calculation of disturbed area. Subparagraph 14.15.c.2 is being amended to provide that an area would not be considered to be disturbed if it is within the confines of the excess spoil fill, which is being constructed from the toe up and the first two lifts have been installed and seeded. As such, these areas would appear to be exempt from the contemporaneous reclamation requirements. However, as noted below, the approved program, even after approval of the proposed change to 14.15.c.2, preserves the contemporaneous reclamation requirement for excess spoil fills.

The Federal contemporaneous reclamation requirements at 30 CFR 816.100 and 817.100 provide in part that reclamation efforts, including but not limited to backfilling, grading, topsoil replacement and revegetation, on all land that is disturbed by surface mining activities must occur as contemporaneously as practicable. Given this limited requirement and the fact that all excess spoil fills must be constructed contemporaneously as provided by Subdivision 14.15.d, we find that the proposed revision to the State's contemporaneous reclamation provisions at Subparagraph 14.15.c.2, which define the areas that are not included within the calculation of disturbed area, does not render the West Virginia rule less effective than the Federal contemporaneous reclamation requirements at 30 CFR 816.100 and 817.100, and it is approved.

This amendment proposes to clarify the contemporaneous reclamation and bonding requirements of certain excess spoil disposal fills by deleting the phrase “to use single lift top down construction” and adding “with erosion protection zones” after the word “designed.”

Top down fills are often referred to as end dump fills. The State requirements at Subdivision 14.14.g provide that durable rock fills may only be approved if they are constructed from the toe upward or in a single lift with an erosion protection zone. As proposed, all single lift fills must now be constructed with erosion protection zones. In addition, any operation that proposes a durable rock fill that is designed with an erosion protection zone must bond the fill area with the required maximum bond of $5,000 per acre.

By continuing to require bonding at the maximum, site-specific, per-acre amount for these durable rock fills, the proposed requirement will continue to ensure the protection of the State's alternative bonding system, Special Reclamation Fund, should an operator forfeit the bond and fail to complete the reclamation of a single lift, durable rock fill with an erosion protection zone. Although there is no direct Federal counterpart to this provision, we find that the proposed addition of the reference to erosion protection zones at Subparagraph 14.15.d.3 is consistent with the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 800.14, 816.71, and 816.100, and it is approved.

This amendment proposes to remove the applicability schedule that expired in 2004. The applicability schedule regarding the implementation of contemporaneous reclamation plans at Subparagraphs 14.15.e, 14.15.e.1 and 14.15.e.2 are removed completely and 14.15.e.3 is renumbered as 14.15.e.

These requirements set forth the dates by which active and inactive operations had to modify their mining and reclamation plans to comply with the revised excess spoil requirements at Subdivision14.15.d. The State is proposing to delete these requirements, because all existing permit applications have been modified to comply with Subdivision 14.15.d.

Although there are no direct Federal counterparts to the subparagraphs that the State proposes to delete, we find that the proposed deletion of the applicability requirements at Subparagraphs 14.15.e, 14.15.e.1 and 14.15.e.2 and the renumbering of Subdivision 14.15.e is not inconsistent with the Federal excess spoil permitting requirements at 30 CFR 780.35, and the proposed deletion of these subparagraphs is approved.

The State proposes to amend its requirements at Subsection 19.9 regarding land exempt from designation as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations. Specifically, WVDEP proposes to amend Subparagraph 19.9.a.2 by changing the word “and” to “or.”

As amended, Subdivision 19.9.a will provide that the requirements of this section do not apply to:

The proposed change at Subparagraph 19.9.a.2 is to correct an apparent error that has existed in the State's Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations. As proposed, any of the three situations mentioned above would be exempt from the State's lands unsuitable requirements at Subsection 19.7. We find that the proposed revision to Subparagraph 19.9.a.2 is no less effective than the Federal lands unsuitable requirements at 30 CFR 762.13, and it is approved.

This amendment proposes to make the State's remining rule consistent with the proposed changes in the State's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rules by deleting the phrase “which began after February 4, 1987, and on a site which was mined prior to August 3, 1977,” after “operation:”

• Deleting “water quality exemptions” and adding “effluent limitations” after “the;”

• adding “Title 47 Series 30 subdivision” and deleting “Subsection” and adding “6.2.d.” after “in;” and

• deleting “subsection (p), section 301 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended or a coal remining operation as defined in 40 CFR part 434 as amended may qualify for the water quality exemptions set forth in 40 CFR part 434 as amended.”

The State is revising its remining requirements to comply with the coal remining provisions adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3370-3410). Coal remining operation, as defined by 40 CFR 434.70(a), means a coal mining operation at a site on which coal mining was previously conducted and where the site has been abandoned or the performance bond has been forfeited. The EPA established a Coal Remining Subcategory at Subpart G, 40 CFR 434.70 through 434.75, to address pre-existing discharges. The references to February 4, 1987, and subsection (p), section 301 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are deleted because the EPA based its coal remining rules on section 304(b) of the CWA, rather than section 301(p), known as the Rahall Amendment. In response to a comment, the EPA noted that the authority for its coal remining rule is section 304(b) of the CWA, which requires the EPA to adopt and revise regulations providing guidelines for effluent limitations as appropriate. The Rahall Amendment, section 301(p) of the CWA, provided specific authority for modified, less stringent effluent limitations for specified coal remining operations. Because the effluent limitations guidelines for the Coal Mining Point Source Category did not provide any different requirements for coal remining operations, the Rahall Amendment provided the only basis for issuing permits containing modified requirements to remining operations. In promulgating regulations adopting effluent limitation guidelines for the coal remining subcategory, the EPA noted that its new remining requirements are consistent with, but not necessarily identical to, the provisions of the Rahall Amendment. According to the EPA, the applicability of these effluent limitation guidelines to remining operations on abandoned mine lands abandoned after the enactment of SMCRA is within its discretion under section 304(b) of the CWA.

The State's effluent limitation requirements are set forth at CSR 47-30-6.2. In response to the Federal NPDES remining rule changes, Subsection 6.2.d was amended to include effluent limitation provisions for coal remining operations.

It should be noted that WVDEP has incorrectly referenced the wrong Title in its CSR. WVDEP understands that the remining variance should be issued in accordance with the procedural rules at 46CSR6, not 47CSR6. There are no procedural rules at 47CSR6. However, there are procedural rules governing site-specific revisions to water quality standards at 46CSR6. Therefore, we recommend that the State correct the cross reference in its coal remining rules or modify its procedural rules and include them in Title 47. Nevertheless, given the EPA's changes to its remining rules at 40 CFR part 434, subpart G, and the subsequent changes made by the State to its coal remining rules at CSR 47-30-6.2.d, we find that the State's proposed revisions to Subsection 23.3 regarding effluent limitations for coal remining operations are no less effective than the Federal hydrologic balance requirements at 30 CFR 816.42 and 817.42, and they are approved. We must caution, however, that these remining requirements do not relieve the State regulatory authority of its duty to use bond forfeiture proceeds to remedy problematic pollutional discharges at bond forfeiture sites.

This amendment, which relates to bond release for coal remining operations, proposes to delete the following language: “and the terms and conditions set forth in the NPDES Permit in accordance with subsection (p), section 301 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended or 40 CFR part 434 as amended.”

The State is revising its bond release requirements for coal remining operations. As proposed, coal remining operations will have to comply with the same bond release standards as regular coal mining operations, which include compliance with all the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit prior to bond release. The references to subsection 301(p) of the CWA and to 40 CFR part 434 are being deleted because, as explained above in Finding 16, new coal remining permits may, in some instances, qualify for NPDES effluent limitations pursuant to subsection 304(b) of the CWA and under Title 47 Series 30 Subdivision 6.2.d of the West Virginia NPDES Rules for Coal Mining Facilities. The general provision remaining in Subsection 23.4 requires compliance with the NPDES permit, issued under any of the above-referenced authorities, as a pre-requisite to final bond release.

As amended, the revised State bond release requirements at Subsection 23.4 for coal remining operations are no less effective than the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 800.40, 816.42, 816.106, 817.42, and 817.106, and the revisions are approved.

Pursuant to Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 373, West Virginia proposes the following amendments to its Surface Mining Blasting Rule at Title 199 CSR 1:

Various definitions relating to blasting at CSR 199-1-2 are amended by non-substantive grammatical changes, such as putting all definition terms in quotation marks; changing the term “Office of Explosives and Blasting” to “Secretary;” deleting the definitions of “Office” and “Chief” because those terms are no longer used in this rule; and renumbering of definitions due to additions and/or deletions of terms. In addition, there are similar changes in other sections throughout this rule. The proposed revisions are consistent with statutory changes at West Virginia Code 22-1-2 and 22-1-7 relating to the organization of offices within the WVDEP and no less effective than the Federal requirements regarding the state regulatory authority at 30 CFR 700.5. Given the non-substantive nature of these proposed changes, no further determinations will be made with respect to such revisions in subsequent sections described herein.

