9256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

PART 221—LOW COST AND 

MODERATE INCOME MORTGAGE 

INSURANCE—SAVINGS CLAUSE 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 221 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l and 

1735d; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 

§ 221.762 [Amended]. 

■ 12. In § 221.762, remove and reserve 

paragraph (a). 

PART 232—MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

FOR NURSING HOMES, 

INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES, 

BOARD AND CARE HOMES, AND 

ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 232 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715w, 1735d 

and 1735f–19; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 

■ 14. Revise § 232.885(a), to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.885 Insurance benefits. 

(a) Method of payment. Payment of an 

insurance claim shall be made in cash, 

in debentures, or in a combination of 

both, as determined by the 

Commissioner either at, or prior to, the 

time of payment. 

* * * * * 

PART 235—MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS FOR 

HOME OWNERSHIP AND PROJECT 

REHABILITATION 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 235 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715z and 

1735d; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 

■ 16. Revise § 235.215, to read as 

follows: 

§ 235.215 Method of paying insurance 

benefits. 

If the application for insurance 

benefits is acceptable to the Secretary, 

the insurance claim shall be paid in 

cash, in debentures, or in a combination 

of both, as determined by the 

Commissioner either at, or prior to, the 

time of payment. 

PART 236—MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

AND INTEREST REDUCTION 

PAYMENT FOR RENTAL PROJECTS 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 236 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715z–1 and 

1735d; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 

§ 236.265 [Amended]. 

■ 18. In § 236.265, remove and reserve 

paragraph (a). 

PART 241—SUPPLEMENTARY 

FINANCING FOR INSURED PROJECT 

MORTGAGES 

■ 19. The authority citation for part 241 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715z–6 and 

1735d; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 

■ 20. Revise § 241.261, to read as 

follows: 

§ 241.261 Payment of insurance benefits. 

All of the provisions of § 207.259 of 

this chapter relating to insurance 

benefits shall apply to multifamily loans 

insured under this subpart. 

■ 21. Revise § 241.885(a), to read as 

follows: 

§ 241.885 Insurance benefits. 

(a) Method of payment. Payment of 

insurance claims shall be made in cash, 

in debentures, or in a combination of 

both, as determined by the 

Commissioner either at, or prior to, the 

time of payment. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Revise § 241.1205, to read as 

follows: 

§ 241.1205 Payment of insurance benefits. 

All the provisions of § 207.259 of this 

chapter relating to insurance benefits 

shall apply to an equity or acquisition 

loan insured under subpart F of this 

part. 

Dated: January 15, 2015. 

Biniam Gebre, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing— 

Federal Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03457 Filed 2–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Parts 816 and 817 

[Docket ID: OSM–2014–0003; S1D1S 

SS08011000 SX066A00067F 134S180110; 

S2D2S SS08011000 SX066A00 33F 

13XS501520] 

Petition To Initiate Rulemaking; Use of 

Explosives on Surface Coal Mining 

Operations 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Decision on petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE or OSM), are announcing our 

final decision on a petition for 

rulemaking that was submitted by 

WildEarth Guardians. The petition 

requested that we revise our current 

regulations to prohibit visible nitrogen 

oxide clouds during blasting. The 

Director has decided to grant the 

petition in principle, and although we 

do not intend to propose the specific 

rule changes requested in the petition, 

will instead initiate a rulemaking to 

address this issue as discussed more 

fully below. 

DATES: February 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and 

other relevant materials comprising the 

administrative record of this petition are 

available for public review and copying 

at the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 

Administrative Record, Room 252 SIB, 

1951 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Rockwell, Division of Regulatory 

Support, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: 

202–208–2633; Email: jrockwell@

osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. How does the petition process operate? 

II. What is the substance of the petition? 

III. What do our current regulations regarding 

the use of explosives require? 

IV. What comments did we receive and how 

did we address them? 

V. What is the Director’s decision? 

VI. Procedural Matters and Determinations 

I. How does the petition process 

operate? 

On April 18, 2014, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians 

(petitioner) requesting that OSMRE 

promulgate rules to prohibit the 

production of visible nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) emissions (including nitric oxide 

and nitrogen dioxide) during blasting at 

surface coal mining operations in order 

to protect the health, welfare, and safety 

of the public and of mine workers and 

to prevent injury to persons. WildEarth 

Guardians submitted this petition 

pursuant to section 201(g) of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1201(g), 

which provides that any person may 

petition the Director of OSMRE to 

initiate a proceeding for the issuance, 

amendment, or repeal of any regulation 

adopted under SMCRA. OSMRE 

adopted regulations at 30 CFR 700.12 to 

implement this statutory provision. 

In accordance with our regulation at 

30 CFR 700.12(c), we determined that 

WildEarth Guardians’ petition set forth 

‘‘facts, technical justification and law’’ 

establishing a ‘‘reasonable basis’’ for 

amending our regulations. Therefore, on 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9257 

July 25, 2014, we published a notice in 

the Federal Register (79 FR 43326) 

seeking comments on whether we 

should grant or deny the petition. The 

comment period closed on September 

25, 2014. One hundred nineteen persons 

submitted comments during the public 

comment period. 

After reviewing the petition and 

public comments, the Director has 

decided to grant WildEarth Guardians’ 

petition. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 

section 201(c)(2) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 

1211(c)(2), we plan to initiate 

rulemaking and publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking with an 

appropriate public comment period. 

Although we are still considering the 

content of the proposed rule, we expect 

that it will contain clarifications to our 

regulations to ensure that operators and 

surface coal mining regulatory 

authorities protect people and property 

from toxic gases and fumes generated by 

blasting at surface mine sites. However, 

OSMRE does not intend to propose the 

petitioner’s suggested rule language 

because the petitioner’s language 

focused solely on nitrogen oxide 

emissions, instead of all blast-generated 

fumes and toxic gases. 

II. What is the substance of the petition? 

WildEarth Guardians’ petition states: 

‘‘Too often, blasting at coal mines leads 

to the production of dangerous levels of 

nitrogen dioxide emissions, which are 

seen as orange to red clouds. These 

clouds of toxic gas represent significant 

threats to public health and welfare and 

must be curtailed to prevent injuries to 

persons as required by SMCRA.’’ The 

petition requests that OSMRE amend 

our regulations at 30 CFR 816.67 

(surface mining) and 817.67 

(underground mining) to prohibit 

visible NOX emissions during blasting 

and to require that the operator visually 

monitor all blasting activities and report 

all instances of visible emissions of NOX

to the regulatory authority. The 

petitioner asserts that exposure to low 

levels of NOX gases may cause 

‘‘irritation of eyes, nose, throat, and 

lungs.’’ According to the petitioner, 

exposure to high levels of NOX gases 

may cause ‘‘rapid burning, spasms, and 

swelling of the throat and upper 

respiratory tract issues, as well as 

death.’’ 

In support of its petition, petitioner 

cites SMCRA section 102(a), 30 U.S.C. 

1202(a), which lists one of SMCRA’s 

goals as ‘‘protect[ing] society and the 

environment from the adverse effects of 

surface coal mining operations,’’ as well 

as SMCRA section 515(b)(15)(C)(i)–(ii), 

30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(15)(C)(i)–(ii), which 

states that blasting activities should be 

limited in order to ‘‘prevent injury to 

persons. . . and damage to public and 

private property outside the permit 

area.’’ 

The petitioner asserts that revisions to 

our existing regulations are necessary to 

close a gap with regard to regulation of 

NOX emissions. The petitioner 

requested that we ‘‘remedy this 

regulatory gap and promulgate explicit 

and enforceable standards to ensure that 

when explosives are used at coal mining 

operations, emissions of nitrogen oxides 

are controlled to prevent injury to 

persons and to protect the general 

health, welfare, and safety of the public 

and mine workers.’’ 

The petitioner suggested that we 

revise 30 CFR 816.67 and 817.67 by 

adding a new paragraph (f) to read: 

(1) Blasting shall be conducted so as to 

prevent visible emissions of nitrogen oxides, 

including nitrogen dioxide, and (2) The 

operator shall visually monitor all blasting 

activities (through the use of remote 

surveillance or other acceptable methods for 

detecting visible emissions) and within 24- 

hours report in writing any instances of 

visible emissions of nitrogen oxides to the 

regulatory authority. 

III. What do our current regulations 

regarding the use of explosives require? 

Our current regulations at 30 CFR 

816.67 and 817.67 establish a 

framework for addressing the adverse 

effects associated with the use of 

explosives. Paragraph (a) of both 

sections mirrors the language in SMCRA 

section 515(b)(15)(C)(i)–(ii), 30 U.S.C. 

1265(b)(15)(C)(i)–(ii). It states that 

blasting shall be conducted to prevent 

injury to persons, damage to public or 

private property outside the permit area. 

The remaining paragraphs in 30 CFR 

816.67 and 817.67 contain specific 

performance standards for airblast, 

flyrock, and ground vibration. 

In addition, our regulation 30 CFR 

843.11(a)(1)(i) requires that an inspector 

order the cessation of any surface coal 

mining and reclamation operations if an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public exists. 

IV. What comments did we receive and 

how did we address them? 

We received 119 comments on the 

petition for rulemaking. These 

comments can be divided into two 

major groups: Those in favor of the 

rulemaking (over two-thirds) and those 

opposed (less than one-third). The 

comments in favor of the petition 

generally came from citizens and groups 

that seek to protect the public and 

environment. In contrast, those 

comments opposed generally came from 

citizens, state regulatory authorities, and 

organizations related to the explosives, 

manufacturing, and mining industries. 

Those in support of the petition were 

primarily concerned that our current 

regulations do not provide for adequate 

protection from fumes generated by 

blasting, including, but not limited to, 

NOX fumes. Additionally, some of these 

commenters alleged that not all of the 

state regulatory authorities are willing to 

regulate toxic gases produced during 

blasting. These commenters contend 

that the lack of regulation by some state 

regulatory authorities is due to 

OSMRE’s regulatory silence on the 

specific issue of NOX emissions. 

The comments received from those 

opposed to the rulemaking expressed 

concern that the petitioner’s suggested 

rule language would create, ‘‘an 

unlawful, unnecessary, and unattainable 

emissions standard under OSMRE’s 

federal regulatory program’’ that would 

effectively prevent operators from coal 

mining altogether. Several of the 

comments opposing the petition 

referred to In re Permanent Surface Min. 

Regulation Litig. I, Round II, 1980 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 17660 at *43–44 (D.D.C., 

May 16, 1980), which held that we 

could not regulate fugitive dust from 

blasting. These commenters contend 

that this precedent prevents OSMRE 

from regulating visible NOX clouds 

produced by blasting. In addition, the 

commenters opposing the petition noted 

that SMCRA and the implementing 

regulations already contain adequate 

protection from the effects of blasting; as 

support for this position, they cite 

primarily to section 515 of SMCRA, 30 

CFR 780.13, 816.61–816.68, 817.61– 

817.68, part 842, and part 850, as well 

as the equivalent provisions in the state 

regulatory programs. 

V. What is the Director’s decision? 

After reviewing the petition and 

supporting materials, and after careful 

consideration of all comments received, 

the Director has decided to grant the 

petition. However, we do not plan to 

propose adoption of the specific 

regulatory changes suggested by the 

petitioner. Instead, we intend to propose 

regulatory changes to ensure that 

operators and regulatory authorities 

prevent injury to people and damage to 

property from any harm that could 

result from all toxic gases generated by 

blasting at coal mines, including NOX

and carbon monoxide (CO). 

It is undisputed that when blasting is 

not properly conducted, it can cause 

damage to property and injury to 

people. Despite this fact, during our 

evaluation of the petition and the 

comments, we discovered that there is 

a difference in how the state regulatory 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

authorities are addressing toxic fumes 

generated by blasting. Some, but not all, 

state regulatory authorities have taken 

permitting or enforcement actions in 

response to toxic fumes released during 

blasting. Others, however, are hesitant 

to act because they believe our 

regulations, as currently written, are 

ambiguous as to whether and how toxic 

gases should be controlled. Likewise, 

while a number of mine operators and 

blasters recognize the dangers posed by 

toxic gases from blasting and take 

precautions to manage the risks, many 

do not. We have concluded that the 

current silence in our regulations on 

toxic gases released during blasting is 

no longer acceptable and only 

perpetuates the disparities between the 

various practices of the state regulatory 

authorities. In light of these findings, 

OSMRE intends to propose a number of 

changes to our regulations. We plan to 

propose a definition of ‘‘blasting area’’ 

to help ensure that the areas affected by 

blasting are properly secured and that 

the public is adequately protected. We 

also intend to specify that toxic gases 

are one of the dangers posed by blasting. 

We anticipate clarifying that 30 CFR 

816.67(a) and 817.67(a) require the 

proper management of toxic blasting 

gases in order to protect people and 

property from the adverse effects of coal 

mining. Lastly, we expect to propose 

amendments to the training and testing 

requirements for certified blasters at 30 

CFR 850.13 to ensure that blasters can 

identify and mitigate the impacts of 

blast fumes. 

We believe that revisions to our 

regulations, such as those described 

above, will better (1) ensure a level 

playing field as described in section 

101(g) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1201(g), 

which specifies that national standards 

are essential in order to ensure ‘‘that 

competition in interstate commerce 

among sellers of coal produced in 

different States will not be used to 

undermine the ability of the several 

States to improve and maintain 

adequate standards on coal mining 

operations within their borders;’’ and, 

most importantly, (2) prevent harm to 

people and property from blasting 

associated with surface coal mining 

operations. 

VI. Procedural Matters and Required 

Determinations 

This notice is not a proposed or final 

rule, policy, or guidance. Therefore, it is 

not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 12630, 

13132, 12988, 13175, and 13211. We 

will conduct the analyses required by 

these laws and executive orders when 

we develop a proposed rule. 

In developing this notice, we did not 

conduct or use a study, experiment, or 

survey requiring peer review under the 

Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106– 

554, section 15). 

This notice is not subject to the 

requirement to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), because 

no proposed action, as described in 40 

CFR 1508.18(a) and (b), yet exists. This 

notice only announces the Director’s 

decision to grant the petition and 

initiate rulemaking. We will prepare the 

appropriate NEPA compliance 

documents as part of the rulemaking 

process. 

Dated: February 3, 2015. 

Joseph G. Pizarchik, 

Director, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03407 Filed 2–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0504; FRL–9921–43– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

VOM Definition 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan. The revision 

amends the Illinois Administrative Code 

by updating the definition of volatile 

organic material or volatile organic 

compound to exclude additional 

compounds. This revision is in response 

to EPA rulemakings in 2013 which 

exempted these chemical compounds 

from the Federal definition of volatile 

organic compounds because, in their 

intended uses, the compounds have a 

negligible contribution to tropospheric 

ozone formation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0504, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Aburano, Section Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6960, 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS