§47-11B-5. Investigation of application; grounds for denial.
§47-11B-6. Duration of sale; license fee.
§47-11B-7. Revocation of license; grounds.
§47-11B-8. Notice of denial, refusal or revocation of license; judicial review thereof.
§47-11B-10. Branch stores and warehouses.
§47-11B-11. Substitution, addition and commingling of goods voids license; change of time or place of sale; certain purchases prohibited.
§47-11B-12. Copy of application, inventory and license to be posted; license to be referred to in advertisements.
§47-11B-13. Opening of a similar business within one year of sale prohibited.
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that certain sales of goods, defined in this article as "closing-out sales,""sales of goods damaged by fire, smoke or water" or "defunct business sales" have heretofore often been advertised and conducted in such manner as to mislead and defraud the public or otherwise harm the public and that such sales should be licensed and regulated to prevent misrepresentation and fraud and to protect and promote the public welfare.
(a) The term "closing-out sale" shall include but not be limited to all sales advertised, represented or held forth under the designation of "quitting business,""going out of business," "discontinuance of business,""selling out,""liquidation,""lost our lease,""must vacate,""forced out,""removal,""branch store discontinuance sale,""building coming down,""end,""final days,""last days,""lease expires,""we give up sale,""we quit sale,""warehouse closing sale,""reorganization sale" and any other advertising or designation by any other expression or characterization similar to any of the foregoing and giving notice to the public that the sale will precede the abandonment of a business location.
(b) The term "sale of goods damaged by fire, smoke or water" shall include but not be limited to all sales advertised, represented or held forth under the designation of "fire sale," "smoke damage sale,""water damage sale,""flood damage sale," "insurance sale" and any other advertising or designation by any other expression or characterization similar to any of the foregoing and giving notice to the public that the goods, wares or merchandise offered for sale have been damaged.
(c) The term "defunct business sale" shall include but not be limited to all sales advertised, represented or held forth under the designation of "adjuster's sale,""administrator's sale,""assignee's sale,""bankrupt sale,""bankrupt stock sale," "benefit of administrator's sale,""benefit of creditor's sale," "benefit of trustee's sale,""creditor's committee sale," "creditor's sale,""executor's sale,""insolvent sale,""mortgage sale,""receiver's sale,""trustee's sale" and any other advertising or designation by any other expression or characterization similar to any of the foregoing and conveying the same meaning or giving notice to the public of a sale resulting from death, business failure, or other adversity.
(d) "Unusual purchase or addition" shall mean any purchase of goods, wares or merchandise during the ninety days preceding the application for a license the total value of which is at least twenty-five percent greater than purchases made by the applicant for a like ninety-day period during any one of three years next immediately preceding the year in which the application is made or his peak purchases for any ninety-day period if he has been in business for less than three years.
(e) "Commissioner" shall mean the state commissioner of labor.
(f) "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, association, firm or corporation or the plural thereof.
It shall be unlawful for any person in this state to advertise or conduct any sale of any goods, wares or merchandise which is a "closing-out sale,""a sale of goods damaged by fire, smoke or water," or a "defunct business sale" unless a license is first obtained to conduct such a sale from the commissioner as provided in this article.
(1) Persons acting pursuant to an order or process of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) Persons who are required to file an accounting with a court of competent jurisdiction.
(3) Persons acting in accordance with their powers and duties as public officers such as sheriffs, constables and marshals.
(4) Any publisher or employee of a newspaper, magazine or any operator or employee of a radio or television broadcasting station who publishes or broadcasts any such advertisement in good faith without knowledge of its false, deceptive and misleading character or without knowledge that the provisions of this article are not being complied with.
(5) Persons conducting sales by and on behalf of licensed insurers.
Any person desiring to conduct a sale regulated by this article shall make a written application under oath to the commissioner. Said application shall be accompanied by the approved bond specified in section nine of this article. If the application is for a "closing-out sale" or a "defunct business sale," it shall be filed at least ten days prior to the date on which such sale is to commence. If the application is for a "sale of goods damaged by fire, smoke or water," it may be made at any time prior to the date on which such sale is to commence.
(1) The name and address of the applicant who must be the true owner of the goods, wares or merchandise to be sold, and if the applicant be a partnership, the names and addresses of all partners, or if the applicant be a corporation or association, the date and place of incorporation or organization, the address of the principal office within the state and the names and addresses of all the officers of the applicant.
(2) The name and address of the person or persons who will be in charge and responsible for the conduct of such sale.
(3) The exact address of the place at which the proposed sale is to be conducted and the length of time the applicant has been engaged in business at such location.
(4) The date on which it is proposed to begin the sale.
(5) The nature of the occupancy where such sale is to be held whether by lease or otherwise and the effective date of termination of such occupancy.
(6) The reason for the urgent and expeditious disposal of the goods, wares or merchandise to be offered at such sale.
(7) A statement of the descriptive name of the sale and the reasons why the name is truthfully descriptive of the sale.
(8) A statement that the business is to be terminated permanently or reopened at another location, the location of the premises at which the business is to be moved, if the applicant intends to resume the operation of the business upon the termination of the sale, and the name or designation under which such business is to be resumed.
(i) Itemize the goods to be offered for sale and contain sufficient information concerning each item including quantity, make, brand name, model and manufacturer's number, if any, to clearly identify it.
(ii) List separately any goods to be offered for sale which were purchased and received during a ninety-day period immediately prior to the date of making application for the license.
(iii) The total retail value of the inventory of goods, wares and merchandise to be offered at such sale based on the inventory used for applicant's most recent federal income tax return adjusted for sales and purchases.
(iv) If the application is for a license to conduct a "sale of goods damaged by fire, smoke or water" and the applicant was not the owner at the time when the goods, wares and merchandise to be offered at the contemplated sale were damaged, he shall attach to the said application certified copies of the bill of sale and all other documents connected with such transfer obtained by him from the previous owner of such goods, wares and merchandise.
(v) If the application is for a license to conduct a "defunct business sale" and the applicant was not the owner of the goods, wares and merchandise to be offered at the contemplated sale at the time of occurrence of the circumstances warranting the termination of such business, he shall attach to the application certified copies of the bill of sale and the official appraisal made by the trustee, receiver, assignee for benefit of creditor, referee in bankruptcy or the personal representative of a decedent.
(10) A statement that no goods will be added to the inventory after the application is made.
