Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18731 

(b) For Section 202 mixed-finance 

developments, the prohibited facilities 

requirements described at § 891.220 

shall apply to only the capital advancefunded portion of the Section 202 

mixed-finance developments under this 

subpart, subject to the provisions of 

§ 891.813(b). 

(c) For Section 811 mixed-finance 

developments, the prohibited facilities 

requirements described at § 891.315 

shall apply to the entire mixed-finance 

development. 

Dated: March 2, 2012. 

Carol J. Galante, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing— 

Federal Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7316 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 982 

[Docket No. FR–5453–P–01] 

RIN 2577–AC86 

Public Housing and Section 8 

Programs: Housing Choice Voucher 

Program: Streamlining the Portability 

Process 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing, HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend HUD’s regulations governing 

portability in the Housing Choice 

Voucher (HCV) program. Portability is a 

feature of the HCV program that allows 

an eligible family with a housing choice 

voucher to use that voucher to lease a 

unit anywhere in the United States 

where there is a public housing agency 

(PHA) operating an HCV program. The 

purpose of HUD’s proposed changes to 

the portability regulations is to clarify 

requirements already established in the 

existing regulations and improve the 

process involved with processing 

portability requests to enable PHAs to 

better serve families and expand 

housing opportunities. It is HUD’s 

intent to increase administrative 

efficiencies by eliminating confusing 

and obscure regulatory language in areas 

that are known to be troublesome. This 

proposed rule attempts to balances the 

needs and interests of PHAs while 

increasing family choice. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: May 29, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposed rule to the Regulations 

Division, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 

10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

Communications must refer to the above 

docket number and title. There are two 

methods for submitting public 

comments. All submissions must refer 

to the above docket number and title. 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

2. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make them immediately available to the 

public. Comments submitted 

electronically through the 

www.regulations.gov Web site can be 

viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Note: To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be submitted 

through one of the two methods specified 

above. Again, all submissions must refer to 

the docket number and title of the rule. No 

Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (Fax) 

comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available for 

public inspection and copying between 

8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above 

address. Due to security measures at the 

HUD Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled by calling 

the Regulations Division at 202–708– 

3055 (this is not a toll-free number). 

Individuals with speech or hearing 

impairments may access this number 

via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 

Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Copies 

of all comments submitted are available 

for inspection and downloading at 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laure Rawson, Director, Housing 

Voucher and Management Operations 

Division, Office of Housing Choice 

Vouchers, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410– 

8000, telephone number 202–708–0477 

(this is not a toll-free number). 

Individuals with speech or hearing 

impairments may access this number 

through TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The HCV program is the Federal 

Government’s largest program for 

assisting very low-income families, the 

elderly, and the disabled to afford 

decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the 

private market. The HCV program is 

authorized by section 8(o) of the United 

States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 

1473f(o)) (1937 Act), and the HCV 

program regulations are found in 

24 CFR part 982. 

Housing choice vouchers are 

administered locally by PHAs. PHAs 

receive federal funds from HUD to 

administer the HCV program. A family 

that is issued a housing choice voucher 

is responsible for finding a suitable 

housing unit of the family’s choice 

where the owner agrees to rent under 

the program. This unit may include the 

family’s current residence. Rental units 

must meet minimum standards of health 

and safety, as determined by the PHA 

and must also meet a reasonable rent 

determination based on similar 

unassisted units. The maximum amount 

the PHA can pay toward a unit is 

determined by the payment standard set 

using the annual Fair Market Rents 

published by HUD. The PHA 

determines the family’s annual income 

to determine the amount that the family 

will contribute toward rent, which is 

generally 30 percent of its adjusted 

annual income. A housing subsidy is 

paid to the landlord directly by the PHA 

on behalf of the participating family to 

pay the difference between the payment 

standard and the tenant rent 

contribution. A key feature of the HCV 

program is the mobility of the voucher 

assistance or ‘‘portability.’’ Section 8(r) 

of the 1937 Act provides that HCV 

participants may choose a unit that 

meets program requirements anywhere 

in the United States, provided that a 

PHA administering the tenant-based 

program has jurisdiction over the area in 

which the unit is located. The term 

‘‘portability’’ refers to the process of 

leasing a dwelling unit with tenantbased housing voucher assistance 

outside of the jurisdiction of the PHA 

that initially issued the family its 

voucher (the initial PHA). Currently, 

program regulations, found at 24 CFR 

982.353 through 982.355, detail where a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18732 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1A summary of these meetings can be found on 

HUD’s Web site at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ 

HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ 

programs/hcv under ‘‘2010 Meeting SummaryReport on the Convening Session of SEMAP and 

Portability.’’ 

family may move and the 

responsibilities of the initial PHA and 

the receiving PHA (the PHA with 

jurisdiction over the area to which the 

family desires to move). Situations have 

arisen during the time these regulations 

have been in place that have caused 

HUD to identify several issues with the 

potential to delay or impede the ability 

of families to relocate while retaining 

their voucher. One of the main purposes 

of this proposed rule is to make it easier 

for families with housing vouchers to 

relocate to areas that may offer greater 

opportunities. 

On March 2 and 3, 2010, the Office of 

Public and Indian Housing convened a 

meeting among PHAs, representatives 

from PHA organizations such as the 

Public Housing Authorities Directors 

Association, the National Leased 

Housing Association, the National 

Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials, and Council of 

Large Public Housing Authorities, along 

with HUD staff, to discuss portability. 