The following substantive revisions at CSR 199-1-2 are as follows:

At Subsection 2.8, “Blast Site” is amended and means the area where explosive material is handled during loading into boreholes. This includes the perimeter area formed by the loaded blast holes as measured, 50 feet in all directions from the collar of the outermost loaded borehole; or that area protected from access by a physical barrier to prevent entry to the loaded blast holes. The term “blast site” is not defined in either SMCRA or its implementing regulations. However, we find the proposed revision to the State's definition of blast site at Subsection 2.8 to be no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.61, 816.64, 817.61, and 817.64, all of which refer to a “blasting site,” and the revision is approved.

At Subsection 2.27, “Other Structure” is new and means any man made structure excluding “protected structures” within or outside the permit areas which includes but is not limited to, gas wells, gas lines, water lines, towers, airports, underground mines, tunnels, bridges, and dams. The term does not include structures owned, operated, or built by the permittee for the purpose of carrying out surface mining operations.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816. 67(b)(1)(i) and (d)(2)(i) and 817.67(b)(1)(i) and (d)(2)(i) define protected structures to include any dwelling, public building, school, church, or community or institutional building outside the permit area. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(d)(1) and 817.67(d)(1) also provide that all structures, except protected structures, in the vicinity of the blasting area such as water towers, pipelines and other utilities, tunnels, dams, impoundments, and underground mines must be protected from damage by establishment of a maximum allowable limit on the ground vibration submitted by the operator in the blasting plan and approved by the regulatory authority. The preamble to the Federal regulations clarifies that 30 CFR 816.67(d)(1) and 817.67(d)(1) set levels for structures other than buildings (48 FR 9788, 9800, March 8, 1983). The burden for setting limits for these other structures is on the operator and regulatory authority. In addition, such limits would be for all structures in the vicinity of the blasting area. While not specifically defined in the regulation or its accompanying preamble, the phrase “in the vicinity of the blasting area” is broad enough to include structures within and outside of the permit area. We construe the phrase to include structures within and outside of the permit area, in order to ensure that the regulatory authority has ample authority to protect those structures within the vicinity of the blasting because damage to such structures, including those within the permit area, could lead to damage to public and private property outside the permit area, or adverse impacts to underground mines in contravention of section 515(b)(15)(C) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(15)(C). As discussed in the November 12, 1999, Federal Register , WVDEP inadvertently deleted language at West Virginia Code section 22-3-13(b)(15)(C), which was the State's statutory counterpart to SMCRA section 515(b)(15)(C); it acknowledged that reinserting the deleted language would remove any uncertainty relative to the authority of WVDEP to protect the public from the effects of blasting (64 FR 61507, 61509, November 12, 1999). Fortunately, the approved West Virginia program still contains a regulatory counterpart to section 515(b)(15)(C), at CSR 199-1-3.6.a. However, we recommend that West Virginia reinsert the deleted statutory language at West Virginia Code section 22-3-13(b)(15)(C) to ensure the protection of the public from the effects of blasting.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(e) and 817.67(e) exclude from airblast and ground vibration limits structures owned by the permittee and those owned by the permittee and leased to another person, if a written waiver is obtained from the lessee. The 1979 predecessor to these exemption provisions, at former 30 CFR 816.65(e)(1) and 817.65(e)(1), clearly stated that the exemption from the numerical airblast limits was applicable only to the buildings designated as protected structures, i.e., dwellings, public buildings, schools, churches, commercial, or institutional structures. (“If a building owned by the person conducting surface mining activities is leased to another person, the lessee may sign a waiver relieving the operator from meeting the airblast limitations of this paragraph.” 30 CFR 816.65(e)(1) (March 13, 1979, repealed March 8, 1983) (emphasis added). While the exemption from numerical ground vibration limits did not explicitly apply exclusively to these aforementioned buildings, it is logical to interpret the exemption in this fashion, because these buildings were, and remain currently, the only structures otherwise subject to the numerical ground vibration limits set forth in the Federal regulations. 30 CFR 816.65(j) and 817.65(j) (March 13, 1979, repealed March 8, 1983). These provisions were reworded and moved to 30 CFR 816.67(e) and 817.67(e) in 1983; however, there was no discussion of any change in meaning to the exemptions from the manner in which they were created in 1979. 48 FR at 9802-3 (March 8, 1983). Therefore, we believe the “permittee-owned” exemption applies only to dwellings, public buildings, schools, churches, commercial or institutional structures, and not to other structures, such as water towers, pipelines, other utilities, tunnels, dams, impoundments, and underground mines, for which there must be site-specific numerical ground vibration limitations that are proposed by the operator in the blasting plan and approved by the regulatory authority. 30 CFR 816.67(d)(1).

However, the State's proposed definition of “other structure” does not include structures owned, operated, or built by the permittee for the purpose of carrying out surface mining operations. Therefore, structures such as pipelines, dams, impoundments, or underground mines that are owned, operated, or built by the permittee, whether within or outside the permit area, would be exempted from the ground vibration limits that apply, under CSR 199-1-3.7a., to “other structures.” As such, the definition would render the State's program less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(d)(1) and 817.67(d)(1), which contains no exemption from ground vibration limits for structures owned, operated, or built by the permittee. For this reason, we are not approving the last sentence of the definition of other structure at CSR 199-1-2.27, which states that “[t]he term does not include structures owned, operated, or built by the permittee for the purpose of carrying out surface mining operations.”

At Subsection 2.35, the definition of “Secretary” is substantively identical to former Subsection 2.23 and means the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection or the Secretary's authorized agent. We find that the proposed change at Subsection 2.35 is no less effective than the Federal requirements with respect to the State regulatory authority as set forth at 30 CFR 700.5, and it can be approved.

At Subsection 2.36, “Structure” is amended and means “a protected structure” or “other structure,” which is any manmade structure within or outside the permit areas and which includes, but is not limited to, dwellings, outbuildings, commercial buildings, public buildings, community buildings, institutional buildings, gas lines, water lines, towers, airports, underground mines, tunnels, and dams. In addition, the term does not include structures built and/or utilized for the purpose of carrying out the surface mining operation. We find the revision to the definition of structure at Subsection 2.36 to be consistent with the Federal requirements pertaining to structures at 30 CFR 816,67(d) and 817.67(d), and the revision is approved.

However, we are taking this opportunity to re-examine the exemption for structures built and/or utilized for the purpose of carrying out the surface mining operation at CSR 38-2-2.119 and 199-1-2.36. While this exemption was approved on January 21, 1981, as part of the original program approval (46 FR 5915), we now believe it must be disapproved, for the same reasons that we are disapproving a similar exemption to the definition of “other structure,” as discussed above in this finding. The reason for our change in position is that we did not believe, until West Virginia submitted the definition of “other structures” in this amendment, that the State intended to exempt non-building type structures, such as gas lines, water lines, towers, airports, underground mines, tunnels, or dams from ground vibration limits. We now have reason to believe, however, that the exemptions in the definitions of “structure” and “other structure” will apply to these structures. Therefore, we are revoking our prior approvals and are not approving the following sentences in the State's definitions of “structure” at CSR 38-2-2.119 and 199-1-2.36: “The term does not include structures built and/or utilized for the purpose of carrying out the surface mining operation.”

At Subsection 2.37, “Supervised a Blasting Crew” is amended and means a person that is responsible for the conduct of a blasting crew(s) and/or that the crew(s) is directed by that person. Though it has no Federal counterpart, the revised definition of supervised a blasting crew at Subsection 2.37 is no less effective than the Federal requirements relating to blasters at 30 CFR 816.61 and 817.61, and it is approved.

At Subsection 2.38, “Surface Mine Operations” is amended and means all areas of surface mines, and surface area of underground mines (including shafts and slopes), areas ancillary to these operations, and the reclamation of these areas, including adjacent areas ancillary to the operations, i.e., preparation and processing plants, storage areas, shops, haulageways, roads, and trails, which are covered by the provisions of W. Va. Code 22-3-1 et seq., and rules promulgated under that article. As discussed in the December 10, 2003, Federal Register notice, OSMRE approved the State's previous definition with the understanding that it only intends to exclude “underground workings” from the definition of surface mine and surface area of underground mines (68 FR 68724, 68729). The revised definition of “surface mine operations” at proposed Subsection 2.38 resolves our earlier concern. We find Subsection 2.38 to be no less effective than the Federal definition of surface coal mining operations at 30 CFR 700.5, and the revision is approved.

