My concern in requiring that the request for a refund be in the DOCR is that it may unfairly penalize those who should get money back, but who request it otherwise than in the DOCR.  As to Mr. Thornhill's proposed language for 9 VAC 20-160-60D.1., I suggest that it be modified to say, "If the participant wishes to seek a refund of a portion of the application fee...."

Comment 5:  In 9 VAC 20-160-90.C.1. and 2., use the word "demonstrating" rather than the words "to show."

Comment 6:  In 9 VAC 20-160-100.A.3., add the word "the" before the word "participant's."

Comment 7:  At the end of 9 VAC 20-160-110.B., the department has added "for the release or releases addressed."  My concern is that the word "addressed" could be wrongly interpreted by some to mean only those releases that have been subject to some form of active remediation.  Since the releases subject to the certificate are always described in the certificate, I propose that the word "addressed" be deleted and that the words "described in the certificate" be substituted in its place.  Similarly, it would be appropriate to change subsection F. to comport with this language, such that subection F. would read:  "The immunity granted by issuance of the certificate shall be limited to releases that are existing at the time of issuance as those releases are described in the Virginia Voluntary Remediation Report."