Representatives of PHAs and industry 

organizations raised such issues as: the 

difficulty in resolving payment issues 

between an initial PHA and a receiving 

PHA; the ability of PHAs to absorb a 

high number of families that seek to 

move to their jurisdiction; the 

coordination of reporting between an 

initial PHA and a receiving PHA; and 

different program requirements of PHAs 

in portability arrangements.1 This rule 

addresses several of the issues raised at 

these meetings, as well as issues 

identified by HUD in its review of the 

voucher regulations. Through 

amendments to the HCV program 

regulations, this rule proposes to: (1) 

More clearly delineate the roles of 

initial and receiving PHAs, making the 

portability process more certain; (2) 

improve accountability in portability 

billing arrangements between PHAs; 

and (3) increase family choice and 

reduce burden in locating suitable 

housing. 

II. This Proposed Rule—Section-bySection Review and Issues for Comment 

Definitional Changes (§ 982.4) 

After receiving a voucher, and 

particularly in the case of portability 

moves, a family has a limited window 

of time to locate suitable housing. After 

a family has located a unit, the family 

is required to submit a request for PHA 

approval of the tenancy. Currently, a 

PHA has a choice in adopting a policy 

that would allow for suspension of the 

voucher term when the family submits 

a request for tenancy approval. This 

proposed rule would revise the 

definition of ‘‘suspension’’ in § 982.4 to 

remove the phrase ‘‘for such period as 

determined by the PHA’’ from the 

definition and to replace it with the 

‘‘stopping of the clock’’ from the date on 

which the family submits a request for 

PHA approval of the tenancy, until the 

date the PHA approves or denies the 

request. This change would require 

PHAs to stop the clock on the family’s 

voucher in order to give the family the 

maximum time possible to locate a 

suitable unit and remove potential 

barriers to mobility. 

Suspension of Voucher Term (§ 982.54) 

This section of the proposed rule 

removes any reference to PHA 

discretion regarding ‘‘suspension’’ based 

on the revised definition of 

‘‘suspension.’’ 

Mandatory Voucher Suspension 

(§ 982.303) 

Under the current regulation at 

§ 982.303(c), a PHA may suspend the 

term of the voucher when a family 

submits a request for tenancy approval. 

The proposed rule would mandate 

suspension for all vouchers issued, and 

the suspension would last from the date 

the family submits the request for 

tenancy approval until the PHA 

approves or denies such request. 

Without this suspension, families may 

lose valuable time on their voucher 

while waiting for the PHA to complete 

the Housing Quality Standards (HQS) 

inspection requirements and to make a 

determination of approval or denial of 

the tenancy. This proposed change 

would give families the maximum time 

possible to locate a suitable unit and 

removes potential barriers to mobility. 

Notification Requirement Before 

Denying Moves for Insufficient Funding 

(§ 982.354) 

The regulations currently allow a 

PHA to deny a family permission to 

move if the PHA does not have 

sufficient funding. In the proposed rule, 

HUD would require a PHA to provide 

written notification to the local HUD 

Field Office when the PHA determines 

it is necessary to deny moves based on 

a determination of insufficient funding. 

The additional notification required by 

this proposed rule would help ensure 

that a PHA has considered the 

circumstances of each move prior to 

determining that insufficient funding is 

available. 

Portability Processing Procedures 

(§ 982.355) 

If a family chooses to exercise 

portability under the proposed rule, the 

initial PHA administering the family’s 

voucher would be required to contact 

the receiving PHA to determine if the 

receiving PHA will bill or absorb the 

voucher. The proposed rule would 

require that the communication by both 

PHAs be by email or other confirmed 

delivery method. HUD encourages PHAs 

to communicate this information via 

email in order to expedite the 

processing of the families’ request. The 

confirmed delivery method is important 

in documenting the communication 

between PHAs. HUD would not 

prescribe a specific form to be used for 

this communication. This 

communication and documentation 

requirement redistributes the 

administrative burden on the front-end 

of a family move and prevents future 

disputes between PHAs regarding the 

billing of individual families. Further, 

this requirement will prevent families 

from engaging in costly 

interjurisdictional moves prior to a final 

determination of receiving assistance in 

their new jurisdiction. 

When a receiving PHA agrees to 

absorb a family, the initial PHA often 

relies on this agreement and plans its 

annual budget accordingly. When a 

receiving PHA reverses this decision 

later, the impact on the family can be 

devastating. When an initial PHA has 

insufficient funds to cover the cost of 

the voucher in the receiving PHA’s 

jurisdiction, the family is required to 

relocate to the initial jurisdiction or 

relinquish assistance entirely. Under the 

proposed rule, if a receiving PHA 

decides to absorb the family, the 

receiving PHA cannot reverse its 

decision at a later date without consent 

of the initial PHA. This requirement 

will provide PHAs with stable, 

consistent information necessary to plan 

financially and to better serve families. 

HUD also adds clarifying language to 

this section of the rule stating that a 

receiving PHA cannot refuse to assist 

incoming portable families as is 

currently required by § 982.355(a). HUD 

may determine in certain instances that 

a PHA is not required to accept 

incoming portable families, such as a 

PHA in a declared disaster area. 