(11) A statement that all goods included in such inventory have been purchased by the applicant for resale on bona fide orders without cancellation privileges and that said inventory comprises no goods purchased on consignment.
(12) A statement that no merchandise listed in the inventory has been the subject of a licensed sale conducted within one year prior to the date of the application unless such merchandise was damaged by fire, smoke or water while in the possession of the applicant.
(i) Where the application is for a license for a "sale of goods damaged by fire, smoke or water" or a "defunct business sale" and the inventory listed in the application contains only those goods, wares or merchandise which were on the premises at the time of the occurrence of the circumstances warranting the granting of a license hereunder.
(ii) Upon the death of a person doing business in this state, his heirs, distributees, devisees, legatees or their successors and assigns shall have the right to apply at any time for a license hereunder.
(iii) Where a business is required or compelled to be discontinued because the premises whereupon it is being conducted has been condemned, taken for purposes of urban renewal or development, or because the premises must be vacated because of legal or judicial proceedings.
(2) That in the case of a "closing-out sale" the applicant either as owner, partner, member of an association, or principal stockholder of a corporation was granted a prior license hereunder within one year preceding the date of the filing of the application.
(3) That the inventory contains goods, wares or merchandise not purchased by the applicant for resale on bona fide orders without cancellation privileges.
(4) That the inventory contains goods, wares or merchandise purchased by the applicant on consignment except if the consigned goods, wares or merchandise have been damaged while in the consignee's possession.
(5) That the applicant except in the case of an application for a license to conduct a "sale of goods damaged by fire, smoke or water" or a "defunct business sale" either as owner, partner, officer of an association, or principal stockholder of a corporation was granted a prior license hereunder within one year preceding the date of the filing of the application at the particular location for which the license is sought or within one year prior to the date of filing of the application has conducted a sale in connection with which he advertised or represented that the entire business conducted at the particular location for which the license is sought was to be closed out or terminated.
(6) That the applicant has within one year, prior to the filing of the application, been convicted of a violation of this article.
(7) That the goods, wares or merchandise as described in the inventory were transferred or assigned to the applicant prior to the date of the filing of the application and that said transfer or assignment was not made for a valuable and adequate consideration.
(8) That the inventory contains goods, wares or merchandise purchased by the applicant or added to his stock in contemplation of such sale and for the purpose of selling the same at such sale. For this purpose any unusual purchase or addition to the stock of such goods, wares and merchandise made within ninety days prior to the date of the filing of such application shall be presumptive evidence that such purchase or additions were made in contemplation of such sale and for the purpose of selling the same at such sale.
(9) That any representation made in the application is false.
A license to conduct a sale issued pursuant to this article shall be good for no more than a period of thirty consecutive calendar days and may be renewed for one consecutive period not exceeding thirty consecutive calendar days upon the affidavit of the applicant that the goods listed in the inventory have not been disposed of and that no new goods have been or will be added to the inventory previously filed pursuant to this article by purchase, acquisition on consignment, or otherwise. The application for renewal shall be made not more than ten days prior to the time of the expiration of the license and shall contain a new inventory of the goods remaining on hand at the time the application for renewal is made which new inventory shall be prepared and furnished in the same manner and form as the original inventory. The commissioner shall receive from the applicant for such license, upon the granting thereof, a fee of $50 and upon the renewal thereof a fee of $100. The applicant shall not be entitled to a refund of the fee paid if said application is refused, denied or revoked.
(5) The applicant made or permitted to be made any false, misleading or deceptive statements in advertising said sale, whether written or oral, or in displaying, ticketing or pricing goods, wares or merchandise offered for sale.
Whenever the commissioner shall deny or refuse to issue a license or shall revoke any license, he shall make and enter an order to that effect and shall cause a copy of such order to be served in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, on the applicant or person licensed by him as the case may be. Such order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which such order was made and entered. Any person adversely affected by an order made and entered by the board is entitled to judicial review thereof. Such judicial review shall be in the circuit court for the county in which the sale is to be or is being conducted. The judgment of the circuit court shall be final unless reversed, vacated or modified on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Legal counsel and services for the commissioner in appeal proceedings in any circuit court and the Supreme Court of Appeals shall be provided by the Attorney General or his assistants, and in appeal proceedings in any circuit court by the prosecuting attorney of the county as well, all without additional compensation. The commissioner, with the written approval of the Attorney General, may employ special counsel to represent the commissioner in a particular proceeding.
No license shall be issued unless the applicant files with the commissioner a bond with corporate surety payable to the State of West Virginia conditioned upon the faithful observance of all the provisions of this article, the payment to any municipality or the state of all taxes due and owing or which may become due and the indemnifying of any purchaser at such sale who suffers any loss by reason of misrepresentation made in connection with such sale: Provided, That the aggregate liability of the surety for all breaches of the conditions of the bond shall in no event exceed the amount of said bond. The amount of said bond shall be determined as follows: Five percent of the first $100,000 of the retail value of all the goods, wares and merchandise to be offered at such sale, two percent of the next $400,000 and one percent of the balance. Said bond shall be approved as to form and sufficiency by the prosecuting attorney or his assistant of the county in which such sale is to be conducted.
If the applicant owns, conducts or operates more than one store or warehouse in connection with such store or warehouse specified in the application, the license issued will apply only to the one store or warehouse for which it was issued and no other store or warehouse may advertise or represent in any way that it is cooperating with or participating in any way in the licensed sale, nor shall the licensed store or warehouse or any person advertise or represent that any other person, store or warehouse is cooperating with or participating in the licensed sale. The licensed sale conducted by any store or warehouse of a chain or group of stores or warehouses shall be conducted solely at the location of the store or warehouse for which the license was obtained and no goods, wares or merchandise shall be brought from any other store or warehouse and placed on sale at the store or warehouse licensed to conduct a sale hereunder.
(a) Any substitution for or addition to goods described in an inventory filed pursuant to this article or any change in the time or place for a sale conducted pursuant to this article shall be unlawful and shall void any license issued to conduct a sale pursuant to this article and such license shall be revoked.
(b) In the case of a sale licensed under this article conducted by any person licensed under this article in addition to conducting a business or selling other goods, wares or merchandise not included in the inventory accompanying the application, the goods to be sold at such sale shall be clearly and distinctly segregated, marked or identified and advertised, if at all, so that both on display and in advertising such goods may be readily distinguished from other stocks and their identity readily ascertained. Any commingling of such goods with other stocks of such person in such a manner as to cause the goods to lose their separate identity either on display or in advertising shall be unlawful.