At Subsection 2.39, “Worked on a Blasting Crew” is amended and means that a person has first-hand experience in storing, handling, transporting, and using explosives, and has participated in the loading, connecting, and initiation processes of blasting, and has experience in blasting procedures, and preparation of blast holes. While it has no direct Federal counterpart, the revised State definition of “worked on a blasting crew” at Subsection 2.39 is no less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.61 and 817.61 and is approved.

Subparagraph 3.2.a.5, regarding blasting plans, is amended by adding language to minimize, not reduce, dust outside the permit area. Though it has no direct Federal counterpart, the proposed State revision at Subparagraph 3.2.a.5 is consistent with the Federal blasting plan requirements at 30 CFR 780.13, and it is approved.

Subdivision 3.2.b, regarding blasting plans, is amended by requiring that the person conducting the review must be experienced in common blasting practices used on surface mining operations and must be a certified inspector. In addition, the reviewer will take into consideration the proximity of individual dwellings, structures, or communities to the blasting operations. These two new requirements have no direct Federal counterparts; however, we find that the proposed State revisions at Subdivision 3.2.b are consistent with the Federal blasting plan requirements at 30 CFR 780.13, and the revisions are approved.

Subdivision 3.2.c is amended to provide that the blasting plan must also contain an inspection and monitoring procedure to ensure that all blasting operations are conducted to minimize, not eliminate, to the maximum extent technically feasible, adverse impacts to the surrounding environment and surrounding occupied dwellings. In addition, this subdivision is amended to provide that all seismographs used to monitor airblast or ground vibrations or both must comply with the International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE) Performance Specifications for Blasting Seismographs. The ISEE standards referenced in the revised State rule include the ISEE Performance Specification for Blasting Seismographs copyright 2000 and the ISEE Field Practices Guidelines for Blasting Seismographs copyright 1999, which is referenced therein. Copies of the ISEE Performance Specifications and the Field Practice Guidelines have been included in the administrative record and are available for public review (Administrative Record Number WV-1503A). We find that the proposed revisions at Subdivision 3.2.c are consistent with the Federal blasting plan requirements at 30 CFR 780.13(a) and (b), and the revisions are approved.

Subdivision 3.2.d is amended to provide that for operations where a blasting related notice of violation (NOV) or cessation order (CO) has been issued, the Secretary must review the blasting plan as soon as possible and no later than thirty (30) days of final disposition of the NOV or CO. As currently written, the subdivision requires only that the plan be reviewed within 30 days of final disposition of the NOV or CO, without the additional requirement that the plan be reviewed “as soon as possible.” While there is no specific Federal counterpart to this revision, we find that the proposed State revision at Subdivision 3.2.d is no less effective than the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 816.61(d)(5) and 817.61(d)(5), and it is approved.

Subdivision 3.2.e relating to the review of a blasting plan where an enforcement action has been taken by the State is deleted in its entirety. The provisions to be deleted provide: “Where a notice of violation (NOV) or cessation order (CO) has been issued; the Office must review the blasting plan within thirty (30) days of final disposition of the NOV or CO. This review will focus on the specific circumstances that led to the enforcement action. If necessary, the Secretary may require that the blasting plan be modified to insure all precautions are being taken to safely conduct blasting operations.” The requirements at Subdivision 3.2.e are redundant with those at Subdivision 3.2.d. Therefore, we approve of the deletion of these requirements.

Subparagraph 3.3.a, relating to public notice of blasting operations, is amended by requiring that at least ten (10) days, but not more than thirty (30) days, prior to commencing any blasting operations that detonate five (5) pounds or more of explosives at any given time, the operator must publish a blasting schedule in a newspaper of general circulation in all the counties of the proposed permit area. The operator must republish and redistribute the schedule at least every twelve months in the same manner above. In addition, new language provides that the permittee must retain proof of publication.

We find the revisions to the State's blasting schedule requirements at Subdivision 3.3.a to be no less effective than the Federal blasting schedule requirements at 30 CFR 816.64(b), and the revisions are approved.

At Subparagraph 3.3.b.1, existing language is deleted, and new language is added related to the placement of signs for “Blasting Areas” at the edge of any site that is within 100 feet of any public road and where any road provides access to the blasting area.

We find the revised State provision regarding blasting signs at Subparagraph 3.3.b.1 to be substantively identical to, and, therefore, no less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.66(a)(1) and 817.66(a)(1), and it is approved.

At Subparagraph 3.3.b.2, existing language is deleted, and new language is added for the placement of signs at all entrances to the permit area from public roads for warnings of explosives in use. The sign must also contain a list of the meanings for signals used to give the all-clear and blast warnings and also explain blasting areas and charged holes.

We find the revised State provision regarding blasting signs at Subparagraph 3.3.b.2 to be substantively identical to, and, therefore, no less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.66(a)(2) and 817.66(a)(2), and it is approved.

This amendment proposes to add a new Subdivision, 3.4.b, regarding the regulation of surface blasting at underground mines.

This provision is intended to clarify the applicability of State's blasting requirements in the development of shafts and slopes associated with underground mining activities. The proposed requirement is intended to resolve past confusion regarding the State's responsibility in regulating underground blasting activities relating to the development of shafts and slopes and to clearly provide how the State's Surface Mining Blasting Rule applies with regard to such development.

We find that the new State provision at Subdivision 3.4.b is no less effective than the Federal requirements regulating surface blasting activities incident to underground coal mining activities at 30 CFR 817.61, and it is approved. To ensure compliance with the monitoring obligations under Subdivision 3.4.b, we recommend that the State require the blaster to maintain a blasting log on a daily basis and conduct regular monitoring of ground vibration and airblast limits through the use of a seismograph, etc. during the development of the shaft or slope until it intersects the coal seam to be mined.

Subdivision 3.5.a is amended to require that the blasting log book be on forms formatted in a manner prescribed by the Secretary. We find the proposed amendment at Subdivision 3.5.a to be no less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.68 and 817.68, and it is approved.

Subdivision 3.5.c is amended to provide that the blasting log must contain, at a minimum, but not limited to, the following information:

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.1 is amended to require the name of the company conducting blasting;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.2 is amended to require the Article 3 permit number and shot number;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.4 is amended to require the identification of nearest protected structure and nearest other structure not owned or leased by the operator, and indicate the direction and distance, in feet, to both such structures;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.5 is amended to require estimated wind direction and speed;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.6 is amended by adding a proviso to identify material blasted, including rock type and description of conditions;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.9 is amended to require a description of different quantities of explosives used;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.14 is amended to require type and length of decking;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.15 is amended to require a description of use of blasting mats or other protective measures used;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.16 is amended to require the quantities of delay detonators used;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.17 is amended by adding the words “when required” in relation to seismograph records and air blast records;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.17.A is amended to require that seismograph and air blast readings include trigger levels, frequency in Hz, and full waveform readings, all of which must be attached to the blast log;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.17.B is amended to require the name of person who installed the seismograph, as well as the name of person taking the readings;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.17.D is amended to require certification of annual calibration in addition to, rather than in lieu of, submitting the type of instrument, its sensitivity and calibration signal;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.18 is amended to require that the shot location be identified with use of blasting grids as found on the blast map, GPS, or other methods as defined by the approved blast plan;

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.19 is amended by deleting the requirement for a sketch of the delay pattern for all decks and to require a detailed sketch of delay pattern, including the detonation timing for each hole or deck in the entire blast pattern, borehole loading configuration, north arrow, distance and directions to structures; and

• Subparagraph 3.5.c.20 is amended to require the reasons and conditions to be noted in the blasting log for misfires, any unusual event, or violation of the blast plan.

We find that all of the proposed State revisions at Subdivision 3.5.c regarding information to be contained in a blasting log, are no less effective than the Federal blast record requirements at 30 CFR 816.68 and 817.68, and the revisions are approved.

Subparagraph 3.6.b.2 is amended to require that all approaches to the blast area remain guarded until the blaster signals the “all clear.” We find that the proposed revision to the State's safety precaution requirements at Subparagraph 3.6.b.2 is no less effective than the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 816.66 and 817.66, and it is approved.

Subparagraph 3.6.c.1 regarding airblast limits is amended to provide that the maximum level in Hz be no more than −3dB. In addition, Footnote 1 was added to clarify that airblast is a flat response from 4 to 125 Hz range; and at 2 Hz airblast, the microphone can have an error of no more than −3dB. Footnote 2 was added to clarify that the use of the frequency limits of 0.1 Hz or lower—flat response or C-weighted—slow response requires the Secretary's approval.