However, the PHA must have approval 

in writing from HUD before refusing any 

incoming portable families. Although 

HUD anticipates that refusals and thus 

the need for prior approval will be 

uncommon, such prior approval helps 

HUD to monitor and ensure that any 

refusal by a PHA to accept incoming 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18733 

1See http://www.nber.org/mtopublic/for a 

comprehensive database on MTO research, which 

analyzes the effects of families’ moving with 

vouchers. Other good references would be: Galvez, 

M.M. (2010). What Do We Know About Housing 

Choice Voucher Program Location Outcomes: A 

Review of Recent Litterature. What Works 

Collaborative—Urban Institute, see http:// 

www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412218. Phillip Tegeler, 

Mary Cunningham, and Margery Austin Turner, 

editors (2005). Keeping the Promise: Preserving and 

Enhancing Housing Mobility in the Section 8 

Housing Choice Voucher Program: Final Conference 

Report of the Third National Conference on 

Housing Mobility. 

portable families is documented and 

approved. 

Term of Receiving PHA Voucher 

(§ 982.355) 

HUD is proposing to add an 

additional 30 days to the term of the 

voucher for portability moves to 

accommodate the additional time that 

the portability process requires. For 

example, under the current regulations, 

the time period when the family is 

waiting to attend a briefing session at 

the receiving PHA is counting against 

the family’s initial voucher expiration 

date, thus reducing the family’s time to 

locate a unit. 

Administrative Fee (§ 982.355) 

Under current regulation, when a 

voucher is in a portability billing 

arrangement between the initial PHA 

and receiving PHA, the initial PHA 

must pay the receiving PHA 80 percent 

of its administrative fee for each month 

the family receives assistance at the 

receiving PHA. The proposed rule 

would set the maximum amount the 

initial PHA is required to pay at 100 

percent of the receiving PHA’s 

administrative fee rate. This change 

prevents a receiving PHA with a lower 

administrative fee from profiting from 

an initial PHA with a higher 

administrative fee. Under the proposed 

rule, a receiving PHA will be able to 

more fairly cover the costs of 

administering the voucher. 

Mandatory Absorption of Portability 

Vouchers (§ 982.355(e)) 

In order to help ensure that a PHA 

utilizes available budget authority to the 

maximum extent possible, and to reduce 

the number of portability billing 

arrangements between agencies, the 

proposed rule would require a PHA 

that: (1) Is utilizing less than 95 percent 

of its available budget authority, and (2) 

has a leasing rate of less than 95 

percent, to absorb incoming portability 

families until the percentage of available 

budget authority used or the leasing rate 

is at least 95 percent. The available 

budget authority includes the available 

Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Net 

Restrict Assets, or NRA. 

III. Specific Issues for Comment 

While HUD solicits and welcomes 

comments on all aspects of this rule, 

HUD specifically seeks comment on the 

following: 

1. Portability in the voucher program 

has been a subject of significant interest 

among PHAs, HUD, and others 

interested in effective administration of 

the voucher program and family 

mobility opportunities. HUD is aware of 

the additional administrative burden 

that portability billing arrangements 

place on PHAs, and HUD is interested 

in finding ways to reduce or eliminate 

portability billing arrangements between 

agencies. In the past, some PHAs 

suggested that HUD immediately 

transfer funds from the initial PHA 

consolidated Annual Contributions 

Contract (ACC) to the receiving PHA 

consolidated ACC, in order to instantly 

eliminate portability billing. Others 

suggested a sharing of costs by the 

initial and receiving PHA whereby the 

initial PHA would pay to the receiving 

PHA no more than the family’s subsidy 

at the initial PHA location. 

HUD specifically invites comments 

that offer proposals to design the 

portability feature of the HCV program 

that would eliminate or minimize the 

administrative burdens associated with 

the portability feature for PHAs and 

families. 

2. Under the current portability 

regulations, a family that chooses to 

move using portability must pass the 

screening criteria at the receiving PHA, 

although the family may have been a 

voucher recipient at the initial PHA for 

years. This is a problem for families 

when the receiving PHA has more 

stringent criteria than the initial PHA. 

For example, a family that includes an 

individual with a criminal background, 

and is acceptable under the initial 

PHA’s admission policies (e.g., the 

incident occurred more than 5 years 

ago), may decide to move using 

portability and request a voucher from 

the receiving PHA. Under that scenario, 

while the family is searching for new 

housing, the receiving PHA might notify 

the family that it did not pass the PHA’s 

criminal background screening criteria. 

At that point, the family had already 

notified its landlord of its intent to 

vacate, and its unit was rented to 

another family. As a result, in order to 

keep its assistance, the family would 

have to move back to the initial PHA’s 

jurisdiction and locate a different 

available unit in the initial PHA’s 

jurisdiction. 

HUD is seeking comments on ways to 

prevent this type of hardship on 

families and possible ways to address 

this issue such as prohibiting screening 

by the receiving PHA at the time of 

portability or standardizing policies for 

portability moves. 

3. The regulations at § 982.301 require 

that the PHA provide a briefing to 

families upon selection to participate in 

the HCV program. Currently, 

§ 982.301(b)(3) requires that the briefing 

to families living in high-poverty census 

tracts include an explanation of the 

advantages of moving to an area that 

does not have a high concentration of 

poor families. HUD is seeking comment 

on whether this information should be 

provided to all families selected to 

participate in the HCV program, and not 

just those families living in high-poverty 

census tracts. 