A copy of the application for a license to conduct a sale under this article, including a copy of the inventory filed therewith, shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the sales room or place where the inventoried goods are to be sold so that the public may be informed of the facts relating to the goods before purchasing same. Any advertisement or announcement published in connection with the sale shall conspicuously show on its face the number of the license, the date of its expiration, and if applicable, the location where the business is to be resumed.
Opening of a business similar to the one for which the sale licensed pursuant to this article was conducted except the licensed "sale of goods damaged by fire, smoke or water" by the person, partner of a partnership, officer of an association, or principal stockholder of a corporation who or which conducted the sale upon the same premises within one year of the termination of the sale shall constitute a violation of this article. Every day in which business is conducted within the prohibited period of one year shall constitute a separate violation of this article.
(a) Suitable books and records concerning said sale shall be kept by the licensee for the duration of the licensed sale and one year thereafter and shall be open for inspection by the commissioner or his duly authorized representative.
(2) The ultimate disposition thereof and if transferred to another, the name and address of the transferee.
Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment not exceeding thirty days. Each day any sale is conducted in violation of the provisions of this article shall constitute and be a separate violation of the provisions of this article.
If any part or parts of this article shall be held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect the Constitutionality or validity of the remaining part or parts of this article. The Legislature hereby declares that it would have passed the remaining part or parts of this article if it had known that such part or parts would be declared unconstitutional or invalid.
This article shall become effective on July 1, 1967.


(7) Any additional information requested by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative.
(b) To the extent that information required for a re-certification of compliance remains valid and has been submitted in previous certification or re-certification applications(s), such information need not be duplicated in subsequent applications; such information may be summarized and referenced.
Information documented in each Compliance Recertification Application (CRA) is prescribed in 40 CFR § 194.15 (U.S. EPA 1996). These documentation requirements parallel the requirements of 40 CFR § 194.14 (U.S. EPA 1996), which apply to the original application, the Compliance Certification Application (CCA) (U.S. DOE 1996). The focus of section 194.15 is to ensure that each CRA includes documentation regarding any changes to the disposal system that may have occurred since the previous certification or recertification. Updated information regarding relevant aspects of the waste and the disposal system is documented. However, in cases where information and assumptions have not changed, no new information needs to be documented; a CRA may reference or summarize such unchanged information.
Each CRA must identify relevant systems and program changes implemented during the preceding five-year period. Any activity or assumption that deviates from what was described in the most recent recertification application would be considered a change. Each CRA also documents changes reviewed and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the preceding five-year period (through modification of the certification or other processes). Each CRA documents instances where new baseline program elements were established as a result of changes.
The CCA, Chapters 2.0 and 3.0 and Appendices GCR, HYDRO, and MASS, include general information about the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site and disposal system design and specifically support section 194.14. Other site characteristics, design, location, and construction information is primarily provided in the CCA, Chapter 7.0 and Appendices BACK, DEL, PCS, and SEAL, which also specifically support section 194.14. All other chapters and appendices of the CCA are not specifically relevant to section 194.14. After its review, the EPA concluded that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) adequately addressed the geology, geophysics, hydrogeology, hydrology, meteorology, climatology, and effects of waste and geochemistry of the disposal system and its vicinity, and how these conditions are expected to change and interact over the regulatory time frame (Compliance Application Review Document [CARD] 14, U.S. EPA 1998a). The EPA reviewed the DOE's CCA and additional information submitted by the DOE and determined that the DOE complied with each of the criteria of section 194.14. A complete description of the EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for section 194.14 can be found in U.S. EPA 1998b, as well as CARD 14 (U.S. EPA 1998a).
Baseline documentation for section 194.14 was established at the time of the original EPA certification. Information on changes to section 194.14 topics that occurred since the original certification is required to be documented by section 194.15. Changes that occurred during the five-year period following the original certification are documented in the CRA-2004 (U.S. DOE 2004), which was submitted by the DOE and reviewed by the EPA under the requirements of section 194.15.
During public review of the CRA-2004, the EPA received comments regarding karst features, vertical fracturing, and transport through the Magenta Dolomite Member. The EPA assessed these comments and concluded that the DOE has demonstrated continued compliance. The EPA responses to comments on the CRA-2004 are documented in CARD 14/15, Appendix 15-A (U.S. EPA 2006a).
Based on a review and evaluation of the CRA-2004 and supplemental information provided by the DOE (available for review in EPA Docket A-98-49), the EPA determined that the DOE continued to comply with the disposal standards (U.S. EPA 2006b).
Baseline documentation for section 194.14 was established at the time of the original EPA certification. Information on changes to section 194.14 topics that occurred since the CCA was documented in the CRA-2004 (U.S. DOE 2004). Changes that occurred during the five-year period following the CRA-2004 were documented in Section 15 of the CRA-2009 (U.S. DOE 2009a), which was submitted by the DOE and reviewed by the EPA under the requirements of 40 CFR 194.15.
The EPA provided opportunities for public comment throughout the recertification process. Public comments received during the CRA-2009 public comment period, along with the EPA's responses, are documented in CARD 14/15, Appendix 15-C (U.S. EPA 2010a). The EPA responses to hydrologic comments are documented in CARD 14/15, Appendix 15-B (U.S. EPA 2010a).
Based on a review and evaluation of the CRA-2009 and supplemental information provided by the DOE (available for review in Federal Document Management System Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49) the EPA determined that the DOE continued to comply with the disposal standards (U.S. EPA 2010b). The EPA assessed all of the public comments received and concluded that the DOE demonstrated continued compliance.
To document that the WIPP continues to comply with the disposal standards in each five-year recertification cycle, changes and new information and their impacts on compliance since the previous recertification must be described. Changes and new information since the CRA-2009 related to 40 CFR 194.15 are either described below, or references are provided to other sections or appendices of the CRA-2014 that provide the necessary information.
Much of the information provided in this section was obtained from routinely published reports. Table 15-1 lists these reports and summarizes the type of information contained in each report. The specific reports referenced in Table 15-1 are the latest annual or biennial versions submitted to the EPA or published for the EPA's review before this CRA's cutoff date of December 31, 2012.
Describes compliance status with applicable environmental laws and regulations and environmental monitoring performed during the year at the WIPP. Highlights any significant monitoring results or findings.
Reports data related to the geotechnical performance of the various underground facility components, including the shafts, shaft stations, access drifts, and waste disposal areas. Volume 1 describes the overall program; Volume 2 provides a compilation of the collected data.