The +/−3 dB requirement in the Federal rules at 30 CFR 816.67(b)(1)(i) and 817.67(b)(1)(i) defines the frequency response limit of the measuring instruments and not the accuracy of the measuring system. It is not a tolerance allowed to the operator in meeting the standard, but rather an instrument manufacturing standard. For example, an instrument with a 2 Hz lower frequency range would be allowed to have no more or less than a 3 dB variance from the actual sound level present at 2 Hz to define the lower range of the system. In other words, if the microphone input sound was 133 dB at 2 Hz, the reported value could be between 130 and 136 dB and the instrument could be specified to have a lower frequency response of 2 Hz. This value, either high or low, is then digitally adjusted to the actual sound level present (133 dB). Furthermore, all microphones that are part of blasting seismographs manufactured today are in compliance with the ISEE Performance Specifications for Blasting Seismographs. This standard defines the lower response frequency of the system as being 3 dB down (−3 dB) at 2 Hz. No blasting seismographs currently manufactured define the lower frequency response with the +3 dB criteria. The State specifies that the lower frequency response be down 3 dB (−3dB) only. By specifying the low end value only, the State rule is no less effective than the Federal rule because the specification for defining the lower response range is within the range specified by OSMRE, and it is within the current industry standard. Therefore, we find that the proposed revisions, including Footnotes 1 and 2, at Subparagraph 3.6.c.1 are not inconsistent with the Federal airblast requirements at 30 CFR 816,67(b)(1)(i) and 817.67(b)(1)(i), and the revisions are approved.

Subparagraph 3.6.c.3 is amended to require that all seismic monitoring follow the ISEE Field Practice Guidelines for Blasting Seismographs, unless otherwise approved in the blasting plan. We find that the proposed State revision regarding seismic/airblast monitoring is no less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.67(b)(2) and 817.67(b)(2), and it is approved.

Subdivision 3.6.g is amended to provide that blasting within five hundred (500) feet of an underground mine not totally abandoned requires the concurrence of the Secretary and the West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training, in addition to the operator of the underground mine and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. We find the proposed State revision at Subdivision 3.6.g renders that provision substantively identical to, and, therefore, no less effective than, the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 780.13(c) regarding blasting near underground mines. Thus, it is approved.

However, WVDEP is proposing to delete existing provisions in its Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations at CSR 38-2-6.5.h that mirror those in CSR 199-1-3.6.g, but which, in addition, also provide: “The Secretary may prohibit blasting on specific areas where it is deemed necessary for the protection of public or private property or the general welfare and safety of the public.” The Federal requirement at 30 CFR 816.64(a) provides that the regulatory authority may limit the area covered, timing, and sequence of blasting if the regulatory authority determines that such limitations are necessary and reasonable in order to protect the public health and safety or welfare. Because of the Secretary's inability to limit blasting under its proposed Surface Mining Blasting Rule, we find the proposed deletion of CSR 38-2-6.5.h would render the State program less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.61 through 816.68 and 817.61 through 817.68, and, in particular, 30 CFR 816.64(a). Therefore, as stated above in Finding No. 10, we are not approving the State's proposed deletion of existing Subdivision 6.5.h in its Surface Mining Reclamation Rules.

Subdivision 3.6.i is amended to require that all seismic monitoring follow the ISEE Field Practice Guidelines for Blasting Seismographs, unless otherwise approved in the blasting plan. We find that the proposed State revision regarding seismic monitoring is no less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.67(d)(2) and 817.67(d)(2), and it is approved.

Subdivision 3.6.l is amended by adding a reference to 3.6.i in relation to the maximum airblast and ground vibration standards that do not apply to structures owned by the permittee and leased or not leased to another person. We find that the proposed State revision regarding airblast and ground vibration standards at Subdivision 3.6.l is not inconsistent with the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.67(e) and 817.67(e), and it is approved.

Subdivision 3.7.a is amended by adding language to require that all “other structures” in the vicinity of the blasting area be protected from damage by the limits specified in paragraph 3.6.c.1 subdivisions 3.6.h. and 3.6.i. of this rule, unless waived in total or in part by the owner of the structure. In addition, the waiver of the protective [limits] sic may be accomplished by the establishment of a maximum allowable limit on ground vibration or air blast limits or both for the structure in the written waiver agreement between the operator and the structure owner. The waiver may be presented at the time of application in the blasting plan or provided at a later date and made available for review and approval by the Secretary. All waivers must be acquired before any blasts may be conducted [as] sic designed on that waiver. Language requiring that the operator specify the waiver in the blasting plan and that the Secretary approve the waiver is being deleted. In addition, language providing for alternative maximum allowable limits is being deleted. Given the proposed revisions, the existing language is redundant and appears unnecessary, so it is being deleted by the State.

The Federal regulations specifically set airblast limits for protected structures outside the permit area but not for “other structures.” In addition, they require, at 30 CFR 816.67(a) and 817.67(a), that blasting be conducted so as to prevent damage to public or private property outside the permit area. However, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.67(d) and 817.67(d) require that maximum ground vibration limits be established for both protected and “other structures.” Because the proposed State revision requires, with respect to “other structures,” compliance with the airblast and ground vibration limits for protected structures, the establishment of alternative maximum allowable ground vibration or airblast limits, or both where the owner waives those limits, we find the revisions to Subdivision 3.7.a. to be no less effective than the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.67(d) and 817.67(d), and the revisions are approved. However, to minimize confusion, we recommend that the State correct the two apparent typographical errors identified above in brackets.

The State's statutory provisions at W. Va. Code 22-3-13a currently requires that an operator or his designee must make, in writing, notifications to all owners and occupants of man-made dwellings or structures that the operator or his designee will perform pre-blast surveys. To ensure consistency with the statutory requirement, WVDEP is proposing to amend Subdivision 3.8. by adding language to provide that at least thirty days prior to commencing blasting, an operator or his designee must notify in writing, all owners and occupants of manmade dwellings or structures that the operator or the operator's designee will perform pre-blast surveys. In addition, language is added to require that attention be given to documenting and establishing the pre-blasting condition of wells and other water systems, and deleting the word “special” from the requirement that “special” attention be given to the pre-blasting condition of wells and other water systems. We find that the State's proposed pre-blast survey requirements at Subdivision 3.8.a are no less stringent than and no less effective than the Federal pre-blast survey requirements at SMCRA section 515(b)(15)(E) and 30 CFR 816.62(a) and 817.62(a), respectively, and the proposed revisions areapproved.

Subdivision 3.8.b is amended by adding language to require: “Surveys requested more than ten (10) days before the planned initiation of the blasting must be completed and submitted to the Secretary by the operator before the initiation of blasting.” We find that the proposed pre-blast survey requirement at Subdivision 3.8.b is substantively identical to, and therefore, no less effective than, the Federal pre-blasting survey requirements at 30 CFR 816.62(e) and 817.62(e), and it is approved.

Subdivision 3.9.a is amended to require that, at a minimum, individuals applying as a pre-blast surveyor must possess a high school diploma and have a combination of at least two (2) of the following:

In addition, language was added to clarify that all applicants must complete the pre-blast surveyor training provided by the Secretary prior to approval to conduct pre-blast surveys. The Secretary may establish a fee for approval and training of pre-blast surveyors. Language is being deleted that provides that experience working as a pre-blast surveyor may be acceptable in lieu of the education requirement.

Subdivision 3.9.c is amended to clarify that every three (3) years after meeting initial qualifications for performing pre-blast surveys, those individuals that have met the requirements of Subdivision 3.9.a. of this rule must submit a written demonstration of qualifications of ongoing experience performing pre-blast surveys. In addition, language was added to provide that those individuals who have no ongoing experience must attend the training required in 3.9.a., and all applicants for re-approval must attend a minimum of four (4) hours continuing education training in a subject area relative to knowledge required for conducting pre-blast surveys. Furthermore, the Secretary must approve the training programs.