Further, HUD seeks comments on 

whether the briefing should be revised 

to highlight the factors and trade-offs 

that a family should consider in terms 

of where they wish to lease a unit with 

voucher assistance.1 These factors 

include but are not limited to: 

employment opportunities; safety, 

health and environmental amenities; 

public transportation; the quality of 

schools; access to social services; the 

quality of housing; and proximity to 

family and friends. HUD seeks comment 

on the content and emphases of the 

briefings. 

4. The current regulations at 24 CFR 

982.301(b)(11) require a PHA to provide 

families with a list of landlords or other 

parties known to the PHA who may be 

willing to lease a unit to the family or 

help the family find a unit. HUD is 

interested in learning if the list of 

landlords and other parties is helpful for 

families, or if HUD should remove this 

requirement in the revised rule. HUD is 

requesting comments regarding the 

focus of such information and whether 

additional information on areas of 

opportunity or neighborhoods would be 

more beneficial for families. 

5. When a family requests to port and 

there is more than one PHA in the 

family’s desired location, the current 

regulations at 24 CFR 982.355(b) require 

the initial PHA to select the receiving 

PHA. HUD is instead considering 

allowing the family to select the 

receiving PHA based on the PHA that 

best meets its needs. For example, some 

PHAs offer homeownership programs or 

Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) programs 

that a family may be interested in 

participating, or the family may want to 

select a PHA based on the scores of the 

schools in the PHA’s jurisdiction. The 

initial PHA would be responsible for 

informing the family of the PHAs that 

serve the area and providing the contact 

information for those PHAs, but would 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18734 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

not be responsible for determining what 

options or services each PHA offers. 

6. In this proposed rule, HUD is 

proposing mandatory absorptions of 

portability vouchers when a PHA is 

utilizing less than 95 percent of its 

available budget authority and has a 

leasing rate of less than 95 percent. It is 

HUD’s position that this approach 

would encourage PHAs to utilize their 

available budget authority while also 

reducing the number of portability 

billing arrangements. HUD is seeking 

comments as to whether 95 percent is 

an appropriate threshold for all PHAs or 

if HUD should consider an alternative 

scale based on the size of the PHA or 

other factors. 

IV. Findings and Certifications 

Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

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 

determined to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order (although not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) 

of the Executive Order). 

This proposed rule would amend 

HUD’s regulations governing portability 

in the HCV program. The proposed 

regulatory changes would streamline the 

portability process and help enable 

initial and receiving PHAs to better 

serve families and expand housing 

opportunities. HUD’s analysis indicates 

that these regulatory amendments will 

not have an economic effect of greater 

than $100 million and thus do not 

require a regulatory impact analysis. 

The proposed rule, however, would 

yield certain non-tangible benefits. The 

findings of HUD’s analysis are 

summarized below: 

1. Benefits of proposed rule. The HCV 

portability policy helps ensure that 

families have the opportunity to relocate 

in order to pursue increased or new 

employment opportunities or to gain 

access to higher-performing schools for 

their children. An efficient portability 

process also helps ensure that victims of 

domestic violence and stalking have 

access to the resources necessary to 

relocate to a safe, stable home away 

from an abuser. 

Opportunity moves have important 

benefits to housing choice voucher 

families. Research from HUD’s moving 

to opportunity (MTO) demonstration 

and from the Gautreaux desegregation 

program in Chicago has shown that 

families with children moving from 

communities of high-poverty 

concentration to low-poverty 

communities tend to perform better in 

school (e.g., dropout rates are lower, 

grades are better, college attendance 

rates are higher). In addition, families 

report benefiting greatly from reduced 

crime and greater employment 

opportunities. It is expected that the 

proposed rule will remove potential 

barriers to mobility. Some research 

indicates that families often use their 

vouchers to move to better 

opportunities, including employment 

opportunities. 

2. Costs of proposed rule. HUD does 

not expect that the portability billing 

arrangements proposed by this rule will 

place any additional administrative 

burden on PHAs. 

Portability may add to the cost of the 

HCV program. The fiscal year (FY) 2012 

appropriations for the Department 

provide a set-aside of $103 million of 

HAP funds for additional renewal 

funding to be provided to PHAs under 

certain circumstances. 

3. Transfers. While the fiscal impact 

of the proposed rule is marginal, it does 

have the potential to create substantial 

financial transfers among PHAs. 

Mandatory absorptions. In this 

proposed rule, HUD is proposing 

mandatory absorptions of portability 

vouchers when a PHA is utilizing 95 

percent or less of its available budget 

authority and has a leasing rate of less 

than 95 percent. It is HUD’s position 

that this approach would help ensure 

that PHAs are utilizing their available 

budget authority to the maximum extent 

possible while also reducing the number 

of portability billing arrangements. 

Administrative Fee. Under current 

regulation, when a voucher is in a 

portability billing arrangement between 

the initial PHA and receiving PHA, the 

initial PHA must pay the receiving PHA 

80 percent of its administrative fee for 

each month that the family receives 

assistance at the receiving PHA. 

Removal of potential barriers to mobility 

is expected to increase the number of 

portability vouchers and thus increase 

the amount of administrative fees 

transfers between PHAs. 