Provides information each year on any change in conditions or activities related to the disposal system, as required by 40 CFR § 194.4(b)(4) b. The majority of the items reported are inspections, reports, and modifications to written plans and procedures. In addition, the Annual Change Report provides updates on waste volumes of several parameters and radionuclides upon which the EPA imposes limits.
Lists changes in drilling including rates for shallow and deep drilling; pipeline activity; borehole plugging; injection wells; potash, sulfur, and solution mining; and any other new activity related primarily to human intrusion. This report generates data needed to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 194.33.
The DOE uses Performance Assessment (PA) to simulate the expected long-term performance of the WIPP. COMPs are used to indicate conditions that are not within expected PA data ranges or conceptual model assumptions, and to alert the project to unexpected conditions. These assessments, in part, demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 194.42 monitoring requirements. Examples of COMPs include waste activity, changes in groundwater conditions, and creep closure rate.
Includes determination of the elevation of each of the existing subsidence monuments and the WIPP baseline survey, and of the National Geodetic Survey's vertical control points.
Documents the total inventory (stored and projected) of transuranic (TRU) waste as defined by the TRU waste sites to provide current TRU waste inventory information.
As required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA), this document reports the status of the project's compliance with a variety of environmental protection laws and regulations.
aThe entry in this column is the most recent report available.
40 CFR § 194.15(a)(1) requires the submittal of "all additional geologic, geophysical, geochemical, hydrologic, and meteorological information." Information related to this requirement is provided in Sections 15.8.1.1 through 15.8.1.5.
Since the preparation of the CRA-2009, no new geologic mapping has been reported and no new WIPP monitoring wells have been drilled at new locations. Existing WIPP monitoring wells in deteriorated condition have been replaced and/or plugged and abandoned, as discussed in Appendix HYDRO-2014. The information collected during drilling of replacement wells did not provide new geologic information. In 2011, two exploratory potash boreholes were drilled by The Mosaic Company in township 22S range 31E sections 9 and 10 immediately north of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Boundary. The cuttings and geophysical logs collected from these boreholes (MOS-20 and MOS-21) confirmed the stratigraphy of the geologic units above the Salado Formation, as observed in nearby monitoring wells.
As described in Appendix SCR-2014, the DOE continues to screen out the impacts of all tectonic-, magmatic-, and structural-related geophysical processes on the basis of probability and/or consequence. Tectonic activity was used as the siting criterion and for the purposes of determining seismic design parameters for the facility. The intent was to avoid tectonic conditions such as faulting and igneous activity that would jeopardize waste isolation over the long term and to avoid areas where earthquake size and frequency could impact facility design and operations.
The purpose of continued monitoring of seismic activity is to maintain a database from which to trend ground motions that the WIPP repository may be subjected to in the near and distant future. The concern about seismic effects in the near future, i.e., during the operational period, pertains mainly to the design requirements for surface and underground structures for providing containment during seismic events. The concern about effects occurring over the long term, after the repository has been decommissioned and sealed, pertains more to relative motions (faulting) within the repository and possible effects of faulting on the integrity of the salt beds and/or shaft seals.
During the CRA-2014 monitoring period (October 2007 through December 2012) there were 543 seismic events recorded within approximately 300 kilometers (km) (187 miles (mi)) of the WIPP site. One notable seismic event occurred on March 18, 2012, with a magnitude of 2.4, as recorded by the WIPP's seismic array. This seismic event was associated with a potash mine roof fall that caused cracks and subsidence on the surface. This seismic event occurred 14 km (9 mi) from the WIPP site, and caused no observable damage at the WIPP.
The Delaware Basin Drilling Surveillance Program collects seismic information on areas within and outside of the Delaware Basin (defined in 40 CFR 194.2). However, only the Delaware Basin is used as the defining area for data collection and input into PAs. Recorded events that have occurred within the Delaware Basin between 1971 and December 2012 are listed in Table 15-2, Seismic Events in the Delaware Basin.
Earthquake catalogs are usually divided into categories according to the magnitude registered for each event. Most catalogs have a section detailing seismic events with a magnitude greater than 3.0 because this is the point at which most seismic events can be felt. Below the magnitude of 3.0, most events are very seldom or barely felt. Only 62 seismic events have been reported with a magnitude greater than 3.0 within 300 km (187 mi) of the WIPP site. Of these 62 events, only four have occurred in the Delaware Basin. The closest seismic event with a magnitude of 3.2 occurred on October 19, 1997, 14 km (9 mi) from the WIPP site, and was the result of a roof fall in one of the local potash mines.
*Source: seismic events for calendar years 1990 through 2012 compiled from (U.S. DOE 2008a; U.S. DOE 2009b; U.S. DOE 2010a; U.S. DOE 2011a; U.S. DOE 2012d).
New hydrogeochemical information has been collected and summarized since the CRA-2009. This new information is described in detail by Domski et al. (Domski et al. 2011) and in Appendix HYDRO-2014. Groundwater sampling for the geochemical evaluation has been performed in replacement wells and selected older wells. The last major geochemical evaluation of the Culebra Dolomite Member groundwater was performed by Domski and Beauheim (Domski and Beauheim 2008) based on samples from 59 wells. The more recent Culebra analyses in Domski et al. (Domski et al. 2011) are an update of Domski and Beauheim (Domski and Beauheim 2008). Domski et al. (Domski et al. 2011) provides some updated Culebra information, confirming the distribution of Culebra geochemical facies, and primarily contains geochemical analysis for the other hydrologic units above the Salado Formation present near the WIPP site. The spatial distribution of these facies is consistent with the locations of the Rustler Formation halite margins, the distribution of transmissivity in the Culebra, and the areas of known or suspected recharge to the Culebra.
No new monitoring well locations have been added to the WIPP monitoring network since the CRA-2009, but several old monitoring wells have either been plugged and abandoned or plugged, abandoned and replaced. Updated hydrologic data and well construction and replacement information are provided in Appendix HYDRO-2014. Appendix HYDRO-2014 describes the new information collected since 2007; a brief summary is provided below.
The Culebra monitoring network optimization study was revised (Kuhlman 2010) to identify locations where new Culebra monitoring wells would be of greatest value and to identify wells that could be removed from the network with little loss of information. Details are provided in Appendix HYDRO-2014, Section 9.0.