Subdivision 3.9.d is amended by adding language to require that individuals who assist in the collection of information for pre-blast surveys must complete, or be registered for, the pre-blast surveyor training provided by the Secretary in 3.9.a. Those registered to attend the next available training on the pre-blast survey requirements may assist in the collection of information for a period of no more than three (3) months if under the direct supervision of an approved pre-blast surveyor. The Secretary must maintain a list of all those individuals who have completed the pre-blast survey requirement training. Subdivision 3.9.d is also amended by deleting language that provides that an individual, who is not an approved pre-blast surveyor, may conduct pre-blast surveys-working as a pre-blast surveyor-in-training, only if he or she has registered to attend pre-blast surveyor training at the next available opportunity. Pre-blast surveyors-in-training may conduct pre-blast surveys only if he or she is conducting the survey under the direct supervision of an approved pre-blast surveyor. The approved pre-blast surveyor must co-sign any survey conducted by a pre-blast surveyor-in-training. Individuals may work as pre-blast surveyors-in-training for a period of no more than three months, prior to becoming approved pre-blast surveyors.

Subdivision 3.9.e is amended to provide that the Secretary may disqualify an approved pre-blast surveyor and remove the person from the list of approved pre-blast surveyors, if the person allows surveys to be submitted that do not meet the requirements of W. Va. Code 22-3-13a and subsection 3.8 of this rule. In addition, language was added to provide that any person who is disqualified may appeal to the Secretary, and if not resolved, to the Surface Mine Board.

There are no direct Federal counterparts to these requirements. However, we find that the proposed revisions to the State's pre-blast surveyor requirements at Subdivisions 3.9.a, 3.9.c, 3.9.d, and 3.9.e are not inconsistent with SMCRA section 515(b)(15) concerning the use of explosives, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.61, 816.62, 817.61, and 817.62 concerning use of explosives and pre-blasting surveys, and 30 CFR 850.13, 850.14, and 850.15 concerning training, examination, and certification of blasters. Therefore, they are approved.

Subdivision 3.10.f is amended by adding language to provide that all persons employed by the Secretary, whose duties include review of pre-blast surveys and training of pre-blast surveyors, must meet the requirements for pre-blast surveyors as set forth in section 3.9. This provision is to ensure that State employees or contractors who review pre-blast surveys or train pre-blast surveyors have the same training, qualifications, and experience as individuals who actually perform pre-blast surveys within the State.

The Federal rules lack specific provisions concerning individuals who review pre-blast surveys or train pre-blast surveyors. However, we find that the proposed addition of Subdivision 3.10.f. is not inconsistent with SMCRA section 515(b)(15) concerning the use of explosives, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.61, 816.62, 817.61, and 817.62 concerning use of explosives and pre-blasting surveys, and 30 CFR 850.13, 850.14, and 850.15 concerning training, examination, and certification of blasters. Therefore, it is approved.

We must also note that our previous concern regarding the confidentiality provision at Subdivision 3.10.d which limits the use of pre-blast surveys for only evaluating blasting claims is still valid, and the approval of that requirement is still limited to the extent described in our December 10, 2003, Federal Register notice (68 FR 68731). We approved this provision with the understanding that the phrase, “only used for evaluating damage claims” does not preclude the use of pre-blast surveys to support the issuance of notices of violations, cessation orders, civil penalties or other forms of alternative enforcement action under WVSCMRA and its implementing regulations to achieve the repair of blasting damage and thus resolve a damage claim.

Subdivision 4.1.a is amended to require that each person acting in the capacity of a blaster and responsible for the blasting operation be certified by the Secretary.

Subdivision 4.1.b is amended to require that each applicant for certification be a minimum of twenty-one (21) years old. In addition, new language was added to provide that “[a]pplicants who have blasting experience prior to the last three years, with documentation, may be considered by the Secretary on a case-by-case basis as qualifying experience for initial certification and re-certification; provided the [retraining] requirements of 4.6.c. apply.”

Subdivision 4.1.c is amended to state that the application for certification be on forms prescribed by the Secretary.

There are no direct Federal counterparts to these requirements. However, we find that the proposed revisions to the State's blaster certification requirements at Subdivisions 4.1.a, 4.1.b, and 4.1.c are not inconsistent with the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 816.61(c), 817.61(c), 850.12(b), and 850.14(a)(2), and the revisions are approved.

Subsection 4.2 is amended by adding language to provide that the training program will consist of the West Virginia Surface Mine Blasters Self-Study Guide Course and a classroom review of the self-study guide course. Completion of the classroom review part of the training program may not be required for first time applicants. Furthermore, applicants for certification or applicants for re-certification, who cannot document the experience requirements specified in Subdivision 4.1.b. of this rule, must complete the West Virginia Surface Mine Blasters Self-Study Guide.

Subdivision 4.2.a is amended to provide that, prior to certification, all applicants, not just those who choose self-study, attend a two (2) hour Blaster's Responsibilities training session addressing certified blasters' responsibilities and the disciplinary procedures contained in subsections 4.9 and 4.10 of this rule.

We find that the proposed State revisions to Subsection 4.2 and Subdivision 4.2.a are no less effective than the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 850.12(b) and 850.13(a), and the revisions are approved.

Subdivision 4.3.b is amended to clarify that the examination for certified blaster consists of three parts.

Subdivision 4.3.d is amended to state that any person who fails to pass any part of the exam on the second attempt or every other subsequent attempt must certify that he/she has taken or retaken the classroom review training program described in subsection 4.2 of this rule prior to applying for another examination.

There are no direct Federal counterparts to these requirements. However, we find that proposed State revisions to Subdivisions 4.3.b and 4.3.d are not inconsistent with the Federal certified blaster examination requirements at 30 CFR 850.14, and the revisions are approved.

Subdivision 4.5.d is amended by adding language to provide that persons who have had their blasters certification suspended or revoked in any other state may be required to show cause as to why they should be considered for certification. As specifically written, the language does not comport directly with our interpretation of the State's intent when combined with the opening sentence of Subsection 4.5. However, in an email conversation with the WVDEP (Administrative Record Number WV-1514), the State indicated the language should read: “Has had their blaster's certification suspended or revoked in any other state. The blasters may be required to show cause as to why they should be considered for certification.” Basically, West Virginia will not certify or re-certify anyone who has had their certification in another state suspended or revoked without them showing cause why West Virginia should certify them.

Therefore, while there is no specific Federal counterpart to this State requirement and with this understanding in mind, we find that the proposed revision to Subdivision 4.5.d is not inconsistent with the Federal requirements concerning blaster certification at 30 CFR 850.15(b), and it is approved. However, we recommend that the WVDEP revise the language in Subdivision 4.5.d to match our understanding as provided in the conversation record mentioned above.

Subdivision 4.6.c is amended to clarify that an applicant for recertification who does not meet the experience requirements of Subdivision 4.1.b of this rule must take the training course defined in section 4.2.

While there is no direct Federal counterpart to this requirement, we find that the proposed revision to Subdivision 4.6.c is not inconsistent with the Federal blaster training requirements at 30 CFR 850.13(a) and the Federal blaster recertification requirements at 30 CFR 850.15(c), and it is approved.

Subdivision 4.7.d is amended by adding language to clarify that a certified blaster must not take any instruction or direction on blast design, explosives loading, handling, transportation and detonation from a person not holding a West Virginia blaster's certificate, if such instruction or direction may result in an unlawful act, or an improper or unlawful action that may result in unlawful effects of a blast. In addition, a person not holding a West Virginia blaster's certification who requires a certified blaster to take such action may be prosecuted under W. Va. Code 22-3-17(c) or (i). While these revisions have no direct Federal counterparts, we find that they are not inconsistent with Federal requirements concerning blaster certification at 30 CFR 850.15, and the revisions are approved.

Subparagraph 4.9.a.2 is amended by adding language relating to Imminent Harm Suspension.

Subparagraph 4.9.a.5 is amended by adding language to provide that any blaster receiving a suspension or revocation may appeal the decision to the Secretary and to the Surface Mine Board.

While these revisions have no direct Federal counterparts, we find that they are not inconsistent with the Federal requirements concerning the suspension and revocation of a blaster's certification at 30 CFR 850.15(b), and the revisions are approved.

Subsection 4.13 is amended to provide that persons who are not certified and who are assigned to a blasting crew, or assist in the use of explosives, must receive directions and on-the-job training from the certified blaster in the technical aspects of blasting operations, including applicable state and Federal laws governing the storage, transportation, and proper use of explosives. We find that the proposed State revision at Subsection 4.13 is no less effective than the Federal blaster training requirements at 30 CFR 850.13(a), and it is approved.

Subsection 4.14 is amended by adding language to clarify that reciprocity is a one-time only process. New language is also added to clarify: “Any blaster who has been issued a certification through reciprocity and fails to meet the recertification requirements will be required to reexamine and may be required to provide refresher training documentation, as per Subdivision [section] 4.6.a of this rule.”