The proposed rule would set the 

maximum amount that the initial PHA 

is required to pay at 100 percent of the 

receiving PHA’s administrative fee rate. 

In other words, the initial PHA would 

reimburse the receiving PHA for the 

lesser of: (1) 80 percent of the initial 

PHA’s ongoing fee, or (2) the full 

amount of the receiving PHA’s 

administrative fee. This change would 

eliminate the incentive for a receiving 

PHA with a lower administrative fee 

from billing an initial PHA with a 

higher administrative fee in order to 

receive a higher administrative fee than 

it would normally earn from HUD. This 

action should reduce portability billings 

for those PHAs for whom 80 percent of 

the initial PHA’s fee is more than 100 

percent of their own administrative fee. 

For illustration, assume that a receiving 

PHA’s administrative fee is $60. Under 

current rules, if a family moves to the 

receiving PHA’s jurisdiction from an 

initial PHA that receives $100 in 

administrative fees for a housing 

voucher, the receiving PHA may bill the 

initial PHA for $80, which is $20 more 

than the PHA would earn if it simply 

absorbed the voucher. Under the 

proposed rule, the receiving PHA will 

receive $60 regardless of whether the 

receiving PHA bills the initial PHA or 

absorbs the family into its own program. 

The full economic analysis is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. The docket file for 

this rule is available for public 

inspection in the Regulations Division, 

Office of General Counsel, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to 

security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, please schedule 

an appointment to review the docket file 

by calling the Regulations Division at 

202–402–3055 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Individuals with speech or 

hearing impairments may access this 

number via TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

Information Collection Requirements 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule have been submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18735 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information, unless the collection 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

The burden of the information 

collections in this proposed rule is 

estimated as follows: 

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING BURDEN

Section reference Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Estimated 

average time 

for 

requirement 

(in hours) 

Estimated 

annual burden 

(in hours) 

982.354(e) ........................................................................................................ 100 1 1.00 100 

982.355(d) ........................................................................................................ 2,450 20 .25 12,250 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 2,550 21 1.25 12,350 

In accordance with 5 CFR 

1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting 

comments from members of the public 

and affected agencies concerning this 

collection of information to: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond; including through the 

use of appropriate automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology; e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments regarding the 

information collection requirements in 

this rule. Comments must refer to the 

proposal by name and docket number 

(FR–5453) and be sent to: 

HUD Desk Officer, Office of 

Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: 

(202) 395–6947 

and 

Reports Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Chief Information Officer, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20410–8000. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments regarding the information 

collection requirements electronically 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at http://www.regulations.gov. HUD 

strongly encourages commenters to 

submit comments electronically. 

Electronic submission of comments 

allows the commenter maximum time to 

prepare and submit comments, ensures 

their timely receipt by HUD, and 

enables HUD to make them immediately 

available to the public. Comments 

submitted electronically through the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site can 

be viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements 

for federal agencies to assess the effects 

of their regulatory actions on state, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector. This proposed rule does 

not impose any federal mandates on any 

state, local, or tribal government, or the 

private sector within the meaning of 

UMRA. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

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 

rule will not have federalism 

implications and would not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

state and local governments or preempt 

state law within the meaning of the 

Executive Order. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 605(b)) generally requires an 

agency to conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The proposed 

rule is solely concerned with the 

portability feature of the voucher 

program. There are currently 

approximately 2,800 small PHAs (i.e., 

PHAS with less than 250 public housing 

units or vouchers), all of which will be 

subject to the proposed rule. Although 

the proposed rule will impact these 

PHAs, the impact will not be significant. 

As stated previously in this preamble, 

through the amendments to the HCV 

regulations provided in this rule, HUD 

proposes to reduce the administrative 

burden of portability for both PHAs and 

families, reduce portability billing 

arrangements between PHAs, and 

ensure maximum family choice in 

locating suitable housing. Through this 

rule, HUD strives to reduce 

administrative burden for all PHAs large 

or small. As explained more fully above 

in the ‘‘Executive Order 12866’’ section 

of this preamble, the benefits of the 

proposed regulatory changes will largely 

outweigh the administrative and 

compliance costs to PHAs. Accordingly, 

the undersigned certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Notwithstanding HUD’s 

determination that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

HUD specifically invites comments 

regarding less burdensome alternatives 

to this rule that will meet HUD’s 

objectives as described in this preamble. 

Environmental Impact 

This proposed rule does not direct, 

provide for assistance or loan and 

mortgage insurance for, or otherwise 

govern or regulate, real property 

acquisition, disposition, leasing, 

rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or 

new construction, or establish, revise, or 

provide for standards for construction or 

construction materials, manufactured 

housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, 

under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18736 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). 

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 982 

Grant programs—housing and 

community development, Grant 

programs—Indians, Indians, Public 

housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, HUD proposes to amend 

24 CFR part 982, as follows: 

PART 982—SECTION 8 TENANT 

BASED ASSISTANCE: HOUSING 

CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for 24 CFR 

part 982 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d). 

2. In § 982.4(b), revise the definition 

of ‘‘Suspension’’ to read as follows: 

§ 982.4 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Suspension. Stopping the clock on the 

term of a family’s voucher from the date 

that the family submits a request for 

PHA approval of the tenancy, until the 

date the PHA approves or denies the 

request. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 982.54 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revise paragraphs (d)(2) and 

(d)(19); 

b. Remove paragraph (d)(20); and 

c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(21) 

through (d)(23), as paragraphs (d)(20) 

through (d)(22), respectively, to read as 

follows: 

§ 982.54 Administrative plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Issuing or denying vouchers, 

including PHA policy governing the 

voucher term and any extensions of the 

voucher term. If the PHA decides to 

allow extensions of the voucher term, 

the PHA administrative plan must 

describe how the PHA determines 

whether to grant extensions, and how 

the PHA determines the length of any 

extension. 

* * * * * 

(19) Restrictions, if any, on the 

number of moves by a participant family 

(see § 982.354(c)); and 

* * * * * 

4. Revise § 982.303 (c), to read as 

follows: 

§ 982.303 Term of voucher. 

* * * * * 

(c) Suspension of term. The PHA must 

provide for suspension of the initial or 

any extended term of the voucher from 

the date that the family submits a 

request for PHA approval of the tenancy 

until the date the PHA approves or 

denies the request. 

* * * * * 

5. Section § 982.353 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Remove the word ‘‘or’’ from 

paragraph (c)(1) and in its place add the 

word ‘‘nor’’; 

b. Revise paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(2), and 

(f); and 

c. Remove paragraph (d)(3), to read as 

follows: 

§ 982.353 Where family can lease a unit 

with tenant-based assistance. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) If the initial PHA approves, the 

family may lease a unit outside the PHA 

jurisdiction under portability 

procedures. 

(d) * * * 

(2) If a portable family is a participant 

in the initial PHA Section 8 tenantbased program, income eligibility is not 

redetermined when the family moves to 

the receiving PHA program under 

portability procedures. 

* * * * * 

(f) Freedom of choice. The PHA may 

not directly or indirectly reduce the 

family’s opportunity to select among 

available units, except as provided in 

paragraph (a) of this section, or 

elsewhere in this part 982 (e.g., 

prohibition on the use of ineligible 

housing, housing not meeting HQS, or 

housing for which the rent to owner 

exceeds a reasonable rent). However, the 

PHA must provide families the 

information required in § 982.301 for 

both the oral briefing and the 

information packet to ensure that they 

have the information they need to make 

an informed decision on their housing 

choice. 

6. Redesignate § 982.314 as § 982.354, 

and amend newly designated § 982.354 

as follows: 

a. Revise paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and 

(e)(1); 

b. Remove paragraphs (c)(3) and 

(d)(1); and 

c. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2) as 

paragraph (d), to read as follows: 

§ 982.354 Move with continued tenantbased assistance. 

* * * * * 

(c) How many moves. (1) A 

participant family may move with 

continued assistance under the program, 

either inside the PHA jurisdiction, or 

under the portability procedures (See 

§ 982.353) in accordance with the PHA’s 

policies. 

(2) Consistent with applicable civil 

rights laws and regulations, the PHA 

may establish policies that: 

(i) Prohibit any move by the family 

during the initial lease term; and 

(ii) Prohibit more than one move by 

the family during any one-year period. 

* * * * * 

(e) When PHA may deny permission 

to move. (1) The PHA may deny 

permission to move if the PHA does not 

have sufficient funding for continued 

assistance. The PHA must provide 

written notification to the local HUD 

Office upon determining it is necessary 

to deny moves to a higher-cost unit 

based on insufficient funding. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 982.355 is revised as 

follows: 

§ 982.355 Portability: Administration by 

initial and receiving PHA. 

(a) When a family moves under 

portability (in accordance with 

§ 982.353(b)) to an area outside the 

initial PHA jurisdiction, the receiving 

PHA must administer assistance for the 

family if a PHA with a tenant-based 

program has jurisdiction in the area 

where the unit is located. 

(b) A receiving PHA cannot refuse to 

assist incoming portable families or 

direct them to another neighboring PHA 

for assistance. HUD may determine in 

certain instances that a PHA is not 

required to accept incoming portable 

families, such as a PHA in a declared 

disaster area. However, the PHA must 

have approval in writing from HUD 

before refusing any incoming portable 

families. 

(c) Portability procedures. The 

following portability procedures must 

be followed: 

(1) When the family decides to use the 

voucher outside of the PHA jurisdiction, 

the family must notify the initial PHA 

of its desire to relocate and must specify 

the location where it wants to live. 

(2) The family must notify the owner 

of its desire to move in accordance with 

its lease. 

(3) The initial PHA must determine 

the family’s eligibility to move in 

accordance with §§ 982.353 and 

982.354. 

(4) The initial PHA must contact the 

receiving PHA via email or other 

confirmed delivery method prior to 

approving the family’s request to move 

in order to determine if the voucher will 

be absorbed or billed by the initial PHA. 

The receiving PHA must advise the 

initial PHA in writing via email or other 

confirmed delivery method of its 

decision. 

(5) If the receiving PHA notifies the 

initial PHA that it will absorb the 

voucher, the receiving PHA cannot 

reverse its decision at a later date 

without consent of the initial PHA. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18737 

(6) If the receiving PHA will bill the 

initial PHA for the portability voucher 

and the cost of the HAP will increase 

due to the move, the initial PHA may 

deny the move in accordance with 

§ 982.354 (e)(1). 