The WIPP groundwater monitoring program has continued monthly water-level measurements with continuous (nominally hourly) fluid-pressure measurements using downhole pressure gauges in all Culebra wells except for the Water Quality Sampling Program wells. Continuous monitoring now also includes Magenta, Bell Canyon Formation, and Santa Rosa Formation/Dewey Lake Redbeds Formation wells. The high-frequency monitoring network continues to provide information about the temporal fluctuations of water levels in the Culebra, due to both natural and human-caused events. Details regarding the WIPP groundwater monitoring activities are described in Appendix HYDRO-2014, Section 7.0.
The Meteorological Monitoring Program measures atmospheric data for the WIPP site. This section provides a brief description of the program and updated meteorological data covering the years 2007 through 2011. No anomalous weather events or changes in climatic conditions occurred during that time period. Information related to recent meteorological conditions is provided below.
The annual average, maximum, and minimum temperatures from 1990 through 2011 are listed in Table 15-3.
*Source: monthly average based on meteorological data in the WIPP Met database from the WIPP Meteorological Station, 10 meters above the ground.
Monthly average, maximum, and minimum precipitation data recorded at the WIPP site from 1990 through 2011 are provided in Figure 15-1. Data are from the WIPP ASERs.
*Source: precipitation data for calendar years 1990 through 2011 compiled from (U.S. DOE 2008b; U.S. DOE 2009c; U.S. DOE 2010b; U.S. DOE 2011b; U.S. DOE 2012a).
Wind rose plots at 10 meters (m) (33 feet [ft]) indicating the frequency of wind speeds and directions at the WIPP site from 2007 through 2011 are provided as Figure 15-2, Figure 15-3 , Figure 15-4, Figure 15-5 and Figure 15-6. Data are from the WIPP ASERs.
40 CFR § 194.15(a)(2) requires the submittal of "all additional monitoring data, analyses, and results." Information related to this requirement is provided below.
The DOE has implemented and/or continued several experimental activities designed to address specific issues and needs of the WIPP repository. In addition, other investigations were initiated to examine the impacts of planned changes.
Environmental monitoring programs and references to relevant reports are included in Appendix MON-2014 and Appendix DATA-2014. Data on parameters required for pre-closure and post-closure monitoring, including programs for geotechnical and geoscience monitoring, are described in Appendix MON-2014, which focuses on parameters that may be relevant to the long-term performance of the repository. Appendix DATA-2014, Sections DATA-2.0 and DATA-3.0, describe the data collection procedures and reference the reports related to parameters in the Delaware Basin, including drilling rates, oil and gas production activities, and subsidence monitoring. Appendix DATA-2014, Attachment A, WIPP Borehole Update, provides an updated list of boreholes in the vicinity of the WIPP.
40 CFR § 194.15(a)(3) requires the submittal of "all additional analyses and results of laboratory experiments conducted by the Department or its contractors as part of the WIPP program." Sections 15.8.3.1 through 15.8.3.5 describe experimental work conducted since the CRA-2009 in the areas of WIPP repository conditions and parameters, waste shear strength experiments, magnesium oxide (MgO) characterization and chemistry, actinide studies, and iron and lead corrosion experiments.
There were no significant changes in the WIPP repository conditions, chemistry assumptions, or subsurface processes used in PA to establish compliance since the CRA-2009. Appendix DATA-2014, Section DATA-9.0 provides references that describe waste shear strength experiments, actinide chemistry experiments, and iron and lead corrosion experiments and their results with respect to the impact on PA that occurred after the CRA-2009. A detailed description of the current conditions and assumptions used in PA is provided in Appendix MASS-2014.
The limits of the range of values for the hydrodynamic waste shear strength have been debated since the Cuttings model was introduced in 1992 (Berglund 1992). Since the Performance Assessment Verification Test, the lower limit has been based on a literature review and the upper limit based on a waste particle size analysis, both being chosen based on a lack of experimental results on a suitable surrogate waste material. (Hansen et al. 1997) developed a surrogate material believed to represent an extreme state of degradation, far weaker than any possible future state of the waste, and used this material to develop the material parameter values used in the Spallings model. The DOE again used this material for a series of tests in a vertical flume to assess the lower limit of the waste shear strength. Based on experimental results that realistically simulate the effect of a drilling intrusion using an accepted surrogate waste material, the DOE proposed that the waste shear strength parameter values have a range of 2.22 - 77.0 Pascals and a uniform distribution (Herrick et al. 2012; Herrick and Kirchner 2013). This range and distribution type is used in CRA-2014.
On July 10, 2007, the DOE submitted a letter in response to the EPA's questions pertaining to the efficacy of the MgO supplied to the WIPP (Patterson 2007). The letter included documents which demonstrate the stability of the MgO product in terms of both the stability of the feedstock and of the statistical data on the composition of the product. On February 11, 2008, the EPA approved the DOE's Planned Change Request (PCR) to reduce the safety factor from 1.67 to 1.2 with two conditions: 1) the DOE must continue to calculate and track both the carbon disposed and the required MgO needed on a room-by-room basis; and 2) the DOE must annually verify the reactivity of MgO and ensure that it is maintained at 94% or greater as assumed in supporting documentation (Reyes 2008).
On March 16, 2009, the DOE submitted a notification to the EPA of implementation of the 1.2 excess factor for MgO emplacement and verification of 94% or greater reactivity (Patterson 2009). A description of the change in MgO emplacement is given in CRA-2014, Engineered Barriers, Section 44.8.1. The DOE continues to implement the 1.2 excess factor of MgO on a room-by-room basis and to ensure the MgO emplaced in the WIPP has a minimum reactivity of 94%.
Experimental investigations to establish the speciation and solubility of actinides under WIPP-related conditions were reinitiated after the CRA-2004 and have continued through the CRA-2014. These investigations initially focused on three areas: (1) the solubility of neodymium, Nd (III), as an analogue for the plutonium, Pu (III), and americium, Am (III), oxidation states, in simulated WIPP brine; (2) the reduction of higher valent Pu (V/VI) by iron to form lower-solubility Pu (III/IV) phases; and (3) the solubility of uranium, U (VI), in carbonate-free WIPP brine. Since the CRA-2009, this has expanded to include various aspects of actinide-relevant brine chemistry, microbial effects, and actinide colloid studies. The details of these experimental studies are given in Appendix SOTERM-2014, Sections SOTERM-2 and SOTERM-3. All results reported in these studies support the existing PA assumptions for geochemistry and did not lead to conceptual model changes in the CRA-2014 PA, although a number of parameters were updated.
Since the CRA-2009, a new series of steel and lead corrosion experiments has been conducted (Roselle 2009; Roselle 2010; Roselle 2011a; Roselle 2011b; Roselle 2013). The purpose of these experiments has been to determine steel and lead corrosion rates under more WIPP-relevant conditions. The results of these experiments have led to a revised iron corrosion rate parameter (Roselle 2013). No other changes have been made as a result of these experiments. Appendix MgO-2014, Section MgO-5.3.2.1 provides a description of the effects of MgO on gas generation from anoxic corrosion of steels and other iron-based alloys, while Appendix SOTERM-2014, Section SOTERM-2.3.4 describes the iron chemistry and corrosion assumptions that are implemented in the CRA-2014 PA.
40 CFR § 194.15(a)(4) requires that the DOE "identify any activities or assumptions that deviate from the most recent compliance application." Information related to this requirement is provided in Sections 15.8.4.1 through 15.8.4.6.
The status of mining in the WIPP underground repository is shown in Figure 15-7. As of December 31, 2012, Panels 1 through 7 had been mined completely and Panels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were completely filled with waste. Waste was being emplaced in Panel 6 and mining of Panel 7 was completed on December 28, 2012.
The geotechnical analysis reports from 2008 through 2012 show that no major ground control problems or events have occurred since the CRA-2009 (U.S. DOE 2008c ; U.S. DOE 2009d; U.S. DOE 2010c; U.S. DOE 2011c; U.S. DOE 2012b). As expected, slow deterioration of ground conditions has occurred in the WIPP underground repository as a result of aging, but this has been mitigated by routine maintenance and the implementation of engineered systems, as needed.
The original plans for waste emplacement included the placement of remote-handled TRU (RH-TRU) waste in horizontal boreholes in the walls of waste-emplacement rooms, followed by the emplacement of contact-handled TRU (CH-TRU) waste in containers on the floor of each room. This configuration was planned to be used in all panels in the underground repository. Because CH-TRU waste disposal was approved about six years before RH-TRU waste approval, RH-TRU waste was emplaced in Panels 4, 5, and 6, but not in Panels 1, 2, and 3 (see Figure 15-7).
On November 15, 2007, the DOE submitted a PCR to the EPA for approval to emplace a portion of the RH-TRU waste in shielded containers in the WIPP (Moody 2007). The shielded container has approximately the same exterior dimensions as a 55-gallon drum. It has 1-inch thick lead shielding placed between a double-walled steel shell. The external steel wall is 1/8-inch thick, and the internal steel wall is 3/16-inch thick. The lid and the bottom of the containers are made of carbon steel and are 3 inches thick. The containers are designed to hold a 30-gallon container filled with RH-TRU waste, and would be shipped to the WIPP in HalfPACT transportation containers. The shielded container would be handled and emplaced like CH-TRU waste containers because the surface dose rate for a shielded container would be no higher than 200 millirem/hour. Even though the RH-TRU waste in shielded containers will be handled as if it were CH-TRU waste, these containers will still be recorded as RH-TRU waste in the WIPP Waste Data System, and the volume of the waste will be counted against the limit of 250,000 cubic feet (7,080 cubic meters) of RH-TRU waste, as set by the Consultation and Cooperation Agreement between the DOE and the State of New Mexico.
On December 7, 2007, the EPA sent the DOE its first letter with the results of a preliminary review and comments on the shielded container PCR and requested additional documentation (Reyes 2007). The DOE submitted supplemental information on April 30, 2008, and October 29, 2008, in response to the EPA's request (Moody 2008a and Moody 2008b).
On March 25, 2011, the EPA determined that the DOE had fulfilled all documentation requirements set forth by the EPA and had demonstrated that the use of shielded containers in the repository would not affect facility compliance with either 40 CFR Part 191or 40 CFR Part 194 (Edwards 2011a). The EPA proposed the approval of the shielded container assembly for use at the WIPP, pending the solicitation and resolution of public comments.
The EPA opened an informal 60-day comment period, which was later extended to 90 days at the request of the stakeholders and closed on June 24, 2011. The EPA considered all comments submitted and found that no new technical issues had been raised.
On August 8, 2011, the EPA issued its technical approval of the DOE's PCR for the emplacement of RH-TRU waste in shielded containers with one condition (Edwards 2011b): prior to shipping shielded containers to the WIPP, the DOE will demonstrate a consistent complex-wide procedure to ensure that shielded containers containing RH-TRU waste remain below the WIPP LWA surface dose rate limit for CH-TRU waste of 200 millirem per hour.
Several new research projects have been initiated at the WIPP. Although these projects are not related to the expected performance of the repository, they are described here because they are being performed in the WIPP underground facility. The WIPP underground repository is a desirable location for these experiments because it provides an environment shielded from cosmic radiation that would otherwise interfere with the experiments. Equipment used during these experiments will be removed before closure of the repository.
The Segmented Enriched Germanium Assembly (SEGA) and the Multiple Element Germanium Array (MEGA) projects are being performed to investigate double-beta decay, a rare type of nuclear decay that provides information on the mass of the neutrino. The SEGA and MEGA projects are being performed by a collaboration of several universities, with Stanford University serving as the lead. The SEGA and MEGA experiments have been ongoing since 2008.
Los Alamos National Laboratory is leading the Enriched Xenon Observatory (EXO) project, also in the WIPP underground repository. This project is investigating neutrinoless double-beta decay. The first two clean room modules for the EXO project were successfully placed in the WIPP underground in 2007. The detector for the EXO project, called the Time Projection Chamber (TPC), was installed in January 2010. Data-taking mode began when the EXO detector was filled with xenon containing 80% xenon-136. Construction of the EXO is approximately 90% complete. Experimental modules continue to be assembled, outfitted, tested and emplaced in the WIPP underground.
On May 28, 2009, the DOE submitted to the EPA the notification of intent to emplace the Dark Matter (DM) TPC in the northern part of the North Experimental Area in the WIPP underground (Moody 2009a). The EPA approved the DM-TPC on July 23, 2009 (Edwards 2009a). The experiment was assembled in the WIPP underground in 2010. The DM-TPC continues to operate safely and reliably.
On January 8, 2009, the DOE submitted to the EPA the notification of intent to begin the Low Background Radiation Experiment (LBRE) (Moody 2009b). The LBRE is designed to examine the effects of very low background radiation on bacteria. The EPA approved the intent to begin the LBRE on January 28, 2009 (Edwards 2009b). Experimental protocols were developed and incubators were emplaced above ground and underground. Experiments have been ongoing in the WIPP underground since 2009.
A Planned Change Notice (PCN) is a formal submittal of information to the EPA that describes minor, insignificant changes to activities and conditions at the WIPP that are different from those described in the compliance baseline. A summary of the PCNs submitted since the CRA-2009 is provided below.
On August 11, 2011, the DOE submitted to the EPA a PCN to initiate mining activities for the Salt Disposal Investigations (SDI) project in the WIPP underground (Ziemianski 2011a). The objective of the SDI experiment is to investigate thermal and hydro-geochemical responses to temperature sources in excess of 160º Celsius located in bedded salt.
On November 17, 2011, the EPA agreed that the DOE may conduct the initial preparatory phase of the SDI program and found that the mining phase of the SDI activities will not adversely impact the WIPP's waste handling activities, air monitoring, disposal operations, or long-term repository performance (Edwards 2011c). The initial preparatory phase of the mining project began on December 1, 2011.
On June 20, 2012, the DOE notified the EPA (Franco 2012a) that an additional component, and possible alternative to the SDI project, had been developed entitled the Salt Defense Disposal Investigations (SDDI). The SDDI project would test an in-drift emplacement concept with thermal loads more closely aligned with the DOE defense high-level waste canisters.
On May 21, 2010, the DOE submitted to the EPA a PCN to employ a polyethylene liner inside some standard RH-TRU waste canisters to shield neutron-emitting waste destined for disposal at the WIPP (Moody 2010).
On February 14, 2012, the DOE submitted a PCN, based on operating experience and historical data, to inform the EPA that a process was being instituted to emplace MgO on every other row of waste containers, in contrast to emplacing MgO on every waste stack (Franco 2012b). Historical data showed the MgO excess factor on a per room basis to range from 1.22 to 2.85 when MgO was placed on every stack of waste. These values were higher than the excess factor of 1.2 mandated by the EPA's letter dated February 11, 2008 (Reyes 2008). The PCN also described the process that requires the Waste Handling Engineer to continue to calculate the excess factor at the end of each shift and to direct the placement of additional MgO if the excess factor dropped below 1.2. The EPA agreed to this operational change in an email from Peake to Franco dated July 13, 2012. Details regarding this change can be found in Appendix MgO, Section MgO-2.1.4.
A PCR is a formal submittal of information to the EPA that describes and requests approval for the implementation of more complex changes to activities and conditions at the WIPP that are different from those described in the compliance baseline. A summary of the PCRs submitted since the CRA-2009 is provided below.
On August 30, 2011, the DOE submitted a Repository Reconfiguration PCR to the EPA to relocate Panels 9 and 10 from the main north-south access drift to south of the existing Panels 4 and 5 (Ziemianski 2011b). The DOE stated that relocating Panels 9 and 10 to south of the existing Panels 4 and 5 will enhance worker safety and reduce maintenance requirements by providing a more stable geotechnical environment for the two new waste emplacement panels in the repository.
On September 28, 2011, the DOE submitted to the EPA a PCR for panel closure redesign (Ziemianski 2011c). The DOE has requested that the EPA modify Condition 1 of the Final Certification Decision for 40 CFR Part 194 by replacing the current approved panel closure design, "Option D," with the proposed design, Run-of-Mine Panel Closure.
Condition 1 of the Final Certification Decision for 40 CFR Part 194 specifies that the panel closure system to be used in the WIPP repository be "Option D," as specified in the CCA (U.S. DOE 1996). "Option D" specified that certain components be constructed using Salado Mass Concrete. In 2007, the DOE initiated hydrogen and methane monitoring to gather data to determine more realistic accumulation rates for these gases in filled panels. More realistic accumulation rates for hydrogen and methane could be used to establish a panel closure design that would be less complex than the Option D design.
On December 22, 2011, the EPA provided a set of initial questions and comments to the DOE focusing on the justification for Run-of-Mine Panel Closure representation and its parameters in the reconfiguration PCR PA that were different from those in the 2009 Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation (Perrin 2011).
On April 17, 2012, the DOE replied to the initial set of review questions and comments related to the PCR for replacing the current "Option D" panel closure system (Franco 2012c).
In 2012, the DOE submitted a PA, Panel Closure System-2012, for the proposed panel closure redesign. The results of the PA demonstrated that the WIPP will remain in compliance with the containment requirements found in 40 CFR §191.13.
40 CFR § 194.15(a)(5) requires that the CRA-2014 include "a description of all waste emplaced in the disposal system since the most recent compliance certification or recertification application. Such description shall consist of a description of the waste characteristics and waste components identified in § 194.24(b)(1) and § 194.24(b)(2)." Information related to these requirements is provided in Sections 15.8.5.1 and 15.8.5.2.
The status of waste emplacement in the WIPP underground repository is illustrated in Figure 15-7. Additional detail is provided in Section 24, Waste Characterization.
Section 24 provides an updated waste inventory of waste anticipated to be emplaced in the WIPP and waste that has already been emplaced since the CRA-2009. Section 24 also reports an analysis of the impacts of waste inventory on the performance of the WIPP disposal system. Information about the limits imposed by the DOE on significant components or characteristics of the waste to ensure that they are consistent with assumptions made for the CRA-2014 PA is also provided in Section 24.
There have been five inventory updates (ATWIR-2008, ATWIR-2009, ATWIR-2010, ATWIR-2011 and ATWIR-2012) since the CRA-2009. The DOE used the ATWIR-2012 data for the CRA-2014 inventory, after it was scaled for PA. The scaled inventory was documented in the Performance Assessment Inventory Report - 2012 (Van Soest 2012).
40 CFR § 194.15(a)(6) requires the submittal of "any significant information not previously included in a compliance certification or recertification application related to whether the disposal system continues to be in compliance with the disposal regulations."
The information required by this section of the certification criteria is provided in the sections and appendices of the CRA-2014. The DOE believes that this information demonstrates that the WIPP continues to comply with the disposal regulations.
40 CFR § 194.15(a)(7) requires the submittal of "any additional information requested by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative."
There currently are no outstanding requests from the EPA for additional information. As such, the DOE is in compliance with this certification criterion.
40 CFR § 194.15(b) states, "To the extent that information required for a re-certification of compliance remains valid and has been submitted in previous certification or re-certification applications(s), such information need not be duplicated in subsequent applications; such information may be summarized and referenced."
The DOE has followed this direction in the preparation of this recertification application. To the extent appropriate, information from the CCA, the CRA-2004, and the CRA-2009 that remains valid and unchanged is not repeated in this recertification application; instead, it is summarized and incorporated by reference.
The information in this section and in the other sections and appendices of the CRA-2014 establishes that the DOE continues to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of section 194.15.


In 2007, two San Francisco tenants struggling to pay rent decided to throw a few air mattresses on the ground and advertise for nightly rentals. Fast forward ten years and that company, now called Airbnb, is worth over $31 billion and helps hundreds of millions of users save money on short-term rentals. Since the company’s success, cities, counties, and states have been resisting the home-sharing model because of the complexities involved with enforcing rental laws in commercializing residential zones.
Arizona has taken the opposite approach. While municipalities across the country are rejecting short-term rentals by passing preventative legislation, Arizona has disallowed cities, towns, and counties from putting any restrictions on short-term rentals “simply because the property is not classified as a hotel.” State law also provides that hosts can rent out rooms, homes, or other properties for as many days of the year as they like.
Before you go-ahead and start your own short-term business, it is important to understand some of the pros, cons, and legal limitations involved with listing on Airbnb or other short-term rental platforms in Arizona.
If you live in good location, advertise and furnish the rental well, and provide great customer service, then you can probably create more revenue than most long-term rentals. Remember: you are an entrepreneur, so there is always a risk of failure. However, if you do your homework by learning more about the market in your area, the expenses, and the taxes you will encounter, you can be prepared to make the right choice. If you choose wisely, the results could end up being very rewarding.
Besides money, the experiences that come from hosting an Airbnb rental can be rewarding. Travelers from all over the world are familiar with Airbnb-like platforms and you will certainly have the opportunity to host many people with very different backgrounds. As you host individuals, you may find yourself using makeshift sign language to communicate, tasting foreign snacks, or even learning new languages.
Are you ever grateful that a friend or family member paid you a visit solely because it forced you to clean up your home? After listing your place on Airbnb for a while, you may find that your home is much nicer because repairs are performed frequently, it is cleaner, and the environment is more welcoming.
Aside from the business risks that you will take as an entrepreneur hosting a short-term rental, renting your home will always pose personal risks. For example, you could get physically hurt or your property might get damaged or stolen. While the majority of transactions occur without incident, there are numerous stories circulating the web of thrashed houses, broken windows, and stolen property. Airbnb’s website states that hosts are “unlikely to experience any issues with property damage.” Furthermore, they “provide protection for up to $1 million in damages to covered property in the rare event of guest damage, in eligible countries.” However, Airbnb’s “guarantee” only covers limited types of damages in a limited number of countries. Inviting strangers into your home is not always easy and poses certain risks. Fortunately, there are steps you can take to prevent and minimize your vulnerability to those risks.
Hosting on Airbnb or other platforms might seem easy, but it actually requires a lot of work. You will scrub toilets, vacuum floors, wash sheets and towels, and repair fixtures more than you ever have before. Hosting on Airbnb also limits your availability to travel if you are doing the work yourself. Like a normal job that pays by the hour, you can only get paid if you are present. Do you live close to your rental? Are you okay traveling there once or twice a day? The daily work you put into your rental will directly correlate with guest reviews and the demand for the renting of your space, which in turn means more money for you. If you cannot outsource the work or do it all yourself, then a long-term rental might be a better option for you.
As discussed at the beginning of this article, Arizona is a very favorable state for individuals to list and run short-term rentals. However, laws found at any level of government are subject to change at any time. While Arizona currently protects short-term rentals, it will not necessarily do so in the future. Even with the legal protection that is offered to hosts of short-term rental properties, there are limitations that may affect your ability to list your property and perform your duties the way you want to.
Airbnb now provides the option for owners renting their homes to employ a “co-host.” According to their website, this feature permits listing owners to hire another individual or entity to “help take care of their home and guests in exchange for a portion of the reservation income.” Hosts and co-hosts agree on how to divide up responsibilities, how much of the reservation income will go to the co-host, and how the co-host will be reimbursed for expenses required as part of their co-hosting duties. This method allows owners flexibility in creating and tailoring a business relationship that is just right for their needs. Co-hosts can help listing owners manage their properties by performing any of the following: getting property guest-ready, creating a listing, messaging with guests, managing reservations, welcoming guests in person, helping guests during their stay, writing reviews, updating calendar and pricing, restocking essential supplies, cleaning and maintenance, and getting help from Airbnb.
Unfortunately, many items on this list could lead an Arizona co-host to violate state law for practicing as an unlicensed broker. Under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 32-2101(48), a real estate broker is defined as a person “other than a salesperson, who, for another and for compensation” manages property. In other words, a person must have a real estate broker’s license when: 1) the person does not own the property; 2) the person receives compensation; and 3) the person managing the property engages in real estate broker activities.
While the state of Arizona has disallowed cities, towns, and counties from putting any restrictions on short-term rentals, this rule does not apply to homeowner’s associations (HOAs). Your HOA rules will likely be less clear than state law. If you live in an HOA, review the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Rules and Regulations implemented where you live. Many CC&Rs contain restrictions which prevent homeowners from renting their property for under 30 days. Additionally, renting out your home for under 30 days will probably still qualify as a “lease” since you are paid money in exchange for allowing the guest to occupy your home. This means that any leasing restrictions in the CC&Rs will also apply to short-term rentals. Another gray area of HOAs occurs when the CC&Rs restrict owners from engaging in “business or commercial activity” in their home. Home businesses are generally permissible in residential zones, but permissibility will vary based on individual circumstances.
After reading this article, you might feel overwhelmed, skeptical, or even unsure about your choice to list your home on a short-term rental platform like Airbnb. You are not alone and these decisions are not easy. An experienced real estate attorney or business attorney can examine your unique circumstances and help you get the answers you need to make an informed decision.
1 A.R.S. § 32-2101(27) defines “real estate salesman” as a person engaged by a real estate broker to perform acts or participate in transactions in the manner included in the definition of real estate broker. It is illegal for a salesman to engage in the business of a real estate broker or salesman without a license, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2122, as well as for a broker to employ and utilize the services of an unlicensed salesman, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2155.
2 § 32-2121(A) defines the narrow exception to §32-2121 where a person or entity does not need a real-estate broker license if they own the property in question.