There is no Federal counterpart to the proposed State revision. However, all State coal mining regulatory programs are subject to the same minimum Federal blasting standards. Therefore, we find that the proposed State revision at Subsection 4.14 regarding reciprocity with other States is not inconsistent with the Federal requirements at section 719 of SMCRA and 30 CFR part 850 regarding the training, examination, and certification of blasters, and it is approved.

Subdivision 5.2.a is amended to clarify that only a certified inspector will be assigned to conduct a field investigation to determine the initial merit of the damage claim and what such an investigation by a certified inspector is to include.

There is no Federal counterpart to the proposed State revision. However, we find that the revised requirement at Subdivision 5.2.a is not inconsistent with the Federal blasting requirements at 30 CFR 816.61 through 816.68 and 817.61 through 817.68, and it is approved.

Subparagraph 5.2.a.3 is amended to require that the inspector will make a written report on the investigation that describes the nature and extent of the alleged damage, taking into consideration the condition of the structure, observed defects, or pre-existing damage that is accurately indicated on a pre-blast survey, conditions of the structure that existed where there has been no blasting conducted by the operator, or other reliable indicators that the alleged damage actually pre-dated the blasting by the operator.

In addition, language was deleted and added to clarify that the inspector will make one of the following initial determinations and notify the claims administrator, make a recommendation on the merit of the claim, and supply such information that the claims administrator needs to sufficiently document the claim:

The former Subparagraph 5.2.a.5 has been moved to Subparagraph 5.2.a.6 and is also amended to clarify that the determination as to the merit of a claim is to be made by the inspector.

Under the revised procedures, a certified inspector will investigate any claim alleging blasting damage; make an initial determination and notify the claims administrator; make a recommendation on the merit of the claim; and provide the claims administrator information to sufficiently document the claim. As revised, the inspector will initially determine whether or not there is merit that blasting caused the alleged damage. In addition, Subparagraph 5.2.a.3.C allows for the possibility that the determination of merit as to whether blasting caused or did not cause the alleged damage cannot be made. As proposed, a certified inspector will have three options to choose from with respect to the merit of a claim.

We are approving these provisions with the understanding that only the certified inspector will make the determination regarding the fact of violation and the claims administrator/adjuster is primarily responsible for determining the award amount due to the blasting damage. In situations where the determination of merit cannot be made, it is the adjuster's responsibility under Subparagraph 5.4.e to make a preliminary determination of merit and the claims administrator's responsibility under Subparagraph 5.3.d to make a final determination on the merit and loss value of the claim. Regardless, in all instances, it is the certified inspector's responsibility to make the determination regarding the fact of violation and to take appropriate enforcement action when necessary. In an email communication with OSMRE (Administrative Record Number WV-1514), the State confirmed that: “In cases where damage is found to exist, it is the inspector's duty to write the violation. The Secretary will still be the one who ultimately decides if damage occurs based on the information provided when the claims administrator or the adjuster is involved.”

Based upon this understanding, we find that the State's revised blasting damage claims procedures at Subparagraphs 5.2.a.3 and 5.2.a.6. are consistent with the Federal inspection requirements at SMCRA section 517 and 30 CFR part 842 and are the same as or similar to the Federal enforcement and penalties procedures at SMCRA sections 518 and 521 and 30 CFR parts 840, 845, 846, and 847. Therefore, these revisions are approved.

The provisions formerly contained at Subparagraphs 5.2.a.3.C and 5.2.a.4. have been moved to Subparagraphs 5.2.a.4 and 5.2.a.5, respectively. In these revised provisions, the word “Office” has been changed to “Secretary,” and cross-references to other provisions have been amended appropriately.

We initially approved these provisions on December 10, 2003, with the understanding that, if the property owner declines to participate in the claims process, the State could conclude its involvement in that process, but the WVDEP would not be precluded from issuing a blasting-related notice of violation, cessation order, or taking other enforcement actions where blasting-related violations that cause property damage have occurred (68 FR 68735). We continue to maintain that the conclusion of the State's involvement, as provided by revised Subparagraphs 5.2.a.4.A and 5.2.a.5, is limited to the blasting claims process and not the State's enforcement process. Therefore, it is with this understanding that we are able to find that the revised State provisions at Subparagraphs 5.2.a.4.A and 5.2.a.5 regarding the blasting damage claims process are not inconsistent with SMCRA and the Federal regulations, and the revisions are approved.

Subsection 6.1, relating to the listing of arbitrators, is amended by adding language to provide that once a year the Environmental Advocate, and industry representatives (selected by the West Virginia Coal Association, Inc.) may move to strike up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the list, with cause.

In addition, Subsection 6.4 is amended by adding language to require the parties to arbitration to choose an arbitrator within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the notice by the parties.

There are no Federal counterparts to the proposed State revisions. However, we find that the proposed revisions at Subsections 6.1 and 6.4 regarding the State's arbitration process are not inconsistent with the Federal blasting requirements at section 515(b)(15) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 816.61 through 816.68 and 817.61 through 817.68, and the revisions are approved.

Subsection 7.2 is amended by adding language to require copies of blast logs be submitted as necessary to verify the accuracy of the report and explosive material fee calculation made by operators.

Subsection 7.3 is also amended by adding language to provide that, for the purpose of this section, detonators, caps, detonating cords, and initiation systems are exempt from the calculation for explosive material fees. However, the Secretary may require reporting on the use of these products.

There are no Federal counterparts to the proposed State revisions regarding the explosive material fee. However, we find that the revised provisions at Subsections 7.2 and 7.3 are not inconsistent with the Federal blasting requirements at sections 515(b)(15) and 719 of SMCRA, 30 CFR 840.12(b) and 30 CFR 816.61 through 816.68 and 817.61 through 817.68, and the revisions are approved.

Pursuant to Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751, West Virginia proposes the following amendments to Section 22-3-11 of the WVSCMRA:

This amendment revises Section 22-3-11 of the WVSCMRA relating to the State's alternative bonding system. As stated in the WVDEP's April 8, 2008, letter transmitting the program amendment, the revisions included in Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751 related “generally to the special reclamation tax by establishing the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund; continuing and reimposing a tax on clean coal mined for deposit into both funds; requiring the secretary to look at alternative programs; and authorizing Secretary to promulgate legislative rules implementing the alternative programs.”

The provisions relating to the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund and the reinstatement and increase in the special reclamation tax to 7.4 cents per ton as contained in subsections 22-3-11(g) and (h)(1), respectively, were approved by OSMRE on an interim basis in a separate Federal Register notice dated June 16, 2008 (73 FR 33884-33888), and public comments were later solicited on those provisions. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), we found that good cause existed to approve the revisions to subsections 22-3-11(g) and (h)(1) of the WVSCMRA on an interim basis because requiring notice and the opportunity for comment then would have delayed the start of the collection of the increased special reclamation tax. Enrolled Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751 became effective on July 1, 2008, and the public interest in the accomplishment of prompt and thorough reclamation of bond forfeiture sites, including water treatment of discharges there from, would have been adversely affected if the 7.4 cents per ton special reclamation tax had not been collected on and after that effective date. In any event, the public still had an opportunity to comment on the reinstatement and increase in the special reclamation tax and on the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund prior to this decision.

Subsection 22-3-11(a) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding language to provide that the penal amount of the bond will be for each acre or fraction of an acre. Formerly, the provision stated: “[T]he penal amount of the bond must be for each acre or fraction `thereof.' ” The deletion of the word “thereof” and the addition of the words “of an acre” do not change the meaning of the provision, so our approval of the change is not necessary.

Subsection 22-3-11(g) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding language to provide that the Special Reclamation Fund previously created is continued. In addition, the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund is created within the State Treasury into and from which moneys will be paid for the purpose of assuring a reliable source of capital to reclaim and restore water treatment systems on forfeited sites. The moneys accrued in both funds, any interest earned thereon and yield from investments by the State Treasurer or West Virginia Investment Management Board are reserved solely and exclusively for the purposes set forth in WVSCMRA 22-3-11 and 17. The funds will be administered by the Secretary who is authorized to expend the moneys in both funds for the reclamation and rehabilitation of lands which were subjected to permitted surface mining operations and abandoned after August 3, 1977, where the amount of the bond posted and forfeited on the land is less than the actual cost of reclamation, and where the land is not eligible for abandoned mine land reclamation funds under W.Va. Code 22-2. The Secretary will develop a long-range planning process for selection and prioritization of sites to be reclaimed so as to avoid inordinate short-term obligations of the assets in both funds of such magnitude that the solvency of either is jeopardized. The Secretary may use both funds for the purpose of designing, constructing, and maintaining water treatment systems when they are required for a complete reclamation of the affected lands described in Subsection 11(g). The Secretary may also expend an amount not to exceed ten percent of the total annual assets in both funds to implement and administer the provisions of this article and, as they apply to the Surface Mine Board, W.Va. Code 22B-1 and 4.

Previously, the expenditure for water treatment systems was limited to fees collected under the Special Reclamation Fund. Under the proposed revisions, funds from both the Special Reclamation Fund and the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund can be used to design, construct, and maintain water treatment systems on bond forfeiture sites. We find that the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund into which moneys will be deposited for the purpose of designing, constructing, and maintaining water treatment systems on bond forfeiture sites when necessary, and for the purpose of completing other reclamation of bond forfeiture sites within the State affected by mining is no less stringent than the Federal alternative bonding requirement at section 509(c) of SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e), and the revisions are approved on a permanent basis.

Subsection 22-3-11(h)(1) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding language to provide that, “For tax periods commencing on and after July 1, 2008, every person conducting coal surface mining must remit a special reclamation tax as follows: (A) For the initial period of twelve months, ending June 30, 2009, 7.4 cents per ton of clean coal mined, the proceeds of which will be allocated by the Secretary for deposit in the Special Reclamation Fund and the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund; (B) an additional 7 cents per ton of clean coal mined, the proceeds of which will be deposited in the Special Reclamation Fund. The tax will be levied upon each ton of clean coal severed or clean coal obtained from a refuse pile and slurry pond recovery or clean coal from other mining methods extracting a combination of coal and waste material as part of a fuel supply.” While Senate Bill 751 stated that the Council was to review and make recommendations on needed adjustments to the Legislature, it also contained a proviso that the tax could “not be reduced until the Special Reclamation Fund and Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund have sufficient moneys to meet the reclamation responsibilities of the State established in this section.” See WVSCMRA Subsection (h)(1)(B).

Under the proposed changes, the State reinstated and increased the initial tax from 7 cents to 7.4 cents per ton of clean coal mined. The tax was extended by the Legislature and approved by the Governor. The proceeds from this tax are deposited in both the Special Reclamation Fund and the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. Given that OSMRE approved these proposed provisions on an interim bases on June 16, 2009, both the Special Reclamation Fund and the Special Reclamation Trust Fund are still in effect. See 73 FR 33884. The WVSCMRA also provides for an additional seven cents per ton of clean coal mined to be deposited into the Special Reclamation fund, which was also to be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted annually by the Legislature upon the recommendation of the Special Reclamation Fund Advisory Council.

Because we find the proposed State revisions at subsection 22-3-11(h)(1) to be no less stringent than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at section 509(c) of SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e), they are approved on a permanent basis.

Subsection 22-3-11(h)(2) of the WVSCMRA is amended to clarify that in managing the Special Reclamation Program, the Secretary will: (A) pursue cost-effective alternative water treatment strategies; and (B) conduct formal actuarial studies every two years and conduct informal reviews annually on both the Special Reclamation Fund and Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund.

Under the proposed changes, both the Special Reclamation Fund and the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund will be reviewed informally on an annual basis and actuarial studies will be done every two years. The proposed revisions are in keeping with the sound management of an alternative bonding system. In addition, we find that the proposed revisions at subsection 22-3-11(h)(2) are no less stringent than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at section 509(c) of SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e), and the revisions are approved on a permanent basis.

Subsection 22-3-11(h)(3) of the WVSCMRA is amended to delete obsolete language relating to tasks that were to be completed by the Secretary by December 31, 2005, and adding additional language.

The proposed tasks outlined in this section are typical of the kinds of tasks that are undertaken under an alternative bonding system. Completion of these tasks should enable the State to make adjustments in its alternative bonding system that will ensure its long-term financial solvency. We find the proposed revisions at subsection 22-3-11(h)(3) to be no less stringent than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at section 509(c) of SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e), and the revisions are approved on a permanent basis.

As discussed below, Subsection 22-3-11(h)(4) of the WVSCMRA is amended.

Once the tasks mentioned under subsection 22-3-11(h)(3) are completed, the Secretary is authorized under subsection 22-3-11(h)(4) to promulgate legislative rules to implement these alternative bonding mechanisms. It is important to note that, pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h), any rules pertaining to the State's alternative bonding system will have to be submitted to OSMRE for approval prior to implementation. As provided by 30 CFR 732.17(g), whenever changes to laws or regulations that make up an approved State program are proposed by a State, the State must immediately submit the changes to OSMRE as an amendment. No such change to laws or regulations can take effect for the purposes of a State program until approved as an amendment. Because we find the proposed revisions at subsection 22-3-11(h)(4) to be no less stringent than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at section 509(c) of SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e), the revisions are approved on a permanent basis.

Subsection 22-3-11(l) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding language to clarify that the Tax Commissioner will deposit the moneys collected with the Treasurer of the State of West Virginia to the credit of the Special Reclamation Fund and Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. Existing language providing that the moneys in the fund are to be placed by the Treasurer in an interest-bearing account with the interest being returned to the fund on an annual basis is being deleted.

As proposed, the State Tax Commissioner is required to deposit moneys collected with the State Treasurer to the credit of both the Special Reclamation Fund and Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. In addition, language providing for interest being returned to the fund is being deleted. In keeping with the other requirements, it is necessary to allow moneys collected by the Tax Commissioner to be deposited with the Treasurer to the credit of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. Because subsection 22-3-11(g) allows interest to be earned and credited to both the Special Reclamation Fund and Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund, the provision that is being deleted at subsection 22-3-11(l) is redundant and no longer necessary. Therefore, we find the proposed revisions at subsection 22-3-11(l) to be no less stringent than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at section 509(c) of SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e), and the revisions are approved on a permanent basis.

Subsection 22-3-11(m) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding the words “in both funds” at the end of the sentence. The provision now reads: “At the beginning of each quarter, the secretary must advise the State Tax Commissioner and the Governor of the assets, excluding payments, expenditures and liabilities, in both funds.”

As proposed, the Secretary is required to notify the Tax Commissioner and the Governor of the assets and liabilities in both the Special Reclamation Fund and the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund on a quarterly basis. Given the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund, it was necessary to amend the State's financial reporting requirements. We find that the proposed State revisions at subsection 22-3-11(m) are no less stringent than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at section 509(c) of SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal alternative bonding requirements at 30 CFR 800.11(e), and the revisions are approved on a permanent basis.

On June 16, 2008, we published a Federal Register notice announcing our approval of the reinstatement and increase in the State's special reclamation tax and the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund on an interim basis. We also asked for public comments on the proposed changes (Administrative Record Number WV-1507). On July 8, 2008, we announced receipt and requested comments on the remaining portions of the proposed State amendment (Administrative Record Number WV-1508). One organization, the West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA), responded on August 7, 2008 (Administrative Record Number WV-1512).

The WVCA stated that OSMRE's review of Senate Bill 751 (West Virginia's approved alternative bonding system (ABS), known as the Special Reclamation Fund (SRF)) should be confined to assuring that the provisions of the legislation will not conflict with other provisions of Federal mining statutes and regulations. The WVCA said that any review beyond that, such as determination as to the adequacy of funding of the alternative bonding system (ABS), is improper as provisions of West Virginia's Special Reclamation Fund related to water treatment at bond forfeiture sites exceed the requirement of Federal mining statutes and regulations. The WVCA went on to say that any action on behalf of WVDEP regarding water treatment and the approved State ABS exceeds the requirements of SMCRA. These comments are available in their entirety at www.regulations.gov.

For this specific amendment, we neither reviewed the financial adequacy of the State's ABS nor are we evaluating the solvency of the ABS with regard to 30 CFR 800.11(e). Our review, at this time, is limited to the reinstatement of the 7 cents per ton special reclamation tax, its increase to 7.4 cents per ton, and the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. Further information regarding our approval of this component of the amendment is included in Finding 40. Given the limited scope of our review, this comment is beyond the scope of this decision. However, we want to note that issues related to use of the ABS to treat mine drainage discharges from bond forfeiture sites, as well as the State's overall approach to funding its ABS, were addressed in OSMRE's initial approval of the State's ABS, as published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2001 (66 FR 67446-67451) and May 29, 2002 (67 FR 37610-37626).

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, on April 28, 2008, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the West Virginia program (Administrative Record Number WV-1505A). Given the publication of our interim rule in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008, regarding the State's reinstatement of its special reclamation tax and the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund, we clarified in a letter dated May 14, 2008, that OSMRE would be interested in receiving comments on the proposed change to the State's special reclamation tax and any other revisions to the State's alternative bonding system as set forth in West Virginia Code 22-3-11(h)(1) (Administrative Record Number WV-1509).

We received comments from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on June 5, 2008 (Administrative Record Number WV-1506). The DOE acknowledged receipt of both letters and stated that it did not have the expertise to analyze the issues underlying the State's ABS or to comment on the other proposed revisions. Although they offered no substantive comments, we appreciate the time and effort that DOE took to respond to our request.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture submitted its response on June 5, 2008 (Administrative Record Number WV-1510). The NRCS did not have any comments on the proposed changes to the special reclamation tax and any other proposed changes to the State's ABS. Although NRCS also offered no substantive comments, we appreciate the time and effort that they took to respond to our request.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), U.S. Department of the Interior, submitted its comments on June 12, 2008 (Administrative Record Number WV-1511). MSHA acknowledged that some of the changes to the State's blasting and reclamation requirements are more restrictive than current MSHA standards, and the proposed revisions to the State's requirements for sediment control and water retention structures are newer and, in some instances, more stringent than MSHA standards. According to MSHA, because mine operators must comply with the more stringent standard, they had no concerns regarding the proposed amendments.

We concur with MSHA's comments. In those instances where a State provision may be more stringent than the Federal requirement, section 505(b) of SMCRA provides that the State requirement will not be construed to be inconsistent with the Act.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), we are required to request comments and obtain written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ). On April 29, 2008, we solicited comments and the written concurrence of EPA on the proposed State revisions (Administrative Record Number 1505B). As mentioned above, we also notified EPA on May 14, 2008, that we would be interested in receiving comments on the proposed change to the State's special reclamation tax and any other revisions to the State's alternative bonding system as set forth in West Virginia Code 22-3-11(h)(1) (Administrative Record Number WV-1509).

EPA responded by letter dated September 25, 2008 (Administrative Record Number WV-1513). EPA stated that, based on 30 U.S.C. 1292, the proposed State amendments must be construed and implemented consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, and other relevant environmental statutes. Accordingly, EPA provided its concurrence on the proposed State program amendments. EPA went on to provide the following comments on the proposed revisions to the State's Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations and the proposed statutory revisions to the State's alternative bonding system.

EPA commented on the proposed revisions to CSR 38-2-5.4.h.2 regarding sediment control. EPA acknowledged that it strongly supports efforts to ensure that natural drain ways are returned to natural conditions once drainage control structures are removed. EPA encouraged the use of natural erosion control techniques, such as vegetation, in lieu of rock-lined channels to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, EPA viewed the proposed amendment as a step in that direction.

We concur with EPA's comment. As discussed above in Finding 6, we found that the proposed changes to the State's abandonment procedures for sediment control structures at Subparagraph 5.4.h.2 were no less effective than the Federal abandonment requirements at 30 CFR 816. 46(b), 816.49(c), 816.56, 817.46(b), 817.49(c), and 817.56.

EPA commented on the State's proposed revisions to its storm water runoff requirements at CSR 38-2-5.6.a. EPA noted that the amendment exempts mining operations with permitted acreage of less than 50 acres from preparing a storm water runoff analysis and further excludes from the requirement haulroads, loadouts and ventilation facilities. EPA went on to warn that the NPDES permitting requirements do not include an exemption or limitation based on minimum permitted acreage, and these amendments cannot exempt coal mining facilities from any applicable regulations under the CWA, including the storm water regulations.

We must note that the State's storm water runoff analysis required under Subdivision 5.6.a does not relate to storm water requirements under the CWA. As provided by CSR 38-2-5.4.b.2, all sediment control or other water retention structures used in association with mining must comply with applicable State and Federal water quality standards and meet effluent limitations as specified in an NPDES permit for all discharges. In addition, CSR 38-2-14.5.b provides that discharges from areas disturbed by surface mining cannot violate effluent limitations or cause a violation of applicable water quality standards. The monitoring frequency and effluent limitations are governed by the standards set forth in an NPDES permit issued pursuant to W. Va. Code Section 22-11 et seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. As discussed above in Finding 7, we found that Subdivision 5.6.a contains more specific information regarding storm impacts than the Federal rules, but the proposed revisions thereto were not inconsistent with the Federal hydrologic requirements at 30 CFR 780.21 and 784.14. Furthermore, water discharges from areas disturbed by surface mining activities must comply with NPDES effluent limitations and all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and regulations, as provided by Subdivision 14.5.b and 30 CFR 816.42 and 817.42. However, we must also note that the State has adopted a NPDES storm water policy that allows storm water discharges to be regulated in accordance with an Article 3 (SMCRA) permit revision, including incidental boundary revisions, and with the best management practices and performance standards contained in the State's surface mining law and regulations. Such storm water discharges cannot involve any coal removal, pumping of storm water, or storm water runoff commingled with mine drainage, refuse drainage, coal stockpile areas, preparation plant areas, loading areas, or unloading areas. Under the policy, the State can require any permittee to submit a NPDES modification when it is determined that such receiving stream will be better protected by an individual NPDES permit. Given that under this policy some discharges of water from areas disturbed by surface mining activities, especially underground mines, may not be subject to an individual NPDES permit as required by Subdivision 14.5.b and 30 CFR 816.42 and 817.42, further consultation and coordination with EPA is envisioned to ensure that the State's policy is consistent with SMCRA, the CWA, and their implementing regulations. The aforementioned State policy would not be part of the approved State regulatory program, because the authority for this policy resides under the CWA, not SMCRA. OSMRE is, however, interested in the mechanics of the policy and how it is to be implemented and enforced under SMCRA.

EPA supports the proposed change to the State's alternative bonding system because it addresses long term pollutional drainage.

Based on the above findings, we are approving, with certain exceptions and understandings, the West Virginia program amendment dated April 8, 2008, as received electronically on April 17, 2008.

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 948, which codify decisions concerning the West Virginia program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications that would result in public property being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval of state program amendments is exempt from OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.

The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department has determined that this Federal Register notice meets the criteria of Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency review its legislation and proposed regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; that the agency write its legislation and regulations to minimize litigation; and that the agency's legislation and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden reduction. Because Section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under this Executive Order to the quality of this Federal Register notice and to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this Executive Order did not extend to the language of the state regulatory program or to the program amendment that the State of West Virginia drafted.

This rule is not a “[p]olicy that [has] Federalism implications” as defined by Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 because it does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Instead, this rule approves an amendment to the West Virginia program submitted and drafted by that State. OSMRE reviewed the submission with fundamental federalism principles in mind as set forth in Sections 2 and 3 of the Executive Order and with the principles of cooperative federalism set forth in SMCRA. See e.g. 30 U.S.C. 1201(f). As such, pursuant to Section 503(a)(1) and (7) (30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7)), OSMRE reviewed the program amendment to ensure that it is “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA and “consistent with” the regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Tribes. Therefore, consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on the West Virginia program that does not include Tribal lands or regulation of activities on Tribal lands. Tribal lands are regulated independently under the applicable, approved Federal program.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) and 1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), State program amendments are not major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq. ) directs OSMRE to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. (OMB Circular A-119 at p. 14). This action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with SMCRA.

This rule does not include requests and requirements of an individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to constitute a major rule.

This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 948 is amended as set forth below:

The rule is closely related to, but distinct from, 32 CFR part 113, “Indebtedness Procedures of Military Personnel,” which details the procedures by which a third party submits a complaint to collect valid debts against military members through wage garnishment or an involuntary allotment of the military member's pay. This rule, unlike 32 CFR part 113, does not create any burden to the public. It simply assigns responsibilities and procedures within DoD. DoD will modify 32 CFR part 113 to remove references to part 112.

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publicly available in DoD Instruction 1344.09, “Indebtedness of Military Personnel,” most recently updated on December 8, 2008 (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/134409p.pdf ).

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Therefore, the requirements of E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” do not apply.

This rule was originally promulgated under the direction of 10 U.S.C. 982, “Members: service on State and local juries,” to establish uniform DoD policies for active duty members summoned to serve on a State or local jury. The rule was originally finalized on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76917). This rule is unnecessary and imposes no burden on, nor imparts any relevant knowledge on, the public. It contains internal DoD policies only.

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publicly available in DoD Instruction 5525.08, “Service by Members of the Armed Forces on State and Local Juries,” most recently updated on January 3, 2007 (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/552508p.pdf ).

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Therefore, the requirements of E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” do not apply. This removal supports a recommendation of the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2020 Pacific cod total allowable catch allocated to AFA trawl catcher/processors is 3,196 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the Pacific cod total allowable catch allocated to the AFA trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that Pacific cod caught by AFA trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting retention of Pacific cod by AFA trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of May 1, 2020.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by §§ 679.20 and 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.