(7) If a billing arrangement is 

approved by the initial PHA or if the 

voucher is to be absorbed by the 

receiving PHA, the initial PHA must 

issue the family a voucher and advise 

the family how to contact and request 

assistance from the receiving PHA. 

(8) The initial PHA must promptly 

notify the receiving PHA to expect the 

family. The initial PHA must give the 

receiving PHA the Form HUD–52665, 

the most recent HUD 

Form-50058 (Family Report) for the 

family, and all related verification 

information. 

(9) The family must promptly contact 

the receiving PHA in order to be 

informed of the receiving PHA’s 

procedures for incoming portable 

families and comply with these 

procedures. The family’s failure to 

comply may result in denial or 

termination of the receiving PHA’s 

voucher. 

(10) The receiving PHA does not 

redetermine income eligibility for a 

participant family. However, for a 

portable family that was not already 

receiving assistance in the PHA tenantbased program, the initial PHA must 

determine whether the family is 

income-eligible for admission to the 

receiving PHA voucher program. 

(11) When a receiving PHA assists a 

family under portability, administration 

of the voucher must be in accordance 

with the receiving PHA’s policies. This 

requirement also applies to policies of 

Moving to Work agencies. The receiving 

PHA procedures and preferences for 

selection among eligible applicants do 

not apply to the portable family, and the 

receiving PHA waiting list is not used. 

(12) If the receiving PHA opts to 

conduct a new reexamination for a 

current participant family, the receiving 

PHA may not delay issuing the family 

a voucher or otherwise delay approval 

of a unit. 

(13) The receiving PHA must 

determine the family unit size for the 

portable family, and base its 

determination on the subsidy standards 

of the receiving PHA. 

(14) The receiving PHA must issue a 

voucher to the family. The term of the 

receiving PHA voucher must be 30 days 

after the expiration date of the initial 

PHA voucher. If the voucher expired 

before the family arrives at the receiving 

PHA, the receiving PHA must contact 

the initial PHA to determine if it will 

extend the voucher. 

(15) Once the receiving PHA issues 

the portable family a voucher, the 

receiving PHA’s policies on extensions 

of the voucher term apply. The 

receiving PHA must notify the initial 

PHA of any extensions granted to the 

term of the voucher. 

(16) The family must submit a request 

for tenancy approval to the receiving 

PHA during the term of the receiving 

PHA voucher. As required in § 982.303, 

if the family submits a request for 

tenancy approval during the term of the 

voucher, the PHA must suspend the 

term of that voucher. 

(17) The receiving PHA must 

promptly notify the initial PHA if the 

family has leased an eligible unit under 

the program, or if the family fails to 

submit a request for tenancy approval 

for an eligible unit within the term of 

the voucher. 

(18) At any time, either the initial 

PHA or the receiving PHA may make a 

determination to deny or terminate 

assistance to the family in accordance 

with § 982.552 and 982.553. 

(d) Absorption by the receiving PHA. 

(1) If funding is available under the 

consolidated ACC for the receiving PHA 

voucher program on the effective date of 

the HAP contract, the receiving PHA 

may absorb the family into the receiving 

PHA voucher program. After absorption, 

the family is assisted with funds 

available under the consolidated ACC 

for the receiving PHA tenant-based 

program. 

(2) HUD may require that the 

receiving PHA absorb all or a portion of 

the portable families. 

(3) HUD may provide financial or 

nonfinancial (or both) incentives to 

PHAs that absorb portability vouchers. 

(4) PHAs that are utilizing less than 

95 percent of their available budget 

authority and have a leasing rate of less 

than 95 percent are required to absorb 

incoming portable families until the 

percentage of available budget authority 

used or the leasing rate is at least 95 

percent. The available budget authority 

includes the available HAP Net Restrict 

Assets, or NRA. 

(e) Portability billing. (1) To cover 

assistance for a portable family that was 

not absorbed in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of this section, the 

receiving PHA may bill the initial PHA 

for housing assistance payments and 

administrative fees. 

(2) The initial PHA must promptly 

reimburse the receiving PHA for the full 

amount of the housing assistance 

payments made by the receiving PHA 

for the portable family. The amount of 

the housing assistance payment for a 

portable family in the receiving PHA 

program is determined in the same 

manner as for other families in the 

receiving PHA program. 

(3) The initial PHA must promptly 

reimburse the receiving PHA for the 

lesser of 80 percent of the initial PHA 

ongoing administrative fee or the full 

amount of the receiving PHA’s 

administrative fee for each unit month 

that the family receives assistance under 

the tenant-based program from the 

receiving PHA. The receiving PHA 

cannot bill the initial PHA for more than 

100 percent of its own administrative 

fee. If both PHAs agree, the PHAs may 

negotiate a different amount of 

reimbursement. 

(4) When a portable family moves out 

of the tenant-based program of a 

receiving PHA that has not absorbed the 

family, the PHA in the new jurisdiction 

to which the family moves becomes the 

receiving PHA, and the first receiving 

PHA is no longer required to provide 

assistance for the family. 

(5) HUD may reduce the 

administrative fee to an initial or 

receiving PHA if the PHA does not 

comply with HUD portability 

requirements. 

(6) In administration of portability, 

the initial PHA and the receiving PHA 

must comply with financial procedures 

required by HUD, including the use of 

HUD-required billing forms. The initial 

and receiving PHA must also comply 

with billing and payment deadlines 

under the financial procedures. 

(7) A PHA must manage the PHA 

tenant-based program in a manner that 

ensures that the PHA has the financial 

ability to provide assistance for families 

that move out of the PHA program 

under the portability procedures that 

have not been absorbed by the receiving 

PHA, as well as for families that remain 

in the PHA program. 

(f) Portability funding. (1) HUD may 

transfer units and funds for assistance to 

portable families to the receiving PHA 

from funds available under the initial 

PHA ACC. 

(2) HUD may provide additional 

funding (e.g., funds for incremental 

units) to the initial PHA for funds 

transferred to a receiving PHA for 

portability purposes. 

(3) HUD may provide additional 

funding (e.g., funds for incremental 

units) to the receiving PHA for 

absorption of portable families. 

(4) HUD may require the receiving 

PHA to absorb portable families. 

(g) Portability and Project-Based 

Assistance. (1) Provisions on portability 

do not apply to the Project-Based 

Voucher program. 

(2) A family that is porting into a 

receiving PHA’s jurisdiction may only 

receive a tenant-based voucher or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

homeownership assistance. In order for 

a tenant-based voucher holder to be 

housed in a PBV unit, the family would 

have to apply to the receiving PHA’s 

PBV program and give up its tenantbased voucher prior to being housed in 

the PBV unit. 

(h) Portability and special purpose 

vouchers. (1) The initial PHA must 

submit the codes used for special 

purpose vouchers on the Form HUD– 

50058, Family Report, and the receiving 

PHA must maintain the codes on the 

Family Report, as long as they choose to 

bill the initial PHA. 

(2) In cases where HUD has 

established alternative program 

requirements for special purpose 

vouchers, such as the HUD–Veterans 

Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) 

vouchers, both the initial and receiving 

PHAs must administer the vouchers in 

accordance with HUD established 

policy (i.e., the most recent HUD–VASH 

program operating requirements). 

Dated: March 2, 2012. 

Sandra B. Henriquez, 

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7341 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 943 

[SATS No. TX–064–FOR; Docket ID: OSM– 

2012–0005] 

Texas Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment 

period and opportunity for public 

hearing on proposed amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are announcing receipt of a 

proposed amendment to the Texas 

regulatory program (Texas program) 

under the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). Texas proposes revisions to its 

regulations regarding annual permit 

fees. Texas intends to revise its program 

to improve operational efficiency. 

This document gives the times and 

locations that the Texas program and 

proposed amendment to that program 

are available for your inspection, the 

comment period during which you may 

submit written comments on the 

amendment, and the procedures that we 

will follow for the public hearing, if one 

is requested. 

DATES: We will accept written 

comments on this amendment until 4 

p.m., c.d.t., April 27, 2012. If requested, 

we will hold a public hearing on the 

amendment on April 23, 2012. We will 

accept requests to speak at a hearing 

until 4 p.m., c.d.t. on April 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by SATS No. TX–064–FOR, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Alfred L. 

Clayborne, Director, Tulsa Field Office, 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East 

Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 

74128–4629. 

• Fax: (918) 581–6419 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

review copies of the Texas program, this 

amendment, a listing of any scheduled 

public hearings, and all written 

comments received in response to this 

document, you must go to the address 

listed below during normal business 

hours, Monday through Friday, 

excluding holidays. You may receive 

one free copy of the amendment by 

contacting OSM’s Tulsa Field Office or 

going to www.regulations.gov. 

Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa 

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 

South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, 

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128–4629, 

Telephone: (918) 581–6430. 

In addition, you may review a copy of 

the amendment during regular business 

hours at the following location: 

Surface Mining and Reclamation 

Division, Railroad Commission of 

Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, 

Capitol Station, P.O. Box 12967, Austin, 

Texas 78711–2967, Telephone: (512) 

463–6900. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa 

Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581– 

6430. Email: aclayborne@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Texas Program 

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Texas 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, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the Texas 

program effective February 16, 1980. 

You can find background information 

on the Texas program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and the conditions of 

approval of the Texas program in the 

February 27, 1980, Federal Register (45 

FR 12998). You can also find later 

actions concerning the Texas program 

and program amendments at 30 CFR 

943.10, 943.15, and 943.16. 

II. Description of the Proposed 

Amendment 

By letter dated February 9, 2012 

(Administrative Record No. TX–700), 

Texas sent us an amendment to its 

program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 

et seq.) at its own initiative. Below is a 

summary of the changes proposed by 

Texas. The full text of the program 

amendment is available for you to read 

at the locations listed above under 

ADDRESSES. 

Texas proposes to revise its regulation 

at 16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 

section 12.108(b) regarding annual 

permit fees by: 

(1) Increasing the amount of the fee 

for each acre of land within the permit 

area on which coal or lignite was 

actually removed during the calendar 

year, 

(2) Increasing the amount of the fee 

for each acre of land within a permit 

area covered by a reclamation bond on 

December 31st of the year, and 

(3) Increasing the amount of the fee 

for each permit in effect on December 

31st of the year. 

Texas fully funds its share of costs to 

regulate the coal mining industry with 

fees paid by the coal industry. Texas 

charges four fees to meet these costs, a 

permit application fee and three annual 

fees as mentioned above. The proposed 

fee revisions are intended to provide 

adequate funding to pay the State’s cost 

of operating its regulatory program, and 

provide incentives for industry to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS