[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7664-7889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1620]



[[Page 7663]]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 29

February 13, 2012

Part II





Regulatory Information Service Center





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

  Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / The 
Regulatory Plan  

[[Page 7664]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER


Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions

AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service Center.

ACTION: Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish 
semiannual regulatory agendas in the Federal Register describing 
regulatory actions they are developing that may have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 
602). Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' signed 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and Office of Management and Budget 
memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish minimum 
standards for agencies' agendas, including specific types of 
information for each entry.
    The Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 
(Unified Agenda) helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal 
regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as 
part of the Unified Agenda.
    Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 were printed in 
their entirety in the Federal Register. Beginning with the fall 2007 
edition, the Internet is the basic means for conveying regulatory 
agenda information to the maximum extent legally permissible. The 
complete Unified Agenda for fall 2011, which contains the regulatory 
agendas for 59 Federal agencies, is available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.
    The fall 2011 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal 
Register consists of agency regulatory flexibility agendas, in 
accordance with the publication requirements of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas contain only 
those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and entries 
that have been selected for periodic review under section 610 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information Service Center (MI), General Services 
Administration, One Constitution Square, 1275 First Street NE., 651A, 
Washington, DC 20417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about specific 
regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each 
entry.
    To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this 
publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory 
Information Service Center (MI), General Services Administration, One 
Constitution Square, 1275 First Street NE., 642, Washington, DC 20417, 
202 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

I. What Are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?
II. Why Are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda Published?
III. How Are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda Organized?
IV. What Information Appears for Each Entry?
V. Abbreviations
VI. How Can Users Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?

Introduction to the Fall 2011 Regulatory Plan

AGENCY REGULATORY PLANS

Cabinet Departments

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs

Other Executive Agencies

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Financial Stability Oversight Council
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
Office of Personnel Management
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration

Independent Regulatory Agencies

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Trade Commission
National Indian Gaming Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

AGENCY AGENDAS

Cabinet Departments

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury

Other Executive Agencies

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Small Business Administration

Joint Authority

Department of Defense/General Services Administration/National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (Federal Acquisition 
Regulation)

Independent Regulatory Agencies

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Reserve System
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission

Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions

I. What Is the Unified Agenda?

    The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the 
Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared 
in the Federal Register twice each year since 1983 and has been 
available online since 1995. To further the objective of using modern 
technology to deliver better service to the American people for lower 
cost, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet is the basic 
means for conveying regulatory agenda information to the maximum extent 
legally permissible. The complete Unified Agenda is available to the 
public at http://reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda offers flexible 
search tools and will soon offer access to the entire historic Unified 
Agenda database.
    The fall 2011 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal 
Register consists of agency regulatory flexibility agendas, in 
accordance with the publication requirements of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas contain only 
those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small

[[Page 7665]]

entities and entries that have been selected for periodic review under 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Printed entries display 
only the fields required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Complete 
agenda information for those entries appears, in a uniform format, in 
the online Unified Agenda at http://reginfo.gov.
    These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866, as well as move 
the Agenda process toward the goal of e-Government, at a substantially 
reduced printing cost compared with prior editions. The current format 
does not reduce the amount of information available to the public, but 
it does limit most of the content of the Agenda to online access. The 
complete online edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory 
agendas from 59 Federal agencies. Agencies of the United States 
Congress are not included.
    The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in 
the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates 
agencies that appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of 
these agencies are available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.

Department of Housing and Urban Development*
Department of State
Department of Veterans Affairs*
Agency for International Development
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled
Corporation for National and Community Service
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 
Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Financial Stability Oversight Council*
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Archives and Records Administration*
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Science Foundation
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Personnel Management*
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation*
Railroad Retirement Board
Selective Service System
Social Security Administration*
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission*
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission*
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission*
National Labor Relations Board
Postal Regulatory Commission
Surface Transportation Board

    The Regulatory Information Service Center (the Center) compiles the 
Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is 
responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, 
paperwork, and information resource management activities, including 
implementation of Executive Order 12866. The Center also provides 
information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his 
Executive Office, the Congress, agency managers, and the public.
    The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that 
will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may 
choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 
months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or 
withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not 
require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign 
affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, 
management, or personnel matters.
    Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public 
notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They 
have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as 
accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. 
Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, 
and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their 
agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or 
after the dates they have listed. The Unified Agenda does not create a 
legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication 
or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that 
appear within it.

II. Why Is the Unified Agenda Published?

    The Unified Agenda helps agencies comply with their obligations 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various Executive orders and 
other statutes.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to identify those 
rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 602). Agencies meet that requirement 
by including the information in their submissions for the Unified 
Agenda. Agencies may also indicate those regulations that they are 
reviewing as part of their periodic review of existing rules under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). Executive Order 13272 
entitled ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' signed August 13, 2002 (67 FR 53461), provides additional 
guidance on compliance with the Act.

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 
signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), requires covered agencies to 
prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The 
Order also requires that certain agencies prepare annually a regulatory 
plan of their ``most important significant regulatory actions,'' which 
appears as part of the fall Unified Agenda. Executive Order 13497, 
signed January 30, 2009 (74 FR 6113), revoked the amendments to 
Executive Order 12866 that were contained in Executive Order 13258 and 
Executive Order 13422.

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 entitled ``Federalism,'' signed August 4, 
1999 (64 FR 43255), directs agencies to have an accountable process to 
ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have ``federalism 
implications'' as defined in the Order. Under the Order, an agency that 
is proposing a regulation with federalism implications, which either 
preempt State law or impose nonstatutory unfunded substantial direct 
compliance costs on State and local governments, must consult with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
regulation. In addition, the agency must provide to the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget a federalism summary impact statement 
for such a regulation, which consists of a description of the extent of 
the agency's prior consultation with State and local officials, a 
summary of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need 
to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which those 
concerns have been met. As part of this effort, agencies include in 
their submissions for the Unified Agenda information on whether their 
regulatory actions may have an effect on the various levels of 
government and whether those actions have federalism implications.

Executive Order 13563

    Executive Order 13563 entitled ``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review,'' signed January 18, 2011, supplements and reaffirms 
the

[[Page 7666]]

principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary 
regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, which 
includes the general principles of regulation and public participation, 
and orders integration and innovation in coordination across agencies; 
flexible approaches where relevant, feasible, and consistent with 
regulatory approaches; scientific integrity in any scientific or 
technological information and processes used to support the agencies' 
regulatory actions; and retrospective analysis of existing regulations.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, title II) 
requires agencies to prepare written assessments of the costs and 
benefits of significant regulatory actions ``that may result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more * * * in any 1 year * 
* *.'' The requirement does not apply to independent regulatory 
agencies, nor does it apply to certain subject areas excluded by 
section 4 of the Act. Affected agencies identify in the Unified Agenda 
those regulatory actions they believe are subject to title II of the 
Act.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations 
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed 
May 18, 2001 (66 FR 28355), directs agencies to provide, to the extent 
possible, information regarding the adverse effects that agency actions 
may have on the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Under the 
Order, the agency must prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects 
to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for ``those matters 
identified as significant energy actions.'' As part of this effort, 
agencies may optionally include in their submissions for the Unified 
Agenda information on whether they have prepared or plan to prepare a 
Statement of Energy Effects for their regulatory actions.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 
104-121, title II) established a procedure for congressional review of 
rules (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), which defers, unless exempted, the 
effective date of a ``major'' rule for at least 60 days from the 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Act 
specifies that a rule is ``major'' if it has resulted, or is likely to 
result, in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
meets other criteria specified in that Act. The Act provides that the 
Administrator of OIRA will make the final determination as to whether a 
rule is major.

III. How Is the Unified Agenda Organized?

    Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily 
edition of the Federal Register. A regulatory flexibility agenda is 
printed for each agency whose agenda includes entries for rules which 
are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities or rules that have been selected for periodic 
review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Each 
printed agenda appears as a separate part. The parts are organized 
alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet departments; other executive 
agencies; the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a joint authority; and 
independent regulatory agencies. Agencies may in turn be divided into 
subagencies. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble 
providing information specific to that agency. Each printed agency 
agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's printed entries 
that follow.
    The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all 
participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda 
has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the 
particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad 
flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest 
to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To 
see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the 
agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
    Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking 
stages. The rulemaking stages are:
    1. Prerule Stage--actions agencies will undertake to determine 
whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.
    2. Proposed Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking 
process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the 
next step.
    3. Final Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish a 
final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as 
the next step.
    4. Long-Term Actions--items under development but for which the 
agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months 
after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the 
entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.
    5. Completed Actions--actions or reviews the agency has completed 
or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also 
includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the 
Agenda.
    Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication 
cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for 
which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication 
cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by 
Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the 
Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-
looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the 
Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To 
further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified 
Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are 
reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the 
first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search 
function is provided on reginfo.gov to search for Completed and Long-
Term Actions apart from each other and active RINs.
    A bullet () preceding the title of an entry indicates that 
the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
    In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from 
the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number 
preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry 
in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the 
printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online 
Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is 
able to provide this cross-reference capability.
    Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several 
indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These 
included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions

[[Page 7667]]

that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 
13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no 
longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the 
flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired 
characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's 
subject index based on the Federal Register Thesaurus of Indexing 
Terms. In addition, online users have the option of searching Agenda 
text fields for words or phrases.

IV. What Information Appears for Each Entry?

    All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data 
elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
    Title of the Regulation--a brief description of the subject of the 
regulation. In the printed edition, the notation ``Section 610 Review'' 
following the title indicates that the agency has selected the rule for 
its periodic review of existing rules under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 610(c)). Some agencies have indicated completions of 
section 610 reviews or rulemaking actions resulting from completed 
section 610 reviews. In the online edition, these notations appear in a 
separate field.
    Priority--an indication of the significance of the regulation. 
Agencies assign each entry to one of the following five categories of 
significance.

(1) Economically Significant

    As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will 
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities. The definition of an ``economically significant'' rule is 
similar but not identical to the definition of a ``major'' rule under 5 
U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)

(2) Other Significant

    A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered 
Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency 
anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that 
are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be 
included in the agency's regulatory plan.

(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant

    A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither 
Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/
Administrative/Other.

(4) Routine and Frequent

    A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring 
application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations 
and that does not alter the body of the regulation.

(5) Informational/Administrative/Other

    A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency 
matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate 
but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public 
of the activity.
    Major--whether the rule is ``major'' under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 
104-121) because it has resulted or is likely to result in an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria 
specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will make the final 
determination as to whether a rule is major.
    Unfunded Mandates--whether the rule is covered by section 202 of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The Act 
requires that, before issuing an NPRM likely to result in a mandate 
that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than 
$100 million in 1 year, agencies, other than independent regulatory 
agencies, shall prepare a written statement containing an assessment of 
the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.
    Legal Authority--the section(s) of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 
or Public Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order (E.O.) that authorize(s) 
the regulatory action. Agencies may provide popular name references to 
laws in addition to these citations.
    CFR Citation--the section(s) of the Code of Federal Regulations 
that will be affected by the action.
    Legal Deadline--whether the action is subject to a statutory or 
judicial deadline, the date of that deadline, and whether the deadline 
pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other action.
    Abstract--a brief description of the problem the regulation will 
address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available, 
alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and 
potential costs and benefits of the action.
    Timetable--the dates and citations (if available) for all past 
steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the 
regulatory action. A date displayed in the form 12/00/11 means the 
agency is predicting the month and year the action will take place but 
not the day it will occur. In some instances, agencies may indicate 
what the next action will be, but the date of that action is ``To Be 
Determined.'' ``Next Action Undetermined'' indicates the agency does 
not know what action it will take next.
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required--whether an analysis is 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
because the rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act.
    Small Entities Affected--the types of small entities (businesses, 
governmental jurisdictions, or organizations) on which the rulemaking 
action is likely to have an impact as defined by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Some agencies have chosen to indicate likely effects 
on small entities even though they believe that a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis will not be required.
    Government Levels Affected--whether the action is expected to 
affect levels of government and, if so, whether the governments are 
State, local, tribal, or Federal.
    International Impacts--whether the regulation is expected to have 
international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of 
interest to the Nation's international trading partners.
    Federalism--whether the action has ``federalism implications'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13132. This term refers to actions ``that 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' 
Independent regulatory agencies are not required to supply this 
information.
    Included in the Regulatory Plan--whether the rulemaking was 
included in the agency's current regulatory plan published in fall 
2010.
    Agency Contact--the name and phone number of at least one person in 
the agency who is knowledgeable about the rulemaking action. The agency 
may also provide the title, address, fax number, email address, and TDD 
for each agency contact.
    Some agencies have provided the following optional information:

[[Page 7668]]

    RIN Information URL--the Internet address of a site that provides 
more information about the entry.
    Public Comment URL--the Internet address of a site that will accept 
public comments on the entry. Alternatively, timely public comments may 
be submitted at the Governmentwide e-rulemaking site, http://www.regulations.gov.
    Additional Information--any information an agency wishes to include 
that does not have a specific corresponding data element.
    Compliance Cost to the Public--the estimated gross compliance cost 
of the action.
    Affected Sectors--the industrial sectors that the action may most 
affect, either directly or indirectly. Affected sectors are identified 
by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.
    Energy Effects--an indication of whether the agency has prepared or 
plans to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for the action, as 
required by Executive Order 13211 ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed May 
18, 2001 (66 FR 28355).
    Related RINs--one or more past or current RIN(s) associated with 
activity related to this action, such as merged RINs, split RINs, new 
activity for previously completed RINs, or duplicate RINs.
    Some agencies that participated in the fall 2010 edition of The 
Regulatory Plan have chosen to include the following information for 
those entries that appeared in the Plan:
    Statement of Need--a description of the need for the regulatory 
action.
    Summary of the Legal Basis--a description of the legal basis for 
the action, including whether any aspect of the action is required by 
statute or court order.
    Alternatives--a description of the alternatives the agency has 
considered or will consider as required by section 4(c)(1)(B) of 
Executive Order 12866.
    Anticipated Costs and Benefits--a description of preliminary 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the action.
    Risks--a description of the magnitude of the risk the action 
addresses, the amount by which the agency expects the action to reduce 
this risk, and the relation of the risk and this risk reduction effort 
to other risks and risk reduction efforts within the agency's 
jurisdiction.

V. Abbreviations

    The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
    ANPRM--An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary 
notice, published in the Federal Register, announcing that an agency is 
considering a regulatory action. An agency may issue an ANPRM before it 
develops a detailed proposed rule. An ANPRM describes the general area 
that may be subject to regulation and usually asks for public comment 
on the issues and options being discussed. An ANPRM is issued only when 
an agency believes it needs to gather more information before 
proceeding to a notice of proposed rulemaking.
    CFR--The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual codification of 
the general and permanent regulations published in the Federal Register 
by the agencies of the Federal Government. The Code is divided into 50 
titles, each title covering a broad area subject to Federal regulation. 
The CFR is keyed to and kept up to date by the daily issues of the 
Federal Register.
    EO--An Executive order is a directive from the President to 
Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority. 
Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and in title 3 
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    FR--The Federal Register is a daily Federal Government publication 
that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential documents, 
all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and other 
official documents issued by Federal agencies.
    FY--The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
    NPRM--A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the document an agency 
issues and publishes in the Federal Register that describes and 
solicits public comments on a proposed regulatory action. Under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), an NPRM must include, at a 
minimum:
     A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public 
rulemaking proceeding;
     A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is 
proposed; and
     Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a 
description of the subjects and issues involved.
    PL (or Pub. L.)--A public law is a law passed by Congress and 
signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general 
applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons 
or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in 
sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example, Pub. 
L. 112-4 is the fourth public law of the 112th Congress.
    RFA--A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is a description and 
analysis of the impact of a rule on small entities, including small 
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain small not-
for-profit organizations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.) requires each agency to prepare an initial RFA for public 
comment when it is required to publish an NPRM and to make available a 
final RFA when the final rule is published, unless the agency head 
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    RIN--The Regulation Identifier Number is assigned by the Regulatory 
Information Service Center to identify each regulatory action listed in 
the Unified Agenda, as directed by Executive Order 12866 (section 
4(b)). Additionally, OMB has asked agencies to include RINs in the 
headings of their Rule and Proposed Rule documents when publishing them 
in the Federal Register, to make it easier for the public and agency 
officials to track the publication history of regulatory actions 
throughout their development.
    Seq. No.--The sequence number identifies the location of an entry 
in the printed edition of the Unified Agenda. Note that a specific 
regulatory action will have the same RIN throughout its development but 
will generally have different sequence numbers if it appears in 
different printed editions of the Unified Agenda. Sequence numbers are 
not used in the online Unified Agenda.
    U.S.C.--The United States Code is a consolidation and codification 
of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The U.S.C. is 
divided into 50 titles, each title covering a broad area of Federal 
law.

VI. How Can Users Get Copies of the Agenda?

    Copies of the Federal Register issue containing the printed edition 
of the Unified Agenda (agency regulatory flexibility agendas) are 
available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Telephone: 
202 512-1800 or 1 866 512-1800 (toll-free).
    Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly 
from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please 
contact the particular agency for further information.
    All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of 
Federal

[[Page 7669]]

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in 
electronic form at http://reginfo.gov, along with flexible search 
tools.
    In accordance with regulations for the Federal Register, the 
Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies of the 
Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the Federal 
Register. These documents are available at http://www.fdsys.gov.

    Dated: December 19, 2011.
 John C. Thomas,
Director.

Introduction to the Fall 2011 Regulatory Plan

    Executive Order 12866, issued in 1993, requires the annual 
production of a Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. It does 
so to promote transparency--or in the words of the Executive Order 
itself, ``to have an effective regulatory program, to provide for 
coordination of regulations, to maximize consultation and the 
resolution of potential conflicts at an early stage, to involve the 
public and its State, local, and tribal officials in regulatory 
planning, and to ensure that new or revised regulations promote the 
President's priorities and the principles set forth in this Executive 
order.''
    The requirements of Executive Order 12866 were reaffirmed in 
Executive Order 13563, issued in 2011. Consistent with Executive Orders 
13563 and 12866, we are now providing the Unified Regulatory Agenda and 
the Regulatory Plan for public scrutiny and review. Such scrutiny and 
review are closely connected with the general goal, central to 
Executive Order 13563, of promoting public participation in the 
rulemaking process.
    It is important to understand that the Agenda and Plan are intended 
merely to serve as a preliminary statement, for public understanding 
and assessment, of regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities 
that are now under contemplation. This preliminary statement often 
includes a number of rules that are not issued in the following year 
and that may well not be issued at all. This year, we have taken 
several new steps to clarify the purposes and uses of the Agenda and 
Plan and to improve its presentation. Among other things, we have 
narrowed the list of ``active rulemakings'' to rules that are not 
merely under some form of contemplation but that also have at least 
some possibility of issuance over the next year. We have also made it 
easier to understand which rules are active rulemakings rather than 
long-term actions or completed actions. But it remains true that rules 
on this list, designed among other things ``to involve the public and 
its State, local, and tribal officials in regulatory planning,'' must 
undergo serious internal and external scrutiny before they are issued--
and that there are rules on the list that may never be issued.
    In this light, it should be clear that this preliminary statement 
of policies and priorities has extremely important limitations. No 
regulatory action can be made effective until it has gone through 
legally required processes, including those that involve public 
scrutiny and review. For this reason, the inclusion of a regulatory 
action here does not necessarily mean that it will be finalized or even 
proposed. Any proposed or final action must satisfy the requirements of 
relevant statutes, Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda. Those 
requirements, public comments, and new information may or may not lead 
an agency to go forward with an action that is currently under 
contemplation and that is included here. For example, the directives of 
Executive Order 13563, emphasizing the importance of careful 
consideration of costs and benefits, may lead an agency to decline to 
proceed with a regulatory action that is presented here.
    It is also important to note that under Executive Order 12866, 
whether a regulation counts as ``economically significant'' is not an 
adequate measure of whether it imposes high costs on the private 
sector. Economically significant actions may impose small costs or even 
no costs. For example, regulations may count as economically 
significant not because they impose significant costs, but because they 
confer large benefits. Moreover, many regulations count as economically 
significant not because they impose significant regulatory costs on the 
private sector, but because they involve transfer payments as required 
or authorized by law.
    It should be observed that the number of economically significant 
actions listed as under active consideration here--138--is lower than 
the corresponding figure for Spring 2011 (149) and for Fall 2010 (140). 
It is notable that the number of such rules has not grown even taking 
account of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act and the Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. We also note that the net 
benefits of regulation were unusually high in Fiscal Year 2011 (well 
over $50 billion for the year alone). In addition, the aggregate costs 
for that year (under $8 billion) were lower than in Fiscal Year 2010 
and were not out of line with those in recent years, including during 
the Bush Administration.
    With these notes and qualifications, the Regulatory Plan provides a 
list of important regulatory actions that are now under contemplation 
for issuance in proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year. 
In contrast, the Unified Agenda is a more inclusive list, including 
numerous ministerial actions and routine rulemakings, as well as long-
term initiatives that agencies do not plan to complete in the coming 
year.
    We hope that public scrutiny of the Regulatory Plan and the Unified 
Agenda might help ensure, in the words of Executive Order 13563, a 
regulatory system that protects ``public health, welfare, safety, and 
our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 
competitiveness, and job creation.''
    As discussed below, a large number of significant recent steps have 
been taken, consistent with Executive Order 13563, to reduce regulatory 
costs and ensure that our regulatory system is consistent with 
promoting growth and job creation. At the same time, a number of steps 
have been taken to promote public health, welfare, safety, and our 
environment. It is important to emphasize that the net benefits of 
recent rules, including the monetized benefits, are high--over the 
first two fiscal years of this Administration, in excess of $35 
billion. Rules have been issued and initiatives have been undertaken 
that are saving lives on the highways and in workplaces; reducing air 
and water pollution, preventing thousands of deaths in the process; 
increasing fuel economy, thus saving money while reducing pollution; 
making both trains and planes safer; increasing energy efficiency, 
saving billions of dollars while increasing energy security; combating 
childhood obesity; and creating a ``race to the top'' in education. 
Consider, as merely one example, the fact that in 2010, the rates of 
roadway fatalities and injuries fell to their lowest recorded levels 
and to their lowest numbers since 1949. The decrease is attributable, 
in part, to a range of regulatory actions and to private-public 
partnerships that have increased safety.
    Since President Reagan's Executive Order 12291, issued in 1981, a 
principal focus of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
and of regulatory policy in general, has been on maximizing net 
benefits. In this Administration, agencies and OMB have worked together 
to issue a number of rules for which the benefits exceed the costs, and 
by a large margin. Consider the following figure:

[[Page 7670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE12.000

    These figures reflect the numbers for 2009 and 2010. As noted, the 
net benefits for 2011 are expected to be unusually high (in excess of 
$50 billion); they will be discussed in detail in the 2012 Report to 
Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations.
    The recent steps build on a great deal of new learning about 
regulation. As a result of conceptual and empirical advances, we know 
far more than during the New Deal and the Great Society. We have also 
learned much since the 1980s and 1990s. These lessons have informed the 
Administration's efforts to protect public health and safety while also 
promoting economic growth and job creation. Eight points are 
particularly important:
    1. We are now equipped with state-of-the-art techniques for 
anticipating, cataloguing, and monetizing the consequences of 
regulation, including both benefits and costs.
    2. We know that risks are part of systems, and that efforts to 
reduce a certain risk may increase other risks, perhaps even deadly 
ones, thus producing ancillary harms--and that efforts to reduce a 
certain risk may reduce other risks, perhaps even deadly ones, thus 
producing ancillary benefits.
    3. We know that flexible, innovative approaches, maintaining 
freedom of choice and respecting heterogeneity and the fact that one 
size may not fit all, are often desirable, both because they preserve 
liberty and because they frequently cost less.
    4. We know that large benefits can come from seemingly modest and 
small steps, including simplification of regulatory requirements, 
provision of information, and sensible default rules, such as automatic 
enrollment for retirement savings.
    5. We know, more clearly than ever before, that it is important to 
allow public participation in the design of rules, because members of 
the public have valuable information about likely effects, existing 
problems, creative solutions, and possible unintended consequences.
    6. We know that if carefully designed, disclosure policies can 
promote informed choices and save both money and lives.
    7. We know that intuitions and anecdotes are unreliable, and that 
advance testing of the effects of rules, as through pilot programs or 
randomized controlled experiments, can be highly illuminating.
    8. We know that it is important to explore the effects of 
regulation in the real world, to learn whether they are having 
beneficial consequences or producing unintended harm. We need to 
consult, and to learn from, those who are affected by rules.
    Executive Order 13563 draws on these understandings and emphasizes 
the importance of protecting ``public health, welfare, safety, and our 
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 
competitiveness, and job creation.'' Executive Order 13563 explicitly 
points to the need for predictability and for certainty, and for use of 
the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It indicates 
that agencies ``must take into account benefits and costs, both 
quantitative and qualitative.'' It explicitly draws attention to the 
need to measure and to improve ``the actual results of regulatory 
requirements''--a clear reference to the importance of retrospective 
evaluation.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles, structures, and 
definitions in Executive Order 12866, which has long governed 
regulatory review. In addition, it endorses, and quotes, a number of

[[Page 7671]]

provisions of that Executive Order that specifically emphasize the 
importance of considering costs--including the requirement that to the 
extent permitted by law, agencies should not proceed in the absence of 
a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs. 
Importantly, Executive Order 13563 directs agencies ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' This direction reflects 
a strong emphasis on quantitative analysis as a means of improving 
regulatory choices and increasing transparency.
    Among other things, Executive Order 13563 sets out five sets of 
requirements to guide regulatory decision making:
     Public participation. Agencies are directed to promote 
public participation, in part by making supporting documents available 
on Regulations.gov in order to promote transparency and public comment. 
Executive Order 13563 also directs agencies, where feasible and 
appropriate, to engage the public, including affected stakeholders, 
before rulemaking is initiated.
     Integration and innovation. Agencies are directed to 
attempt to reduce ``redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping'' 
requirements, in part by working with one another to simplify and 
harmonize rules. This important provision is designed to reduce 
confusion, redundancy, and excessive cost. An important goal of 
simplification and harmonization is to promote rather than to hamper 
innovation, which is a foundation of both growth and job creation. 
Different offices within the same agency might work together to 
harmonize their rules; different agencies might work together to 
achieve the same objective. Such steps can also promote predictability 
and certainty.
     Flexible approaches. Agencies are directed to identify and 
consider flexible approaches to regulatory problems, including 
warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements. Such 
approaches may ``reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of 
choice for the public.'' In certain settings, they may be far 
preferable to mandates and bans, precisely because they maintain 
freedom of choice and reduce costs. The reference to ``appropriate 
default rules'' signals the possibility that important social goals can 
be obtained through simplification--as, for example, in the form of 
automatic enrollment, direct certification, or reduced paperwork 
burdens.
     Science. Agencies are directed to promote scientific 
integrity, and in a way that ensures a clear separation between 
judgments of science and judgments of policy.
     Retrospective analysis of existing rules. Agencies are 
directed to produce preliminary plans to engage in retrospective 
analysis of existing significant regulations to determine whether they 
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.
    Executive Order 13563 addresses both the ``flow'' of new 
regulations that are under development and the ``stock'' of existing 
regulations that are already in place. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes 
the importance of promoting predictability, of carefully considering 
costs, of choosing the least burdensome approach, and of selecting the 
most flexible, least costly tools. In addition, Executive Order 13563 
calls for careful reassessment, based on empirical analysis. It is 
understood that the prospective analysis required by Executive Order 
13563 may depend on a degree of speculation and that the actual costs 
and benefits of a regulation may be lower or higher than what was 
anticipated when the rule was originally developed. It is also 
understood that circumstances may change in a way that requires 
reconsideration of regulatory requirements. After retrospective 
analysis has been undertaken, agencies will be in a position to 
reevaluate existing rules and to streamline, modify, or eliminate those 
that do not make sense in their current form.
    In August 2011, over two dozen agencies released final plans to 
remove what the President has called unjustified rules and ``absurd and 
unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.'' Over 
the next five years, billions of dollars in savings are anticipated 
from just a few initiatives from the Department of Transportation, the 
Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 
the Environmental Protection Agency. And all in all, the plans' 
initiatives will save tens of millions of hours in annual paperwork 
burdens on individuals, businesses, and state and local governments.
    The plans span over 800 pages and offer more than 500 proposals. 
Some plans list well over 50 reforms. Many of the proposals focus on 
small business. Indeed, a number of the initiatives are specifically 
designed to reduce burdens on small business and to enable them to do 
what they do best, which is to create jobs. Some of the proposed 
initiatives represent a fundamental rethinking of how things have long 
been done--as, for example, with numerous efforts to move from paper to 
electronic reporting. For both private and public sectors, those 
efforts can save a great deal of money. Over the next five years, the 
Department of Treasury's paperless initiative will be saving $400 
million and 12 million pounds of paper.
    Many of the reforms will have a significant economic impact:
     The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has 
announced a final rule that will remove over 1.9 million annual hours 
of redundant reporting burdens on employers and save more than $40 
million in annual costs. Businesses will no longer be saddled with the 
obligation to fill out unnecessary government forms, meaning that their 
employees will have more time to be productive and do their real work.
     To eliminate unjustified economic burdens on railroads, 
the Department of Transportation is reconsidering parts of a rule that 
requires railroads to install equipment on trains. DOT has proposed to 
refine the requirements so that the equipment is installed only where 
it is really needed on grounds of safety. DOT expects initial savings 
of up to $325 million, with total 20-year savings of up to $755 
million.
     EPA has proposed to eliminate the obligation for many 
states to require air pollution vapor recovery systems at local gas 
stations, on the ground that modern vehicles already have effective air 
pollution control technologies. The anticipated annual savings are $87 
million.
     The Departments of Commerce and State are undertaking a 
series of steps to eliminate unnecessary barriers to exports, including 
duplicative and unnecessary regulatory requirements, thus reducing the 
cumulative burden and uncertainty faced by American companies and their 
trading partners. These steps will make it a lot easier for American 
companies to reach new markets, increasing our exports while creating 
jobs here at home.
     To promote flexibility, the Department of Health and Human 
Services has proposed two rules, and finalized another, to reduce 
burdensome regulatory requirements now placed on hospitals and doctors. 
These reforms are expected to save more than $1 billion annually.
    The regulatory lookback is not merely a one-time exercise. Regular 
reporting, about recent progress and coming initiatives, is required. 
The goal is to change the regulatory culture to ensure that rules on 
the books are reevaluated and are effective, cost-justified, and based 
on the best available science. By creating regulatory review teams at 
agencies, we will continue to examine what is working and what is not 
and to

[[Page 7672]]

eliminate unjustified and outdated regulations.
    In addition to looking back at existing regulations, we are looking 
forward to ensure that future regulations are well-justified. Executive 
Order 13563 provides critical guidance with its emphasis on careful 
consideration of costs and benefits, public participation, integration 
and innovation, flexible approaches, and science. These requirements 
are meant to produce a regulatory system that draws on recent learning, 
that is driven by evidence, and that is suited to the distinctive 
circumstances of the twenty-first century.

                                            Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Wholesale Pork Reporting          0581-AD07  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Program.
2.............................  National Organic Program:         0581-AD17  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Sunset Review for
                                 Nutrient Vitamins and
                                 Minerals (NOP-10-0083).
3.............................  Animal Welfare;                   0579-AC02  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Regulations and
                                 Standards for Birds.
4.............................  Plant Pest Regulations;           0579-AC98  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Update of General
                                 Provisions.
5.............................  Importation of Live Dogs.         0579-AD23  Final Rule Stage.
6.............................  Animal Disease                    0579-AD24  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Traceability.
7.............................  Supplemental Nutrition            0584-AD88  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance Program: Farm
                                 Bill of 2008 Retailer
                                 Sanctions.
8.............................  National School Lunch and         0584-AE09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 School Breakfast
                                 Programs: Nutrition
                                 Standards for All Foods
                                 Sold in School, as
                                 Required by the Healthy,
                                 Hunger-Free Kids Act of
                                 2010.
9.............................  WIC: Electronic Benefit           0584-AE21  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Transfer (EBT)
                                 Implementation.
10............................  Nutrition Standards in            0584-AD59  Final Rule Stage.
                                 the National School
                                 Lunch and School
                                 Breakfast Programs.
11............................  Direct Certification of           0584-AD60  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Children in Food Stamp
                                 Households and
                                 Certification of
                                 Homeless, Migrant, and
                                 Runaway Children for
                                 Free Meals.
12............................  Eligibility,                      0584-AD87  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Certification, and
                                 Employment and Training
                                 Provisions of the Food,
                                 Conservation, and Energy
                                 Act of 2008.
13............................  Supplemental Nutrition            0584-AE07  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance Program:
                                 Nutrition Education and
                                 Obesity Prevention Grant.
14............................  Prior Labeling Approval           0583-AC59  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 System: Generic Label
                                 Approval.
15............................  Product Labeling: Use of          0583-AD30  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 the Voluntary Claim
                                 ``Natural'' on the
                                 Labeling of Meat and
                                 Poultry Products.
16............................  New Poultry Slaughter             0583-AD32  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Inspection.
17............................  Electronic Imported               0583-AD39  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Product Inspection
                                 Application and
                                 Certification of
                                 Imported Product and
                                 Foreign Establishments;
                                 Amendments to Facilitate
                                 the Public Health
                                 Information System
                                 (PHIS).
18............................  Electronic Export                 0583-AD41  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Application and
                                 Certification as a
                                 Reimbursable Service and
                                 Flexibility in the
                                 Requirements for
                                 Official Export
                                 Inspection Marks,
                                 Devices, and
                                 Certificates.
19............................  Performance Standards for         0583-AC46  Final Rule Stage.
                                 the Production of
                                 Processed Meat and
                                 Poultry Products;
                                 Control of Listeria
                                 Monocytogenes in Ready-
                                 To-Eat Meat and Poultry
                                 Products.
20............................  Notification,                     0583-AD34  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Documentation, and
                                 Recordkeeping
                                 Requirements for
                                 Inspected Establishments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.            Rulemaking  Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21............................  Revisions to the Export           0694-AF17  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Administration
                                 Regulations (EAR):
                                 Control of Military
                                 Vehicles and Related
                                 Items That the President
                                 Determines do not
                                 Warrant Control on the
                                 United States Munitions
                                 List.
22............................  Fishery Management Plan           0648-AS65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Regulating Offshore
                                 Marine Aquaculture in
                                 the Gulf of Mexico.
23............................  Reducing Disturbances to          0648-AU02  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Hawaiian Spinner
                                 Dolphins From Human
                                 Interactions.
24............................  Designation of Critical           0648-AY54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Habitat for the North
                                 Atlantic Right Whale.
25............................  Regulatory Amendments To          0648-BA89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Implement the Shark
                                 Conservation Act and
                                 Revise the Definition of
                                 Illegal, Unreported, and
                                 Unregulated Fishing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26............................  Title IV of the Higher            1840-AD05  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Education Act of 1965,
                                 as Amended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7673]]


                                              Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27............................  Energy Efficiency                 1904-AB57  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Battery
                                 Chargers and External
                                 Power Supplies.
28............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AB86  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Walk-In
                                 Coolers and Walk-In
                                 Freezers.
29............................  Energy Efficiency                 1904-AC11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Manufactured Housing.
30............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AC15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for ER, BR,
                                 and Small Diameter
                                 Incandescent Reflector
                                 Lamps.
31............................  Energy Efficiency                 1904-AB50  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Fluorescent Lamp
                                 Ballasts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32............................  Health Information                0991-AB82  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Technology: New and
                                 Revised Standards,
                                 Implementation
                                 Specifications, and
                                 Certification Criteria
                                 for Electronic Health
                                 Record Technology.
33............................  Electronic Submission of          0910-AC52  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Data From Studies
                                 Evaluating Human Drugs
                                 and Biologics.
34............................  Current Good                      0910-AG10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Manufacturing Practice
                                 and Hazard Analysis and
                                 Risk-Benefit Preventive
                                 Controls for Food for
                                 Animals.
35............................  Unique Device                     0910-AG31  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Identification.
36............................  Produce Safety Regulation         0910-AG35  Proposed Rule Stage.
37............................  Hazard Analysis and Risk-         0910-AG36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Based Preventive
                                 Controls.
38............................  Foreign Supplier                  0910-AG64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Verification Program.
39............................  Accreditation of Third            0910-AG66  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Parties to Conduct Food
                                 Safety Audits and for
                                 Other Related Purposes.
40............................  Infant Formula: Current           0910-AF27  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Good Manufacturing
                                 Practices; Quality
                                 Control Procedures;
                                 Notification
                                 Requirements; Records
                                 and Reports; and Quality
                                 Factors.
41............................  Medical Device Reporting;         0910-AF86  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Electronic Submission
                                 Requirements.
42............................  Electronic Registration           0910-AF88  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Listing for Devices.
43............................  Food Labeling: Nutrition          0910-AG56  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Labeling for Food Sold
                                 in Vending Machines.
44............................  Food Labeling: Nutrition          0910-AG57  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Labeling of Standard
                                 Menu Items in
                                 Restaurants and Similar
                                 Retail Food
                                 Establishments.
45............................  Medicare and Medicaid             0938-AQ89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Programs: Reform of
                                 Hospital and Critical
                                 Access Hospital
                                 Conditions of
                                 Participation (CMS-3244-
                                 P).
46............................  Regulatory Provisions To          0938-AQ96  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Promote Program
                                 Efficiency,
                                 Transparency, and Burden
                                 Reduction (CMS-9070-P).
47............................  Proposed Changes to               0938-AR10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Hospital OPPS and CY
                                 2013 Payment Rates; ASC
                                 Payment System and CY
                                 2013 Payment Rates (CMS-
                                 1589-P).
48............................  Revisions to Payment              0938-AR11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Policies Under the
                                 Physician Fee Schedule
                                 and Part B for CY 2013
                                 (CMS-1590-P).
49............................  Changes to the Hospital           0938-AR12  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Inpatient an Long-Term
                                 Care Prospective Payment
                                 System for FY 2013 (CMS-
                                 1588-P).
50............................  Medicaid Eligibility              0938-AQ62  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Expansion Under the
                                 Affordable Care Act of
                                 2010 (CMS-2349-F).
51............................  Establishment of                  0938-AQ67  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Exchanges and Qualified
                                 Health Plans Part I (CMS-
                                 9989-F).
52............................  State Requirements for            0938-AR07  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Exchange--Reinsurance
                                 and Risk Adjustments
                                 (CMS-9975-F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53............................  Secure Handling of                1601-AA52  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Ammonium Nitrate Program.
54............................  Asylum and Withholding            1615-AA41  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Definitions.
55............................  New Classification for            1615-AA67  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Victims of Criminal
                                 Activity; Eligibility
                                 for the U Nonimmigrant
                                 Status.
56............................  Exception to the                  1615-AB89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Persecution Bar for
                                 Asylum, Refugee, and
                                 Temporary Protected
                                 Status, and Withholding
                                 of Removal.
57............................  Electronic Filing of              1615-AB94  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Requests for Immigration
                                 Benefits; Requiring an
                                 Application To Change or
                                 Extend Nonimmigrant
                                 Status To Be Filed
                                 Electronically.
58............................  Immigration Benefits              1615-AB95  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Business Transformation:
                                 Nonimmigrants; Student
                                 and Exchange Visitor
                                 Program.
59............................  Application of the                1615-AB96  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 William Wilberforce
                                 Trafficking Victims
                                 Protection
                                 Reauthorization Act of
                                 2008 to Unaccompanied
                                 Alien Children Seeking
                                 Asylum.
60............................  Administrative Appeals            1615-AB98  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Office: Procedural
                                 Reforms To Improve
                                 Efficiency.
61............................  New Classification for            1615-AA59  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Victims of Severe Forms
                                 of Trafficking in
                                 Persons; Eligibility for
                                 T Nonimmigrant Status.

[[Page 7674]]

 
62............................  Adjustment of Status to           1615-AA60  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Lawful Permanent
                                 Resident for Aliens in T
                                 and U Nonimmigrant
                                 Status.
63............................  Application of                    1615-AB77  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Immigration Regulations
                                 to the Commonwealth of
                                 the Northern Mariana
                                 Islands.
64............................  Implementation of the             1625-AA16  Final Rule Stage.
                                 1995 Amendments to the
                                 International Convention
                                 on Standards of
                                 Training, Certification,
                                 and Watchkeeping (STCW)
                                 for Seafarers, 1978.
65............................  Vessel Requirements for           1625-AA99  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Notices of Arrival and
                                 Departure, and Automatic
                                 Identification System.
66............................  Nontank Vessel Response           1625-AB27  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Plans and Other Vessel
                                 Response Plan
                                 Requirements.
67............................  Offshore Supply Vessels           1625-AB62  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of At Least 6000 GT ITC.
68............................  Revision to                       1625-AB80  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Transportation Worker
                                 Identification
                                 Credential (TWIC)
                                 Requirements for
                                 Mariners.
69............................  Importer Security Filing          1651-AA70  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Additional Carrier
                                 Requirements.
70............................  Changes to the Visa               1651-AA72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Waiver Program To
                                 Implement the Electronic
                                 System for Travel
                                 Authorization (ESTA)
                                 Program.
71............................  Establishment of Global           1651-AA73  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Entry Program.
72............................  Implementation of the             1651-AA77  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver
                                 Program.
73............................  General Aviation Security         1652-AA53  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Other Aircraft
                                 Operator Security.
74............................  Freight Railroads, Public         1652-AA55  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Transportation and
                                 Passenger Railroads, and
                                 Over-the-Road Buses--
                                 Security Training of
                                 Employees.
75............................  Freight Railroads and             1652-AA56  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Passenger Railroads--
                                 Vulnerability Assessment
                                 and Security Plan.
76............................  Standardized Vetting,             1652-AA61  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Adjudication, and
                                 Redress Services.
77............................  Aircraft Repair Station           1652-AA38  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Security.
78............................  Continued Detention of            1653-AA60  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Aliens Subject to Final
                                 Orders of Removal.
79............................  Continued Detention of            1653-AA13  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Aliens Subject to Final
                                 Orders of Removal.
80............................  Extending Period for              1653-AA56  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Optional Practical
                                 Training by 17 Months
                                 for F-1 Nonimmigrant
                                 Students With STEM
                                 Degrees and Expanding
                                 the CAP-GAP Relief for
                                 All F-1 Students With
                                 Pending H-1B Petitions.
81............................  Update of FEMA's Public           1660-AA51  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance Regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
82............................  Federal Housing                   2502-AI79  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Administration (FHA):
                                 Strengthening the Home
                                 Equity Conversion
                                 Mortgages (HECM) Program
                                 to Promote Sustained
                                 Homeownership (FR-5353).
83............................  Supportive Housing for            2502-AJ10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Persons With
                                 Disabilities
                                 Implementing New Project
                                 Rental Assistance
                                 Authority (FR-5576).
84............................  Tenant-Based Rental               2577-AC76  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance; Improving
                                 Performance Through a
                                 Strengthened Section 8
                                 Management Assessment
                                 Program (FR-5201).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85............................  National Standards to             1105-AB34  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Prevent, Detect, and
                                 Respond to Prison Rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Department of Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86............................  Construction Contractors'         1250-AA01  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Affirmative Action
                                 Requirements.
87............................  Persuader Agreements:             1245-AA03  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Employer and Labor
                                 Relations Consultant
                                 Reporting Under the
                                 LMRDA.
88............................  Equal Employment                  1205-AB59  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Opportunity in
                                 Apprenticeship Amendment
                                 of Regulations.
89............................  Labor Certification               1205-AB58  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Process and Enforcement
                                 for Temporary Employment
                                 in Occupations Other
                                 Than Agriculture or
                                 Registered Nursing in
                                 the United States (H-2B
                                 Workers).
90............................  Definition of                     1210-AB32  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 ``Fiduciary''.
91............................  Respirable Crystalline            1219-AB36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Silica.
92............................  Criteria and Procedures           1219-AB72  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Proposed Assessment
                                 of Civil Penalties.
93............................  Proximity Detection               1219-AB78  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Systems for Mobile
                                 Machines in Underground
                                 Mines.

[[Page 7675]]

 
94............................  Lowering Miners' Exposure         1219-AB64  Final Rule Stage.
                                 to Coal Mine Dust,
                                 Including Continuous
                                 Personal Dust Monitors.
95............................  Proximity Detection               1219-AB65  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Systems for Continuous
                                 Mining Machines in
                                 Underground Coal Mines.
96............................  Pattern of Violations....         1219-AB73  Final Rule Stage.
97............................  Examination of Work Areas         1219-AB75  Final Rule Stage.
                                 in Underground Coal
                                 Mines for Violations of
                                 Mandatory Health or
                                 Safety Standards.
98............................  Infectious Diseases......         1218-AC46  Prerule Stage.
99............................  Injury and Illness                1218-AC48  Prerule Stage.
                                 Prevention Program.
100...........................  Occupational Exposure to          1218-AB70  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Crystalline Silica.
101...........................  Improve Tracking of               1218-AC49  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Workplace Injuries and
                                 Illnesses.
102...........................  Hazard Communication.....         1218-AC20  Final Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103...........................  Accessibility of Carrier          2105-AD96  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Websites and Ticket
                                 Kiosks.
104...........................  Enhancing Airline                 2105-AE11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Passenger Protections
                                 III.
105...........................  Carrier-Supplied Medical          2105-AE12  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Oxygen, Accessible In-
                                 Flight Entertainment
                                 Systems, Service
                                 Animals, and Accessible
                                 Lavatories on Single-
                                 Aisle Aircraft.
106...........................  Qualification, Service,           2120-AJ00  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Use of Crewmembers
                                 and Aircraft Dispatchers.
107...........................  New York Congestion               2120-AJ89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Management Rule for
                                 LaGuardia Airport, John
                                 F. Kennedy International
                                 Airport, and Newark
                                 Liberty International
                                 Airport.
108...........................  Air Ambulance and                 2120-AJ53  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Commercial Helicopter
                                 Operations; Safety
                                 Initiatives and
                                 Miscellaneous Amendments.
109...........................  Safety Management Systems         2120-AJ86  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Certificate Holders.
110...........................  Carrier Safety Fitness            2126-AB11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Determination.
111...........................  National Registry of              2126-AA97  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Certified Medical
                                 Examiners.
112...........................  Passenger Car and Light           2127-AK79  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Truck Corporate Average
                                 Fuel Economy Standards
                                 MYs 2017 and Beyond.
113...........................  Sound for Hybrid and              2127-AK93  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Electric Vehicles.
114...........................  Motorcoach Rollover               2127-AK96  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Structural Integrity.
115...........................  Electronic Stability              2127-AK97  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Control Systems for
                                 Heavy Vehicles.
116...........................  Require Installation of           2127-AK56  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Seat Belts on
                                 Motorcoaches, FMVSS No.
                                 208.
117...........................  Major Capital Investment          2132-AB02  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Projects (RRR).
118...........................  Regulations To Be                 2133-AB74  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Followed by All
                                 Departments, Agencies,
                                 and Shippers Having
                                 Responsibility To
                                 Provide a Preference for
                                 U.S.-Flag Vessels in the
                                 Shipment of Cargoes on
                                 Ocean Vessels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Department of Veterans Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
119...........................  VA Compensation and               2900-AO13  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Pension Regulation
                                 Rewrite Project.
120...........................  Caregivers Program.......         2900-AN94  Final Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121...........................  Accessibility Standards           3014-AA40  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Medical Diagnostic
                                 Equipment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
122...........................  Risk and Technology               2060-AQ41  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Review for National
                                 Emission Standards for
                                 Hazardous Air Pollutants
                                 From the Pulp and Paper
                                 Industry.
123...........................  Joint Rulemaking To               2060-AQ54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Establish 2017 and Later
                                 Model Year Light Duty
                                 Vehicle GHG Emissions
                                 and CAFE Standards.
124...........................  Petroleum Refinery Sector         2060-AQ75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Risk and Technology
                                 Review and NSPS.
125...........................  Control of Air Pollution          2060-AQ86  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 From Motor Vehicles:
                                 Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
                                 Emission and Fuel
                                 Standards.

[[Page 7676]]

 
126...........................  Greenhouse Gas New Source         2060-AQ91  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Standard for
                                 Electric Generating
                                 Units for New Sources.
127...........................  National Emission                 2060-AR02  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Hazardous
                                 Air Pollutant Emissions:
                                 Group IV Polymers and
                                 Resins, Pesticide Active
                                 Ingredient Production,
                                 and Polyether Polyols
                                 Production Risk and
                                 Technology Review.
128...........................  National Emission                 2060-AR13  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Hazardous
                                 Air Pollutants for Major
                                 Sources: Industrial,
                                 Commercial, and
                                 Institutional Boilers
                                 and Process Heaters;
                                 Proposed Reconsideration.
129...........................  National Emission                 2060-AR14  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Hazardous
                                 Air Pollutants for Area
                                 Sources: Industrial,
                                 Commercial, and
                                 Institutional Boilers;
                                 Reconsideration and
                                 Proposed Rule Amendments.
130...........................  Standards of Performance          2060-AR15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for New Stationary
                                 Sources and Emission
                                 Guidelines for Existing
                                 Sources: Commercial and
                                 Industrial Solid Waste
                                 Incineration Units;
                                 Reconsideration and
                                 Proposed Amendments.
131...........................  NPDES Electronic                  2020-AA47  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Reporting Rule.
132...........................  Pesticides; Certification         2070-AJ20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of Pesticide Applicators.
133...........................  Pesticides; Agricultural          2070-AJ22  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Worker Protection
                                 Standard Revisions.
134...........................  Formaldehyde; Third-Party         2070-AJ44  Proposed Rule Stage
                                 Certification Framework
                                 for the Formaldehyde
                                 Standards for Composite
                                 Wood Products.
135...........................  Mercury; Regulation of            2070-AJ46  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Use in Certain Products.
136...........................  Lead; Renovation, Repair,         2070-AJ56  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Painting Program for
                                 Public and Commercial
                                 Buildings.
137...........................  Revisions to the National         2050-AE87  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Oil and Hazardous
                                 Substances Pollution
                                 Contingency Plan;
                                 Subpart J Product
                                 Schedule Listing
                                 Requirements.
138...........................  Stormwater Regulations            2040-AF13  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Revision To Address
                                 Discharges From
                                 Developed Sites.
139...........................  Effluent Limitations              2040-AF14  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Guidelines and Standards
                                 for the Steam Electric
                                 Power Generating Point
                                 Source Category.
140...........................  National Pollutant                2040-AF22  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Discharge Elimination
                                 System (NPDES)
                                 Concentrated Animal
                                 Feeding Operation (CAFO)
                                 Reporting Rule.
141...........................  National Pollutant                2040-AF25  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Discharge Elimination
                                 System (NPDES)
                                 Application and Program
                                 Updates Rule.
142...........................  Review of the Secondary           2060-AO72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 National Ambient Air
                                 Quality Standards for
                                 Oxides of Nitrogen and
                                 Oxides of Sulfur.
143...........................  National Emission                 2060-AP52  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Hazardous
                                 Air Pollutants From Coal-
                                  and Oil-Fired Electric
                                 Utility Steam Generating
                                 Units and Standards of
                                 Performance for Electric
                                 Utility Steam Generating
                                 Units.
144...........................  Oil and Natural Gas               2060-AP76  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Sector--New Source
                                 Performance Standards
                                 and National Emission
                                 Standards for Hazardous
                                 Air Pollutants.
145...........................  Criteria and Standards            2040-AE95  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Cooling Water Intake
                                 Structures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
146...........................  Disparate Impact and              3046-AA76  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Reasonable Factors Other
                                 Than Age Under the Age
                                 Discrimination in
                                 Employment Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  National Archives and Records Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
147...........................  Federal Records                   3095-AB74  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Management; Electronic
                                 Records Archives (ERA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
148...........................  Small Business Technology         3245-AF45  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Transfer (STTR) Policy
                                 Directive.
149...........................  Small Business Innovation         3245-AF84  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Research (SBIR) Program
                                 Policy Directive.
150...........................  Acquisition Process: Task         3245-AG20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Delivery Order
                                 Contracts, Bundling,
                                 Consolidation.
151...........................  Small Business Jobs Act:          3245-AG24  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Small Business Mentor-
                                 Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
                                 Programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7677]]


                                         Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
152...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AF58  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Respiratory System
                                 Disorders (859P).
153...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AF88  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Hematological Disorders
                                 (974P).
154...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AF69  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Mental
                                 Disorders (886F).
155...........................  How We Collect and                0960-AG89  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Consider Evidence of
                                 Disability (3487P).
156...........................  Amendments to Regulations         0960-AH07  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Regarding Withdrawals of
                                 Applications and
                                 Voluntary Suspension of
                                 Benefits (3573F).
157...........................  Expedited Vocational              0960-AH26  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Assessment Under the
                                 Sequential Evaluation
                                 Process (3684P).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Nuclear Regulatory Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
158...........................  Medical Use of Byproduct          3150-AI26  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Material--Amendments/
                                 Medical Event Definition
                                 [NRC-2008-0071].
159...........................  Fitness-For-Duty Programs         3150-AI58  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 [NRC-2009-0090].
160...........................  U.S. Evolutionary Power           3150-AI82  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Reactor (EPR) Design
                                 Certification Amendment
                                 [NRC-2010-0132].
161...........................  Disposal of Unique Waste          3150-AI92  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Streams [NRC-2011-0012].
162...........................  Revision of Fee                   3150-AJ03  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Schedules: Fee Recovery
                                 for FY 2012 [NRC-2011-
                                 0207].
163...........................  Risk-Informed Changes to          3150-AH29  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Loss-of-Coolant Accident
                                 Technical Requirements
                                 [NRC-2004-0006].
164...........................  Physical Protection of            3150-AI12  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Byproduct Material [NRC-
                                 2008-0120].
165...........................  Environmental Effect of           3150-AI42  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Renewing the Operating
                                 License of a Nuclear
                                 Power Plant [NRC-2008-
                                 0608].
166...........................  AP1000 Design                     3150-AI81  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Certification Amendment
                                 [NRC-2010-0131].
167...........................  U.S. Advanced Boiling             3150-AI84  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Water Reactor (ABWR)
                                 Aircraft Impact Design
                                 Certification Amendment
                                 [NRC-2010-0134].
168...........................  Economic Simplified               3150-AI85  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Boiling-Water Reactor
                                 (ESBWR) Design
                                 Certification [NRC-2010-
                                 0135].
169...........................  List of Approved Spent            3150-AI91  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Fuel Storage Casks--
                                 MAGNASTOR, Revision 2
                                 [NRC-2011-0008].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6820-27-P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    USDA's focus in 2012 will be on programs that create/save jobs, 
particularly in rural America, while identifying and taking action on 
those programs that could be modified, streamlined, and simplified, or 
reporting burdens reduced, particularly with the public's access to 
USDA programs. In addition, USDA's regulatory efforts in the coming 
year will be focused on achieving the Department's goals identified in 
the Department's Strategic Plan for 2010 to 2015.
     Assist rural communities to create prosperity so they are 
self-sustaining, re-populating, and economically thriving. USDA is the 
leading advocate for rural America. The Department supports rural 
communities and enhances quality of life for rural residents by 
improving their economic opportunities, community infrastructure, 
environmental health, and the sustainability of agricultural 
production. The common goal is to help create thriving rural 
communities with good jobs where people want to live and raise 
families, and where children have economic opportunities and a bright 
future.
     Ensure that all of America's children have access to safe, 
nutritious, and balanced meals. A plentiful supply of safe and 
nutritious food is essential to the well-being of every family and the 
healthy development of every child in America. USDA provides nutrition 
assistance to children and low-income people who need it and works to 
improve the healthy eating habits of all Americans, especially 
children. In addition, the Department safeguards the quality and 
wholesomeness of meat, poultry, and egg products and addresses and 
prevents loss and damage from pests and disease outbreaks.
     Ensure our national forests and private working lands are 
conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while 
enhancing our water resources. America's prosperity is inextricably 
linked to the health of our lands and natural resources. Forests, 
farms, ranches, and grasslands offer enormous environmental benefits as 
a source of clean air, clean and abundant water, and wildlife habitat. 
These lands generate economic value by supporting the vital agriculture 
and forestry sectors, attracting tourism and recreation visitors, 
sustaining green jobs, and producing ecosystem services, food, fiber, 
timber and non-timber products, and energy. They are also of immense 
social importance, enhancing rural quality of life, sustaining scenic 
and culturally important landscapes, and providing opportunities to 
engage in outdoor activity and reconnect with the land.
     Help America promote agricultural production and 
biotechnology exports as America works to increase food security. A 
productive agricultural sector is critical to increasing global food 
security. For many crops, a substantial portion of domestic production 
is bound for overseas markets. USDA helps American farmers and ranchers 
use efficient, sustainable production, biotechnology, and other 
emergent technologies to enhance food security around the world and 
find export markets for their products.

[[Page 7678]]

    Important regulatory activities supporting the accomplishment of 
these goals in 2012 will include the following:
     Rural Development and Renewable Energy. USDA priority 
regulatory actions for the Rural Development mission will be to revise 
regulations for the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, 
Rural Development's flagship job creation and capital expansion 
business program, and finalize regulations for the bioenergy programs.
     USDA will continue to promote sustainable economic 
opportunities to create jobs in rural communities through the purchase 
and use of biobased products through the BioPreferred[supreg] program. 
USDA will continue to designate groups of biobased products to receive 
procurement preference from Federal agencies and contractors. 
BioPreferred has made serious efforts to minimize burdens on small 
business by providing a standard mechanism for product testing, an 
online application process, and individual assistance for small 
manufacturers when needed. Both the Federal preferred procurement and 
the certified label parts of the program are voluntary, and both are 
designed to assist biobased businesses in securing additional sales.
     Nutrition Assistance. As changes are made to the nutrition 
assistance programs, USDA will work to foster actions that ensure 
access to program benefits, improve program integrity, improve diets 
and healthy eating through nutrition education, and promote physical 
activity consistent with the national effort to reduce obesity. In 
support of these activities in 2012, the Food and Nutrition Service 
(FNS) plans to publish the final rule regarding the nutrition standards 
in the school meals programs; finalize a rule updating the WIC food 
packages; and establish permanent rules for the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program. FNS will continue to work to implement rules that 
minimize participant and vendor fraud in its nutrition assistance 
programs.
     Food Safety. In the area of food safety, USDA will 
continue to develop science-based regulations that improve the safety 
of meat, poultry, and processed egg products in the least burdensome 
and most cost-effective manner. Regulations will be revised to address 
emerging food safety challenges, streamlined to remove excessively 
prescriptive regulations, and updated to be made consistent with hazard 
analysis and critical control point principles. In 2012, the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) plans to propose regulations to 
establish new systems for poultry slaughter inspection, requirements 
for federally inspected egg product plants to develop and implement 
hazard analysis and critical control point systems and sanitation 
standard operating procedures, and finalize regulations on catfish 
inspection. To assist small entities to comply with food safety 
requirements, the FSIS will continue to collaborate with other USDA 
agencies and State partners in the enhanced small business outreach 
program.
     Farm Loans, Disaster Designation, and Environmental 
Compliance. USDA will work to ensure a strong U.S. agricultural system 
through farm income support and farm loan programs. In addition, USDA 
will streamline the disaster designation process and update and 
consolidate the environmental compliance regulations.
     Forestry and Conservation. In the conservation area, USDA 
plans to finalize regulations that would provide financial assistance 
grants to local governments, tribal governments, and nonprofit 
organizations to establish community forests by acquiring and 
protecting private forestlands.
     Marketing and Regulatory Programs. USDA will work to 
support the organic sector and continue regulatory work to protect the 
health and value of U.S. agricultural and natural resources. USDA will 
also implement regulations to enhance enforcement of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act. In addition, USDA plans to finalize acceptable animal 
disease traceability standards. Regarding plant health, USDA 
anticipates revising the permitting of movement of plant pests and 
biological control organisms. For the Animal Welfare Act, USDA will 
propose specific standards for the humane care of birds and finalize 
specific standards for the humane care of dogs imported for resale.

Retrospective Review and Executive Order 13563

    In January 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. As part of this 
E.O., agencies were asked to review existing rules that may be 
outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to 
modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them accordingly. Reducing the 
regulatory burden on the American people and our trading partners is a 
priority for USDA, and we will continually work to improve the 
effectiveness of our existing regulations. As a result of our 
regulatory review efforts in 2011, USDA will make regulatory changes in 
2012, including the following:
    Labeling--Generic Approval and Regulations Consolidation. FSIS is 
developing a rule that will expand the circumstances in which the 
labels of meat and poultry products will be deemed to be generically 
approved by FSIS. The rule will reduce duplication and streamline the 
regulations on this subject by combining them into a single part of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR);
    Electronic Export Application and Certification Fee. FSIS is 
planning a rule to provide for the electronic transmittal of foreign 
establishment certifications between FSIS and foreign governments. The 
rule will consolidate four inspection certificates (meat, meat by-
products, poultry, and egg products) into one certificate. The 
rulemaking is intended, in part, to accommodate the Agency's electronic 
Public Health Information System.
    Environmental Compliance. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) will 
consolidate and update the environmental compliance regulations to 
ensure regulations are consistent and current for all FSA programs and 
remove obsolete regulations;
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Streamlining. The Natural 
Resources and Environment mission area and the Forest Service (FS), in 
cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), is 
considering a series of initiatives to improve and streamline the NEPA 
process as it applies to FS projects;
    Rural Energy for America Program. This new program will modify the 
existing grant and guaranteed loan program for renewable energy system 
(RES) and energy efficiency improvement (EEI) projects. In addition, it 
would add a grant program for RES feasibility studies and a grant 
program for energy audits and renewable energy development assistance. 
This rulemaking will streamline the process for smaller grants, 
lessening the burden to the customer. It will also make the guaranteed 
portion of the rule consistent with other programs Rural Development 
(RD) manages and allow applications to be accepted year around;
    Business and Industry Loan Guaranteed Program. RD plans to rewrite 
the regulations, which will result in improved efficiency and 
effectiveness of the program, fewer errors because the guidelines and 
requirements will be clearer, and items will be more easily found in a 
better organized volume of regulations; and
    Water and Waste Loans and Grants. RD will update the operations 
aspects of

[[Page 7679]]

the loan and grant program to reduce the burden on the borrower.

Reducing the Paperwork Burden on Customers and Executive Order 13563

    USDA has continued to make substantial progress in realizing the 
goal of the Paperwork Reduction Act. For example, the Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services (FFAS) mission area will reduce the paperwork 
burden on program participants by consolidating the information 
collections required to participate in farm programs administered by 
FSA and the Federal crop insurance program administered by the Risk 
Management Agency (RMA).
    FFAS will evaluate methods to simplify and standardize, to the 
extent practical, acreage reporting processes, program dates, and data 
definitions across the various USDA programs and agencies. FFAS expects 
to allow producers to use information from their farm-management and 
precision agriculture systems for reporting production, planted and 
harvested acreage, and other key information needed to participate in 
USDA programs. FFAS will also streamline the collection of producer 
information by FSA and RMA with the agricultural production information 
collected by National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    These process changes will allow for program data that is common 
across agencies to be collected once and utilized or redistributed to 
Agency programs in which the producer chooses to participate. FFAS 
plans to implement the Acreage and Crop Reporting Streamlining 
Initiative (ACRSI) in an incremental approach starting in late 2012 
with a pilot in Kansas for growers of winter wheat when OMB approves 
the information collection. Full implementation is planned for 2013. 
When specific changes are identified, FSA and RMA will make any 
required conforming changes in their respective regulations.
    Increasingly, USDA is providing electronic alternatives to its 
traditionally paper-based customer transactions. As a result, customers 
increasingly have the option to electronically file forms and other 
documentation online, allowing them to choose when and where to conduct 
business with USDA.
    For example, Rural Development continues to review its regulations 
to determine which application procedures for Business Programs, 
Community Facilities Programs, Energy Programs, and Water and 
Environmental Programs can be streamlined and its requirements 
synchronized. RD is approaching the exercise from the perspective of 
the people it serves, by communicating with stakeholders on two common 
areas of regulation that can provide the basis of reform.
    The first area provides support for entrepreneurship and business 
innovation. This initiative would provide for the streamlining and 
reformulating of the Business & Industry Loan Guarantee Program and the 
Intermediary Relending Program--the first such overhauls in over 20 
years. The second area would provide for streamlining programs being 
made available to municipalities, tribes, and non-profit organizations; 
specifically Water and Waste Disposal, Community Facilities, and Rural 
Business Enterprise Grants, plus programs such as Electric and 
Telecommunications loans that provide basic community needs. This 
regulatory reform initiative has the potential to significantly reduce 
the burden to respondents (lenders and borrowers).
    To the extent practicable, each reform initiative will consist of a 
common application and uniform documentation requirements making it 
easier for constituency groups to apply for multiple programs. In 
addition, there will be associated regulations for each program that 
will contain program specific information.
    Natural Resources Conservation Service will also improve the 
delivery of technical and financial assistance by simplifying customer 
access to NRCS' technical and financial assistance programs, 
streamlining the delivery and timeliness of conservation assistance to 
clients, and enhancing the technical quality of its conservation 
planning and services. The streamlining initiatives will allow NRCS 
field staff to spend more time on conservation planning in the field 
with customers, reduce the time needed to implement cost-share 
contracts, and provide more flexibility for customers to work with NRCS 
in different ways. NRCS estimates that this initiative has the 
potential to reduce the amount of time required for producers to 
participate in USDA's conservation programs by almost 800,000 hours 
annually. This includes efficiencies from reduced paperwork, data entry 
by the client, and reduced travel time to and from the local office to 
complete forms and other administrative tasks. Improvements being 
considered include the following:
     Providing an online portal that will allow customers to 
apply for programs or services, review their plans and contracts, view 
and assess natural resource information specifically about their farm, 
evaluate the costs and benefits for various conservation treatment 
alternatives, notify NRCS of installed practices, and check on contract 
payments at their convenience;
     Creating an e-customer profile that will improve customer 
service by allowing the client to view, finalize, and electronically 
sign documents using remote electronic signature, on-site rather than 
at a local office;
     Providing clients with more timely and specific 
information on alternative conservation treatments, including the 
environmental benefits of their planned and applied practices;
     Accelerating payments to clients; and
     Simplifying conservation plan documents to more 
specifically address client needs and goals.

Major Regulatory Priorities

    This document represents summary information on prospective 
significant regulations as called for in E.O.s 12866 and 13563. The 
following USDA agencies are represented in this regulatory plan, along 
with a summary of their mission and key regulatory priorities in 2012:
Food and Nutrition Service
    Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in 
partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and 
low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition 
education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires 
public confidence.
    Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation 
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS' 
2012 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal ``Ensure that all 
of America's children have access to safe, nutritious, and balanced 
meals,'' and its two related objectives:
    Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents FNS's efforts 
to improve nutrition by providing access to program benefits (food 
consumed at home, school meals, commodities) and distributing State 
administrative funds to support program operations. To advance this 
objective, FNS plans to publish a final rule of the 2008 Farm Bill that 
ensures access to SNAP benefits and addresses other eligibility, 
certification, employment, and training issues. An interim rule, 
implementing provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization 
Act of 2004 to establish automatic eligibility for homeless children 
for school meals, further supports this objective.
    Promote Healthy Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors. This 
objective represents FNS' efforts to improve the

[[Page 7680]]

diets of its clients through nutrition education, support the national 
effort to reduce obesity by promoting healthy eating and physical 
activity, and to ensure that program benefits meet appropriate 
standards to effectively improve nutrition for program participants. In 
support of this objective, FNS plans to publish the final rule 
regarding the nutrition standards in the school meals programs, 
finalize a rule updating the WIC food packages, and establish permanent 
rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which currently 
operates in a select number of schools in each State, the District of 
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
    Mission: FSIS is responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, egg, 
and catfish products in interstate and foreign commerce are wholesome, 
not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
    Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-
based regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, egg, and 
catfish products are wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS 
regulatory actions support the objective to protect public health by 
ensuring that food is safe under USDA's goal to ensure access to safe 
food. To reduce the number of foodborne illnesses and increase program 
efficiencies, FSIS will continue to review its existing authorities and 
regulations to ensure that it can address emerging food safety 
challenges, to streamline excessively prescriptive regulations, and to 
revise or remove regulations that are inconsistent with the FSIS' 
hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) regulations. FSIS is 
also working with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to improve 
coordination and increase the effectiveness of inspection activities. 
FSIS' priority initiatives are as follows:
    [rtarr8] Rulemakings that support initiatives of the President's 
Food Safety Working Group:
     Poultry Slaughter Inspection. Based on the 
Administration's top-to-bottom review of food safety activities, the 
Food Safety and Inspection Service will issue regulations that will 
prevent thousands of food-borne illnesses by more clearly focusing FSIS 
inspection activities on improving food safety, streamline poultry 
inspections, and reduce Government spending.
     Revision of Egg Products Inspection Regulations. FSIS is 
planning to propose requirements for federally inspected egg product 
plants to develop and implement HACCP systems and sanitation standard 
operating procedures. FSIS will be proposing pathogen reduction 
performance standards for egg products and will remove prescriptive 
requirements for egg product plants.
    [rtarr8] Initiatives that provide for disclosure or that enable 
economic growth. FSIS plans to issue two rules to promote disclosure of 
information to the public or that provide flexibility for the adoption 
of new technologies:
     Product Labeling; Use of the Voluntary Claim ``Natural'' 
in the Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products. FSIS will propose to 
amend the meat and poultry products regulations to define the 
conditions under which the voluntary claim ``natural'' may be used on 
meat and poultry product labeling.
     Food Ingredients and Sources of Radiation Listed and 
Approved for Use in the Production of Meat and Poultry Products. FSIS 
will propose to amend its food ingredient regulations to provide for 
the use under certain conditions of benzoic acid, sodium propionate, or 
sodium benzoate.
    Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements for 
Inspected Establishments. As authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, FSIS 
will issue final regulations that will require establishments that are 
subject to inspection to promptly notify FSIS when an adulterated or 
misbranded product received by or originating from the establishment 
has entered into commerce. The regulations also will require the 
establishments to prepare and maintain current procedures for the 
recall of all products produced and shipped by the establishments and 
to document each reassessment of the establishments' process control 
plans.
    Catfish Inspection. FSIS is developing final regulations to 
implement provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill provisions that make catfish 
an amenable species under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).
    Public Health Information System. To support its food safety 
inspection activities, FSIS is implementing the Public Health 
Information System (PHIS). PHIS, which is user-friendly and Web-based, 
will replace many of FSIS' current systems and automate many business 
processes. PHIS also will improve FSIS' ability to systematically 
verify the effectiveness of foreign food safety systems and enable 
greater exchange of information between FSIS and other Federal agencies 
(such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection) involved in tracking 
cross-border movement of import and export shipments of meat, poultry, 
and processed egg products. To facilitate the implementation of some 
PHIS components, FSIS is proposing to provide for electronic export and 
import application and certification processes as alternatives to the 
current paper-based systems for these certifications.
    Other Planned Initiatives. FSIS plans to finalize a February 2001 
proposed rule to establish food safety performance standards for all 
processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry products and for 
partially heat-treated meat and poultry products that are not ready-to-
eat. Some provisions of the proposal addressed post-lethality 
contamination of RTE products with Listeria monocytogenes. In June 
2003, FSIS published an interim final rule requiring establishments to 
prevent L. monocytogenes contamination of RTE products. FSIS has 
carefully reviewed its economic analysis of the interim final rule and 
is planning to affirm the interim rule as a final rule with changes.
    FSIS Small Business Implications. The great majority of businesses 
regulated by FSIS are small businesses. Some of the regulations listed 
above substantially affect small businesses. FSIS conducts a small 
business outreach program that provides critical training, access to 
food safety experts, and information resources (such as compliance 
guidance and questions and answers on various topics) in forms that are 
uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent. FSIS collaborates in this 
effort with other USDA agencies and cooperating State partners. For 
example, FSIS makes plant owners and operators aware of loan programs, 
available through USDA's Rural Business and Cooperative programs, to 
help them in upgrading their facilities. FSIS employees meet with small 
and very small plant operators to learn more about their specific needs 
and provide joint training sessions for small and very small plants and 
FSIS employees.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
    Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect the health and value of 
American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS conducts programs to 
prevent the introduction of exotic pests and diseases into the U.S. and 
conducts surveillance, monitoring, control, and eradication programs 
for pests and diseases in this country. These activities enhance 
agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contribute to the 
national economy and the public health. APHIS also conducts programs to 
ensure the humane handling, care,

[[Page 7681]]

treatment, and transportation of animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
    Priorities: With respect to animal health, APHIS is continuing work 
to revise its regulations concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) to provide a more comprehensive and universally applicable 
framework for the importation of certain animals and products. In the 
area of plant health, APHIS is in the midst of a revision to its 
regulations for the importation and interstate movement of plant pests 
and biological control organisms to clarify the factors that would be 
considered when assessing the risks associated with the movement of 
certain organisms, facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and 
articles in a manner that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address 
gaps in the current regulations. APHIS also plans to propose standards 
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds 
covered under the Animal Welfare Act.
    Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on 
the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agricultural Marketing Service
    Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides 
marketing services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, 
importers, exporters, and consumers of food products. The AMS also 
manages the Government's food purchases, supervises food quality 
grading, maintains food quality standards, and supervises the Federal 
research and promotion programs.
    Priorities: AMS' priority items for the next year include 
rulemaking that impact the organic industry, as well as the wholesale 
pork industry. Rulemakings the Agency intends to initiate within the 
next 12 months include:
    Sunset Review (2012)--Nutrient Vitamins and Minerals. On March 26, 
2010, the National Organic Program (NOP) issued an Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) announcing the National Organic Standards 
Board's (NOSB) sunset review of exempted and prohibited substances 
codified at the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances of 
the NOP regulations. This review included a listing for ``Nutrient 
vitamins and minerals'' scheduled to sunset on October 21, 2012. AMS 
intends to publish a proposed rule to address a recommendation 
submitted by the NOSB for this listing. This proposed rule would 
continue the exemption (use) for nutrient vitamins and minerals for 5 
years after the October 21, 2012, sunset date. This proposed rule would 
amend the annotation for nutrient vitamins and minerals to correct an 
inaccurate cross reference to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
regulations as AMS determined that the current exemption for the use of 
nutrient vitamins and minerals in organic products in the NOP 
regulations is inaccurate. In effect, the proposed amendment would 
clarify what synthetic substances are allowed as nutrient vitamins and 
minerals in organic products. Further, the NOP regulations do not 
correctly provide for the fortification of infant formula that would 
meet FDA requirements. This proposed rule would incorporate the correct 
FDA citation with respect to the addition of required vitamins and 
minerals to organic infant formula.
    Livestock Mandatory Reporting; Establishing Regulations for 
Wholesale Pork. As directed by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Secretary 
conducted a study to determine advantages, drawbacks, and potential 
implementation issues associated with adopting mandatory wholesale pork 
reporting. The report from this study concluded that negotiated 
wholesale pork price reporting is thin and becoming thinner and found 
some degree of support for moving to mandatory price reporting exists 
at every segment of the industry interviewed. That study also concluded 
that the benefits likely would exceed the cost of moving from a 
voluntary to a mandatory reporting program for wholesale pork.
    Subsequently, the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010 (2010 
Reauthorization Act) (Pub. L. 111-239), was signed into law on 
September 28, 2010, and reauthorized Livestock Mandatory Reporting for 
5 years and added a provision for mandatory reporting of wholesale pork 
cuts. The 2010 Reauthorization Act directed the Secretary to engage in 
negotiated rulemaking to make required regulatory changes for mandatory 
wholesale pork reporting.
    Further, the 2010 Reauthorization Act directed the Secretary to 
establish a Committee that represented the spectrum of interests within 
the pork industry, as well as related stakeholders, to ensure all 
parties had input into the regulatory framework. Specifically, the 
statute required that the Committee include representatives from (i) 
organizations representing swine producers; (ii) organizations 
representing packers of pork, processors of pork, retailers of pork, 
and buyers of wholesale pork; (iii) Department of Agriculture; and (iv) 
interested parties that participate in swine or pork production.
    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) convened the Wholesale 
Pork Reporting Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee) through 
notice in the Federal Register on January 26, 2011. The Committee met 
three times over the period February through May of 2011 to develop the 
regulatory framework necessary to implement a mandatory program of 
wholesale pork reporting.
    The regulatory text developed by the Committee will serve as the 
primary basis for the proposed rule, consistent with both the intent of 
Congress and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. It is important to note 
that the Committee reached consensus on all items included in the 
proposed rule--where consensus was defined by the Committee bylaws as 
being unanimous agreement. Therefore, AMS is confident the proposed 
rule to implement wholesale pork reporting will be met with little or 
no resistance from the industry members who will be required to report 
under the mandatory system.
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration
    Mission: The Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards 
Administration (GIPSA) facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, 
meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural products and promotes 
fair and competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of 
consumers and American agriculture. GIPSA's activities contribute 
significantly to USDA's goal to increase prosperity in rural areas by 
supporting a competitive agricultural system.
    Priorities: GIPSA intends to issue a final rule that will define 
practices or conduct that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 
deceptive, and/or that represent the making or giving of an undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage, and ensure that producers and 
growers can fully participate in any arbitration process that may arise 
relating to livestock or poultry contracts. This regulation is being 
finalized in accordance with the authority granted to the Secretary by 
the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and with the requirements of 
sections 11005 and 11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Farm Service Agency
    Mission: FSA's mission is to equitably serve all farmers, ranchers, 
and agricultural partners through the delivery of effective, efficient 
agricultural programs, which contributes to two USDA goals: Assist 
rural communities in creating prosperity so they are self-sustaining, 
re-

[[Page 7682]]

populating, and economically thriving; and enhance the Nation's natural 
resource base by assisting owners and operators of farms and ranches to 
conserve and enhance soil, water, and related natural resources. FSA 
supports the first goal by stabilizing farm income, providing credit to 
new or existing farmers and ranchers who are temporarily unable to 
obtain credit from commercial sources, and helping farm operations 
recover from the effects of disaster. FSA supports the second goal by 
administering several conservation programs directed toward 
agricultural producers. The largest program is the Conservation Reserve 
Program (CRP), which protects nearly 32 million acres of 
environmentally sensitive land.
    Priorities: Farm Loan Programs. FSA will develop and issue 
regulations to amend programs for farm operating loans, down payment 
loans, and emergency loans to include socially disadvantaged farmers, 
increase loan limits, loan size, funding targets, interest rates, and 
graduating borrowers to commercial credit. In addition, FSA will 
further streamline normal loan servicing activities and reduce burden 
on borrowers while still protecting the loan security.
    Disaster Designation. FSA will revise the disaster designation 
process to streamline it and reduce the burden on States and tribes 
requesting disaster designations. One result may be fewer delays in 
delivering disaster assistance to help farm operations recover from the 
effects of disaster.
Forest Service
    Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the 
health, productivity, and diversity of the Nation's forests and 
rangelands to meet the needs of present and future generations. This 
includes protecting and managing National Forest System lands, 
providing technical and financial assistance to States, communities, 
and private forest landowners, and developing and providing scientific 
and technical assistance and scientific exchanges in support of 
international forest and range conservation. FS' regulatory priorities 
support the accomplishment of USDA's goal to ensure our national 
forests are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate 
change, while enhancing our water resources.
    Priorities: Special Areas; State-Specific Inventoried Roadless Area 
Management: Colorado. FS planned final rulemaking would establish a 
State-specific rule to provide management direction for conserving and 
managing inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands in 
the State of Colorado.
    Land Management Planning Rule. FS is required to issue rulemaking 
for National Forest System land management planning under 16 U.S.C. 
1604. The first planning rule was adopted in 1979, and amended in 1982. 
FS published a new planning rule on April 21, 2008 (73 FR 21468). On 
June 30, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of California invalidated FS' 2008 Planning Rule published at 
36 CFR 219 based on violations of NEPA and the Endangered Species Act 
in the rulemaking process. The District Court vacated the 2008 rule, 
enjoined USDA from further implementing it, and remanded it to USDA for 
further proceedings. USDA has determined that the 2000 planning rule is 
now in effect, including its transition provisions as amended in 2002 
and 2003, and as clarified by interpretative rules issued in 2001 and 
2004, which allows the use of the provisions of the 1982 planning rule 
to amend or revise plans. FS is now in the 2000 planning rule 
transition period. FS published a proposed planning rule on February 
14, 2011 (76 FR 8480). The final rule is expected to be published 
December 2011. In so doing, FS plans to correct deficiencies that have 
been identified over two decades of forest planning and update planning 
procedures to reflect contemporary collaborative planning practices.
    Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program. The purpose 
of the Community Forest Program is to achieve community benefits 
through financial assistance grants to local governments, tribal 
governments, and nonprofit organizations to establish community forests 
by acquiring and protecting private forestlands. Community forest 
benefits are specified in the authorizing statute and include economic 
benefits from sustainable forest management, natural resource 
conservation, forest-based educational programs, model forest 
stewardship activities, and recreational opportunities.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
    Mission: Promoting a dynamic business environment in rural America 
is the goal of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). Business 
Programs works in partnership with the private sector and the 
community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and 
business planning, and helps fund projects that create or preserve 
quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment. The financial 
resources are often leveraged with those of other public and private 
credit source lenders to meet business and credit needs in under-served 
areas. Recipients of these programs may include individuals, 
corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit 
corporations, Indian tribes, and private companies. The mission of 
Cooperative Programs of RBS is to promote understanding and use of the 
cooperative form of business as a viable organizational option for 
marketing and distributing agricultural products.
    Priorities: In support USDA's goal to increase the prosperity of 
rural communities, RBS regulatory priorities will facilitate 
sustainable renewable energy development and enhance the opportunities 
necessary for rural families to thrive economically. RBS' priority will 
be to publish regulations to fully implement the 2008 Farm Bill. This 
includes promulgating regulations for the Biorefinery Assistance 
Program (sec. 9003), the Repowering Assistance Program (sec. 9004), the 
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels (sec. 9005), and the Rural 
Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP). RBS has been administering 
sections 9003, 9004, and 9005 through the use of Notices of Funds 
Availability and Notices of Contract Proposals. Revisions to the Rural 
Energy for America Program (sec. 9007) will be made to incorporate 
Energy Audits and Renewable Energy Development Assistance and 
Feasibility Studies for Rural Energy Systems as eligible grant 
purposes, as well as other Farm Bill initiatives and various technical 
changes throughout the rule. In addition, revisions to the Business and 
Industry Guaranteed Loan Program will be made to implement 2008 Farm 
Bill provisions and other program initiatives. These rules will 
minimize program complexity and burden on the public while enhancing 
program delivery and RBS oversight.
Rural Utilities Service
    Mission: The mission of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is to 
improve the quality of life in rural America by providing investment 
capital for the deployment of critical rural utilities 
telecommunications, electric, and water and waste disposal 
infrastructure. Financial assistance is provided to rural utilities, 
municipalities, commercial corporations, limited liability companies, 
public utility districts, Indian tribes, and cooperative, non-profit, 
limited-dividend, or mutual associations. The public-private 
partnership, which is forged between RUS and these industries, results 
in billions of dollars in rural infrastructure

[[Page 7683]]

development and creates thousands of jobs for the American economy.
    Priorities: RUS' regulatory priorities will be to achieve the 
President's goal to bring affordable broadband to all rural Americans. 
To accomplish this, RUS will continue to improve the Broadband Program 
established by the 2002 Farm Bill. The 2002 Farm Bill authorized RUS to 
approve loans and loan guarantees for the costs of construction, 
improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband 
service in eligible rural communities. The 2008 Farm Bill significantly 
changed the statutory requirements of the Broadband Loan Program. As 
such, RUS issued an interim rule to implement the statutory changes and 
requested comments on the section of the rule that was not part of the 
proposed rule published in May 2007. Comments were received and the 
agency will analyze the comments and finalize the rule.
Departmental Management
    Mission: Departmental Management's mission is to provide management 
leadership to ensure that USDA administrative programs, policies, 
advice, and counsel meet the needs of USDA program organizations, 
consistent with laws and mandates, and provide safe and efficient 
facilities and services to customers.
    Priorities: In support of the Department's goal to increase rural 
prosperity, USDA's departmental management will finalize regulations to 
revise the BioPreferred program guidelines to continue adding 
designated product categories to the preferred procurement program, 
including intermediates and feedstocks and finished products made of 
intermediates and feedstocks.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
    USDA will ensure that its regulations provide benefits that exceed 
costs but is unable to provide an estimate of the aggregated impacts of 
its regulations. Problems with aggregation arise due to differing 
baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and the type 
of regulatory costs and benefits considered. Some benefits and costs 
associated with rules listed in the regulatory plan cannot currently be 
quantified as the rules are still being formulated. For 2012, USDA's 
focus will be to implement the changes to programs in such a way as to 
provide benefits while minimizing program complexity and regulatory 
burden for program participants.

USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

Proposed Rule Stage

1. Wholesale Pork Reporting Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1635 to 1636
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 59.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, March 28, 2012.
    With the passage of S. 3656, the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 
2010, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to amend chapter 3 of 
subtitle B of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 by adding a new 
section for mandatory reporting of wholesale pork cuts. To make these 
amendments, the Secretary was directed to promulgate a final rule no 
later than 1\1/2\ years after the date of the enactment of the Act. 
Accordingly, a final rule will be promulgated by March 28, 2012.
    Abstract: On September 15, 2010, Congress passed the Mandatory 
Price Reporting Act of 2010 reauthorizing Livestock Mandatory Reporting 
for 5 years and adding a provision for mandatory reporting of wholesale 
pork cuts. The Act was signed by the President on September 28, 2010. 
Congress directed the Secretary to engage in negotiated rulemaking to 
make required regulatory changes for mandatory wholesale pork 
reporting. Further, Congress required that the negotiated rulemaking 
committee include representatives from (i) organizations representing 
swine producers; (ii) organizations representing packers of pork, 
processors of pork, retailers of pork, and buyers of wholesale pork; 
(iii) the Department of Agriculture; and (iv) interested parties that 
participate in swine or pork production.
    Statement of Need: Implementation of mandatory pork reporting is 
required by Congress. Congress delegated responsibility to the 
Secretary for determining what information is necessary and 
appropriate. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 
110-234) directed the Secretary to conduct a study to determine 
advantages, drawbacks, and potential implementation issues associated 
with adopting mandatory wholesale pork reporting. The report from this 
study generally concluded that voluntary wholesale pork price reporting 
is thin and becoming thinner, and some degree of support for moving to 
mandatory price reporting exists at every segment of the industry 
interviewed. The report was delivered to Congress on March 25, 2010.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Livestock Mandatory Reporting is authorized 
under the Agricultural Marketing Act (7 U.S.C. 1635 to 1636). The 
Livestock and Seed Program of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has 
day-to-day responsibility for collecting and disseminating LMR data.
    Alternatives: There are no alternatives, as this rulemaking is a 
matter of law based on the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimation of costs will follow the 
previous methodology used in earlier Livestock Mandatory Reporting 
rulemaking. The focus of the cost estimation is the burden placed on 
reporting companies in providing pork marketing data to the Livestock 
and Seed Program. Previous rulemaking cost estimates of boxed beef 
reporting of similar data found the burden to be an annual total of 65 
hours in additional reporting requirements per firm. Because no 
official USDA grade standards are used in the marketing of pork, and 
there are fewer cutting styles, the burden for pork reporting firms in 
comparison with beef reporting firms could be lower. However, the 
impact is not truly known at this stage.
    Risks: Implementing wholesale pork reporting presents few risks to 
the Agency and the impacted industry. Members of the industry who 
served on the negotiated rulemaking committee expressed some concern 
with reporting prices under a different reporting basis than what is 
used for voluntary pork reporting. However, ultimately the committee 
reached consensus on having prices reporting on both an FOB Omaha and 
FOB Plant basis in order to reduce market volatility.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to Livestock Mandatory         11/24/10  75 FR 71568
 Reporting.
Wholesale Pork Reporting; Notice of    01/26/11  76 FR 4554
 Meeting.
NPRM................................   02/00/12
Final Action........................   10/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Michael P. Lynch, Department of Agriculture, 
Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th and Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-6231.
    RIN: 0581-AD07


[[Page 7684]]



USDA--AMS

2.  National Organic Program: Sunset Review for Nutrient 
Vitamins and Minerals (NOP-10-0083)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would address a recommendation 
submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) by the National 
Organic Standards Board (NOSB) on April 29, 2011. The recommendation 
pertains to the 2012 Sunset Review of the listing for nutrient vitamins 
and minerals on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National 
List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List). As 
recommended by the NOSB, the proposed rule would continue the exemption 
(use) for nutrient vitamins and minerals for 5 years after the October 
21, 2012, sunset date. In addition, the proposed rule would amend the 
annotation to correct an inaccurate cross reference to U.S. Food and 
Drug Administration regulations. The proposed amendment to the 
annotation would clarify what synthetic substances are allowed as 
nutrient vitamins and minerals in organic products labeled as 
``organic'' or ``made with organic (specified ingredients or food 
group(s)).''
    Statement of Need: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has 
determined that the current exemption for the use of nutrient vitamins 
and minerals in organic products in the National Organic Program (NOP) 
regulations (7 CFR part 205) is inaccurate. The proposed rule would 
amend the annotation for nutrient vitamins and minerals to correct an 
inaccurate cross reference to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
regulations. In effect, the proposed amendment would clarify what 
synthetic substances are allowed as nutrient vitamins and minerals in 
organic products. Further, the NOP regulations do not correctly provide 
for the fortification of infant formula that would meet FDA 
requirements. This proposed rule would incorporate the correct FDA 
citation with respect to the addition of required vitamins and minerals 
to organic infant formula.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This proposed rule would address a 
recommendation submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture by the 
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) on April 29, 2011, to continue 
the exemption for nutrient vitamins and minerals in organic products as 
provided by the NOP National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances 
(National List). The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) 
authorizes the Secretary to amend the National List based on proposed 
amendments developed by the NOSB. The Sunset Provision, in section 
6517(e) of the OFPA, provides that no exemption or prohibition on the 
National List will remain valid after 5 years unless the exemption or 
prohibition has been reviewed and the Secretary renews the listing. The 
exemption for nutrient vitamins and minerals is scheduled to sunset on 
October 21, 2012.
    Alternatives: AMS considered two alternatives to this proposed 
rulemaking: (1) Renew the existing listing for nutrient vitamins and 
minerals or (2), in lieu of a rule, issue guidance stating NOP's intent 
to interpret the current listing for nutrient vitamins and minerals as 
proposed in this action. AMS determined that neither alternative is 
viable as both would retain a regulatory provision that is inaccurate 
and remains vulnerable to misinterpretations of what substances are 
permitted in organic products.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule would establish a 
finite list of essential and required vitamins and minerals for use in 
organic food and infant formula. The action addresses the requests of a 
broad spectrum of public commenters for clarification on the parameters 
for adding nutrient vitamins and minerals to organic products and is 
expected to reduce the submission of consumer complaints alleging the 
unlawful addition of substances to organic products. This proposed rule 
would also provide more certainty to certifying agents and organic 
operations in determining whether substances are acceptable for use in 
organic products. Further, this proposed action also would foster 
greater transparency by ensuring that exemptions for the use of 
vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients are subject to National Organic 
Standards Board (NOSB) evaluation in accordance with the criteria 
established in OFPA.
    This action could directly impact a subset of certified organic 
operations, which add substances to organic products that are not 
essential vitamins and minerals for human nutrition (21 CFR 101.9) or 
required vitamins and minerals for infant formula (21 CFR 107.100 or 
107.10), as enumerated by FDA regulation. AMS believes the impacts will 
be concentrated within five categories of organic products in which 
nutrient supplementation has been more prevalent: Infant formula, baby 
food, milk, breakfast cereal, and pet food. The proposed rule could 
indirectly impact producers who supply organic agricultural commodities 
to affected product categories. However, AMS expects that there will be 
opportunities for producers to divert organic agricultural products to 
other purchasers to buffer the impact of any disruption to the 
manufacture of certain processed organic products as a result of this 
proposed action.
    There are several impact mitigation factors which are expected to 
reduce the costs of complying with this proposed action. AMS is 
proposing a 2-year implementation phase, which is intended to provide 
time for NOSB to consider petitions for substances that are affected by 
this action and for AMS to conclude any rulemaking to add substances to 
the National List. The implementation phase would also provide entities 
the time to explore reformulation of affected products. Further, if 
some products are discontinued as a result of this proposed rule, AMS 
anticipates that some consumers will purchase, as an alternative, an 
organic product within the same category rather than a nonorganic 
product.
    Risks: For the 2-year implementation phase to function as a 
mitigation measure, the timeframe may be tight to complete the review 
of petitions received by publication of this proposed rule and for any 
rulemaking action recommended by NOSB. Therefore, AMS has requested 
comments on the length of the implementation phase as part of this 
proposed rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/12/12  77 FR 1980
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/12/12  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, Director, Standards Division, 
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, 
DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-3252, Fax: 202 205-7808, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 0581-AC96.
    RIN: 0581-AD17



[[Page 7685]]



USDA--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)

Proposed Rule Stage

3. Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131 to 2159
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 1 to 3.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: APHIS intends to establish standards for the humane 
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds other than birds 
bred for use in research.
    Statement of Need: The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 amended the definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 
by specifically excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of 
the genus Mus, bred for use in research. While the definition of animal 
in the regulations contained in 9 CFR part 1 has excluded rats of the 
genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, that 
definition has also excluded all birds (i.e., not just those birds bred 
for use in research). In line with this change to the definition of 
animal in the AWA, APHIS intends to establish standards in 9 CFR part 3 
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds 
other than those birds bred for use in research and to revise the 
regulations in 9 CFR parts 1 and 2 to make them applicable to birds.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards and other requirements 
governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of 
certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators 
of auction sales, and carriers and immediate handlers. Animals covered 
by the AWA include birds that are not bred for use in research.
    Alternatives: To be identified.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits of the rule would stem from 
improvements in the humane handling and care of birds by affected 
dealers, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers. At a minimum, 
these entities would be required to satisfy certain reporting 
provisions and undergo periodic compliance inspections by APHIS--
measures that they are not subject to now with respect to birds. 
Regulated entities, therefore, may incur certain costs because of the 
proposed rule. Most facilities that use birds in research, such as 
pharmaceutical companies, universities, and research institutes, would 
not be affected. Retail pet stores could be affected to the extent that 
regulatory costs are passed on to them by breeders and other suppliers.
    Most entities affected by the proposal are likely to be small in 
size, based on Small Business Administration standards. We have not 
been able to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the rule's potential 
economic impact because of the paucity of available data on the 
affected industries. APHIS welcomes public comment that would permit a 
more complete assessment of the proposed rule's impact.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/12  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Johanna Briscoe, Veterinary Medical Officer and 
Avian Specialist, Animal Care, Department of Agriculture, Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, 
MD 20737-1234, Phone: 301 734-0658.
    RIN: 0579-AC02

USDA--APHIS

4. Plant Pest Regulations; Update of General Provisions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450; 7 U.S.C. 2260; 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 
7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 7 U.S.C. 8301 to 8817; 19 U.S.C. 136; 21 
U.S.C. 111; 21 U.S.C. 114a; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 
U.S.C. 4331 and 4332
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 318 and 319; 7 CFR 330; 7 CFR 352.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We are proposing to revise our regulations regarding the 
movement of plant pests. We are proposing to regulate the movement of, 
not only plant pests, but also biological control organisms and 
associated articles. We are proposing risk-based criteria regarding the 
movement of biological control organisms and are proposing to exempt 
certain types of plant pests from permitting requirements for their 
interstate movement and movement for environmental release. We are also 
proposing to revise our regulations regarding the movement of soil and 
to establish regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in 
which plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated 
articles are held. This proposed rule replaces a previously published 
proposed rule, which we are withdrawing as part of this document. This 
proposal would clarify the factors that would be considered when 
assessing the risks associated with the movement of certain organisms, 
facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner 
that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current 
regulations.
    Statement of Need: APHIS is preparing a proposed rule to revise its 
regulations regarding the movement of plant pests. The revised 
regulations would address the importation and interstate movement of 
plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles, and 
the release into the environment of biological control organisms. The 
revision would also address the movement of soil and establish 
regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in which plant 
pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are held. 
This proposal would clarify the factors that would be considered when 
assessing the risks associated with the movement of certain organisms, 
facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner 
that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current 
regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under section 411(a) of the Plant 
Protection Act (PPA), no person shall import, enter, export, or move in 
interstate commerce any plant pest, unless the importation, entry, 
exportation, or movement is authorized under a general or specific 
permit and in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of 
Agriculture may issue to prevent the introduction of plant pests into 
the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United 
States.
    Under section 412 of the PPA, the Secretary may restrict the 
importation or movement in interstate commerce of biological control 
organisms by requiring the organisms to be accompanied by a permit 
authorizing such movement and by subjecting the organisms to quarantine 
conditions or other remedial measures deemed necessary to prevent the 
spread of plant pests or noxious weeds. That same section of the PPA 
also gives the Secretary explicit authority to regulate the movement of 
associated articles.
    Alternatives: The alternatives we considered were taking no action 
at this time or implementing a comprehensive

[[Page 7686]]

risk reduction plan. This latter alternative would be characterized as 
a broad risk mitigation strategy that could involve various options 
such as increased inspection, regulations specific to a certain 
organism or group of related organisms, or extensive biocontainment 
requirements.
    We decided against the first alternative because leaving the 
regulations unchanged would not address the needs identified 
immediately above. We decided against the latter alternative, because 
available scientific information, personnel, and resources suggest that 
it would be impracticable at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: Unless we issue such a proposal, the regulations will not 
provide a clear protocol for obtaining permits that authorize the 
movement and environmental release of biological control organisms. 
This, in turn, could impede research to explore biological control 
options for various plant pests and noxious weeds known to exist within 
the United States, and could indirectly lead to the further 
dissemination of such pests and weeds.
    Moreover, unless we revise the soil regulations, certain provisions 
in the regulations will not adequately address the risk to plants, 
plant parts, and plant products within the United States that such soil 
might present.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent To Prepare an         10/20/09  74 FR 53673
 Environmental Impact Statement.
Notice Comment Period End...........   11/19/09  .......................
NPRM................................   05/00/12  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Shirley Wager--Page Chief, Pest Permitting Branch, 
Plant Health Programs, PPQ, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 131, Riverdale, MD 
20737-1236, Phone: 301 734-8453.
    RIN: 0579-AC98

USDA--APHIS

Final Rule Stage

5. Importation of Live Dogs

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2148
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 1 and 2.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 
regulations to regulate dogs imported for resale as required by a 
recent amendment to the AWA. Importation of dogs for resale would be 
prohibited unless the dogs are in good health, have all necessary 
vaccinations, and are 6 months of age or older. This proposal would 
also reflect the exemptions provided in the amendment to the AWA for 
dogs imported for research purposes or veterinary treatment and for 
dogs legally imported into the State of Hawaii from the British Isles, 
Australia, Guam, or New Zealand.
    Statement of Need: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture promulgate regulations to 
implement and enforce new provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 
regarding the importation of dogs for resale. In line with the changes 
to the AWA, APHIS intends to amend the regulations in 9 CFR parts 1 and 
2 to regulate the importation of dogs for resale.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, signed into law on Jun. 18, 2008) added a new 
section to the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2147) to restrict the 
importation of live dogs for resale. As amended, the AWA now prohibits 
the importation of dogs into the United States for resale unless the 
Secretary of Agriculture determines that the dogs are in good health, 
have received all necessary vaccinations, and are at least 6 months of 
age. Exceptions are provided for dogs imported for research purposes or 
veterinary treatment. An exception to the 6-month age requirement is 
also provided for dogs that are lawfully imported into Hawaii for 
resale purposes from the British Isles, Australia, Guam, or New Zealand 
in compliance with the applicable regulations of Hawaii, provided the 
dogs are vaccinated, are in good health, and are not transported out of 
Hawaii for resale purposes at less than 6 months of age.
    Alternatives: To be identified.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/01/11  76 FR 54392
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/31/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Gerald Rushin, Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal 
Care, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234, Phone: 301 
734-0954.
    RIN: 0579-AD23

USDA--APHIS

6. Animal Disease Traceability

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8305
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 90.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would establish a new part in the Code of 
Federal Regulations containing minimum national identification and 
documentation requirements for livestock moving interstate. The 
proposed regulations specify approved forms of official identification 
for each species covered under this rulemaking but would allow such 
livestock to be moved interstate with another form of identification, 
as agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving 
States or tribes. The purpose of the new regulations is to improve our 
ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found.
    Statement of Need: Preventing and controlling animal disease is the 
cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers 
and farmers work hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods, 
there is never a guarantee that their animals will be spared from 
disease. To support their efforts, USDA has enacted regulations to 
prevent, control, and eradicate disease, and to increase foreign and 
domestic confidence in the safety of animals and animal products. 
Traceability helps give

[[Page 7687]]

that reassurance. Traceability does not prevent disease, but knowing 
where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they have been, and when, 
is indispensable in emergency response and in ongoing disease programs. 
The primary objective of these proposed regulations is to improve our 
ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found in a 
manner that continues to ensure the smooth flow of livestock in 
interstate commerce.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or 
restrict the interstate movement of any animal to prevent the 
introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock, and 
may carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or eradicate 
any pest or disease of livestock. The Secretary may promulgate such 
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the Act.
    Alternatives: As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal 
health, APHIS initiated implementation of the National Animal 
Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. More recently, the Agency 
launched an effort to assess the level of acceptance of NAIS through 
meetings with the Secretary, listening sessions in 14 cities, and 
public comments. Although there was some support for NAIS, the vast 
majority of participants were highly critical of the program and of 
USDA's implementation efforts. The feedback revealed that NAIS has 
become a barrier to achieving meaningful animal disease traceability in 
the United States in partnership with America's producers.
    The option we are proposing pertains strictly to interstate 
movement and gives States and tribes the flexibility to identify and 
implement the traceability approaches that work best for them.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A workable and effective animal 
traceability system would enhance animal health programs, leading to 
more secure market access and other societal gains. Traceability can 
reduce the cost of disease outbreaks, minimizing losses to producers 
and industries by enabling current and previous locations of 
potentially exposed animals to be readily identified. Trade benefits 
can include increased competitiveness in global markets generally, and 
when outbreaks do occur, the mitigation of export market losses through 
regionalization. Markets benefit through more efficient and timely 
epidemiological investigation of animal health issues.
    Other societal benefits include improved animal welfare during 
natural disasters.
    The main economic effect of the rule is expected to be on the beef 
and cattle industry. For other species such as horses and other equine 
species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids, APHIS 
would largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of 
existing disease program regulations.
    Costs of an animal traceability system would include those for tags 
and interstate certificates of veterinary inspection (ICVIs) or other 
movement documentation, for animals moved interstate. Incremental costs 
incurred are expected to vary depending upon a number of factors, 
including whether an enterprise does or does not already use eartags to 
identify individual cattle. For many operators, costs of official 
animal identification and ICVIs would be similar, respectively, to 
costs associated with current animal identification practices and the 
in-shipment documentation currently required by individual States. To 
the extent that official animal identification and ICVIs would simply 
replace current requirements, the incremental costs of the rule for 
private enterprises would be minimal.
    Risks: This rulemaking is being undertaken to address the animal 
health risks posed by gaps in the existing regulations concerning 
identification of livestock being moved interstate. The current lack of 
a comprehensive animal traceability program is impairing our ability to 
trace animals that may be infected with disease.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/11/11  76 FR 50082
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/09/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Neil Hammerschmidt, Program Manager, Animal Disease 
Traceability, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, 
Phone: 301 734-5571.
    RIN: 0579-AD24

USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)

Proposed Rule Stage

7. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Farm Bill of 2008 
Retailer Sanctions

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 276.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would implement provisions under 
section 4132 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, also 
referred to as the Farm Bill of 2008. Under section 4132, the 
Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is 
provided with greater authority and flexibility when sanctioning retail 
or wholesale food stores that violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP) rules. Specifically, the Department is authorized to 
assess a civil penalty and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food 
store authorized to participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department 
could assess a civil penalty or disqualification but not both. Section 
4132 also eliminates the minimum disqualification period, which was 
previously set at 6 months.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would implement provisions 
under section 4132 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 
also referred to as the Farm Bill of 2008. Under section 4132, the 
Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is 
provided with greater authority and flexibility when sanctioning retail 
or wholesale food stores that violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP) rules. Specifically, the Department is authorized to 
assess a civil penalty and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food 
store authorized to participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department 
could assess a civil penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 
4132 also eliminates the minimum disqualification period, which was 
previously set at 6 months. In addition to implementing statutory 
provisions, this rule proposes to provide a clear administrative 
penalty when an authorized retailer or wholesale food store redeems a 
SNAP participant's program benefits without the knowledge of the 
participant. All program benefits are issued through the Electronic 
Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT system establishes data that 
may be used to identify fraud committed by retail food stores. While 
stealing program benefits could be prosecuted under current statute, 
program

[[Page 7688]]

regulations do not provide a clear penalty for these thefts. The 
proposed rule would establish an administrative penalty for such thefts 
equivalent to the penalty for trafficking in program benefits, which is 
the permanent disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store 
from SNAP participation. Finally, the Department proposes to identify 
additional administrative retail violations and the associated sanction 
that would be imposed against the retail food store for committing the 
violation. For instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and 
wholesale food stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the 
actual EBT card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and 
identify the specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food 
stores are found to be in violation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4132, Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246).
    Alternatives: Because this proposed rule is under development, 
alternatives are not yet articulated.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because this proposed rule is under 
development, anticipated costs and benefits have not yet been 
articulated.
    Risks: The risk that retail or wholesale food stores will violate 
SNAP rules, or continue to violate SNAP rules, is expected to be 
reduced by refining program sanctions for participating retailers and 
wholesalers.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Note: This RIN replaces the previously 
issued RIN 0584-AD78.
    Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AD88

USDA--FNS

8.  National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs: 
Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School, as Required by the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would codify the following provisions 
of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) as 
appropriate, under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220.
    Section 203 requires schools participating in the National School 
Lunch Program to make available to children free of charge, as 
nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place 
where meals are served during meal service.
    Section 208 requires the Secretary to promulgate proposed 
regulations to establish science-based nutrition standards for all 
foods sold in schools not later than December 13, 2011. The nutrition 
standards would apply to all food sold outside the school meal 
programs, on the school campus, and at any time during the school day. 
(11-004)
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would codify the following 
provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the 
Act) as appropriate, under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220.
    Section 203 requires schools participating in the National School 
Lunch Program to make available to children free of charge, as 
nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place 
where meals are served during meal service.
    Section 208 requires the Secretary to promulgate proposed 
regulations to establish science-based nutrition standards for all 
foods sold in schools not later than December 13, 2011. The nutrition 
standards would apply to all food sold outside the school meal 
programs, on the school campus, and at any time during the school day.
    Summary of Legal Basis: There is no existing regulatory requirement 
to make water available where meals are served. Regulations at 7 CFR 
parts 210.11 direct State agencies and school food authorities to 
establish such rules or regulations necessary to control the sale of 
foods in competition with lunches served under the NSLP. Such rules or 
regulations shall prohibit the sale of foods of minimal nutritional 
value in the food service areas during the lunch periods. The sale of 
other competitive foods may, at the discretion of the State agency and 
school food authority, be allowed in the food service area during the 
lunch period only if all income from the sale of such foods accrues to 
the benefit of the nonprofit school food service or the school or 
student organizations approved by the school. State agencies and school 
food authorities may impose additional restrictions on the sale of and 
income from all foods sold at any time throughout schools participating 
in the Program.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and 
Budgetary Effects Statement: The Congressional Budget Office determined 
these provisions would incur no Federal costs.
    Expected Benefits of the Proposed Action: The provisions in this 
proposed rulemaking would result in better nutrition for all school 
children.
    Risks: None known.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE09

USDA--FNS

9.  WIC: Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Implementation

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 246.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2020, Require all WIC 
State agencies to implement EBT Statewide.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would revise and expand regulations 
regarding WIC EBT at 7 CFR 246 and implement statutory provisions 
related to EBT as defined in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, 
Public Law 11-296. The EBT requirements addressed in the proposed rule 
would promote improved access to Program benefits, standardize EBT 
operations, and establish

[[Page 7689]]

implementation guidelines and timeframes.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would revise and expand 
regulations regarding WIC EBT at 7 CFR 246 and implement statutory 
provisions related to EBT as defined in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids 
Act of 2010, Public Law 11-296. The EBT requirements addressed in the 
proposed rule would promote improved access to program benefits, 
standardize EBT operations, and establish implementation guidelines and 
timeframes.
    WIC EBT has been an ongoing effort within the WIC community for 
several years. The proposed rule would address the following:
     Set forth the definition of EBT.
     Require all WIC State agencies to implement EBT statewide 
by October 1, 2020.
     Require State agencies to submit status reports 
demonstrating their progress toward Statewide EBT implementation.
     Revise the current provision regarding the imposition of 
EBT costs to vendors to include: (1) The formation of cost-sharing 
criteria associated with any equipment or system not solely dedicated 
to EBT; (2) the allowance of the payment of fees imposed by a third-
party processor for EBT transactions; (3) the disallowance of the 
payment of interchange fees; (4) clarification of EBT cost impositions 
after Statewide implementation; (5) elimination of the requirement for 
State agencies to fund ongoing maintenance costs for vendors using 
multi-function EBT equipment; and (6) require vendors to demonstrate 
the capability to accept program benefits electronically prior to 
authorization after Statewide implementation of EBT.
     Establish minimum lane coverage guidelines for vendor 
equipment, as set forth in the operating rules, and require State 
agencies to provide the necessary EBT-only equipment if vendors do not 
wish to acquire multi-function equipment.
     Require that EBT technical standards and operating rules 
be established and adhered to by State agencies.
     Require all State agencies to use the universal product 
code database.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. 
L. 111-296).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and 
Budgetary Effects Statement:
    FNS estimates costs of approximately $30 to $60 million per fiscal 
year (as reflected in the program's budget) for State agencies to 
comply with the mandate. The costs will vary depending on 
implementation activity and are expected to decline as more State 
agencies adopt WIC EBT.
    Expected Benefits of the Proposed Action: The EBT requirements 
addressed in the proposed rule would promote improved access to program 
benefits, standardize EBT operations, and establish implementation 
guidelines and timeframes.
    Risks: None known.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE21

USDA--FNS

Final Rule Stage

10. Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School 
Breakfast Programs

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 108-265, sec 103
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Public Law 108-265 requires the Secretary to issue 
regulations that reflect specific recommendations for increased 
consumption of foods and food ingredients in school nutrition programs 
based on the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
    The current regulations require that reimbursable meals offered by 
schools meet the applicable recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans. This rule would revise the regulations on meal patterns 
and nutrition standards to ensure that school meals reflect the 2005 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (04-017).
    Statement of Need: This final rule will implement the requirement 
in section 201 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 
111-296) (the Act) that USDA promulgate regulations to update the meal 
patterns and nutrition standards for school lunches and breakfasts 
based on recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). USDA 
issued a proposed rule on January 13, 2011. The Act requires USDA to 
issue interim or final regulations not later than 18 months after 
promulgation of the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will implement meal patterns and nutrition 
standards recommended by IOM in its report ``School Meals: Building 
Blocks for Healthy Children.'' In addition, the final rule will address 
the comments submitted by the public in response to USDA's proposed 
rule.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The meal patterns and nutrition standards 
for school lunches and breakfast are established in 7 CFR 210.10 and 7 
CFR 220.8, respectively. State agencies monitor compliance with the 
meal patterns and nutrition standards through program reviews 
authorized in 7 CFR 210.19.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and 
Budgetary Effects Statement:
    While there are no increased Federal costs associated with 
implementation of this final rule, the Act provides schools that comply 
with the new meal requirements with an increased Federal reimbursement. 
The Act also provides Federal funding for training, technical 
assistance, certification, and oversight activities related to 
compliance with this rule. It is expected that the total costs of 
compliance with the final rule will exceed $100 million per year.
    Expected Benefits of the Proposed Action: The final rule is 
projected to make substantial improvements to the meals served daily in 
over 101,000 schools nationwide to more than 31 million children. It 
will align school meals with national nutrition guidelines and help 
safeguard the health of school children.
    Risks: None known.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/13/11  76 FR 2494
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/13/11  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.

[[Page 7690]]

    Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AD59

USDA--FNS

11. Direct Certification of Children in Food Stamp Households and 
Certification of Homeless, Migrant, and Runaway Children for Free Meals

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 108-265, sec 104
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 225; 7 CFR 
226; 7 CFR 245.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In response to Public Law 108-265, which amended the 
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 7 CFR 245, Determining 
Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools, 
is amended to establish categorical (automatic) eligibility for free 
meals and free milk upon documentation that a child is (1) homeless as 
defined by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; (2) a runaway 
served by grant programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; or 
(3) migratory as defined in section 1309(2) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. The rule also requires phase-in of mandatory 
direct certification for children who are members of households 
receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
and continues discretionary direct certification for other 
categorically eligible children (04-018).
    Statement of Need: The changes made to the Richard B. Russell 
National School Lunch Act concerning direct certification are intended 
to improve program access, reduce paperwork, and improve the accuracy 
of the delivery of free meal benefits. This regulation will implement 
the statutory changes and provide State agencies and local educational 
agencies with the policies and procedures to conduct mandatory and 
discretionary direct certification.
    Summary of Legal Basis: These changes are being made in response to 
provisions in Public Law 108-265.
    Alternatives: None; statutory requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This regulation will reduce 
paperwork, target benefits more precisely, and will improve program 
access of eligible school children.
    Risks: This regulation may require adjustments to existing computer 
systems to more readily share information between schools and 
assistance agencies.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   04/25/11  76 FR 22785
Interim Final Rule Effective........   06/24/11  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      10/24/11  .......................
 End.
Final Rule..........................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62.
    RIN: 0584-AD60

USDA--FNS

12. Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions 
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246; Pub. L. 104-121
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement 
provisions from the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 
110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of SNAP 
applicants and participants and SNAP employment and training. In 
addition, this proposed rule would revise the SNAP regulations 
throughout 7 CFR part 273 to change the program name from the Food 
Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes as 
mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these provisions 
was October 1, 2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is also proposing 
two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State 
agencies options that are currently available only through waivers. 
These provisions would allow State agencies to average student work 
hours and to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face 
interviews. FNS anticipates that this rule would impact the associated 
paperwork burdens (08-006).
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would amend the regulations 
governing SNAP to implement provisions from the FCEA concerning the 
eligibility and certification of SNAP applicants and participants and 
SNAP employment and training. In addition, this proposed rule would 
revise the SNAP regulations throughout 7 CFR part 273 to change the 
program name from the Food Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other 
nomenclature changes as mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective 
date of these provisions was October 1, 2008. FNS is also proposing two 
discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State agencies 
options that are currently available only through waivers. These 
provisions would allow State agencies to average student work hours and 
to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews. FNS 
anticipates that this rule would impact the associated paperwork 
burdens.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
(Pub. L. 110-246).
    Alternatives: Most aspects of the rule are non-discretionary and 
tie to explicit, specific requirements for SNAP in the FCEA. However, 
FNS did consider alternatives in implementing section 4103 of the FCEA, 
Elimination of Dependent Care Deduction Caps. FNS considered whether to 
limit deductible expenses to costs paid directly to the care provider 
or whether to permit households to deduct other expenses associated 
with dependent care in addition to the direct costs. FNS chose to allow 
households to deduct the cost of transportation to and from the 
dependent care provider and the cost of separately identified activity 
fees that are associated with dependent care. Section 4103 signaled an 
important shift in congressional recognition that dependent care costs 
constitute major expenses for working households. In addition, it was 
noted during the floor discussion in both houses of Congress prior to 
passage of the FCEA that some States already counted transportation 
costs as part of dependent care expenditures.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated total SNAP costs to 
the Government of the FCEA provisions implemented in the rule are 
estimated to be $831 million in FY 2010 and

[[Page 7691]]

$5.619 billion over the 5 years FY 2010 through FY 2014. These impacts 
are already incorporated into the President's budget baseline.
    There are many potential societal benefits of this rule. Some 
provisions may make some households newly eligible for SNAP benefits. 
Other provisions may increase SNAP benefits for certain households. 
Certain provisions in the rule will reduce the administrative burden 
for households and State agencies.
    Risks: The statutory changes and discretionary ones under 
consideration would streamline program operations. The changes are 
expected to reduce the risk of inefficient operations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/04/11  76 FR 25414
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/05/11  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Kwon, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs 
Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th 
Floor, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-
0800, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AD87

USDA--FNS

13. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Nutrition 
Education and Obesity Prevention Grant

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 272.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2012, Pub. L. 111-296
    Abstract: [Pub. L. 111-296, The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 
2001, title II; Reducing Childhood Obesity and Improving the Diets of 
Children, subtitle D; Miscellaneous, sec. 241.] The Nutrition Education 
and Obesity Prevention Grant Program amends the Food and Nutrition Act 
of 2008 to replace the current nutrition education program under the 
Act with a program providing grants to States for the implementation of 
a nutrition education and obesity prevention program that promotes 
healthy food choices consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans.
    Statement of Need: The Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention 
Grant Program rule amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to replace 
the current nutrition education program under the Act with a program 
providing grants to States for the implementation of a nutrition 
education and obesity prevention program that promotes healthy food 
choices consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans. This rule will implement all requirements of the law. It 
makes eligible for program participation: (1) Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) participants, (2) participants in the school 
lunch or breakfast programs, and (3) individuals who reside in low-
income communities or are low-income individuals. The rule continues 
commitment to serving low-income populations while focusing on the 
issue of obesity, a priority of this Administration. It ensures that 
interventions implemented as part of State nutrition education plans 
recognize the constrained resources of the eligible population.
    The rule requires activities be science-based and outcome-driven 
and provides for accountability and transparency through State plans. 
It will require coordination and collaboration among Federal agencies 
and stakeholders, including the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, the public health community, the academic and research 
communities, nutrition education practitioners, representatives of 
State and local governments, and community organizations that serve the 
low-income populations. The rule allows for 100 percent Federal 
funding, and States will not have to provide matching funds. The grant 
funding will be based on 2009 expenditures. For 3 years after 
enactment, States will receive grant funds based on their level of 
funds expended for the 2009 base year with funds indexed for inflation 
thereafter. The new funding structure is phased in over a 7-year 
period. From fiscal year 2014 forward, funds will be allocated based on 
a formula that considers participation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 241, Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and 
Budgetary Effects Statement:
    The action allows for 100 percent Federal funding which gives 
States more flexibility to target services where they can be most 
effective without the constraints of a State match. For 3 years after 
enactment, States will receive grant funds based on their level of 
funds expended for the 2009 base year with funds indexed for inflation 
thereafter. The new funding structure is phased in over a 7-year 
period. From fiscal year 2014 forward, funds will be allocated based on 
a formula that considers participation.
    Expected Benefits of the Proposed Action: This regulatory action 
seeks to improve the effectiveness of the program and make it easier 
for the States to administer, while still allowing funding to grow. It 
allows for 100 percent Federal funding, which gives States more 
flexibility to target services where they can be most effective without 
the constraints of a State match. It allows grantees to adopt 
individual and group-based nutrition education, as well as community 
and public health approaches. It allows coordinated services to be 
provided to participants in all the Federal food assistance programs 
and to other low-income persons.
    Risks: None known.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE07

USDA--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)

Proposed Rule Stage

14. Prior Labeling Approval System: Generic Label Approval

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470; 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 327; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 412.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking will continue an effort initiated several 
years ago by amending FSIS' regulations to expand the types of labeling 
that are generically approved. FSIS plans to propose that the 
submission of labeling for approval prior to use be limited to certain 
types of labeling, as specified in the regulations. In addition, FSIS 
plans to reorganize and amend the regulations by consolidating the 
nutrition labeling rules that currently are stated separately

[[Page 7692]]

for meat and poultry products (in part 317, subpart B, and part 381, 
subpart Y, respectively) and by amending their provisions to set out 
clearly various circumstances under which these products are 
misbranded.
    Statement of Need: Expanding the types of labeling that are 
generically approved would permit Agency personnel to focus their 
resources on evaluating only those claims or special statements that 
have health and safety or economic implications. This would essentially 
eliminate the time needed for FSIS personnel to evaluate labeling 
features and allocate more time for staff to work on other duties and 
responsibilities. A major advantage of this proposal is that it is 
consistent with FSIS' current regulatory approach, which separates 
industry and Agency responsibilities.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 457 and 607.
    Alternatives: FSIS considered several options. The first was to 
expand the types of labeling that would be generically approved and 
consolidate into one part all of the labeling regulations applicable to 
products regulated under the FMIA and PPIA and the policies currently 
contained in FSIS Directive 7220.1, Revision 3. The second option FSIS 
considered was to consolidate only the meat and poultry regulations 
that are similar and to expand the types of generically approved 
labeling that can be applied by Federal and certified foreign 
establishments. The third option, and the one favored by FSIS, was to 
amend the prior labeling approval system in an incremental three-phase 
approach.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would permit the 
Agency to realize an estimated discounted cost savings of $2.9 million 
over 10 years. The proposed rule would be beneficial because it would 
streamline the generic labeling process, while imposing no additional 
cost burden on establishments. Consumers would benefit because industry 
would have the ability to introduce products into the marketplace more 
quickly.
    Risks: None
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/05/11  76 FR 75809
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/03/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Jeff Canavan, Labeling and Program Delivery 
Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 8th Floor, 8-146, Stop 5273, 1400 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-5273, Phone: 301 504-
0878, Fax: 301 504-0872, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AC59

USDA--FSIS

15. Product Labeling: Use of the Voluntary Claim ``Natural'' on the 
Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is 
proposing to amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection 
regulations to define the conditions under which it will permit the 
voluntary claim ``natural'' to be used in the labeling of meat and 
poultry products. FSIS is also proposing that label approval requests 
for labels that contain ``natural'' claims include documentation to 
demonstrate that the products meet the criteria to bear a ``natural'' 
claim. FSIS is proposing to require that meat or poultry products meet 
these conditions to qualify for a ``natural'' claim to make the claim 
more meaningful to consumers.
    Statement of Need: A codified ``natural'' claim definition will 
reduce uncertainty about which products qualify to be labeled as 
``natural'' and will increase consumer confidence in the claim. A 
codified ``natural'' definition that clearly articulates the criteria 
that meat and poultry products must meet to qualify to be labeled as 
``natural'' will make the Agency's approval of ``natural'' claims more 
transparent and will allow the Agency to review labels that contain 
``natural'' claims in a more efficient and consistent manner. A 
codified ``natural'' definition will also make the claim more 
meaningful to consumers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 451 et 
seq.
    Alternatives: The Agency has considered not proceeding with 
rulemaking and maintaining the existing policy guidance on ``natural'' 
claims and using that policy guidance to evaluate ``natural'' claims on 
a case-by-case basis. The Agency has also considered alternative 
definitions of ``natural'' and establishing separate codified 
definitions of ``natural,'' ``natural * * * minimally processed,'' and 
``natural * * * minimally processed/all natural ingredients.''
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS anticipates that a clear and 
simple definition of ``natural'' will minimize cognitive costs to 
consumers. FSIS also anticipates benefits from a consistent USDA policy 
on ``natural'' claims. FSIS anticipates costs to establishments to 
change their labels or change their production practices.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/14/09  74 FR 46951
ANPRM Comment Period End............   11/13/09
NPRM................................   09/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, Labeling and 
Program Delivery Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 8th Floor, Room 8-148, Stop 5273, 
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-5273, Phone: 301 504-
0878, Fax: 301 504-0872, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD30

USDA--FSIS

16. New Poultry Slaughter Inspection

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 381.66; 9 CFR 381.67; 9 CFR 381.76; 9 CFR 
381.83; 9 CFR 381.91; 9 CFR 381.94.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FSIS is proposing a new inspection system for young 
poultry slaughter establishments that would facilitate public health-
based inspection. This new system would be available initially only to 
young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments. Establishments that 
slaughter broilers, fryers, roasters, and Cornish game hens (as defined 
in 9 CFR 381.170) would be considered as ``young chicken 
establishments.'' FSIS is also proposing to revoke the provisions that 
allow young chicken slaughter establishments to operate under the 
current Streamlined Inspection System (SIS) or the New Line Speed 
(NELS) Inspection System, and to revoke the New Turkey Inspection 
System (NTIS). FSIS anticipates that this proposed rule would provide 
the framework for action

[[Page 7693]]

to provide public health-based inspection in all establishments that 
slaughter amenable poultry species.
    Under the proposed new system, young chicken slaughter 
establishments would be required to sort chicken carcasses and to 
conduct other activities to ensure that carcasses are not adulterated 
before they enter the chilling tank.
    Statement of Need: Because of the risk to the public health 
associated with pathogens on young chicken carcasses, FSIS is proposing 
a new inspection system that would allow for more effective inspection 
of young chicken carcasses, would allow the Agency to more effectively 
allocate its resources, would encourage industry to more readily use 
new technology, and would include new performance standards to reduce 
pathogens.
    This proposed rule is an example of regulatory reform because it 
would facilitate technological innovation in young chicken slaughter 
establishments. It would likely result in more cost-effective dressing 
of young chickens that are ready to cook or ready for further 
processing. Similarly, it would likely result in more efficient and 
effective use of Agency resources.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470.
    Alternatives: FSIS considered the following options in developing 
this proposal:
    (1) No action.
    (2) Propose to implement HACCP-based Inspection Models Pilot in 
regulations.
    (3) Propose to establish a mandatory, rather than a voluntary, new 
inspection system for young chicken slaughter establishments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not publicly available at this time.
    Risks: Salmonella and other pathogens are present on a substantial 
portion of poultry carcasses inspected by FSIS. Foodborne salmonella 
cause a large number of human illnesses that at times lead to 
hospitalization and even death. There is an apparent relationship 
between human illness and prevalence levels for salmonella in young 
chicken carcasses. FSIS believes that through better allocation of 
inspection resources and the use of performance standards, it would be 
able to better address the prevalence of salmonella and other pathogens 
in young chickens.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Policy and Program Development, Department of Agriculture, 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-0495, Fax: 202 401-1760, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD32

USDA--FSIS

17. Electronic Imported Product Inspection Application and 
Certification of Imported Product and Foreign Establishments; 
Amendments To Facilitate the Public Health Information System (PHIS)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 
to 695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 
470); Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056)
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 304.3; 9 CFR 327.2 and 327.4; 9 CFR 381.196 to 
381.198; 9 CFR 590.915 and 590.920.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FSIS is proposing to amend the meat, poultry, and egg 
products import inspection regulations to provide for an electronic 
import inspection application, and electronic imported product foreign 
inspection and foreign establishment certification system. FSIS is also 
proposing to delete the ``streamlined'' import inspection procedures 
for Canadian product. In addition, the Agency is proposing that 
official import inspection establishment must develop, implement, and 
maintain written Sanitation SOPs, as provided in 9 CFR 416.11 through 
416.17. FSIS is also announcing that it is discontinuing its practice 
of conducting imported product reinspection based on a foreign 
government's guarantee.
    Statement of Need: FSIS is proposing these regulations to provide 
for the electronic import system, which will be available through the 
Agency's Public Health Information System (PHIS), a computerized, Web-
based inspection information system. The import system will enable 
applicants to electronically submit and track import inspection 
applications that are required for all commercial entries of FSIS-
regulated products imported into the U.S. FSIS inspection program 
personnel will be able to access the PHIS system to assign appropriate 
imported product inspection activities. The electronic import system 
will also facilitate the imported product foreign inspection and annual 
foreign establishment certifications by providing immediate and direct 
electronic government-to-government exchange of information. The Agency 
is proposing to delete the Canadian streamlined import inspection 
procedures because they have not been in use since 1990 and are 
obsolete. Sanitation SOPs are written procedures establishments 
develop, implement, and maintain to prevent direct contamination or 
adulteration of meat or poultry products. To ensure that imported meat 
and poultry products do not become contaminated while undergoing 
reinspection prior to entering the U.S., FSIS is proposing to clarify 
that official import inspection establishments must develop written 
Sanitation SOPs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470; 
21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056.
    Alternatives: The use of the electronic import system is voluntary. 
The Agency will continue to accept and process paper import inspection 
applications, and foreign establishment and imported product foreign 
inspection certificates. The Canadian streamlined import inspection 
procedures are not currently in use. Proposing Sanitation SOPs in 
official import inspection establishments will prevent direct 
contamination or adulteration of product. Therefore, no alternatives 
were considered.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Under this proposed rule, the 
industry will have the option of filing inspection applications 
electronically and submitting electronic imported foreign inspection 
product and establishment certificates through the PHIS. Since the 
electronic option is voluntary, applicants and the foreign countries 
that choose to file electronically will do so only if the benefits 
outweigh the cost. Sanitation SOPs are a condition of approval for 
official import inspection establishments and as a requirement for 
official import inspection establishments to continue to operate under 
Federal inspection. The proposed rule will clarify that official import 
inspection establishments must have developed written Sanitation SOPs 
before being granted approval and that existing official import 
inspection establishments must meet Sanitation SOP requirements. Since, 
in practice, FSIS has always expected official import inspection 
establishments to maintain Sanitation SOPs during the reinspection of 
imported products, the proposed amendment for these

[[Page 7694]]

sanitation requirements will have little, if any, cost impact on the 
industry.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Mary Stanley, Director, International Policy 
Division Office of Policy and Program, Department of Agriculture, Food 
Safety and Inspection Service, Room 2125, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-0287.
    RIN: 0583-AD39

USDA--FSIS

18. Electronic Export Application and Certification as a Reimbursable 
Service and Flexibility in the Requirements for Official Export 
Inspection Marks, Devices, and Certificates

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 
to 695); Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470); 
Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056)
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1 and 322.2; 9 CFR 350.7; 9 
CFR 362.5; 9 CFR 381.104 to 381.106; 9 CFR 590.407; 9 CFR 592.20 and 
592.500.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is 
proposing to amend the meat, poultry, and egg product inspection 
regulations to provide an electronic export application and 
certification system. The electronic export application and 
certification system will be a component of the Agency's Public Health 
Information System (PHIS). The export component of PHIS will be 
available as an alternative to the paper-based application and 
certification process. FSIS is proposing to charge users for the use of 
the proposed system. FSIS is proposing to establish a formula for 
calculating the fee. FSIS is also proposing to provide establishments 
that export meat, poultry, and egg products with flexibility in the 
official export inspection marks, devices, and certificates. In 
addition, FSIS is proposing egg product export regulations that 
parallel the meat and poultry export regulations.
    Statement of Need: FSIS is proposing these regulations to 
facilitate the electronic processing of export applications and 
certificates through the Public Health Information System (PHIS), a 
computerized, Web-based inspection information system. The current 
export application and certification regulations provide only for a 
paper-based process. This proposed rule will provide this electronic 
export system as a reimbursable certification service charged to the 
exporter.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470; 
21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056; 7 U.S.C. 1622(h).
    Alternatives: The electronic export applications and certification 
system is being proposed as a voluntary service; therefore, exporters 
have the option of continuing to use the current paper-based system. 
Therefore, no alternatives were considered.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS is proposing to charge 
exporters an application fee for the electronic system. Automating the 
export application and certification process will facilitate the 
exportation of U.S. meat, poultry, and egg products by streamlining and 
automating the processes that are in use while ensuring that foreign 
regulatory requirements are met. The cost to an exporter would depend 
on the number of electronic applications submitted. An exporter that 
submits only a few applications per year would not be likely to 
experience a significant economic impact. Under this proposal, 
inspection personnel workload is reduced through the elimination of the 
physical handling and processing of applications and certificates. When 
an electronic government-to-government system interface or data 
exchange is used, fraudulent transactions, such as false alterations 
and reproductions, will be significantly reduced, if not eliminated. 
The electronic export system is designed to ensure authenticity, 
integrity, and confidentiality. Exporters will be provided a more 
efficient and effective application and certification process. The 
proposed egg product export regulations provide the same export 
requirements across all products regulated by FSIS and consistency in 
the export application and certification process. The total annual 
paperwork burden to egg processing industry to fill out the paper-based 
export application is approximately $32,340 per year for a total of 924 
hours a year. The average establishment burden would be 11 hours, and 
$385.00 per establishment.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Ron Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of 
International Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, 
Phone: 202 720-3473.
    RIN: 0583-AD41

USDA--FSIS

Final Rule Stage

19. Performance Standards for the Production of Processed Meat and 
Poultry Products; Control of Listeria Monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat 
Meat and Poultry Products

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 
319; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR 325; 9 CFR 331; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 417; 9 CFR 430; 
9 CFR 431.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FSIS has proposed to establish pathogen reduction 
performance standards for all ready-to-eat (RTE) and partially heat-
treated meat and poultry products, and measures, including testing, to 
control Listeria monocytogenes in RTE products. The performance 
standards spell out the objective level of pathogen reduction that 
establishments must meet during their operations in order to produce 
safe products, but allow the use of customized, plant-specific 
processing procedures other than those prescribed in the earlier 
regulations. With HACCP, food safety performance standards give 
establishments the incentive and flexibility to adopt innovative, 
science-based food safety processing procedures and controls, while 
providing objective, measurable standards that can be verified by 
Agency inspectional oversight. This set of performance

[[Page 7695]]

standards will include and be consistent with standards already in 
place for certain ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.
    Statement of Need: Although FSIS routinely samples and tests some 
ready-to-eat products for the presence of pathogens prior to 
distribution, there are no specific regulatory pathogen reduction 
requirements for most of these products. The proposed performance 
standards are necessary to help ensure the safety of these products; 
give establishments the incentive and flexibility to adopt innovative, 
science-based food safety processing procedures and controls; and 
provide objective, measurable standards that can be verified by Agency 
oversight.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470.
    Alternatives: As an alternative to all of the proposed 
requirements, FSIS considered taking no action. As alternatives to the 
proposed performance standard requirements, FSIS considered end-product 
testing and requiring ``use-by'' date labeling on ready-to-eat 
products.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits are expected to result from 
fewer contaminated products entering commercial food distribution 
channels as a result of improved sanitation and process controls and 
in-plant verification. FSIS believes that the benefits of the rule 
would exceed the total costs of implementing its provisions. FSIS 
currently estimates net benefits from the 2003 interim final rule at 
$470 to $575 million, with annual recurring costs at $150.4 million, if 
FSIS discounts the capital cost at 7 percent. FSIS is continuing to 
analyze the potential impact of the other provisions of the proposal.
    The other main provisions of the proposed rule are: Lethality 
performance standards for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 and 
stabilization performance standards for C. perfringens that firms must 
meet when producing RTE meat and poultry products. Most of the costs of 
these requirements would be associated with one-time process 
performance validation in the first year of implementation of the rule 
and with revision of HACCP plans. Benefits are expected to result from 
the entry into commercial food distribution channels of product with 
lower levels of contamination resulting from improved in-plant process 
verification and sanitation. Consequently, there will be fewer cases of 
foodborne illness.
    Risks: Before FSIS published the proposed rule, FDA and FSIS had 
estimated that each year L. monocytogenes caused 2,540 cases of 
foodborne illness, including 500 fatalities. The Agencies estimated 
that about 65.3 percent of these cases, or 1660 cases and 322 deaths 
per year, were attributable to RTE meat and poultry products. The 
analysis of the interim final rule on control of L. monocytogenes 
conservatively estimated that implementation of the rule would lead to 
an annual reduction of 27.3 deaths and 136.7 illnesses at the median. 
FSIS is continuing to analyze data on production volume and Listeria 
controls in the RTE meat and poultry products industry and is using the 
FSIS risk assessment model for L. monocytogenes to determine the likely 
risk reduction effects of the rule. Preliminary results indicate that 
the risk reductions being achieved are substantially greater than those 
estimated in the analysis of the interim rule.
    FSIS is also analyzing the potential risk reductions that might be 
achieved by implementing the lethality and stabilization performance 
standards for products that would be subject to the proposed rule. The 
risk reductions to be achieved by the proposed rule and that are being 
achieved by the interim rule are intended to contribute to the Agency's 
public health protection effort.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/27/01  66 FR 12590
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/29/01  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/03/01  66 FR 35112
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   09/10/01  .......................
Interim Final Rule..................   06/06/03  68 FR 34208
Interim Final Rule Effective........   10/06/03  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      01/31/05  .......................
 End.
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   03/24/05  70 FR 15017
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End....   05/09/05  .......................
Affirmation of Interim Final Rule...   01/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   09/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Policy and Program Development,Department of Agriculture, 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-0495, Fax: 202 401-1760, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AC46

USDA--FSIS

20. Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements for 
Inspected Establishments

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 612 to 613; 21 U.S.C. 459
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 417.4; 9 CFR 418.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has 
proposed to require establishments subject to inspection under the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to 
promptly notify the Secretary of Agriculture that an adulterated or 
misbranded product received by or originating from the establishment 
has entered into commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason 
to believe that this has happened. FSIS has also proposed to require 
these establishments to: (1) Prepare and maintain current procedures 
for the recall of all products produced and shipped by the 
establishment and (2) document each reassessment of the process control 
plans of the establishment.
    Statement of Need: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
(Pub. L. 110-246, sec. 11017), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection 
Act (PPIA) to require establishments subject to inspection under these 
Acts to promptly notify the Secretary that an adulterated or misbranded 
product received by or originating from the establishment has entered 
into commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe 
that this has happened. Section 11017 also requires establishments 
subject to inspection under the FMIA and PPIA to: (1) Prepare and 
maintain current procedures for the recall of all products produced and 
shipped by the establishment and (2) document each reassessment of the 
process control plans of the establishment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 612 and 613; 21 U.S.C. 459, and 
Public Law 110-246, section 11017.
    Alternatives: The option of no rulemaking is unavailable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Approximate costs: $5.0 million for

[[Page 7696]]

labor and costs; $5.2 million for first-year costs; $0.7 million 
average costs adjusted with a 3.0 percent inflation rate for following 
years. Total approximate costs: $10.2 million. The average cost of this 
final rule to small entities is expected to be less than 1/10 of 1 cent 
of meat and poultry food products per annum. Therefore, FSIS has 
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Approximate benefits: 
Benefits have not been monetized because quantified data on benefits 
attributable to this final rule are not available. Non-monetary 
benefits include improved protection of the public health, improved 
HACCP plans, and improved recall effectiveness.
    Risks: In preparing regulations on the shipment of adulterated meat 
and poultry products by meat and poultry establishments, the 
preparation and maintenance of procedures for recalled products 
produced and shipped by establishments, and the documentation of each 
reassessment of the process control plans by the establishment, the 
Agency considered any risks to public health or other pertinent risks 
associated with these actions.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/25/10  75 FR 14361
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/24/10  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Victoria Levine, Program Analyst, Policy Issuances 
Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 
720-5627, Fax: 202 690-0486, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD34
BILLING CODE 3410-90-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce is one of the 
oldest Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government. The 
Department's mission is to create the conditions for economic growth 
and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, 
competitiveness, and environmental stewardship. Commerce has 12 
operating units, which are responsible for managing a diverse portfolio 
of programs and services, ranging from trade promotion and economic 
development assistance to broadband and the National Weather Service.
    The Department touches Americans daily, in many ways--making 
possible the daily weather reports and survey research; facilitating 
technology that all of us use in the workplace and in the home each 
day; supporting the development, gathering, and transmission of 
information essential to competitive business; enabling the diversity 
of companies and goods found in America's and the world's marketplace; 
and supporting environmental and economic health for the communities in 
which Americans live.
    Commerce has a clear and compelling vision for itself, for its role 
in the Federal Government, and for its roles supporting the American 
people, now and in the future. To achieve this vision, the Department 
works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and 
workers to:
     Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge 
science and technology from advances in nanotechnology, to ocean 
exploration, to broadband deployment, and by protecting American 
innovations through the patent and trademark system;
     Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling 
community development and strengthening minority businesses and small 
manufacturers;
     Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global 
marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for 
U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology transfer is consistent 
with our Nation's economic and security interests;
     Provide effective management and stewardship of our 
Nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic 
opportunities; and
     Make informed policy decisions and enable better 
understanding of the economy by providing accurate economic and 
demographic data.
    The Department is a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and 
Cabinet-level voice for job creation.
    The Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations that 
implement these policy and program priorities, several of which involve 
regulation of the private sector by the Department.

Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles

    The vast majority of the Department's programs and activities do 
not involve regulation. Of the Department's 12 primary operating units, 
only the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will be 
planning actions that are considered the ``most important'' significant 
preregulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2012. During the next year, 
NOAA plans to publish four rulemaking actions that are designated as 
regulatory plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will 
also publish rulemaking actions designated as regulatory plan actions. 
Further information on these actions is provided below.
    The Department has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance 
of any regulation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, 
gender, or any other suspect category and requires that all regulations 
be written so as to be understandable to those affected by them. The 
Secretary also requires that the Department afford the public the 
maximum possible opportunity to participate in departmental 
rulemakings, even where public participation is not required by law.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the 
conservation and management of the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and 
atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential environmental 
and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's 
economy, such as weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm 
warnings. It is a source of objective information on the state of the 
environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving the Departmental 
goal of promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global 
environment.
    Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with 
environmental stewardship, the Department, through NOAA, conducts 
programs designed to provide a better understanding of the connections 
between environmental health, economics, and national security. 
Commerce's emphasis on ``sustainable fisheries'' is designed to boost 
long-term economic growth in a vital sector of the U.S. economy while 
conserving the resources in the public trust and minimizing any 
economic dislocation necessary to ensure long-term economic growth. The 
Department is where business and environmental interests

[[Page 7697]]

intersect, and the classic debate on the use of natural resources is 
transformed into a ``win-win'' situation for the environment and the 
economy.
    Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National 
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), 
exercise regulatory authority.
    NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's 
marine fisheries, protects threatened and endangered marine and 
anadromous species and marine mammals, and promotes economic 
development of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal 
States in their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal 
zones, including estuarine research reserves; manages the national 
marine sanctuaries; monitors marine pollution; and directs the national 
program for deep-seabed minerals and ocean thermal energy. NESDIS 
administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses private 
organizations to operate commercial land-remote sensing satellite 
systems.
    The Department, through NOAA, has a unique role in promoting 
stewardship of the global environment through effective management of 
the Nation's marine and coastal resources and in monitoring and 
predicting changes in the Earth's environment, thus linking trade, 
development, and technology with environmental issues. NOAA has the 
primary Federal responsibility for providing sound scientific 
observations, assessments, and forecasts of environmental phenomena on 
which resource management, adaptation, and other societal decisions can 
be made.
    In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include: 
Rebuilding and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market-based 
tools and ecosystem approaches to management; increasing the 
populations of depleted, threatened, or endangered species and marine 
mammals by implementing recovery plans that provide for their recovery 
while still allowing for economic and recreational opportunities; 
promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by ensuring that economic 
development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and long-term 
productivity for sustained use; and modernizing navigation and 
positioning services. In the environmental assessment and prediction 
area, goals include: Understanding climate change science and impacts, 
and communicating that understanding to government and private sector 
stakeholders enabling them to adapt; continually improving the National 
Weather Service; implementing reliable seasonal and interannual climate 
forecasts to guide economic planning; providing science-based policy 
advice on options to deal with very long-term (decadal to centennial) 
changes in the environment; and advancing and improving short-term 
warning and forecast services for the entire environment.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of 
fishery resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200 
nautical miles). Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans 
to issue in FY 2012, a number of the preregulatory and regulatory 
actions will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is 
unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions of eight 
regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are responsible for 
preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for 
drafting implementing regulations for each managed fishery. NOAA issues 
regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is 
triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act places stringent 
deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its rulemaking 
responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic highly migratory 
species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are developed 
directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
    FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing 
opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and 
addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is 
preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of 
fisheries. This may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch 
shares, which permit shareholders to harvest a quantity of fish and 
which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on the 
best available scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit 
for a species in a fishery or as a share assigned to each vessel 
participant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include 
staggering fishing seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear 
conflicts on the fishing grounds and establishing seasonal and area 
closures to protect fishery stocks.
    The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best 
scientific information available, make the judgments needed to 
determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional 
management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the 
national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process, 
including the selection of the preferred management measures, 
constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, 
together with draft implementing regulations and supporting 
documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national 
standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of 
the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to 
amending an existing approved FMP.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
    The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the 
authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under 
U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the 
take of marine mammals. Exceptions allow for permitting the collection 
of wild animals for scientific research or public display or to enhance 
the survival of a species or stock. NMFS initiates rulemakings under 
the MMPA to establish a management regime to reduce marine mammal 
mortalities and injuries as a result of interactions with fisheries. 
The MMPA also established the Marine Mammal Commission, which makes 
recommendations to the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and 
the Interior and other Federal officials on protecting and conserving 
marine mammals. The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to allow 
for takings incidental to commercial fishing operations, to provide 
certain exemptions for subsistence and scientific uses, and to require 
the preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in 
waters under U.S. jurisdiction.
Endangered Species Act
    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the 
conservation of species that are determined to be ``endangered'' or 
``threatened,'' and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these 
species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) to jointly administer the provisions of the MMPA. NMFS 
manages marine and ``anadromous'' species, and FWS manages land and 
freshwater species. Together, NMFS and FWS work to protect critically 
imperiled species from extinction. Of the 1,310 listed species

[[Page 7698]]

found in part or entirely in the United States and its waters, NMFS has 
jurisdiction over approximately 60 species. NMFS' rulemaking actions 
are focused on determining whether any species under its responsibility 
is an endangered or threatened species and whether those species must 
be added to the list of protected species. NMFS is also responsible for 
designating, reviewing, and revising critical habitat for any listed 
species. In addition, under the ESA's procedural framework, Federal 
agencies consult with NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded, 
or carried out by that agency that may affect one of the listed species 
or designated critical habitat, or is likely to jeopardize proposed 
species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat that is under 
NMFS' jurisdiction.
NOAA's Regulatory Plan Actions
    While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the 
level necessary to be included in the Department's regulatory plan, 
NMFS is undertaking four actions that rise to the level of ``most 
important'' of the Department's significant regulatory actions and thus 
are included in this year's regulatory plan. The four actions implement 
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, as reauthorized in 2006. The third action may be of particular 
interest to international trading partners as it concerns the 
Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels are Engaged in Illegal, 
Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living 
Marine Resources. A description of the four regulatory plan actions is 
provided below.
    1. Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine 
Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (0648-AS65): In January 2009, the 
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council approved the Aquaculture 
Fishery Management Plan, which authorizes NMFS to issue permits to 
culture species managed by the Council (except shrimp and corals). This 
was the first time a regional Fishery Management Council approved a 
comprehensive regulatory program for offshore aquaculture in U.S. 
Federal waters. On September 3, 2009, the Aquaculture Fishery 
Management Plan entered into effect by operation of law and Dr. 
Lubchenco announced that NOAA would develop a new National Aquaculture 
Policy, which would provide context for the Aquaculture Fishery 
Management Plan. On June 9, 2011, NOAA released the final National 
Aquaculture Policy and announced that the Agency will move forward with 
the rulemaking to implement the Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan. 
The Aquaculture Plan has received regional and national media attention 
and was challenged in two lawsuits. Although the lawsuits were 
dismissed, additional legal challenges are anticipated when the final 
rule is issued. A vocal coalition of environmental, non-governmental 
organizations and fishermen's groups opposed to marine aquaculture has 
been actively following the process. Others, including some fishing and 
seafood groups, support the Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan.
    2. Amend the Definition of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 
Fishing Under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act 
to Include International Provisions of the Shark Conservation Act 
(0648-BA89): As required under the international provisions of the 
Shark Conservation Act, the rule would amend the identification and 
certification procedures under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 
Moratorium Protection to include the identification of a foreign nation 
whose fishing vessels engaged during the preceding calendar year in 
fishing activities in areas beyond any national jurisdiction that 
target or incidentally catch sharks if that nation has not adopted a 
regulatory program to provide for the conservation of sharks that is 
comparable to that of the United States, taking into account different 
conditions. NMFS also intends to amend the regulatory definition of 
``illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing'' for purposes of 
the identification and certification procedures under the Moratorium 
Protection Act.
    3. Critical Habitat for North Atlantic Right Whale (0648-AY54): In 
1994, NMFS designated critical habitat for the northern right whale in 
the North Atlantic Ocean. This critical habitat designation includes 
portions of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank, the Great South Channel, 
and waters adjacent to the coasts of Georgia and Florida. In 2008, NMFS 
published final determinations listing right whales in the North 
Atlantic and North Pacific as separate endangered species under the ESA 
and initiated work on new critical habitat designations triggered by 
these 2008 listings. On October 1, 2009, NMFS received a petition from 
the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Humane 
Society of the United States, Ocean Conservancy, and the Whale and 
Dolphin Conservation Society to revise the designated critical habitat 
of the North Atlantic right whale. The petition seeks an expansion of 
the areas designated as critical feeding and calving habitats and also 
seeks to include a migratory corridor as part of the critical habitat 
designation. On October 6, 2010, NMFS published a 90-day finding and 
12-month determination stating the intent to proceed with publishing a 
proposed rule to revise critical habitat.
    4. Reduce Disturbance to Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins from Human 
Interactions (0648-AU02): Spinner dolphins are being disturbed in their 
natural resting habitats by human activities, which may be altering the 
dolphins' normal behavioral patterns. NMFS is proposing time-area 
closures to protect the essential resting habitat of spinner dolphins 
and to reduce the human activities that cause unauthorized taking of 
these dolphins under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and its 
implementing regulations. The proposed rule lists time-area closures 
including four bays on the island of Hawaii, and one on the island of 
Maui. Adaptive management strategies will be used to monitor the 
effectiveness of the proposed rule and allow for necessary 
improvements. This proposed action will set a precedent for NMFS' 
management of wildlife viewing activities. This proposed action 
represents the first proposal by NMFS to use regulated area closures to 
reduce harassment of non-ESA listed marine mammals resulting from 
activities aimed at viewing and interacting with these animals.
    At this time, NOAA is unable to determine the aggregate cost of the 
identified Regulatory Plan actions as several of these actions are 
currently under development.

Bureau of Industry and Security

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national 
security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by maintaining and 
strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export control and 
treaty compliance systems, as well as by administering programs to 
prioritize certain contracts to promote the national defense and to 
protect and enhance the defense industrial base.
    In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based interagency 
review of the U.S. export control system with the goal of strengthening 
national security and the competitiveness of key U.S. manufacturing and 
technology sectors by focusing on the current threats and adapting to 
the changing economic and technological landscape. In August 2010, the 
President outlined an approach under which agencies that administer 
export controls will apply

[[Page 7699]]

new criteria for determining what items need to be controlled and a 
common set of policies for determining when an export license is 
required. The control list criteria are to be based on transparent 
rules, which will reduce the uncertainty faced by our Allies, U.S. 
industry and its foreign customers, and will allow the Government to 
erect higher walls around the most sensitive export items in order to 
enhance national security.
    Under the President's approach, agencies will apply the criteria 
and revise the lists of munitions and dual use items that are 
controlled for export so that they:
    Are ``tiered'' to distinguish the types of items that should be 
subject to stricter or more permissive levels of control for different 
destinations, end-uses, and end-users;
    Create a ``bright line'' between the two current control lists to 
clarify jurisdictional determinations and reduce government and 
industry uncertainty about whether particular items are subject to the 
control of the State Department or the Commerce Department; and
    Are structurally aligned so that they potentially can be combined 
into a single list of controlled items.
    BIS' current regulatory plan action is designed to implement the 
initial phase of the President's directive.

Major Programs and Activities

    BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration 
Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national 
security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also 
regulates participation of U.S. persons in certain boycotts 
administered by foreign governments. The National Defense Industrial 
Base Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and 
allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require 
reporting of foreign government-imposed offsets in defense sales, and 
address the effect of imports on the defense industrial base. The 
Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations implement declaration, 
reporting, and on-site inspection requirements in the private sector 
necessary to meet United States treaty obligations under the Chemical 
Weapons Convention treaty. The Additional Protocol Regulations 
implement similar requirements with respect to an agreement between the 
United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    BIS also has an enforcement component with eight field offices in 
the United States. BIS export control officers are also stationed at 
several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S. 
Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in 
export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government 
efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and to 
promote effective export controls through cooperation with other 
governments.

BIS' Regulatory Plan Actions

    As the agency responsible for leading the administration and 
enforcement of the U.S. dual-use export control system, BIS plays a 
central role in the Administration's efforts to fundamentally reform 
the export control system. Changing what we control, how we control it, 
and how we enforce and manage our controls will help strengthen our 
national security by focusing our efforts on controlling the most 
critical products and technologies, and by enhancing the 
competitiveness of key U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors.
    In FY 2011, BIS took several steps to implement the President's 
Export Control Reform Initiative. BIS published a final rule (76 FR 
35276, June 16, 2011) implementing a license exception that authorizes 
exports, reexports, and transfers to destinations that do not pose a 
national security concern, provided certain safeguards against 
diversion to other destinations are taken. BIS also proposed a rule 
that provides a framework for controlling militarily less significant 
defense articles, largely generic parts and components, on the Commerce 
Control List (CCL) rather than the United States Munitions List. In the 
immediate future, BIS will work with other agencies to implement 
transfers of such items to the CCL and to make the CCL a more positive 
list. Looking further ahead BIS will work with other agencies to place 
items on the CCL into one of three tiers, corresponding to different 
levels of sensitivity.
    Tier 1 will include the most sensitive items. These are items that 
provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United 
States and are available almost exclusively from the United States, or 
are items that are a weapon of mass destruction.
    Tier 2 will include items that are sensitive but not as sensitive, 
as those in Tier 1. These are items that provide a substantial military 
or intelligence advantage to the United States and are available almost 
exclusively from either the United States or our partners and allies.
    Tier 3 will include items that are less sensitive than those in 
Tier 2. These items will be those that provide a significant military 
or intelligence advantage but are available more broadly. BIS will also 
be developing other rules to implement additional aspects of the export 
control reform as those aspects are identified and decided.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Accordingly, the Agency is 
reviewing these rules to determine whether action under E.O. 13563 is 
appropriate. Some of these entries on this list may be completed 
actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more 
information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past 
publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed 
Actions section for the Agency. These rulemakings can also be found on 
Regulations.gov. The final Agency retrospective analysis plan can be 
found at: http://open.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/Commerce%20Plan%20for%20Retrospective%20Analysis%20of%20Existing%20Rules%20-%202011-08-22%20Final.pdf.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Expected To  Significantly
            RIN                   Title        Reduce  Burdens on  Small
                                                      Businesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0610-AA66..................  Revisions to     Yes.
                              EDA's
                              Regulations.
0625-AA81..................  Foreign Trade    Yes.
                              Zones.
0648-AN55..................  Amendments 61/
                              61/13/8 to
                              Implement
                              Major
                              Provisions of
                              the American
                              Fisheries Act.
0648-AL92..................  Western Alaska
                              Community
                              Development
                              Quota Program.

[[Page 7700]]

 
0648-AP12..................  Atlantic         Yes.
                              Mackerel,
                              Squid and
                              Butterfish
                              Fisheries;
                              Framework
                              Adjustment 2.
0648-AO62..................  Reef Fish        Yes.
                              Fishery of the
                              Gulf of
                              Mexico:
                              Charter Vessel
                              and Headboat
                              Permit
                              Moratorium.
0648-AL41..................  Nearshore Area
                              Closures
                              Around
                              American Samoa
                              by Vessels
                              More Than 50
                              Feet in Length.
0648-AP78..................  Fisheries of
                              the
                              Northeastern
                              United States:
                              Northeast
                              Multispecies
                              Fishery.
0648-AN75..................  Pelagic
                              Longline Gear
                              Restrictions,
                              Seasonal Area
                              Closure, and
                              Other Sea
                              Turtle
                              Mitigation
                              Measures.
0648-AP37..................  Atlantic
                              Herring
                              Fishery; 2002
                              Specifications.
0648-AO35..................  Measures To
                              Reduce the
                              Incidental
                              Catch of
                              Seabirds in
                              the Hawaii
                              Pelagic
                              Longline
                              Fishery.
0648-AP76..................  Atlantic Deep-
                              Sea Red Crab
                              Fishery
                              Management
                              Plan.
0648-AP39..................  Pacific Coast
                              Groundfish
                              Fishery:
                              Experimental
                              Setnet
                              Sablefish
                              Landings To
                              Qualify
                              Limited Entry
                              Sablefish-
                              Endorsed
                              permits for
                              Tier
                              Assignment.
0648-AO20..................  Fisheries of     Yes.
                              the Exclusive
                              Economic Zone
                              off Alaska:
                              Revisions to
                              Recordkeeping
                              and Reporting
                              Requirements.
0648-AQ05..................  Extend the
                              Interim
                              Groundfish
                              Observer
                              Program
                              Through
                              December 31,
                              2007, and
                              Amend
                              Regulations
                              for the North
                              Pacific
                              Groundfish
                              Observer
                              Program.
0648-AN88..................  Taking of
                              Marine Mammals
                              Incidental to
                              Commercial
                              Fishing
                              Operations:
                              Atlantic Large
                              Whale Take
                              Reduction Plan
                              Regulations.
0648-AK23..................  Fisheries Off
                              West Coast
                              States and in
                              the Western
                              Pacific:
                              Precious
                              Corals
                              Fisheries;
                              Harvest
                              Quotas,
                              Definitions,
                              Size Limits,
                              Gear
                              Restrictions,
                              and Bed
                              Classification.
0648-AP21..................  Implementation
                              of the Shark
                              Finning
                              Prohibition
                              Act.
0648-AP49..................  Atlantic Highly
                              Migratory
                              Species;
                              Pelagic
                              Longline
                              Fishery; Shark
                              Gillnet
                              Fishery: Sea
                              Turtle and
                              Whale
                              Protection
                              Measures.
0648-AM40..................  License
                              Limitation
                              Program for
                              Groundfish of
                              the Bering Sea
                              and Aleutian
                              Islands Area.
0648-AP79..................  Prohibition of
                              Non-pelagic
                              Trawl Gear in
                              Cook Inlet in
                              the Gulf of
                              Alaska.
0648-AO69..................  Fisheries Off
                              the West Coast
                              States and in
                              the Western
                              Pacific;
                              Pacific Coast
                              Groundfish
                              Fishery:
                              Annual
                              Specifications
                              and Management
                              Measures.
0648-AK70..................  Fisheries of
                              the Exclusive
                              Economic Zone
                              Off Alaska:
                              Individual
                              Fishing Quota
                              Program.
0648-AP81..................  Sea Turtle
                              Conservation
                              Measures of
                              the Pound Net
                              Fishery in
                              Virginia
                              Waters.
0648-AP17..................  Take of Four
                              Threatened
                              Evolutionarily
                              Significant
                              Units of West
                              Coast Salmon.
0648-AP68..................  Atlantic Large
                              Whale Seasonal
                              Area
                              Management
                              Program.
0648-AN29..................  Regulations
                              Governing the
                              Approach to
                              Humpback
                              Whales in
                              Alaska.
0648-AK50..................  Fisheries of
                              the Exclusive
                              Economic Zone
                              Off Alaska:
                              Improved
                              Individual
                              Fishing Quota
                              Program.
0648-AM72..................  Western Alaska
                              Community
                              Development
                              Quota Program.
0648-AN23..................  Fisheries of
                              the Exclusive
                              Economic Zone
                              Off Alaska:
                              Revisions to
                              Definition of
                              Length Overall
                              of a Vessel.
0648-AL95..................  Fisheries of
                              the Exclusive
                              Economic Zone
                              Off Alaska:
                              License
                              Limitation
                              Program.
0648-AO02..................  Atlantic
                              Coastal
                              Fisheries
                              Cooperative
                              Management Act
                              Provisions:
                              Horseshoe Crab
                              Fishery--Close
                              d Area.
0648-AF87..................  Fisheries of
                              the
                              Northeastern
                              United States:
                              Fishery
                              Management
                              Plan for
                              Tilefish.
0648-AN27..................  Pacific Coast
                              Groundfish
                              Fishery:
                              Groundfish
                              Observer
                              Program.
0648-AL51..................  West Coast
                              Salmon
                              Fisheries:
                              Amendment 14.
0648-AO41..................  Pacific Coast
                              Groundfish
                              Fishery:
                              Amendment 13.
0648-AO97..................  Pacific Coast
                              Groundfish
                              Fishery:
                              Amendment 14.
0648-AO42..................  International
                              Fisheries
                              Regulations:
                              Pacific Tuna
                              Fisheries.
0648-BA42..................  Fisheries of
                              the
                              Northeastern
                              United States;
                              Tilefish Cost
                              Recovery
                              Regulatory
                              Amendment.
0648-BA06..................  Fisheries of     Yes.
                              the Caribbean,
                              Gulf of
                              Mexico, and
                              South
                              Atlantic; Reef
                              Fish Fishery
                              of the Gulf of
                              Mexico;
                              Emergency Rule
                              To Authorize
                              Re-Opening the
                              Recreational
                              Red Snapper
                              Season.
0694-AF03..................  Export Control
                              Reform
                              Initiative:
                              Strategic
                              Trade
                              Authorization
                              License
                              Exception.
0694-AF17..................  Revisions to     Yes.
                              the Export
                              Administration
                              Regulations
                              (EAR): Control
                              of Items the
                              President
                              Determines No
                              Longer Warrant
                              Control Under
                              the United
                              States
                              Munitions List
                              (USML).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


DOC--BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY (BIS)

Final Rule Stage

21. Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control 
of Military Vehicles and Related Items That the President Determines Do 
Not Warrant Control on the United States Munitions List

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 15 U.S.C. 
1824a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 
U.S.C. 7210; 30 U.S.C. 185(s); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 
U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et 
seq.; 50 U.S.C. 5; EO 12058; EO 12851; EO 12938; EO 12947; EO 13026; EO 
13099; EO 13222; EO 13224; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 
EO 11912; EO 12002; EO 12214; EO 12854; EO 12918; EO 12918; EO 12981; 
EO 13020; EO 13338; 30 U.S.C. 185(u)
    CFR Citation: 15 CFR 740; 15 CFR 743; 15 CFR 744; 15 CFR 748; 15 
CFR 774; 15 CFR 730; 15 CFR 732; 15 CFR 738; 15 CFR 742; 15 CFR 746; 15 
CFR 756; 15 CFR 762; 15 CFR 770; 15 CFR 772.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In August 2009, President Obama directed a fundamental 
review of the U.S. Export control system be conducted. This review 
included a fundamental review of the two primary control lists of the 
U.S. Export control system; i.e., the Commerce Control List (CCL) and 
the United States Munitions List (USML). In December 2010, the 
Departments of Commerce and State each published an Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

[[Page 7701]]

requesting public comments on creating more ``positive'' and clear 
control lists and recommendations for how items listed on the two 
control lists could be tiered based on criteria developed during the 
Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative.
    An integral part of creating a ``positive'' USML requires a proper 
control structure be put into place under the EAR to appropriately 
control the less significant items moved from the USML to the CCL, 
which is the subject of this proposed rule. This rule outlines the 
control structure developed under the ECR initiative to ensure 
appropriate controls are in place for these less significant items 
moved from the USML to the CCL.
    Statement of Need: This rule is needed to describe how items that 
no longer warrant ITAR control--but, because they are specially 
designed for military applications, warrant some degree of control--
will be made subject to the EAR and listed on the CCL. In particular, 
this rule establishes the framework within which items that are 
transferred from the ITAR to the EAR will be identified in and 
controlled by the EAR. Such ready identification is needed to allow for 
public understanding of the changes and to facilitate executive branch 
compliance with the requirements to notify Congress when items are 
removed from the ITAR. Such controls are needed to accomplish the 
national security and foreign policy objectives of controlling 
transfers of military items, which includes complying with statutory 
and international obligations to prevent the transfer of such items to 
certain countries, end uses, and end users.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Export Administration Act of 1979, as 
amended, authorizes the President to prohibit or curtail exports for 
national security or foreign policy reasons. Section 3(1) of that Act 
provides that ``It is the policy of the United States to minimize 
uncertainties in export control policy and to encourage trade with all 
countries with which the United States has diplomatic or trading 
relations, except those countries with which such trade has been 
determined by the President to be against the national interest.'' 
Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), as amended, 
expired on August 20, 2001, Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)) as extended by Notice of August 12, 
2010, 75 FR 50681 (Aug. 16, 2010) continues the EAR in effect under the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The EAA and the 
IEEPA provide the President with the discretion to tailor controls, 
such as through the use of license exceptions and the creation of 
country groups in the implementing regulations, over different types of 
items based on their significance or other factors relevant to the 
national interest.
    The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) gives the President 
the authority to identify any item as a ``defense article.'' The list 
of ``defense articles'' is identified on the U.S. Munitions List (USML) 
of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR chapter 
I, subchapter M). Section 38(f) of the AECA requires the President to 
periodically review the list of defense articles and determine which, 
if any, should be removed from the list. Section 38(f) authorizes the 
President to remove defense articles from the USML and control them 
under other statutory and regulatory authorities, such as the export 
control regulations administered by the Commerce Department, after 
completing a 30-day congressional notification.
    Alternatives: BIS considered several alternative regulatory 
structures for the items that would be moved from the ITAR to the EAR, 
including creating a separate Commerce Munitions List in the EAR and 
attempting to insert all items transferred into the existing ECCN 
structure. BIS selected the ``600 series'' structure because it 
provided the best balance between ease of use and the need to readily 
identify items moved or to be moved from the ITAR to the EAR for 
congressional notification purposes. A separate Commerce Munitions List 
would have readily identified items moved from the ITAR, but would have 
required the public to consult two lists to assess whether license 
requirements applied to a particular item. Attempting to place all 
transferred items within the existing ECCN structure would have 
minimized the number of ECCNs to be consulted but would have unduly 
obscured the ITAR origin of the transferred items.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The underlying policy motivation for 
the reform effort is not a traditional economic cost/benefit analysis. 
Rather, it is a national security effort. When the Administration first 
began to consider how the export control system should be reformed to 
enhance national security, it did not take into account whether there 
would be particular economic benefits or costs. After conducting the 
review, the Administration ultimately determined that our national 
security will be strengthened if (i) our export control system allows 
for more interoperability with our NATO and other close allies; (ii) 
our industrial base is enhanced by, for example, reducing the current 
incentives created by the export control rules for foreign companies to 
design out or avoid U.S.-origin content; and (iii) our resources are 
more focused on controlling or prohibiting, as needed, the items that 
provide at least a significant military or intelligence advantage to 
the United States. Items made subject to the EAR as a result of this 
rule generally would require a license to all destinations except 
Canada and exporters, reexporters and transferors would incur the costs 
associated with applying for such licenses. BIS would need additional 
resources to review the additional licenses and to handle the related 
compliance activities that will accompany the planned change in 
jurisdictional status of items. The net burden on the government and 
that the government imposes on industry, however, would be 
substantially reduced because this rule would apply to items that 
currently are subject to strict, generally inflexible ITAR license 
requirements that impose many collateral compliance burdens and costs 
on exporters and the U.S. Government. BIS believes that replacing such 
ITAR license requirements with the more flexible EAR license 
requirements is not likely to result in any net increase in costs. 
However, the benefits of the move would be substantial, although not 
readily quantifiable.
    Risks: Not all items currently subject to the ITAR are appropriate 
for movement to the EAR. Care must be taken to ensure that large 
sophisticated weapons and other inherently military items (as opposed 
to items unique to defense articles merely because of a change in form 
or fit) are not moved to the EAR. BIS believes that the ongoing 
interagency review process is adequate to guard against any transfers 
contrary to national security and foreign policy interests. At the same 
time, one must consider the risks of not transferring to the EAR 
defense articles that no longer warrant ITAR controls. These risks 
include continued excessive costs to exporters in complying with 
unnecessarily restrictive rules, continued disincentives for defense 
manufacturers to use U.S. origin parts and components, and continued 
excessive costs associated with supplying allied armed forces with U.S. 
origin parts and components. BIS believes that this rule sets up a 
structure for controls that will allow for the appropriate balance 
between the risks of

[[Page 7702]]

continuing the status quo and the risks of unwarranted relaxation of 
controls.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/15/11  76 FR 41958
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/13/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Timothy Mooney, Export Policy Analyst, Department 
of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, 14th Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202 482-3371, 
Fax: 202 482-3355, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Merged with 0694-AF09.
    RIN: 0694-AF17

DOC--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)

Proposed Rule Stage

22. Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture 
in the Gulf of Mexico

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 622.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The purpose of this fishery management plan (FMP) is to 
develop a regional permitting process for regulating and promoting 
environmentally sound and economically sustainable aquaculture in the 
Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone. This FMP consists of ten 
actions, each with an associated range of management alternatives, 
which would facilitate the permitting of an estimated 5 to 20 offshore 
aquaculture operations in the Gulf over the next 10 years, with an 
estimated annual production of up to 64 million pounds. By establishing 
a regional permitting process for aquaculture, the Gulf of Mexico 
Fishery Management Council will be positioned to achieve their primary 
goal of increasing maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield of 
federal fisheries in the Gulf by supplementing harvest of wild caught 
species with cultured product.
    Statement of Need: Demand for protein is increasing in the United 
States and commercial wild-capture fisheries will not likely be 
adequate to meet this growing demand. Aquaculture is one method to meet 
current and future demands for seafood. Supplementing the harvest of 
domestic fisheries with cultured product will help the U.S. meet 
consumers' growing demand for seafood and may reduce the Nation's 
dependence on seafood imports.
    Currently, the U.S. imports over 80 percent of the seafood consumed 
in the country, and the annual U.S. seafood trade deficit is at an all 
time high of over $9 billion.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    Alternatives: The Council's Aquaculture FMP includes 10 actions, 
each with an associated range of alternatives. These actions and 
alternatives are collectively intended to establish a regional 
permitting process for offshore aquaculture. Management actions in the 
FMP include: (1) Aquaculture permit requirements, eligibility, and 
transferability; (2) duration aquaculture permits are effective; (3) 
aquaculture application requirements, operational requirements, and 
restrictions; (4) species allowed for aquaculture; (5) allowable 
aquaculture systems; (6) marine aquaculture siting requirements and 
conditions; (7) restricted access zones for aquaculture facilities; (8) 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements; (9) biological reference 
points and status determination criteria; and (10) framework procedures 
for modifying biological reference points and regulatory measures.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Environmental and social/economic 
costs and benefits are described in detail in the Council's Aquaculture 
FMP. Potential benefits include: establishing a rigorous review process 
for reviewing and approving/denying aquaculture permits; increasing 
optimum yield by supplementing the harvest of wild domestic fisheries 
with cultured products; and reducing the nation's dependence on 
imported seafood. Anticipated costs include increased administration 
and oversight of an aquaculture permitting process, and potential 
negative environmental impacts to wild marine resources. Approval of an 
aquaculture permitting system may also benefit fishing communities by 
creating new jobs or impact fishing communities if cultured products 
economically displace domestic seafood.
    Risks: National offshore aquaculture legislation has also been 
previously proposed by the Administration. This action may reduce the 
need for uniform national legislation and allow aquaculture regulations 
to vary by region.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Availability (NOA)........   06/04/09  74 FR 26829
NOA Comment Period End..............   08/03/09  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
Final Action........................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Roy E. Crabtree, Southeast Regional Administrator, 
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Phone: 
727 824-5305, Fax: 727 824-5308, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0648-AS65

DOC--NOAA

23. Reducing Disturbances to Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins From Human 
Interactions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 216.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service proposes 
regulations to protect the essential resting habitat of wild spinner 
dolphins (Stenella longirostris) in the main Hawaiian Islands, and to 
reduce the human activities that may cause ``take,'' as defined in the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and its implementing regulations, 
or from other actions that otherwise adversely affect the dolphins, by 
proposing time-area closures in four bays on the island of Hawaii, and 
one on the island of Maui.
    Statement of Need: NMFS is concerned about the cumulative impacts 
on Hawaiian spinner dolphin populations from human interactions. Human 
interactions with dolphins in their resting habitats has increased over 
the past decade, with spinner dolphins now being the target of viewing 
or swim-with-wild-dolphins tours on a daily basis. Because spinner 
dolphins routinely use the same habitats, and stay in the bays for most 
of the day to rest, these same animals may be disturbed multiple times 
per day from the multiple tours that seek these animals daily. The 
unauthorized taking of spinner dolphins is occurring at these

[[Page 7703]]

bays, with many adverse impacts as a result including: behavioral 
changes, shorter resting periods, and displacement from primary resting 
habitats. By protecting the essential resting habitat of the spinner 
dolphins, NMFS proposes to prevent the taking of these animals.
    Summary of Legal Basis: All marine mammals are protected under the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS is proposing these 
regulations pursuant to its rulemaking authority under MMPA 16 U.S.C. 
1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1372 et seq., which generally prohibits the 
take of any marine mammals; and 16 U.S.C. 1382 et seq.
    Alternatives:
    1. No Action.
    2. Regulate human behaviors and activities.
    3. Implement time-area closures in specified spinner dolphin 
resting habitats.
    4. Combine limits on specified human behaviors with time-area 
closures.
    5. Full closure of all identified spinner dolphin resting habitats.
    6. Codify the West Hawaii Voluntary Standards for Marine Tourism.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of this action 
would be to reduce the unauthorized taking of spinner dolphins in their 
primary resting habitat. These animals are being disturbed in an area 
that is significant to their health, reproduction and survival. 
Managing the amount of interactions humans can have with spinner 
dolphins will help protect the animals in their natural environment. 
Costs with this proposed rule would affect humans as their use of these 
particular bays would be limited. Commercial tour operators, kayak 
companies, and spiritual retreat operators may be negatively 
economically impacted. The public at large would not be allowed to 
engage in activities in the closure areas, and they may therefore 
associate a cost with this proposed action.
    Risks: No risks to public health, safety or the environment were 
identified with implementation of this rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/12/05  70 FR 73426
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/11/06  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Melissa Andersen. Fishery Biologist, Management, 
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 
301 713-2322, Fax: 301 713-2521, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0648-AU02

DOC--NOAA

24. Designation of Critical Habitat for the North Atlantic Right Whale

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1543
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226; 50 CFR 229.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In June 1970, the northern right whale was listed as 
endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act, the precursor 
to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (35 FR 8495; codified at 50 CFR 
17.11). Subsequently, right whales were listed as endangered under the 
ESA in 1973, and as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA) the same year. In 1994, NMFS designated critical habitat for the 
northern right whale, a single species thought at the time to include 
right whales in both the north Atlantic and the North Pacific.
    In 2006, NMFS published a comprehensive right whale status review 
that concluded that recent genetic data provided unequivocal support to 
distinguish three right whale lineages (including the southern right 
whale) as separate phylogenetic species (Rosenbaum et al. 2000). 
Rosenbaum et al. (2000), concluded that the right whale should be 
regarded as the following three separate species: (1) The North 
Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) ranging in the North 
Atlantic Ocean; (2) the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica), 
ranging in the North Pacific Ocean; and (3) the southern right whale 
(Eubalaena australis), historically ranging throughout the southern 
hemisphere's oceans.
    Based on these findings, NMFS published a proposed and final 
determination listing right whales in the North Atlantic and North 
Pacific as separate endangered species under the ESA (71 FR 77704, Dec. 
27, 2006; 73 FR 12024, Mar. 6, 2008). Based on the new listing 
determination, NMFS is required by the ESA to designate critical 
habitat separately for both the North Atlantic right whale and the 
North Pacific right whale.
    In April 2008, a final critical habitat determination was published 
for the North Pacific right whale (73 FR 19000; Apr. 8, 2008). At this 
time, NMFS is preparing a proposal to designate critical habitat for 
the North Atlantic right whale.
    Statement of Need: Under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, 
NOAA Fisheries is required to designate critical habitat for newly 
listed species.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act.
    Alternatives: Because this rule is presently in the beginning 
stages of development, no alternatives have been formulated or analyzed 
at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because this rule is presently in 
the beginning stages of development, no analysis has been completed at 
this time to assess costs and benefits.
    Risks: Loss of critical habitat for a species listed as protected 
under the ESA and MMPA, as well as potential loss of right whales due 
to habitat loss.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Marta Nammack, Office of Protected Resources, 
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 
301 713-1401, Fax: 301 427-2523, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0648-AY54

DOC--NOAA

25. Regulatory Amendments To Implement the Shark Conservation Act and 
Revise the Definition of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1826d to 1826k
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 4, 2012, The rule needs 
to be published by December 4, 2011, due to the 30-day delay in 
effectiveness.
    Abstract: NMFS is amending identification and certification 
procedures under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection 
Act to help achieve shark conservation in international fisheries. NMFS 
must identify nations whose fishing vessels

[[Page 7704]]

have engaged in high seas fisheries targeting or incidentally catching 
sharks not subject to a regulatory program for the conservation of 
sharks comparable to that of the United States, taking into account 
different conditions, as required under the Shark Conservation Act 
(Pub. L. 111-348). NMFS would subsequently certify whether identified 
nations have adopted regulatory programs governing the conservation of 
sharks that are comparable to U.S. programs, taking into account 
different conditions, and established management plans for sharks. The 
absence of sufficient steps may lead to prohibitions on the importation 
of certain fisheries products into the United States and other 
measures.
    NMFS is also amending the regulatory definition of ``illegal, 
unreported, and unregulated fishing'' under the High Seas Driftnet 
Fishing Moratorium Protection Act.
    The procedures for identification and certification would entail a 
multilateral approach of consultations and negotiations with other 
nations to achieve shark conservation.
    This action is not expected to have adverse economic impacts, and 
any such impacts would be well below the economic threshold of impact 
pursuant to E.O. 12866. In addition, there are no novel legal or policy 
issues associated with this action since identification and 
certification procedures have already been established in regulations 
(50 CFR part 300). However, this action is significant under the 
meaning of E.O. 12866 because it could lead to trade restrictive 
measures applied against foreign nations.
    Statement of Need: These regulatory amendments are required to 
implement the international provisions of the Shark Conservation Act to 
identify and certify nations whose vessels are engaged in shark finning 
and/or fishing for sharks in a manner that is not consistent with 
international management efforts. Additionally, this rule would revise 
the definition of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in 
response to comments on a prior rulemaking (0648-AV51) that set out the 
regulatory definition of IUU fishing.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Shark Conservation Act (Pub. L. 111-348) 
and 16 U.S.C. 1826d to 1826k.
    Alternatives: This action is categorically excluded from analysis 
under the National Environmental Policy Act because the proposed action 
is the promulgation of regulations of an administrative, financial, 
legal, technical, or procedural nature and the environmental effects of 
which are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to 
meaningful analysis and for which any potential cumulative effects are 
negligible. Consequently, no alternatives were analyzed.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This action is not expected to have 
adverse economic impacts, and any such impacts would be well below the 
economic threshold of impact pursuant to E.O. 12866. Potential 
benefits, if any, would be indirect and accrue to internationally 
managed fisheries by strengthening Regional Fishery Management 
Organizations and by restricting U.S. market access through prohibiting 
illegally harvested fishery products.
    Risks: There are no novel legal or policy issues associated with 
this action since identification and certification procedures have 
already been established in regulations (50 CFR part 300). However, 
this action is significant under the meaning of E.O. 12866 because it 
could lead to trade restrictive measures applied against foreign 
nations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
Final Action........................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Rogers, Division Chief, Department of 
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 713-9090, Fax: 301 
713-9106, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0648-BA89

BILLING CODE 3510-12-P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Background
    The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department, 
consisting of 3 Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), 10 
Unified Combatant Commands, 14 Defense Agencies, and 10 DoD Field 
Activities. It has 1,434,450 military personnel and 782,386 civilians 
assigned as of March 31, 2011, and over 200 large and medium 
installations in the continental United States, U. S. territories, and 
foreign countries. The overall size, composition, and dispersion of 
DoD, coupled with an innovative regulatory program, presents a 
challenge to the management of the Defense regulatory efforts under 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' of 
September 30, 1993.
    Because of its diversified nature, DoD is affected by the 
regulations issued by regulatory agencies such as the Departments of 
Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 
Labor, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In 
order to develop the best possible regulations that embody the 
principles and objectives embedded in E.O. 12866, there must be 
coordination of proposed regulations among the regulatory agencies and 
the affected DoD components. Coordinating the proposed regulations in 
advance throughout an organization as large as DoD is straightforward, 
yet a formidable undertaking.
    DoD is not a regulatory agency, but occasionally it issues 
regulations that have an effect on the public. These regulations, while 
small in number compared to the regulating agencies, can be significant 
as defined in E.O. 12866. In addition, some of DoD's regulations may 
affect the regulatory agencies. DoD, as an integral part of its 
program, not only receives coordinating actions from the regulating 
agencies, but coordinates with the agencies that are affected by its 
regulations as well.

Overall Priorities

    The Department needs to function at a reasonable cost, while 
ensuring that it does not impose ineffective and unnecessarily 
burdensome regulations on the public. The rulemaking process should be 
responsive, efficient, cost-effective, and both fair and perceived as 
fair. This is being done in DoD while reacting to the contradictory 
pressures of providing more services with fewer resources. The 
Department of Defense, as a matter of overall priority for its 
regulatory program, fully incorporates the provisions of the 
President's priorities and objectives under Executive Order (E.O.) 
12866.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final

[[Page 7705]]

retrospective review of regulations plan. All are of particular 
interest to small businesses. Some of these entries on this list may be 
completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, 
more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past 
publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed 
Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can also be found on 
Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/eo-13563
     0750-AH19--Accelerated Payments to Small Business (DFARS 
Case 2011-D008)
     0750-AH44--Extension of DoD Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
Pilot Program (DFARS Case 2011-D050)
     0750-AH45--Deletion of Text Implementing 10 U.S.C. 2323 
(DFARS Case 2011-D038)

Administration Priorities

1. Rulemakings That Are Expected To Have High Net Benefits Well in 
Excess of Costs
    The Department plans to--
     Finalize the DFARS rule to permit offerors to propose an 
alternative line item structure to reflect the offeror's business 
practices for selling and billing commercial items, and initial 
provisioning of spares for weapon systems. This rule should prevent 
misalignment of line item structure in receipt documents and invoices, 
which causes manual intervention and can delay payment;
     Finalize the DFARS rule to conduct discussions prior to 
contract award for source selections of $100 million or more. A DoD 
study showed a significant positive correlation between high-dollar 
source selections that were conducted without discussions and protests 
sustained. This rule should reduce the number of protests filed and 
their resultant costs to contractors and the Government; and
     Finalize the DFARS rule to implement section 866 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 
establishing a pilot program to acquire military purpose 
nondevelopmental items. This pilot program is designed to test whether 
the streamlined procedures, similar to those available for commercial 
items, can serve as an effective incentive for nontraditional defense 
contractors to (1) channel investment and innovation into areas that 
are useful to DoD and (2) provide items developed exclusively at 
private expense to meet validated military requirements. (2011-D034)
2. Rulemakings That Promote Open Government and Use Disclosure as a 
Regulatory Tool
    The Department plans to--
     Finalize the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 
inform contractors of the statutory requirement of section 3010 of 
Public Law 111-212, to make Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 
Information System information, excluding past performance reviews, 
available to the public;
     Finalize the FAR rule that implements section 743 of 
Division C of the Fiscal Year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
which requires agencies to develop inventories of their service 
contacts, including number and work location of contractor employees;
     Finalize the FAR rule to establish standard evaluation 
factors and rating scales for documenting contractor performance;
     Finalize the FAR rule that implements the Federal Funding 
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which requires the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish a free, public, Web site 
containing full disclosure of all Federal contract award information. 
This rule requires contractors to report executive compensation and 
first-tier subcontractor awards on unclassified contracts expected to 
be $25,000 or more, except contracts with individuals;
     Finalize the FAR rule that implements section 811 of the 
NDAA for FY 2010, which requires a written justification and approval 
prior to awarding a sole-source contract in an amount over $20 million 
under the 8(a) program; and
     Finalize the DFARS rule to implement section 814 of the 
NDAA for FY 2010, which imposed additional reporting requirements for 
awards of single task and delivery-order contracts.
3. Rulemakings That Streamline Regulations and Reduce Unjustified 
Burdens
    The Department plans to--
     Finalize the DFARS rule to remove the requirement to use 
DD Forms 2626 and 2631 to report past performance information for 
construction and architect-engineer services and to instead provide the 
performance reports electronically;
     Finalize the DFARS rule to amend the definition of 
``qualifying country end product'' to make it comparable to the change 
in the definition of ``domestic end product'' by waiving the component 
test for qualifying country end products;
     Finalize the DFARS rule to update appendix F, Material 
Inspection and Receiving Report, to incorporate procedures for using 
the electronic Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) Receiving Report, which is 
required for use in most contracts in lieu of the DD Form 250. WAWF is 
the electronic tool for documenting receipt and acceptance of supplies 
and services and for electronic invoicing; and
     Finalize the rule for DFARS coverage of patents, data, and 
copyrights, which significantly reduces the amount of regulatory text 
and the number of required clauses.
4. Efforts To Minimize Burdens on Small Businesses
    Of interest to Small Businesses are regulations to--
     Finalize the DFARS rule to accelerate payments to all DoD 
small business contractors.
5. Rules To Be Modified, Streamlined, Expanded, or Repealed To Make the 
Agency's Regulatory Program More Effective or Less Burdensome in 
Achieving the Regulatory Objectives
     DFARS Case 2011-D028--Removes component test for COTS 
items that are qualifying country end products. Require only 
determination of country of origin of the COTS item, not the components 
of the COTS item.
     DFARS Case 2011-D013--Only One Offer. Motivate effective 
competition by driving behavior to allow sufficient time for submission 
of offers.
     DFARS Case 2011-D008--Accelerate Small Business Payments. 
Accelerate payments to all small businesses, not just small 
disadvantaged businesses.
     DFARS Case 2010-D018--Responsibility and Liability for 
Government Property. Includes fixed-price contracts that are awarded on 
the basis of adequate competition on the list of contract types whereby 
contractors are not held liable for loss of Government property.
     DFARS Case 2010-D001--Patents, Data, and Copyrights. 
Rewrite of DFARS part 227, Patents, Data, and Copyrights.
     DFARS Case 2009-D026--Multiyear Contracting. Comprehensive 
review of DFARS subpart 217.1 to simplify and clarify the coverage of 
multiyear acquisition.

Specific DoD Priorities

    For this regulatory plan, there are six specific DoD priorities, 
all of which reflect the established regulatory

[[Page 7706]]

principles. In those areas where rulemaking or participation in the 
regulatory process is required, DoD has studied and developed policy 
and regulations that incorporate the provisions of the President's 
priorities and objectives under the Executive order.
    DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious 
environmental, health, and safety risks. Perhaps most significant is 
that each of the priorities described below promulgates regulations to 
offset the resource impacts of Federal decisions on the public or to 
improve the quality of public life, such as those regulations 
concerning acquisition, security, energy projects, education, and 
health affairs.
1. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
    The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and 
continues to lead Government efforts to--
     Revise the DFARS to specify circumstances under which the 
U.S. Government needs to obtain data other than certified cost or 
pricing data from Canadian contractors via the Canadian Commercial 
Corporation.
     Revise the DFARS to provide detailed guidance and 
instruction to DoD contracting officers for the use of DoD's 
performance-based payments analysis tool when contemplating the use of 
performance-based payments on new fixed-price type contracts.
     Revise the DFARS to implement a DoD Better Buying Power 
initiative by providing a proposal-adequacy checklist in a provision to 
ensure offerors take responsibility for providing thorough, accurate, 
and complete proposals.
     Revise the DFARS to address standards and structures for 
the safeguarding of unclassified DoD information.
     Revise the DFARS to implement the DoD Better Buying Power 
initiative to address acquisitions using competitive procedures in 
which only one offer is received. With some exceptions, the contracting 
officer must resolicit for an additional period of at least 30 days, if 
the solicitation allowed fewer than 30 days for receipt of proposals 
and only one offer is received. If a period of at least 30 days was 
allowed for receipt of proposals, the contracting officer must 
determine prices to be fair and reasonable through price or cost 
analysis or enter negotiations with the offeror.
     Revise the DFARS to implement a DoD Better Buying Power 
initiative by requiring contractors to submit annual technical 
descriptions for their independent research and development projects.
     Revise the DFARS to establish means for cleared 
contractors, who have unclassified U.S. Government information resident 
on or transiting through contractor information systems, to share cyber 
threat information.
     Revise the FAR to implement section 841 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009, which required a review of the 
FAR coverage on organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs).
     Finalize the DFARS rule to clarify DoD policy regarding 
the definition and administration of contractor business systems to 
improve the effectiveness of DCMA/DCAA oversight of contractor business 
systems;
     Finalize the DFARS rule to implement a DoD Better Buying 
Power initiative to increase the use of fixed-price incentive (firm 
target) contracts;
2. Logistics and Materiel Readiness, Department of Defense
    The Department of Defense published or plans to publish rules on 
contractors supporting the military in contingency operations:
     Final Rule: Private Security Contractors (PSCs) Operating 
in Contingency Operations, Combat Operations or Other Significant 
Military Operations. In order to meet the mandate of section 862 of the 
2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (as amended by section 
813 (b) of the 2010 NDAA and section 832 of the 2011 NDAA), this rule 
establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures 
for the regulation of the selection, accountability, training, 
equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security 
functions under a covered contract during contingency operations, 
combat operations, or other significant military operations. It also 
assigns responsibilities and establishes procedures for incident 
reporting, use of and accountability for equipment, rules for the use 
of force, and a process for administrative action or the removal, as 
appropriate, of PSCs and PSC personnel. DoD published an interim final 
rule on July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34690 to 34694), with an effective date of 
July 17, 2009. The comment period ended August 31, 2009. DoD, in 
coordination with the Department of State and the United States Agency 
for International Development, prepared a final rule, which included 
the responses to the public comments, and incorporated changes to the 
interim final rule, where appropriate. The final rule also incorporated 
the legislative changes required by section 813 (b) of the 2010 NDAA 
and section 832 of the 2011 NDAA. The final rule was published August 
11, 2011 (76 FR 49650), with an effective date of September 12, 2011.
     Interim Final Rule: Operational Contract Support. This 
rule will incorporate the latest changes and lessons learned into 
policy and procedures for operational contract support (OCS), including 
OCS program management, contract support integration, and the 
integration of DoD contractor personnel into contingency operations 
outside the United States. DoD anticipates publishing the interim final 
rule in the first or second quarter of FY 2012.
3. Installations and Environment, Department of Defense
    The Department of Defense will publish a rule regarding the process 
for evaluating the impact of certain types of structures on military 
operations and readiness:
     Interim Final Rule: This rule implements policy, assigns 
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the establishment and 
operation of a process for evaluation of proposed projects submitted to 
the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of title 49, United 
States Code. The evaluation process is established for the purpose of 
identifying any adverse impact of proposed projects on military 
operations and readiness, minimizing or mitigating such adverse 
impacts, and determining if any such projects pose an unacceptable risk 
to the national security of the United States. The rule also includes 
procedures for the operation of a central DoD siting clearinghouse to 
facilitate both informal and formal reviews of proposed projects. This 
rule was required by section 358 of Public Law 111-383. DoD anticipates 
publishing an interim final rule in fourth quarter of FY 2011.
4. Military Community and Family Policy, Department of Defense
    The Department of Defense plans to publish a final rule to 
implement policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe procedures for 
the operation of voluntary education programs within DoD:
     Final Rule: Voluntary Education Programs. In this rule, 
the Department of Defense (DoD) implements policy, assigns 
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the operation of 
voluntary education programs within DoD. Several of the subject areas 
in this rule include: Procedures for Service members participating in 
education

[[Page 7707]]

programs; guidelines for establishing, maintaining, and operating 
voluntary education programs including, but not limited to, instructor-
led courses offered on-installation and off-installation, as well as 
via distance learning; procedures for obtaining on-base voluntary 
education programs and services; minimum criteria for selecting 
institutions to deliver higher education programs and services on 
military installations; the establishment of a DoD Voluntary Education 
Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DoD and 
educational institutions receiving tuition assistance payments; and 
procedures for other education programs for Service members and their 
adult family members. The new requirement for a signed MOU with DoD 
from participating educational institutions will be effective January 
1, 2012. The Department published a proposed rule on August 6, 2010 (75 
FR 47504 to 47514). The comment period ended October 10, 2010, which 
contained a total of 110 comments. Several comments from the general 
public were accepted, including suggestions to clarify terms such as 
``one single tuition rate'' and a ``needs assessment.'' DoD anticipates 
publishing the final rule during the first quarter of FY 2012.
5. Health Affairs, Department of Defense
    The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of 
wartime readiness and peacetime health care by operating an extensive 
network of medical treatment facilities. This network includes DoD's 
own military treatment facilities supplemented by civilian health care 
providers, facilities, and services under contract to DoD through the 
TRICARE program. TRICARE is a major health care program designed to 
improve the management and integration of DoD's health care delivery 
system. The program's goal is to increase access to health care 
services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs.
    The TRICARE Management Activity has published or plans to publish 
the following rules:
     Final rule on TRICARE: Reimbursement of Sole Community 
Hospitals and Adjustment to Reimbursement of Critical Access Hospitals. 
The rule implements the statutory provision in 10 United States Code 
1079(j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care shall be 
determined to the extent practicable in accordance with the same 
reimbursement rules as those that apply to payments to providers of 
services of the same type under Medicare. This rule implements a 
reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare 
beneficiaries for services provided by sole community hospitals. It is 
projected that implementation of this rule will result in a health care 
savings of $31 million per year with proposed phase-in period and an 
estimated initial start-up cost of $200,000. Any on-going 
administrative costs would be minimal and there are no applicable risks 
to the public. The proposed rule was published July 5, 2011 (76 FR 
39043). The comment period ended on September 6, 2011. DoD anticipates 
publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2012.
     Final rule on TRICARE: TRICARE Young Adult. The purpose of 
this interim final rule is to establish the TRICARE Young Adult program 
implementing section 702 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for FY 2011 (Pub. L. 
111-383) to provide medical coverage to unmarried children under the 
age of 26 who no longer meet the age requirements for TRICARE 
eligibility (age 21, or 23 if enrolled in a full-time course of study 
at an institution of higher learning approved by the Secretary of 
Defense) and who are not eligible for medical coverage from an eligible 
employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986). If qualified, they can purchase TRICARE 
Standard/Extra or TRICARE Prime benefits coverage. The particular 
TRICARE plan available depends on the military sponsor's eligibility 
and the availability of the TRICARE plan in the dependent's geographic 
location. It is projected that implementation of this rule will result 
in an estimated initial start-up cost of $3,000,000. Premiums are 
designed to cover the anticipated health care costs, as well as ongoing 
administrative costs. The interim final rule was published April 27, 
2011 (76 FR 23479), with an immediate effective date. The comment 
period ended June 27, 2011. DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in 
the first quarter of FY 2012.
6. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense
    The Department of Defense will publish a rule regarding Service 
Academies:
     Final Rule: Service Academies. This rule establishes 
policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for 
Department of Defense oversight of the Service Academies. 
Administrative costs are negligible and benefits are clear, concise 
rules that enable the Secretary of Defense to insure that the Service 
Academies are efficiently operated and meet the needs of the armed 
forces. The proposed rule was published October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59053), 
and included policy that has since changed. The final rule, 
particularly the explanation of separation policy, will reflect recent 
changes in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. DoD anticipates publishing 
the final rule in the second quarter of FY 2012.

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

I. Introduction
    The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States, 
local communities, institutions of higher education, and others in 
improving education nationwide and in helping to ensure that all 
Americans receive a quality education. We provide leadership and 
financial assistance pertaining to education at all levels to a wide 
range of stakeholders and individuals, including State educational 
agencies, local school districts, providers of early learning programs, 
elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, 
career and technical schools, nonprofit organizations, postsecondary 
students, members of the public, families, and many others. These 
efforts are helping to ensure that all children and students from pre-
kindergarten through grade 12 will be ready for, and succeed in, 
postsecondary education and that students attending postsecondary 
institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
    We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of 
Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that 
receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs, 
research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the 
dissemination of research and evaluation findings to improve the 
quality of education.
    Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs we administer will 
affect nearly every American during his or her life. Indeed, in the 
2011 to 2012 school year, about 55 million students will attend an 
estimated 99,000 elementary and secondary schools in approximately 
13,800 public school districts, and about 21 million students will 
enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools. All of these students 
may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or support from 
the Department.

[[Page 7708]]

    In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical 
assistance, and monitoring related to our programs, we are committed to 
working closely with affected persons and groups. Specifically, we work 
with a broad range of interested parties and the general public 
including families, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal 
governments; and neighborhood groups, community-based early learning 
programs, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, rehabilitation 
service providers, adult education providers, professional 
associations, advocacy organizations, businesses, and labor 
organizations.
    We also continue to seek greater and more useful public 
participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of 
transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new technologies. 
If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we seek 
public participation at the key stages in the rulemaking process. We 
invite the public to submit comments on all proposed regulations 
through the Internet or by regular mail.
    To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the 
Federal Docketing Management System (FDMS), an electronic single 
Governmentwide access point (www.regulations.gov) that enables the 
public to submit comments on different types of Federal regulatory 
documents and read and respond to comments submitted by other members 
of the public during the public comment period. This system provides 
the public with the opportunity to submit comments electronically on 
any notice of proposed rulemaking or interim final regulations open for 
comment, as well as read and print any supporting regulatory documents.
    We are continuing to streamline information collections, reduce the 
burden on information providers involved in our programs, and make 
information easily accessible to the public.
II. Regulatory Priorities
A. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), historic legislation 
designed, in part, to invest in critical sectors, including education. 
ARRA laid the foundation for education reform by supporting investments 
in innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved 
results for students, long-term gains in school and school system 
capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness. ARRA provided 
funding for several key discretionary grant programs, including the 
Race to the Top Fund and the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) 
programs.
    The Race to the Top Fund program, the largest competitive education 
grant program in U.S. history, is designed to provide incentives to 
States to implement system-changing reforms that result in improved 
student achievement, narrowed achievement gaps, and increased high 
school graduation and college enrollment rates. Congress authorized and 
provided $4.35 billion for ARRA in 2010, and the Department awarded 
approximately $4 billion in Race to the Top State grant funds in two 
phases. The Department awarded $600 million to Delaware and Tennessee 
under the Race to the Top Phase 1 competition and approximately $3.4 
billion to the winners of the Phase 2 competition: The District of 
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, 
North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island.
    In announcing the winners of the Race to the Top Phase 2 
competition, the Secretary noted that ``[we] had many more competitive 
applications than money to fund them in this round'' and expressed the 
hope that any Race to the Top funding included in the Department's FY 
2011 appropriations would be available for Race to the Top Phase 3 
awards. In particular, there were nine finalists in the Phase 2 
competition that did not receive funding despite submitting bold and 
ambitious plans for comprehensive reforms and innovations in their 
systems of elementary and secondary education. These nine finalists 
were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.
    On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed into law Public Law 112-
10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 
Act, 2011 (FY 2011 Appropriations Act), which made $698.6 million 
available for the Race to the Top Fund, authorized the Secretary to 
make awards on ``the basis of previously submitted applications,'' and 
amended ARRA to permit the Secretary to make grants for improving early 
childhood care and learning under the program.
    Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC). On May 25, 
2011, Secretary Duncan and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
Kathleen Sebelius, announced the RTT-ELC, a new $500 million State-
level grant competition to be held in 2011 and authorized under ARRA 
and the FY 2011 Appropriations Act. The Departments of Education and 
Health and Human Services are administering this competition jointly. 
At its core is a strong commitment by the Administration to stimulate a 
national effort to make sure all children enter kindergarten ready to 
succeed. Through the RTT-ELC, the Administration seeks to help close 
the achievement gap between children with high needs and their peers by 
supporting State efforts to build strong systems of early learning and 
development that provide increased access to high-quality programs for 
the children who need it most. This competition represents an 
unprecedented opportunity for States to focus deeply on their early 
learning and development systems for children from birth through age 
five. It is an opportunity to build a more unified approach to 
supporting young children and their families--an approach that 
increases access to high-quality early learning and development 
programs and services, and helps ensure that children enter 
kindergarten with the skills, knowledge, and dispositions toward 
learning that they need to be successful.
    The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services have 
published requirements for the FY 2011 competition and will complete 
the competition and make awards by the end of 2011.
    Race to the Top Phase 3. On May 25, 2011, the Department also 
announced that approximately $200 million of the FY 2011 Race to the 
Top funds would be made available to some or all of the nine unfunded 
finalists from the 2010 Race to the Top Phase 2 competition. The 
Department recognizes that $200 million is not sufficient to support 
full implementation of the plans submitted during the Phase 2 
competition, and therefore believes that making these funds available 
to the remaining nine finalists is the best way to create incentives 
for these States to carry out the bold reforms proposed in their 
applications. We have issued final eligibility requirements for the 
nine unfunded finalists to apply for Race to the Top Phase 3 funds.
B. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended
    In 2010, the Administration released the Blueprint for Reform: The 
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the 
President's plan for revising the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 (ESEA) and replacing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
(NCLB). The blueprint can be found at the following Web site: http://
www2.ed.

[[Page 7709]]

gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html.
    We look forward to congressional reauthorization of the ESEA that 
will build on many of the reforms States and LEAs will be implementing 
under the ARRA grant programs. In the interim, we may propose 
amendments to our current regulations implementing the ESEA.
    Additionally, as we continue to work with Congress on 
reauthorization of the ESEA, we are currently implementing a plan to 
provide flexibility on certain provisions of current law for States and 
school districts that are willing to embrace reform. The mechanisms we 
are implementing will ensure continued accountability and commitment to 
quality education for all students while at the same time providing 
States and school districts with increased flexibility to implement 
State and local reforms to improve student achievement.
C. Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended
    Changes to the FFEL and Direct Loan Programs. On March 30, 2010, 
the President signed into law the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, title II of which is 
the SAFRA Act. SAFRA made a number of changes to the Federal student 
financial aid programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended (HEA). One of the most significant changes made by 
SAFRA is that it ended new loans under the Federal Family Education 
Loan (FFEL) Program authorized by title IV, part B, of the HEA as of 
July 1, 2010.
    On May 5, 2011, ED announced through a notice in the Federal 
Register that it was beginning a negotiated rulemaking process to 
streamline the loan program regulations by repealing unnecessary FFEL 
Program regulations and incorporating and modifying necessary 
requirements within the Direct Loan Program regulations, as 
appropriate. ED held four public hearings in May 2011 to obtain public 
feedback on proposed amendments, as well as on possible amendments to 
other ED regulations, including those governing income-based and 
income-contingent loan repayment plans and loan discharges based on the 
total and permanent disability of the borrower. Based on the feedback 
received from these hearings, ED will soon form a negotiated rulemaking 
committee to consider proposed amendments and intends to conduct these 
negotiations in 2012.
    Approval of New Gainful Employment Programs. Over the last 2 years, 
the Department has conducted two significant rulemakings to enhance its 
program integrity regulations related to the title IV, student aid 
programs. As part of this effort, on October 29, 2010, the Department 
issued regulations that included requirements for an institution to 
notify the Department before offering a new educational program that 
provides training leading to gainful employment in a recognized 
occupation (Gainful Employment--New Programs). The Department 
established the notification requirement out of concern that some 
institutions might attempt to circumvent proposed regulations regarding 
gainful employment standards by adding new programs before those 
standards could take effect. The Department explained that the 
notification process requirements were intended to remain in effect 
until the final regulations that established eligibility measures for 
gainful employment programs would take effect.
    We published the final regulations establishing the gainful 
employment eligibility measures on June 13, 2011 (Gainful Employment--
Debt Measures). In those regulations, the Department established 
measures for gainful employment programs that are intended to identify 
the worst performing programs. We believe that when these new 
regulations go into effect on July 1, 2013, the notification process 
for all new gainful employment programs established in the Gainful 
Employment--New Programs final regulations will no longer be needed. 
Accordingly, the Department has issued a new NPRM, which among other 
changes, proposes to reduce burden for institutions by amending the 
Gainful Employment--New Programs final regulations to establish a 
smaller group of gainful employment programs for which an institution 
must obtain approval from the Department.
    Title II of the HEA. The Secretary intends to develop regulations 
under title II of the HEA to streamline the program, institutional, and 
State report cards; prescribe data quality standards to ensure 
reliability, validity, and accuracy of the data submitted; and 
establish standards for identifying low-performing teacher preparation 
programs.
D. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
    We have issued final regulations that revise the regulations 
implementing the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers 
with Disabilities authorized under part C of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to make changes needed for the 
appropriate implementation of the early intervention program. The final 
part C regulations incorporate provisions from the 2004 amendments to 
part C of the IDEA. Additionally, the final regulations provide States 
with flexibility in some areas, while ensuring State accountability to 
improve results, and needed services for infants and toddlers with 
disabilities and their families.
    The Department has also issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
revise the regulations implementing the Assistance to States for the 
Education of Children with Disabilities program authorized under part B 
of the IDEA and intends to issue final regulations in the coming year.
    Specifically, over the last 6 months, we engaged in a review of one 
particular provision of the part B regulations, relating to the use of 
public benefits or insurance to pay for services provided to children 
under part B. IDEA and the part B regulations allow public agencies to 
use public benefits or insurance (e.g., Medicaid) to provide or pay for 
services required under part B with the consent of the parent of a 
child who is enrolled in a public benefits or insurance program. Public 
insurance is an important source of financial support for services 
required under part B. With respect to the use of public insurance, our 
current regulations specifically provide that a public agency must 
obtain parental consent each time access to public benefits or 
insurance is sought.
    We are now proposing to amend the regulations to provide that, 
instead of having to obtain parental consent each time access to public 
benefits or insurance is sought, the public agency responsible for 
providing special education and related services to a child would be 
required, before accessing a child's or parent's public benefits or 
insurance, to provide written notification to the child's parents. The 
notification would inform parents of their rights under the part B 
regulations regarding the use of public benefits or insurance to pay 
for part B services, including information about the limitations on a 
public agency's billing of public benefits or insurance programs, as 
well as parents' rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy 
Act and IDEA to consent prior to the disclosure of personally 
identifiable information.
    We are proposing these amendments to reduce unnecessary burden on a 
public agency's ability to access public benefits or insurance in 
appropriate circumstances but still maintain critical parent 
protections, and we do this for

[[Page 7710]]

several reasons. Specifically, we are mindful of the importance of 
ensuring that parents have sufficient information to make decisions 
about a public agency's use of their public benefits or insurance and 
the disclosure of their child's educational records for that purpose. 
At the same time, these proposed amendments are designed to address the 
concern expressed to the Department by many State personnel and other 
interested parties that, since the publication of the part B 
regulations in 2006, the inability to obtain parental consent has 
contributed to public agencies' failure to claim all of the Federal 
financial assistance available for part B services covered under 
Medicaid. In addition, public agencies have expressed concern over 
using limited resources and the significant administrative burden of 
obtaining parental consent for the use of Medicaid and other public 
benefits or insurance each time that access to public benefits or 
insurance is sought. Consequently, many of these parties have requested 
that the Department remove the parental consent requirement.
E. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
    Given the President's emphasis on improving the collection and use 
of data as a key element of educational reform, we intend to issue 
final regulations in the coming year to amend our current regulations 
for the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) to 
ensure that States are able to effectively establish and expand robust 
statewide longitudinal data systems while protecting student privacy.
F. Other Potential Regulatory Activities
    Congress may reauthorize the Adult Education and Family Literacy 
Act (AEFLA) (title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998) and the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (title IV of the Workforce Investment Act of 
1998). The Administration is working with Congress to ensure that any 
changes to these laws (1) improve the State grant and other programs 
providing assistance for adult education under the AEFLA and for 
vocational rehabilitation and independent living services for persons 
with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and (2) provide 
greater accountability in the administration of programs under both 
statutes. Changes to our regulations may be necessary as a result of 
the reauthorization of these two statutes.
III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of the entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found 
at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/open.html.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Do we expect this
                                                     rulemaking to
            RIN                  Title of        significantly reduce
                                Rulemaking          burden on small
                                                      businesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1820-AB64..................  Assistance to    No.
                              States for the
                              Education of
                              Children With
                              Disabilities.
1840-AD01..................  High School      No.
                              Equivalency
                              Program and
                              College
                              Assistance
                              Migrant
                              Program, the
                              Federal TRIO
                              Programs, and
                              Gaining Early
                              Awareness, and
                              Readiness for
                              Undergraduate
                              Program.
1848-AD02..................  Program          No.
                              Integrity
                              Issues.
1840-AD05..................  Title IV of the  No.
                              Higher
                              Education Act
                              of 1965, as
                              Amended.
1840-AD06..................  Program          No.
                              Integrity:
                              Gainful
                              Employment--Me
                              asures.
1840-AD08..................  Titles III and   No.
                              V of the
                              Higher
                              Education Act
                              of 1965, as
                              Amended.
1840-AD10..................  Application and  Yes.
                              Approval
                              Process for
                              New Programs.
1880-AA86..................  Family           No.
                              Educational
                              Rights and
                              Privacy.
1880-AA84..................  The Freedom of   No.
                              Information
                              Act.
1890-AA14..................  Direct Grant     No.
                              Programs and
                              Definitions
                              That Apply to
                              Department
                              Regulations.
1890-AA16..................  Department of    No.
                              Education
                              Acquisition
                              Regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Principles for Regulating
    Over the next year, other regulations may be needed because of new 
legislation or programmatic changes. In developing and promulgating 
regulations we follow our Principles for Regulating, which determine 
when and how we will regulate. Through consistent application of the 
following principles, we have eliminated unnecessary regulations and 
identified situations in which major programs could be implemented 
without regulations or with limited regulatory action.
    In deciding when to regulate, we consider the following:
     Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and 
equality of opportunity in education.
     Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without 
regulation.
     Whether regulations are necessary to provide a legally 
binding interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
     Whether entities or situations subject to regulation are 
similar enough that a uniform approach through regulation would be 
meaningful and do more good than harm.
     Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal 
interest; that is, to ensure that Federal funds are used for their 
intended purpose and to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.
    In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following 
principles:
     Regulate no more than necessary.
     Minimize burden, to the extent possible, and promote 
multiple approaches to meeting statutory requirements if possible.
     Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with 
State and local reform activities.
     Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating.
     To the extent possible, establish performance objectives 
rather than specify compliance behavior.
     Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible, and as 
needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.


[[Page 7711]]



ED--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION (OPE)

Proposed Rule Stage

26. Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a; 20 U.S.C. 1071 to 1087-4; 20 
U.S.C. 1087a to 1087j; 20 U.S.C. 1098e; Pub. L. 111-152
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR chapter VI.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Secretary proposes to amend the title IV, HEA student 
assistance regulations to (1) reflect that, as of July 1, 2010, under 
title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 
(the SAFRA Act), no new Federal Family Education Loan Program loans 
will be made and (2) to reflect other changes to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the student loan programs, particularly 
with regard to the discharge of loans for persons with total and 
permanent disabilities.
    Statement of Need: These regulations are needed to reflect the 
provisions of the SAFRA Act (title II of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010) and to reflect other amendments to the HEA 
resulting from the SAFRA Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Health Care and Education Reconciliation 
Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152.
    Alternatives: The Department is still developing these proposed 
regulations; our discussion of alternatives will be included in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimates of the costs and benefits 
are currently under development and will be included in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: David Bergeron, Department of Education, Office of 
Postsecondary Education, Room 8022, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 
20006, Phone: 202 502-7815, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1840-AD05
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

Fall 2011 Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) makes vital 
contributions to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on 
improving national security, energy supply, energy efficiency, 
environmental remediation, and energy research. The Department's 
mission is to:
     Promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound 
production and distribution of energy;
     Advance energy efficiency and conservation;
     Provide responsible stewardship of the Nation's nuclear 
weapons;
     Provide a responsible resolution to the environmental 
legacy of nuclear weapons production;
     Strengthen U.S. scientific discovery, economic 
competitiveness, and improving quality of life through innovations in 
science and technology.
    The Department's regulatory activities are essential to achieving 
its critical mission and to implementing major initiatives of the 
President's National Energy Policy. Among other things, the Regulatory 
Plan and the Unified Agenda contain the rulemakings the Department will 
be engaged in during the coming year to fulfill the Department's 
commitment to meeting deadlines for issuance of energy conservation 
standards and related test procedures. The Regulatory Plan and Unified 
Agenda also reflect the Department's continuing commitment to cut 
costs, reduce regulatory burden, and increase responsiveness to the 
public.

Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 
Equipment

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE to set 
appliance efficiency standards at levels that achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. The standards already published in 2011 have an 
estimated net benefit to the Nation of up to $16.6 billion over 30 
years. By 2045, these standards are expected to save enough energy to 
operate all U.S. homes for more than 7 months.
    The Department continues to follow its schedule for setting new 
appliance efficiency standards. These rulemakings are expected to save 
American consumers billions of dollars in energy costs. The schedule 
outlines how DOE will address the various appliance standards 
rulemakings necessary to meet statutory requirements established in 
EPCA, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), and the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007).
    The overall plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the 
Report to Congress under section 141 of EPACT 2005 that was released on 
January 31, 2006. This plan was last updated in the August 2011 report 
to Congress and now includes the requirements of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). The reports to 
Congress are posted at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/schedule_setting.html. The August 2011 report 
identifies all products for which DOE has missed the deadlines 
established in EPCA (42 U.S.C. section 6291 et seq.). It also describes 
the reasons for such delays and the Department's plan for expeditiously 
prescribing new or amended standards. Information and timetables 
concerning these actions can also be found in the Department's 
regulatory agenda, which is posted online at: www.reginfo.gov.

Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs and Benefits

    The regulatory actions included in this regulatory plan are 
expected to provide significant benefits to the Nation for product 
categories including: Fluorescent lamp ballasts, manufactured housing, 
battery chargers and external power supplies, walk-in coolers and 
freezers, and incandescent reflector lamps. DOE believes that the 
benefits to the Nation of the proposed energy standards for fluorescent 
lamp ballasts (energy savings, consumer average lifecycle cost savings, 
national net present value increase, and emission reductions) outweigh 
the costs (loss of industry net present value and life-cycle cost 
increases for some consumers). DOE estimates that these regulations 
will produce an energy savings between 3.7 and 6.3 quads over 30 years. 
The benefit to the Nation will be between $8.1 billion (7% discount 
rate) and $24.7 billion (3% discount rate). DOE believes that the 
proposed energy standards for manufactured housing, battery chargers 
and external power supplies, walk-in coolers and freezers, and 
incandescent reflector lamps will also be beneficial to the Nation. 
However, because DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard levels for 
this equipment, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined aggregate 
costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in compliance 
with all applicable law, issue standards that provide the maximum 
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified. Estimates of

[[Page 7712]]

energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notices of proposed 
rulemaking for this equipment.

DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)

Proposed Rule Stage

27. Energy Efficiency Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power 
Supplies

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 1, 2011.
    Abstract: In addition to the existing general definition of 
``external power supply,'' the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 (EISA) defines a ``Class A external power supply'' and sets 
efficiency standards for those products. EISA directs DOE to publish a 
final rule to determine whether the standards set for Class A external 
power supplies should be amended. EISA also requires DOE to issue a 
final rule prescribing energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers, if technologically feasible and economically justified.
    Statement of Need: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 
requires minimum energy standards for appliances, which has the effect 
of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from the market.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of title III 
(42 U.S.C. 6291 to 6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program 
for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. EPCA directs DOE to 
conduct a rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers or determine that no energy conservation standard is 
technically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295 
(u)(1)(E)(i) and (ii)).
    In addition to the existing general definition of ``external power 
supply,'' EPCA defines a ``Class A external power supply'' (42 U.S.C. 
6291(36)(C)) and sets efficiency standards for those products (42 
U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)). EPCA directs DOE to publish a final rule to 
determine whether amended standards should be set for Class A external 
power supplies, or new standards set for other classes of external 
power supplies. If such determination is positive, DOE must include any 
amended or new standards as part of that final rule.
    DOE is bundling the two requirements to establish energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers and to consider amended or 
new standards for external power supplies into a single rulemaking.
    Alternatives: The statute requires the Department to conduct 
rulemakings to review standards and to revise standards to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this 
determination, the Department conducts a thorough analysis of the 
alternative standard levels, including the existing standard, based on 
the criteria specified by the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed 
candidate standard levels for this equipment, DOE cannot provide an 
estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. 
DOE will, however, in compliance with all applicable law, issue 
standards that provide the maximum energy savings that are 
technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of 
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notices of proposed 
rulemaking for this equipment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework      06/04/09  74 FR 26816
 Document Availability.
Comment Period End..................   07/20/09  .......................
Notice: Public Meeting, Data           09/15/10  75 FR 56021
 Availability.
Comment Period End..................   10/15/10  .......................
Final Rule (Technical Amendment)....   09/19/11  76 FR 57897
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
    Agency Contact: Victor Petrolati, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 
586-4549, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB75.
    RIN: 1904-AB57

DOE--EE

28. Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In 
Freezers

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2012.
    Abstract: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act require that DOE 
establish maximum energy consumption levels for walk-in coolers and 
walk-in freezers.
    Statement of Need: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires 
minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances, which has the 
effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from the 
market.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 312 of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) establishes definitions and standards for 
walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. EISA directs DOE to establish 
performance-based standards not later than January 1, 2012 (42 U.S.C. 
6313 (f)(4)).
    Alternatives: The statute requires the Department to conduct 
rulemakings to review standards and to revise standards to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this 
determination, the Department conducts a thorough analysis of the 
alternative standard levels, including the existing standard, based on 
the criteria specified by the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed 
candidate standard levels for this equipment, DOE cannot provide an 
estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. 
DOE will, however, in compliance with all applicable law, issue 
standards that provide the maximum energy savings that are 
technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of 
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed 
rulemaking for this equipment.
    Timetable:

[[Page 7713]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework      01/06/09  74 FR 411
 Document Availability.
Notice: Public Meeting, Data           04/05/10  75 FR 17080
 Availability.
Comment Period End..................   05/20/10  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Comments pertaining to this rule may be 
submitted electronically to [email protected].
    URL for More Information: www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/wicf.html.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Charles Llenza, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 
586-2192, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB85.
    RIN: 1904-AB86

DOE--EE

29. Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured Housing

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17071
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 460.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 19, 2011.
    Abstract: The rule would establish energy efficiency standards for 
manufactured housing and a system to ensure compliance with, and 
enforcement of, the standards.
    Statement of Need: The Energy Independence and Security Act 
requires increased energy efficiency standards for manufactured 
housing.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 413 of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (EISA), 42 U.S.C. 17071, directs DOE to develop 
and publish energy standards for manufactured housing.
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to 
establish standards to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE conducts 
a thorough analysis of the alternative standard levels, including the 
existing standard, based on the criteria specified by the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed 
candidate standard levels, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined 
aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in 
compliance with all applicable law, issue standards that provide the 
increased energy savings that are technologically feasible and 
economically justified. Estimates of energy savings will be provided 
when DOE issues the notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/22/10  75 FR 7556
ANPRM Comment Period End............   03/24/10  .......................
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.energycodes.gov/status/mfg_housing.stm.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Ronald B. Majette, Program Manager, Office of 
Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 586-7935, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AC11

DOE--EE

30. Energy Conservation Standards for ER, BR, and Small Diameter 
Incandescent Reflector Lamps

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii) and (F); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Amendments to Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) amended the 
energy conservation standards to extend coverage to certain classes of 
IRL that had previously been outside the statutory definition of 
``incandescent reflector lamp'' although these lamps were excluded from 
the statutory standard levels. However, EISA 2007 authorized DOE to 
amend these standards if such amendments were warranted. Specifically, 
as amended, EPCA exempted certain small diameter, ellipsoidal reflector 
(ER) and bulged reflector (BR) lamps from standards. In June 2009, DOE 
published a final rule amending existing standards for IRL. In earlier 
stages of the June 2009 rulemaking, DOE had interpreted its authority 
with regard to IRL as limited to amending congressionally established 
standard levels only, and not to the exemptions set by Congress for 
certain explicitly identified small diameter ER and BR lamps, commonly 
used in track lighting and recessed cans. On further review, DOE has 
concluded that DOE has authority to establish efficiency standards for 
these currently exempt small diameter ER and BR lamps. However, as a 
practical matter, DOE could not consider these lamps as part of the 
previous rulemaking because it had not conducted the requisite analyses 
to set appropriate standard levels. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is now 
conducting a rulemaking as to energy conservation standards for certain 
incandescent reflector lamps (IRL) that have ER or BR bulb shapes, and 
for certain IRL with diameters less than 2.25 inches.
    Statement of Need: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires 
minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances, which has the 
effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from the 
market.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 322 of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) establishes definitions and standards for 
ER, BR, and BPAR incandescent reflector lamps. (42 U.S.C. 6291(54) to 
6291(56), 42 U.S.C. 6295 (i)) Furthermore, section 305 of EISA directs 
DOE to, not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule 
establishing or amending a standard, publish either a notice of 
determination that standards do not need to be amended or a notice of 
proposed rulemaking including new proposed standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295 
(m))
    Alternatives: The statute requires the Department to conduct 
rulemakings to review standards and to revise standards to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines 
is technologically feasible and

[[Page 7714]]

economically justified. In making this determination, the Department 
conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative standard levels, 
including the existing standard, based on the criteria specified by the 
statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed 
candidate standard levels for this equipment, DOE cannot provide an 
estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. 
DOE will, however, in compliance with all applicable law, issue 
standards that provide the maximum energy savings that are 
technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of 
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed 
rulemaking for this equipment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework      05/03/10  75 FR 23191
 Document Availability.
Comment Period End..................   06/17/10  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamps.html.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Lucy Debutts, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 
287-1604, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1904-AA92.
    RIN: 1904-AC15

DOE--EE

Final Rule Stage

31. Energy Efficiency Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, October 28, 2011.
    Abstract: DOE is reviewing and updating energy efficiency 
standards, as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to 
reflect technological advances. All amended energy efficiency standards 
must be technologically feasible and economically justified. This is 
the second review of the statutory standards for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts.
    Statement of Need: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires 
minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances, which has the 
effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from the 
market.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(EPCA) of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291 to 6309) established an energy 
conservation program for major household appliances. Amendments to EPCA 
in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 
1988) established energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts. These amendments also required that DOE (1) conduct two 
rulemaking cycles to determine whether these standards should be 
amended, and (2) for each rulemaking cycle, determine whether the 
standards in effect for fluorescent lamp ballasts should be amended to 
apply to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(A) 
and (B)). On September 19, 2000, DOE published a final rule in the 
Federal Register, which completed the first rulemaking cycle to amend 
energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 65 FR 
56740. This rulemaking encompasses DOE's second cycle of review to 
determine whether the standards in effect for fluorescent lamp ballasts 
should be amended and whether the standards should be applicable to 
additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to 
review standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this 
determination, DOE conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative 
standard levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria 
specified by the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE believes that the benefits to 
the Nation from energy standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts (energy 
savings, consumer average lifecycle cost (LCC) savings, national net 
present value (NPV) increase, and emission reductions) outweigh the 
burdens (loss of NPV and LCC increases of some small electric motor 
users). DOE estimates that energy savings from electricity will be 
between 3.7 and 6.3 quads over 30 years and the benefits to the Nation 
will be between $8.1 and $24.7 billion.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework      01/22/08  73 FR 3653
 Document Availability.
Notice: Public Meetings, Data          03/24/10  75 FR 14319
 Availability.
NPRM................................   04/11/11  76 FR 20090
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/11/11  .......................
Notice of Data Availability (NODA);    08/24/11  76 FR 52892
 Request for Comments.
NODA Comment Period End.............   09/14/11  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Tina Kaarsberg, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 
287-1393, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB77, Related to 1904-AA99.
    RIN: 1904-AB50

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for FY 2012

    The Department of Health and Human Services is the Federal 
Government's principal agency charged with protecting the health of all 
Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those 
least able to help

[[Page 7715]]

themselves. The Department operates more than 300 programs covering a 
wide spectrum of activities, manages almost a quarter of all Federal 
outlays, and administers more grant dollars than all other Federal 
agencies combined. The Department's major program responsibilities 
include: Medicare and Medicaid; control and prevention of communicable 
and chronic disease; support for public health preparedness and 
emergency response; biomedical research; substance abuse and mental 
health treatment and prevention; assuring safe and effective drugs, 
devices, and other medical products; protecting the food supply; 
assistance to low-income families; the Head Start program; and 
improving access to health care services to the uninsured, isolated, or 
medically vulnerable. Currently, the Department is the principal agency 
charged with implementing one of the President's signature 
achievements--transformative health care reform through the Affordable 
Care Act of 2010.
    To implement this vast program portfolio, the Department develops 
an active regulatory agenda each year, driven largely by statutory 
mandates and interactions with stakeholders. The President also called 
upon Federal agencies to reform the regulatory process in his January 
18, 2011, Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review.'' A key directive in that Executive order was to require 
agencies to conduct an inventory of existing regulations to determine 
whether such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or 
repealed to make an agency's regulatory scheme more effective or less 
burdensome in achieving its programmatic objectives.
    With these regulatory drivers in mind, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius 
has worked with HHS agencies to craft a regulatory agenda that reflects 
her commitments to implementing meaningful health care reform, access 
to health care coverage, and high value health care services that are 
safe and effective for all Americans. The agenda also reflects her 
other strategic initiatives, which include securing and maintaining 
health care coverage for all Americans; improving quality and patient 
safety; more rapidly responding to adverse events; implementing a 21st 
century food safety system; helping Americans achieve and maintain 
healthy living habits; advancing scientific research; and streamlining 
regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on industry and States. 
Within this agenda, the Secretary has also been mindful of the need to 
reform the ongoing regulatory process through retrospective review of 
existing regulations, and this agenda reflects her commitment to that 
review by incorporating some of the most significant burden reduction 
reforms across all Federal agencies. In fact, of the $10 billion in 
savings from retrospective regulatory review across all Federal 
agencies announced by the Administrator of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, $5 billion was attributable to regulations 
contained within this Department's current regulatory agenda.
    What follows is an overview of the Department's regulatory 
priorities for FY 2012 and some of the regulations on the agenda that 
best exemplify these priorities.
Making Health Insurance Coverage More Secure for Those Who Have 
Insurance and Extending Coverage to the Uninsured
    As a result of the Affordable Care Act, the Department is making 
affordable health care coverage more stable and secure through 
insurance market reforms designed to protect consumers against 
unreasonable insurance premium increases, provide them with more 
comprehensive and understandable information with which to make 
decisions, and enable eligible consumers to receive financial support 
for health insurance easily and seamlessly. In 2014, all people who 
suffer from chronic conditions will no longer be excluded from 
insurance coverage or charged higher premiums because of a pre-existing 
condition or medical history.
    Already, insurers are prohibited from putting lifetime dollar 
limits and restrictive annual caps on what they will pay for health 
care services needed by the people they insure, ensuring that those 
people have access to medical care throughout their lives, especially 
when it is most needed. HHS is working with States to help identify and 
put a stop to unreasonable health insurance premium rate increases and 
will require new health plans to implement a comprehensive appeals 
process for those beneficiaries who have been denied coverage or 
payment by the insurance plan. New health insurers will also be 
required to spend the majority of health insurance premiums on medical 
care and health care quality improvement, not on administration and 
overhead. As well, the Affordable Care Act is providing reimbursement 
to employers that offer health benefits to early retirees, providing 
insurance coverage through the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan to 
people who would otherwise be locked out of the insurance market 
because of their pre-existing health conditions, and requiring plans 
that offer dependent coverage to make that coverage available to young 
adults up to age 26.
    Moving forward this year, the Department will continue to implement 
the Affordable Care Act to promote consumer protections, improve 
quality and safety, provide incentives for more efficient care 
delivery, and slow the growth of health care costs. The Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will finalize three rules that will 
expand access to health insurance and provide consumers with better 
options and information about insurance:
     CMS will issue standards for the establishment of the 
Affordable Insurance Exchanges (Exchanges) to provide competitive 
marketplaces for individuals and small employers to directly compare 
available private health insurance options on the basis of price and 
quality. These Exchanges will help enhance competition in the health 
insurance market, improve choice of affordable health insurance, and 
give small businesses the same purchasing clout as large businesses.
     Another rule helps to make coverage more secure by 
offsetting market uncertainty and risk selection to maintain the 
viability of Exchanges. Under risk adjustment, HHS, in consultation 
with the States, will establish criteria and methods to be used by 
States in determining the actuarial risk of plans within a State to 
minimize the negative effects of adverse selection. Under reinsurance, 
all health insurance issuers, and third-party administrators on behalf 
of self-insured group health plans, will contribute to a nonprofit 
reinsurance entity to support reinsurance payments to individual market 
issuers that cover high risk individuals.
     To extend health insurance to greater numbers of low-
income people, Medicaid eligibility in 2014 will expand to cover adults 
under the age of 65 earning up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty 
level, and those who earn above that level may be eligible for tax 
credits through the Exchanges to help pay their premiums. New, 
simplified procedures for determining Medicaid, CHIP, and tax credit 
eligibility will be forthcoming in 2012. CMS will simplify eligibility 
rules to make it easier for eligible individuals and families to obtain 
premium tax credits and Medicaid coverage, including ensuring that 
Medicaid uses the same eligibility standards as other insurance 
affordability programs available through the Exchange, as directed by 
law. The rule further outlines how Medicaid and CHIP will coordinate 
closely with the Exchange,

[[Page 7716]]

including sharing data to ensure that individuals are determined 
eligible for the appropriate insurance affordability program regardless 
of where an applicant submits the application.
Improving Health Care Quality and Patient Safety
    Across America and for all Americans, the Department is working to 
improve patient outcomes, ensure patient safety, promote efficiency and 
accountability, encourage shared responsibility, and reduce health care 
costs. Through improved administrative processes, reforms, innovations, 
and additional information to support consumer decisionmaking, HHS is 
supporting high-value, safe, and effective care across health care 
settings and in the community.
    In 2011, the Department published a key regulation to advance this 
priority--the final rule for Accountable Care Organizations. This rule 
establishes a system of shared savings for qualified organizations that 
deliver primary care services to a given patient population. The 
objective is to promote accountability and shared responsibility for 
the delivery of care, especially to those with co-morbidities of 
chronic health problems in order to prevent unnecessary and costly in-
patient hospital care, reduce health care acquired conditions, and 
improve the quality of life for those individuals. This rule serves as 
a companion to additional demonstration programs designed to explore 
alternative services delivery and payment systems that are being 
sponsored by the new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. 
Several more key regulations are on the agenda to move forward in 
meeting these quality and patient safety goals:
     CMS is implementing value-based purchasing programs 
throughout its payment structure in order to reward hospitals and other 
health care providers for delivering high-quality care, rather than 
just a high volume of services. The payment rules scheduled for 
publication this year will reflect a mix of standards, processes, 
outcomes, and patient experience of care measures, including measures 
of care transition and changes in patient functional status.
     The Department continues to encourage health care 
providers to become meaningful users of health information technology 
(IT) by accelerating health IT adoption and promoting electronic health 
records to help improve the quality of health care, reduce costs, and 
ultimately, improve health outcomes. Electronic health records and 
health information exchange can help clinicians provide higher quality 
and safer care for their patients. By adopting electronic health 
records in a meaningful way, clinicians will know more about their 
patients to better coordinate and improve the quality of patient care, 
and they can make better decisions about treatments and conditions.
Improving Response to Adverse Events
    In a related activity, the FDA will be proposing a new rule to 
establish a unique identification system for medical devices in order 
to track a device from pre-market application through distribution and 
use. This system will allow FDA and other public health entities to 
track individual devices so that when an adverse event occurs, 
epidemiologists can quickly track down and identify other users of the 
device to provide guidance and recommendations on what steps to take to 
prevent additional adverse actions.
Implementing a 21st Century Food Safety System
    The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, signed into law by the 
President in January 2011, directs the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA), working with a wide range of public and private partners, to 
build a new system of food safety oversight--one focused on applying 
the best available science and good common sense to prevent the 
problems that can make people sick. In implementing that Act, the 
Department's goal is to shift emphasis from removing unsafe products 
from the market place to keeping unsafe food from entering commerce in 
the first place.
    FDA will propose several new rules to establish a robust, enhanced 
food safety program.
     FDA will propose regulations establishing preventive 
controls in the manufacture and distribution of human foods and of 
animal feeds. These regulations will constitute the heart of the food 
safety program by instituting, for the first time, good manufacturing 
practices for the manufacture and distribution of food products to 
ensure that those products are safe for consumption and will not cause 
or spread disease.
     Perhaps most anticipated in light of food borne illnesses 
occurring in 2011, FDA will introduce a rule addressing produce safety 
to ensure that produce sold in the marketplace meets rigorous safety 
standards. The regulation will set enforceable, science-based standards 
for the safe production and harvesting of fresh produce at the farm and 
the packing house to minimize the risk of serious adverse health 
consequences.
     In another proposed rule, FDA will require food importers 
to have a foreign supplier verification program that will be adequate 
to provide assurances that each foreign supplier produces food in a 
manner that provides the same level of protection as required for 
domestic production under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.
     FDA will establish a program to accredit third-party 
auditors to conduct food safety audits of foreign entities. Such a 
program will relieve importers of having to establish such programs 
themselves and, instead, allow them to contract with an accredited 
auditor to meet the audit requirements.
Empowering Americans To Make Healthy Choices in the Marketplace
    Roughly two-thirds of adults and one-third of children in the 
United States are overweight or obese, increasing their risk for 
chronic diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, certain 
cancers, stroke, and arthritis. Almost 10 percent of all medical 
spending is used to treat obesity-related conditions. In order to 
reverse the obesity epidemic, HHS is employing a comprehensive approach 
that includes both clinical and public health strategies and touches 
people where they live, work, learn, and play.
    To help advance this agenda, FDA will finalize two rules aimed at 
empowering consumers to make healthy eating choices. The rules require 
nutrition labeling on standard menu items in restaurants and similar 
retail food establishments, as well as on food sold in vending 
machines. One rule will require restaurants and similar retail food 
establishments with 20 or more locations to list calorie content 
information for standard menu items on restaurant menus and menu 
boards, including drive-through menu boards. Other nutrient 
information--total calories, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, 
total carbohydrates, sugars, fiber and total protein--would have to be 
made available in writing upon request. The other rule will require 
vending machine operators who own or operate 20 or more vending 
machines to disclose calorie content for some items. The Department 
anticipates that such information will ensure that patrons of chain 
restaurants and vending machines have nutritional information about the 
food they are consuming.
    Two additional rules will also improve dietary information 
available to consumers. One is a revision to the nutrition and 
supplement facts labels. Much of the information found on the Nutrition 
Facts label has not been updated since 1993 when mandatory

[[Page 7717]]

nutrition labeling of food was first required. The aim of the proposed 
revision is to provide updated and easier to read nutrition information 
on the label to help consumers maintain healthy dietary practices. The 
other proposed rule will focus on the serving sizes of foods that can 
reasonably consumed in one serving. This rule would amend the labeling 
regulations to provide updated reference amounts for certain food 
categories with new consumption data derived from the current National 
Health and Nutrition Survey.
Advancing Scientific Research
    To effectively address the challenges the Department faces in 
crafting the best, evidence-based approaches to advance health services 
delivery, protect the public health, ensure essential human services, 
promote biomedical research, and ensure the availability of safe 
medical and food products, the Department must rely on research. The 
lynchpin of this research is found in the ethical rules governing 
research on human subjects.
    In a major undertaking, the Department is in the process of 
reviewing and revising those ethical rules, commonly referred to as the 
Common Rule. The Common Rule serves to guide researchers and 
investigators in the Department, but also throughout the Federal 
Government, in the conduct and protocols for doing research on human 
subjects. The proposed revisions will be designed to better protect 
human subjects who are involved in research, while facilitating 
research and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators.
Streamlining Regulations To Reduce Regulatory Burdens
    Consistent with the President's Executive Order 13563, the 
Department continues its commitment to reducing the regulatory burden 
on the health care industry through the use of modern technology. As 
part of this effort, FDA will advance several rules designed to reduce 
the reporting and data submission requirements from manufacturers of 
drugs and medical devices.
    In one such rule, FDA will permit manufacturers, importers, and 
users of medical devices to submit reports of adverse events to the FDA 
electronically. This proposed change will not only reduce the paper 
reporting burden on industry, but also allow FDA to more quickly review 
safety reports and identify emerging public health issues. Under 
another proposed rule, FDA would revise existing regulations to allow 
clinical study data and bioequivalence data for new drug applications 
and biological license applications to be provided electronically. 
Again, this rule will reduce the reporting burden on industry and also 
permit FDA to more readily process and review applications.
    CMS is also engaged in regulatory reduction and streamlining 
activities. Of particular note are several rules on conditions of 
participation for hospitals and other providers. The most comprehensive 
of these rules is the one reducing regulatory burdens on hospitals, 
which is expected to save as much as $940 million annually over the 
next 5 years. This rule will implement changes to hospital conditions 
of participation to reflect substantial advances in health care 
delivery and patient safety knowledge and practices.

HHS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)

Proposed Rule Stage

32.  Health Information Technology: New and Revised Standards, 
Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for 
Electronic Health Record Technology

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300jj-14
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 170.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The final rule that established the initial set of 
standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria 
was published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2010. The initial set 
represented the first round of an incremental approach to adopting 
future sets of standards, implementation specifications, and 
certification criteria to enhance electronic health record (EHR) 
interoperability, functionality, and utility. Under the authority 
provided by section 3004 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), this 
notice of proposed rulemaking would propose that the Secretary adopt 
revisions to the initial set as well as new standards, implementation 
specifications and certification criteria. The proposed new and revised 
standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria 
would establish the technical capabilities that certified EHR 
technology would need to include to support meaningful use under the 
CMS Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.
    Statement of Need: The final rule that established the initial set 
of standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria 
was published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2010. The initial set 
represented the first round of an incremental approach to adopting 
future sets of standards, implementation specifications, and 
certification criteria for electronic health record (EHR) technology. 
In a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Secretary would propose new and 
revised standards, implementation specifications, and certification 
criteria that would establish the technical capabilities that certified 
EHR technology would need to include in order to support meaningful use 
under the CMS Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under the authority provided by section 
3004 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), the Secretary would 
propose to adopt revisions to the initial set of standards, 
implementation specifications, and certification criteria and propose 
new standards, implementation specifications and certification 
criteria.
    Alternatives: No alternatives are available because eligible 
professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals under 
the CMS Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs are required to 
demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. This rule 
ensures that the certification requirements necessary to support the 
achievement of meaningful use Stage 2 keep pace with the changes to the 
requirements in the CMS Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EHR technology developers seeking 
certification are expected to incur costs related to EHR technology 
redesign, reprogramming, and new capability development. Benefits 
include greater standardization and increased EHR technology 
interoperability and functionality.
    Risks: Absent a rulemaking, it is unlikely that currently certified 
EHR technology would include the requisite capacities to support an 
eligible professional's, eligible hospital's, or critical access 
hospital's achievement of meaningful use under the CMS Medicare and 
Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.

[[Page 7718]]

    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Steven Posnack, Policy Analyst, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the 
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 200 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 690-7151.
    RIN: 0991-AB82

HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

Proposed Rule Stage

33. Electronic Submission of Data From Studies Evaluating Human Drugs 
and Biologics

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 355; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 262
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.50; 21 CFR 601.12; 21 CFR 314.94; 21 CFR 
314.96.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration is proposing to amend 
the regulations governing the format in which clinical study data and 
bioequivalence data are required to be submitted for new drug 
applications (NDAs), biological license applications (BLAs), and 
abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). The proposal would revise 
our regulations to require that data submitted for NDAs, BLAs, and 
ANDAs, and their supplements and amendments, be provided in an 
electronic format that FDA can process, review, and archive.
    Statement of Need: Before a drug is approved for marketing, FDA 
must determine that the drug is safe and effective for its intended 
use. This determination is based in part on clinical study data and 
bioequivalence data that are submitted as part of the marketing 
application. Study data submitted to FDA in electronic format have 
generally been more efficient to process and review.
    FDA's proposed rule would address the submission of study data in a 
standardized electronic format. Electronic submission of study data 
would improve patient safety and enhance health care delivery by 
enabling FDA to process, review, and archive data more efficiently. 
Standardization would also enhance the ability to share study data and 
communicate results. Investigators and industry would benefit from the 
use of standards throughout the lifecycle of a study--in data 
collection, reporting, and analysis. The proposal would work in concert 
with ongoing Agency and national initiatives to support increased use 
of electronic technology as a means to improve patient safety and 
enhance health care delivery.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Our legal authority to amend our 
regulations governing the submission and format of clinical study data 
and bioequivalence data for human drugs and biologics derives from 
sections 505 and 701 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 355 and 371) and section 351 
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).
    Alternatives: FDA considered issuing a guidance document outlining 
the electronic submission and the standardization of study data, but 
not requiring electronic submission of the data in the standardized 
format. This alternative was rejected because the Agency would not 
fully benefit from standardization until it became the industry 
standard, which could take up to 20 years.
    We also considered a number of different implementation scenarios, 
from shorter to longer time-periods. The 2-year time-period was 
selected because the Agency believes it would provide ample time for 
applicants to comply without too long a delay in the effective date. A 
longer time-period would delay the benefit from the increased 
efficiencies, such as standardization of review tools across 
applications, and the incremental cost savings to industry would be 
small.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Standardization of clinical data 
structure, terminology, and code sets will increase the efficiency of 
the Agency review process. FDA estimates that the costs resulting from 
the proposal would include substantial one-time costs, additional waves 
of one-time costs as standards mature, and possibly some annual 
recurring costs. One-time costs would include, among other things, the 
cost of converting data to standard structures, terminology, and cost 
sets (i.e., purchase of software to convert data); the cost of 
submitting electronic data (i.e., purchase of file transfer programs); 
and the cost of installing and validating the software and training 
personnel. Additional annual recurring costs may result from software 
purchases and licensing agreements for use of proprietary 
terminologies. The proposal could result in many long-term benefits 
associated with reduced time for preparing applications, including 
reduced preparation costs and faster time to market for beneficial 
products. In addition, the proposed rule would improve patient safety 
through faster, more efficient, comprehensive and accurate data review, 
as well as enhanced communication among sponsors and clinicians.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Martha Nguyen, Regulatory Counsel, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for 
Drug Evaluation and Research, WO 51, Room 6352, 10903 New Hampshire 
Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-3471, Fax: 301 
847-8440, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AC52

HHS--FDA

34. Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-
Benefit Preventive Controls for Food for Animals

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 350e; 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 
U.S.C. 374; 42 U.S.C. 264; Pub. L. 110-85, sec 1002(a)(2); Pub. L. 111-
353
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 228.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 27, 2009, FDA is 
directed to issue proposed and final regulations under FDA Amendments 
Act by the statutory deadline.
    The legal deadline for FDA under the Food Safety and Modernization 
Act to promulgate regulations is July 2012.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing 
regulations for preventive controls for animal feed ingredients and 
mixed animal feed to provide greater assurance that marketed animal 
feed ingredients and mixed feeds intended for all animals, including 
pets, are safe. This action is being taken as part of the FDA's Animal 
Feed Safety System initiative. This action is also being taken to carry 
out the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 
of 2007, under section 1002(a), and the Food Safety Modernization Act 
of 2010 (FSMA), under section 103.
    Statement of Need: Regulatory oversight of the animal food industry 
has traditionally been limited and

[[Page 7719]]

focused on a few known safety issues, so there could be potential human 
and animal health problems that remain unaddressed. The massive pet 
food recall due to adulteration of pet food with melamine and cyanuric 
acid in 2007 is a prime example. The actions taken by two protein 
suppliers in China affected a large number of pet food suppliers in the 
United States and created a nationwide problem. By the time the cause 
of the problem was identified, melamine and cyanuric acid contaminated 
ingredients resulted in the adulteration of millions of individual 
servings of pet food. Congress passed FSMA which the President signed 
into law on January 4, 2011 (Pub. L. 111-353). Section 103 of FSMA 
amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding 
section 418 (21 U.S.C. 350g) Hazard Analysis and Risk Based Preventive 
Controls. In enacting FSMA, Congress sought to improve the safety of 
food in the United States by taking a risk-based approach to food 
safety, emphasizing prevention. Section 418 of the FD&C Act requires 
owners, operators, or agents in charge of food facilities to develop 
and implement a written plan that describes and documents how their 
facility will implement the hazard analysis and preventive controls 
required by this section.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is 
provided in FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353), which amended the FD&C Act by 
establishing section 418, which directed FDA to publish implementing 
regulations. FSMA also amended section 301 of the FD&C Act to add 
301(uu) that states the operation of a facility that manufactures, 
processes, packs, or holds food for sale in the United States if the 
owner, operator, or agent in charge of such facility is not in 
compliance with section 418 of the FD&C Act is a prohibited act. 
Further authority comes from section 1002(a) of title X of the FDAAA of 
2007 (21 U.S.C. 2102) requiring the Secretary to update standards for 
the processing of pet food.
    FDA is also issuing this rule under the general requirements of 
section 402 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) for adulterated food.
    In addition, section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) 
authorizes the Agency to issue regulations for the efficient 
enforcement of the Act.
    Alternatives: The 2011 FSMA limited the Agency's flexibility to 
exclude many requirements. It described in detail its requirements for 
subpart C, concerning the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive 
controls part of the proposed rule. Alternatives include certain 
requirements listed in subpart B concerning operations and practices.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule 
would result from fewer cases of contaminated animal food ingredients 
or finished animal food products. Discovering contaminated food 
ingredients before they are used in a finished product would reduce the 
number of recalls of contaminated animal food products. Benefits would 
include reduced medical treatment costs for animals and humans, reduced 
loss of market value of live animals, reduced loss of animal 
companionship, and reduced loss in value of animal food products. More 
stringent requirements for animal food manufacturing would maintain 
public confidence in the safety of animal foods and protect animal and 
human health. FDA lacks sufficient data to quantify the benefits of the 
proposed rule.
    The compliance costs of the proposed rule would result from the 
additional labor and capital required to perform the hazard analyses, 
write and implement the preventive controls, monitor and verify the 
preventive controls, take corrective actions if preventive controls 
fail to prevent feeds from becoming contaminated, and implement 
requirements from the operations and practices section.
    Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to provide greater assurance that 
food intended for animals is safe and will not cause illness or injury 
to animals or humans. This rule would implement a risk-based, 
preventive controls food safety system intended to prevent animal food 
containing hazards, which may cause illness or injury to animals or 
humans, from entering into the food supply. The rule would apply to 
domestic and imported animal food (including raw materials and 
ingredients). Fewer cases of animal food contamination would (1) reduce 
the risk of serious illness and death to animals, (2) reduce the risk 
of adverse health effects to humans handling animal food, and (3) 
reduce the risk of consuming human food from animals that consumed 
contaminated food.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Kim Young, Deputy Director, Division of Compliance, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Veterinary Medicine, Room 106 (MPN-4, HFV-230), 7519 
Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 276-9207, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG10

HHS--FDA

35. Unique Device Identification

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 16; 21 CFR 801; 21 CFR 803; 21 CFR 806; 21 CFR 
810; 21 CFR 814; 21 CFR 820; 21 CFR 821; 21 CFR 822.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 
(FDAAA), amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by adding 
section 519(f) (21 U.S.C. 360i(f)). This section requires FDA to 
promulgate regulations establishing a unique identification system for 
medical devices requiring the label of medical devices to bear a unique 
identifier, unless FDA specifies an alternative placement or provides 
for exceptions. The unique identifier must adequately identify the 
device through distribution and use, and may include information on the 
lot or serial number.
    Statement of Need: A unique device identification system will help 
reduce medical errors; will allow FDA, the healthcare community, and 
industry to more rapidly review and organize adverse event reports; 
identify problems relating to a particular device (even down to a 
particular lot or batch, range of serial numbers, or range of 
manufacturing or expiration dates); and thereby allow for more rapid, 
effective, corrective actions that focus sharply on the specific 
devices that are of concern.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 519(f) of the FD&C Act (added by 
sec. 226 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007) 
directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations establishing a unique 
device identification (UDI) system for medical devices, requiring the 
label of devices to bear a unique identifier that will adequately 
identify the device through its distribution and use.
    Alternatives: FDA considered several alternatives that would allow 
certain

[[Page 7720]]

requirements of the proposed rule to vary, such as the required 
elements of a UDI and the scope of affected devices.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the affected 
industry would incur one-time and recurring costs, including 
administrative costs, to change and print labels that include the 
required elements of a UDI, costs to purchase equipment to print and 
verify the UDI, and costs to purchase software and integrate and 
validate the UDI into existing IT systems. FDA anticipates that 
implementation of a UDI system would help improve the efficiency and 
accuracy of medical device recalls and medical device adverse event 
reporting. The proposed rule would also standardize how medical devices 
are identified and contribute to future potential public health 
benefits of initiatives aimed at optimizing the use of automated 
systems in healthcare. Most of these benefits, however, require 
complementary developments and innovations in the private and public 
sectors.
    Risks: This rule is intended to substantially eliminate existing 
obstacles to the consistent identification of medical devices used in 
the United States. By providing the means to rapidly and accurately 
identify a device and key attributes that affect its safe and effective 
use, the rule would reduce medical errors that result from 
misidentification of a device or confusion concerning its appropriate 
use. The rule will fulfill a statutory directive to establish a unique 
device identification system.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: John J. Crowley, Senior Advisor for Patient Safety, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, WO 66, Room 2315, 10903 New 
Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 980-1936, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG31

HHS--FDA

36. Produce Safety Regulation

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 350h; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 
U.S.C. 264; Pub. L. 111-353 (signed on Jan. 4, 2011)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 4, 2012, Proposed rule not 
later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the Food Safety 
Modernization Act.
    Abstract: The Food Safety Modernization Act requires the Secretary 
to establish and publish science-based minimum standards for the safe 
production and harvesting of those types of fruits and vegetables, 
including specific mixes or categories of fruits and vegetables, that 
are raw agricultural commodities for which the Secretary has determined 
that such standards minimize the risk of serious adverse health 
consequences or death. FDA is proposing to promulgate regulations 
setting enforceable standards for fresh produce safety at the farm and 
packing house. The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce the risk 
of illness associated with contaminated fresh produce. The proposed 
rule will be based on prevention-oriented public health principles and 
incorporate what we have learned in the past decade since the Agency 
issued general good agricultural practice guidelines entitled ``Guide 
to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and 
Vegetables'' (GAPs Guide). The proposed rule also will reflect comments 
received on the Agency's 1998 update of its GAPs guide and its July 
2009 draft commodity specific guidances for tomatoes, leafy greens, and 
melons. Although the proposed rule will be based on recommendations 
that are included in the GAPs guide, FDA does not intend to make the 
entire guidance mandatory. FDA's proposed rule would, however, set out 
clear standards for implementation of modern preventive controls. The 
proposed rule also would emphasize the importance of environmental 
assessments to identify hazards and possible pathways of contamination 
and provide examples of risk reduction practices recognizing that 
operators must tailor their preventive controls to particular hazards 
and conditions affecting their operations. The requirements of the 
proposed rule would be scale appropriate and commensurate with the 
relative risks and complexity of individual operations. FDA intends to 
issue guidance to assist industry in complying with the requirements of 
the new regulation.
    Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the 
requirements of the FSMA and to address the food safety challenges 
associated with fresh produce and thereby protect the public health. 
Data indicate that between 1973 and 1997, outbreaks of foodborne 
illness in the U.S. associated with fresh produce increased in absolute 
numbers and as a proportion of all reported foodborne illness 
outbreaks. The Agency issued general good agricultural practice 
guidelines for fresh fruits and vegetables over a decade ago. 
Incorporating prevention-oriented public heath principles and 
incorporating what we have learned in the past decade into a regulation 
is a critical step in establishing standards for the growing, 
harvesting, packing, and storing of produce and reducing the foodborne 
illness attributed to fresh produce.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is relying on the amendments to the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), provided by 
section 105 of the Food Safety Modernization Act (codified primarily in 
sec. 419 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350h)). FDA's legal basis also 
derives in part from sections 402(a)(4) and 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 
U.S.C. 342(a)(4) and 371(a)). FDA also intends to rely on section 361 
of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), which gives 
FDA authority to promulgate regulations to control the spread of 
communicable disease.
    Alternatives: Section 105 of the Food Safety Modernization Act 
requires FDA to conduct this rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs to more 
than 300,000 domestic and foreign producers and packers of fresh 
produce from the proposal would include one-time costs (e.g., new tools 
and equipment) and recurring costs (e.g., monitoring, training, 
recordkeeping). FDA anticipates that the benefits would be a reduction 
in foodborne illness and deaths associated with fresh produce. 
Monetized estimates of costs and benefits are not available at this 
time.
    Risks: This regulation would directly and materially advance the 
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for 
illness and death associated with foodborne infections associated with 
the consumption of fresh produce. Less restrictive and less 
comprehensive approaches have not been sufficiently effective in 
reducing the problems addressed by this

[[Page 7721]]

regulation. FDA anticipates that the regulation would lead to a 
significant decrease in foodborne illness associated with fresh produce 
consumed in the U.S.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Samir Assar, Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Safety, 
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1636, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG35

HHS--FDA

37. Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 264; Pub. 
L. 111-353 (signed on Jan. 4, 2011)
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 110.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 4, 2012, Final rule must be 
published no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the 
FDA Food Safety Modernizaton Act.
    Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of the FDA Food 
Safety Modernization Act.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety 
Modernization Act (the FSMA) requires the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum 
standards for conducting a hazard analysis, documenting hazards, 
implementing preventive controls, and documenting the implementation of 
the preventive controls; and to define the terms ``small business'' and 
``very small business.'' The FSMA also requires the Secretary to 
promulgate regulations with respect to activities that constitute on-
farm packing or holding of food that is not grown, raised, or consumed 
on a farm or another farm under the same ownership and activities that 
constitute on farm manufacturing or processing of food that is not 
grown, raised, or consumed on a farm or another farm under the same 
ownership.
    FDA is proposing to amend its current good manufacturing practice 
(CGMP) regulations (21 CFR part 110) for manufacturing, packing, or 
holding human food to require food facilities to develop and implement 
a written food safety plan. This proposed rule would require a food 
facility to have and implement preventive controls to significantly 
minimize or prevent the occurrence of hazards that could affect food 
manufactured, processed, packed, or held by the facility and to provide 
assurances that such food will not be adulterated under section 402 or 
misbranded under section 403(w).
    Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the 
requirements of the FSMA and to better address changes that have 
occurred in the food industry and thereby protect public health.
    FDA last updated its food CGMP regulations for the manufacturing, 
packing, or holding of human food in 1986. Modernizing these food CGMP 
regulations to address risk-based preventive controls and more 
explicitly address issues such as environmental pathogens, food 
allergens, mandatory employee training, and sanitation of food contact 
surfaces, would be a critical step in raising the standards for food 
production and distribution. By amending 21 CFR 110 to modernize good 
manufacturing practices, the agency could focus the attention of food 
processors on measures that have been proven to significantly reduce 
the risk of food-borne illness. An amended regulation also would allow 
the agency to better focus its regulatory efforts on ensuring industry 
compliance with controls that have a significant food safety impact.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is relying on section 103 of the FSMA. 
FDA is also relying on sections 402(a)(3), (a)(4) and 701(a) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 
342(a)(3), (a)(4), and 371(a)). Under section 402(a)(3) of the FD&C 
Act, a food is adulterated if it consists in whole or in part of any 
filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit 
for food. Under section 402(a)(4), a food is adulterated if it has been 
prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions whereby it may 
have become contaminated with filth or may have been rendered injurious 
to health. Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act, FDA is authorized to 
issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. FDA's 
legal basis also derives from section 361 of the Public Health Service 
Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), which gives FDA authority to promulgate 
regulations to control the spread of communicable disease.
    Alternatives: An alternative to this rulemaking is not to update 
the CGMP regulations, and instead issue separate regulations to 
implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs from 
the proposal to domestic and foreign producers and packers of processed 
foods would include new one-time costs (e.g., adoption of written food 
safety plans, setting up training programs, implementing allergen 
controls, and purchasing new tools and equipment) and recurring costs 
(e.g., auditing and monitoring suppliers of sensitive raw materials and 
ingredients, training employees, and completing and maintaining records 
used throughout the facility). FDA anticipates that the benefits would 
be a reduced risk of food-borne illness and death from processed foods 
and a reduction in the number of safety related recalls.
    Risks: This regulation will directly and materially advance the 
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for 
illness and death associated with food-borne infections. Less 
restrictive and less comprehensive approaches have not been effective 
in reducing the problems addressed by this regulation. The regulation 
will lead to a significant decrease in foodborne illness in the U.S.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: John F. Sheehan, Director, Office of Food Safety, 
Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition (HFS-315), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, 
MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1488, Fax: 301 436-2632, Email: 
[email protected].

[[Page 7722]]

    RIN: 0910-AG36

HHS--FDA

38. Foreign Supplier Verification Program

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Title III, sec 301 of FDA Food Safety 
Modernization Act, Pub. L. 111-353, establishing sec 805 of the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 4, 2012.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would establish regulations concerning 
the content of foreign supplier verification programs. The regulations 
will require that each importer have a foreign supplier verification 
program that is adequate to provide assurances that each foreign 
supplier produces food in compliance with: (1) Processes and procedures 
that provide the same level of public health protection as those 
required under section 418 (concerning hazard analysis and risk-based 
preventative controls) or section 419 (concerning produce safety 
standards) of the FD&C Act; and (2) sections 402 (concerning 
adulteration) and 403(w) (concerning major food allergens) of the FD&C 
Act. In promulgating the foreign supplier verification regulations, we 
will, as appropriate, take into account differences among importers and 
types of imported foods, including differences related to the level of 
risk posed by an imported food. Methods of foreign supplier 
verification may include monitoring records for shipments, lot-by-lot 
certifications of compliance, annual on-site inspections, checking the 
hazard analysis and risk-based preventive control plans of foreign 
suppliers, and periodically testing and sampling shipments.
    Statement of Need: The proposed rule is needed to help improve the 
safety of food that is imported into the United States. Imported food 
products have increased dramatically over the last several decades. 
Data indicate that about 15% of the U.S. food supply is imported. FSMA 
provides the Agency with additional tools and authorities to help 
ensure that imported foods are safe for U.S. consumers. Included among 
these tools and authorities is a requirement that importers perform 
risk-based foreign supplier verification activities to verify that the 
food they import is produced in compliance with U.S. requirements and 
is not adulterated or misbranded. This proposed rule on the content of 
foreign supplier verification program (FSVPs) sets forth the proposed 
steps that food importers would be required to take to fulfill their 
responsibility to ensure the safety of the food they bring into this 
country.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 805(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
384a(c)) directs FDA, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of FSMA, to issue regulations on the content of FSVPs. Section 
805(c)(4) states that verification activities under such programs may 
include monitoring records for shipments, lot-by-lot certification of 
compliance, annual onsite inspections, checking the hazard analysis and 
risk-based preventive control plans of foreign suppliers, and 
periodically testing and sampling shipments of imported products. 
Section 301(b) of FSMA amends section 301 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
331) by adding section 301(zz), which designates as a prohibited act 
the importation or offering for importation of a food if the importer 
(as defined in section 805) does not have in place an FSVP in 
compliance with section 805. In addition, section 301(c) of FSMA amends 
section 801(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) by stating that an 
article of food being imported or offered for import into the United 
States shall be refused admission if it appears from an examination of 
a sample of such an article or otherwise that the importer is in 
violation of section 805.
    Alternatives: We are considering a range of alternative approaches 
to the requirements for foreign supplier verification activities. These 
might include: (1) Establishing a general requirement that importers 
determine and conduct whatever verification activity that would 
adequately address the risks associated with the foods they import; (2) 
allowing importers to choose from a list of possible verification 
mechanisms, such as the activities listed in section 805(c)(4) of the 
FD&C Act; (3) requiring importers to conduct particular verification 
activities for certain types of foods or risks (e.g., for high-risk 
foods) but allowing flexibility in verification activities for other 
types of foods or risks; and (4) specifying use of a particular 
verification activity for each particular kind of food or risk. To the 
extent possible while still ensuring that verification activities are 
adequate to ensure that foreign suppliers are producing food in 
accordance with U.S. requirements, we will seek to give importers the 
flexibility to choose verification procedures that are appropriate to 
adequately address the risks associated with the importation of a 
particular food.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have not yet quantified the cost 
and benefits for this proposed rule. However, the available information 
suggests that the costs will be significant. Our preliminary analysis 
of FY10 OASIS data suggests that this rule will cover about 60,000 
importers, 240,000 unique combinations of importers and foreign 
suppliers, and 540,000 unique combinations of importers, products, and 
foreign suppliers. These numbers imply that provisions that require 
activity for each importer, each unique combination of importer and 
foreign supplier, or each unique combination of importer, product, and 
foreign supplier will generate significant costs. An example of a 
provision linked to combinations of importers and foreign suppliers 
would be a requirement to conduct a verification activity, such as an 
onsite audit, under certain conditions. The cost of onsite audits will 
depend in part on whether foreign suppliers can provide the same onsite 
audit results to different importers or whether every importer will 
need to take some action with respect to each of their foreign 
suppliers. The benefits of this proposed rule will consist of the 
reduction of adverse health events linked to imported food that could 
result from compliance with the FSVP requirements. We have not yet 
estimated the benefits of the rule.
    Risks: As stated above, about 15 percent of the U.S. food supply is 
imported, and many of these imported foods are high-risk commodities. 
According to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, each year, about 48 million Americans get sick, 128,000 are 
hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases. From July 1, 2007, 
through June 30, 2008, FDA oversaw 40 recalls of imported foods that 
were so contaminated that the Agency deemed them to be an imminent 
threat. We expect that the adoption of FSVPs by food importers will 
lead to a significant reduction to the threat to public health posed by 
unsafe imported food, though we are still in the process of trying to 
quantify the reduction in risk that will occur through importer 
compliance with the FSVP regulations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.

[[Page 7723]]

    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Brian L. Pendleton, Senior Policy Advisor, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Office of Policy, WO32, Room 4245, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-4614, Fax: 301 847-8616, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG64.

HHS--FDA

39. Accreditation of Third Parties To Conduct Food Safety Audits and 
for Other Related Purposes

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-353, sec 307, FDA Food Safety 
Modernization Act; Other sections of FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, 
as appropriate.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 2012, Promulgate 
implementing regulations. Per Public Law 111-353, section 307(c)(5)(C), 
promulgate, within 18 months of enactment, implementing regulations for 
accreditation of third-party auditors to conduct food safety audits.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing 
regulations relating to the accreditation of third-party auditors to 
conduct food safety audits of foreign entities, including foreign 
facilities in the food import supply chain. The proposed regulations 
will include provisions to protect against conflicts of interest 
between accredited auditors and audited entities, as described in 
section 307 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), Public Law 
111-353. As part of this rulemaking, FDA may propose regulations 
relating to the accreditation of third parties to perform related 
activities, such as conducting laboratory analyses of food, authorized 
by other sections of FSMA.
    Statement of Need: The use of accredited third-party auditors to 
certify high-risk food imports to assist in ensuring the safety of food 
from foreign origin entering U.S. commerce. Accredited third-party 
auditors auditing foreign process facilities may be viewed as 
increasing FDA's ``coverage'' of foreign facilities that FDA may not 
have adequate resources to inspect in a particular year while using 
identified standards creating overall uniformity to complete the task. 
Audits that result in issuance of facility certificates will provide 
FDA information about the compliance status of the facility. 
Additionally, auditors will be required to submit audit reports that 
may be reviewed by FDA for purposes of compliance assessment and work 
planning.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment, establish a system for the recognition of accreditation 
bodies that accredit third-party auditors, certifying that their 
eligible entities meet the requirements, directly accredit third-party 
auditors should none be identified and recognized by the 2-year date of 
enactment, obtain a list of all accredited third-party auditors and 
their agents from recognized accreditation bodies, and determine 
requirements for regulatory audit reports while avoiding unnecessary 
duplication of efforts and costs.
    Alternatives: FSMA described in detail the framework for, and 
requirements of, the accredited third-party auditor program. 
Alternatives include certain oversight activities required of 
recognized accreditation bodies that accredit third-party auditors, as 
distinguished from third-party auditors directly accredited by FDA. 
Another alternative relates to the nature of the required standards and 
the degree to which those standards are prescriptive or flexible.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule 
would result from fewer cases of unsafe or misbranded food entering 
U.S. commerce. Additional benefits include the increased flow of 
credible information to FDA regarding the compliance status of foreign 
firms and their foods that are ultimately offered for import Into the 
United States, which information in turn would inform FDA's work 
planning for inspection of foreign food facilities and might result in 
a signal of possible problems with a particular firm or its products, 
and with sufficient signals, might raise questions about the rigor of 
the food safety regulatory system of the country of origin.
    The compliance costs of the proposed rule would result from the 
additional labor and capital required of accreditation bodies seeking 
FDA recognition and of third-party auditors seeking accreditation to 
the extent that will involve the assembling of information for an 
application unique to the FDA third-party program. The compliance costs 
associated with certification will be accounted for separately under 
the costs associated with participation In the foreign supplier 
verification program and the costs associated with mandatory 
certification for high-risk food imports. The third-party program is 
funded through revenue neutral user fees, which will be developed by 
FDA through rulemaklng. User fee costs will be accounted for in that 
rulemaklng.
    Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to provide greater assurance the 
food offered for import into the United States is safe and will not 
cause injury or illness to animals or humans. The rule would implement 
a program for accrediting third-party auditors to conduct food safety 
audits of foreign food entities, including registered foreign food 
facilities, and based on the findings of the regulatory audit, to issue 
certifications to foreign food entities found to be in compliance with 
FDA requirements. The certifications would be used by importers seeking 
to participate in the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program for 
expedited review and entry of product and would be a means to provide 
assurance of compliance as required by FDA based on risk-related 
considerations. The rule would apply to any foreign or domestic 
accreditation body seeking FDA recognition, any foreign or domestic 
third-party auditor seeking accreditation, any registered foreign food 
facility or other foreign food entity subject to a food safety audit 
(including a regulatory audit conducted for purposes of certification), 
and any importer seeking to participate in the Voluntary Qualified 
Importer Program. Fewer cases of unsafe or misbranded food entering 
U.S. commerce would reduce the risk of serious illness and death to 
humans and animals.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Charlotte A. Christin, Senior Policy Advisor, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Office of Policy WO32, Room 4234, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-4718, Fax: 301

[[Page 7724]]

847-3541, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG66

HHS--FDA

Final Rule Stage

40. Infant Formula: Current Good Manufacturing Practices; Quality 
Control Procedures; Notification Requirements; Records and Reports; and 
Quality Factors

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 350a; 21 U.S.C. 371
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 106 and 107.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is revising its 
infant formula regulations in 21 CFR parts 106 and 107 to establish 
requirements for current good manufacturing practices (CGMP), including 
audits; to establish requirements for quality factors; and to amend 
FDA's quality control procedures, notification, and record and 
reporting requirements for infant formula. FDA is taking this action to 
improve the protection of infants who consume infant formula products.
    Statement of Need: The Agency published a proposed rule on July 9, 
1996, that would establish current good manufacturing practice 
regulations, quality control procedures, quality factors, notification 
requirements, records, and reports for the production of infant 
formula. This proposal was issued in response to the 1986 Amendments to 
the Infant Formula Act of 1980. On April 28, 2003, FDA reopened the 
comment period to update comments on the proposal. The comment was 
extended on June 27, 2003, and ended on August 26, 2003. The comment 
period was reopened on August 1, 2006, and ended on September 15, 2006.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Infant Formula Act of 1980 (the 1980 
Act) (Pub. L. 96-359) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(the Act) to include section 412 (21 U.S.C. 350a). This law is intended 
to improve protection of infants consuming infant formula products by 
establishing greater regulatory control over the formulation and 
production of infant formula. In 1982, FDA adopted infant formula 
recall procedures in subpart D of 21 CFR part 107 of its regulations 
(47 FR 18832, Apr. 30, 1982), and infant formula quality control 
procedures in subpart B of 21 CFR part 106 (47 FR 17016, Apr. 20, 
1982). In 1985, FDA further implemented the 1980 Act by establishing 
subparts B, C, and D in 21 CFR part 107 regarding the labeling of 
infant formula, exempt infant formulas, and nutrient requirements for 
infant formula, respectively (50 FR 1833, Jan. 14, 1985; 50 FR 48183, 
Nov. 22, 1985; and 50 FR 45106, Oct. 30, 1985).
    In 1986, Congress, as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (Pub. 
L. 99-570) (the 1986 amendments), amended section 412 of the act to 
address concerns that had been expressed by Congress and consumers 
about the 1980 Act and its implementation related to the sufficiency of 
quality control testing, CGMP, recordkeeping, and recall requirements. 
The 1986 amendments: (1) State that an infant formula is deemed to be 
adulterated if it fails to provide certain required nutrients, fails to 
meet quality factor requirements established by the Secretary (and, by 
delegation, FDA), or if it is not processed in compliance with the CGMP 
and quality control procedures established by the Secretary; (2) 
require that the Secretary issue regulations establishing requirements 
for quality factors and CGMP, including quality control procedures; (3) 
require that infant formula manufacturers regularly audit their 
operations to ensure that those operations comply with CGMP and quality 
control procedure regulations; (4) expand the circumstances in which 
firms must make a submission to the Agency to include when there is a 
major change in an infant formula or a change that may affect whether 
the formula is adulterated; (5) specify the nutrient quality control 
testing that must be done on each batch of infant formula; (6) modify 
the infant formula recall requirements; and (7) give the Secretary 
authority to establish requirements for retention of records, including 
records necessary to demonstrate compliance with CGMP and quality 
control procedures. In 1989, the Agency implemented the provisions on 
recalls (secs. 412(f) and (g) of the Act) by establishing subpart E in 
21 CFR part 107 (54 FR 4006, Jan. 27, 1989). In 1991, the Agency 
implemented the provisions on record and record retention requirements 
by revising 21 CFR 106.100 (56 FR 66566, Dec. 24, 1991).
    The Agency has already promulgated regulations that respond to a 
number of the provisions of the 1986 amendments. The final rule would 
address additional provisions of these amendments.
    Alternatives: The 1986 amendments require the Secretary (and, by 
delegation, FDA) to establish, by regulation, requirements for quality 
factors and CGMPs, including quality control procedures. Therefore, 
there are no alternatives to rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs from 
the final rule to producers of infant formula would include first year 
and recurring costs (e.g., administrative costs, implementation of 
quality controls, records, audit plans, and assurances of quality 
factors in new infant formulas). FDA anticipates that the primary 
benefits would be a reduced risk of illness due to Cronobacter 
sakazakii and Salmonella spp in infant formula. Additional benefits 
stem from the quality factors requirements that would assure the 
healthy growth of infants consuming infant formula. Monetized estimates 
of costs and benefits for this final rule are not available at this 
time. The analysis for the proposed rule estimated costs of less than 
$1 million per year. FDA was not able to quantify benefits in the 
analysis for the proposed rule.
    Risks: Special controls for infant formula manufacturing are 
especially important because infant formula, particularly powdered 
infant formula, is an ideal medium for bacterial growth and because 
infants are at high risk of foodborne illness because of their immature 
immune systems. In addition, quality factors are of critical need to 
assure that the infant formula supports healthy growth in the first 
months of life when infant formula may be an infant's sole source of 
nutrition. The provisions of this rule will address weaknesses in 
production that may allow contamination of infant formula, including, 
contamination with C. sakazakii and Salmonella spp which can lead to 
serious illness with devastating sequelae and/or death. The provisions 
would also assure that new infant formulas support healthy growth in 
infants.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/09/96  61 FR 36154
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/06/96
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   04/28/03  68 FR 22341
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   06/27/03  68 FR 38247
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/26/03
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   08/01/06  71 FR 43392
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/15/06
Final Action........................   03/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7725]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Benson Silverman, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition (HFS-850), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, 
MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1459, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 0910-AA04.
    RIN: 0910-AF27

HHS--FDA

41. Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 352, 360, 360i, 360j, 371, 374
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 803.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its 
postmarket medical device reporting (MDR) regulations to require that 
manufacturers, importers, and user facilities submit mandatory reports 
of medical device adverse events to the Agency in an electronic format 
that FDA can process, review, and archive. FDA is taking this action to 
improve the Agency's systems for collecting and analyzing postmarketing 
safety reports. The proposed change would help the Agency to more 
quickly review safety reports and identify emerging public health 
issues.
    Statement of Need: The final rule would require user facilities and 
medical device manufacturers and importers to submit medical device 
adverse event reports in electronic format instead of using a paper 
form. FDA is taking this action to improve its adverse event reporting 
program by enabling it to more quickly receive and process these 
reports.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Agency has legal authority under 
section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require 
adverse event reports. The final rule would require manufacturers, 
importers, and user facilities to change their procedures to send 
reports of medical device adverse events to FDA in electronic format 
instead of using a hard copy form.
    Alternatives: There are two alternatives. The first alternative is 
to allow the voluntary submission of electronic MDRs. If a substantial 
number of reporters fail to voluntarily submit electronic MDRs, FDA 
will not obtain the benefits of standardized formats and quicker access 
to medical device adverse event data. The second alternative is to 
allow small entities more time to comply. This would significantly 
postpone the benefits of the rule; moreover, it would only delay, 
rather than reduce or eliminate, the costs of compliance.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The principal benefit would be to 
public health, due to the increased speed in the processing and 
analysis of medical device reports currently submitted annually on 
paper. In addition, requiring electronic submission would reduce FDA 
annual operating costs and generate industry savings.
    The one-time costs are for modifying standard operating procedures 
and establishing electronic submission capabilities. Annually recurring 
costs include maintenance of electronic submission capabilities, 
including renewing the electronic certificate, and for some firms, the 
incremental cost to maintain high-speed Internet access.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/21/09  74 FR 42203
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/19/09
Final Action........................   03/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Nancy Pirt, Regulatory Counsel, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for 
Devices and Radiological Health, WO 66, Room 4438, 10903 New Hampshire 
Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-6248, Fax: 301 847-
8145, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AF86

HHS--FDA

42. Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-85; Pub. L. 107-188, sec 321; Pub. L. 
107-250, sec 207; 21 U.S.C. 360(a) through 360(j); 21 U.S.C. 360(p)
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 807.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule would codify the requirements for electronic 
registration and listing. However, for those companies that do not have 
access to the Web, FDA will offer an avenue by which they can register, 
list, and update information with a paper submission. The rule also 
will amend part 807 to reflect the timeframes for device establishment 
registration and listing established by sections 222 and 223 of Food 
and Drug Administration Amendment Act (FDAAA) and to reflect the 
requirement in section 510(i) of the Act, as amended by section 321 of 
the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response 
Act (BT Act), that foreign establishments provide FDA with additional 
pieces of information as part of their registration.
    Statement of Need: FDA is amending the medical device establishment 
registration and listing requirements under 21 CFR part 807 to reflect 
the electronic submission requirements in section 510(p) of the Act, 
which was added by section 207 of MDUFMA and later amended by section 
224 of FDAAA. FDA also is amending 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the 
requirements in section 321 of the BT Act for foreign establishments to 
furnish additional information as part of their registration. This rule 
will improve FDA's device establishment registration and listing system 
and utilize the latest technology in the collection of this 
information.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory basis for our authority 
includes sections 510(a) through (j), 510(p), 701, 801, and 1003 of the 
Act.
    Alternatives: The alternatives to this rulemaking include not 
updating the registration and listing regulations. Because of the new 
FDAAA statutory requirements and the advances in data collection and 
transmission technology, FDA believes this rulemaking is the preferable 
alternative.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency believes that there may 
be some one-time costs associated with the rulemaking, which involve 
resource costs of familiarizing users with the electronic system. 
Recurring costs related to submission of the information by domestic 
firms would probably remain the same or decrease because a paper 
submission and postage is not required. There might be some increase in 
the financial burden on foreign firms since they will have to supply 
additional registration information as required by section 321 of the 
BT Act.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/26/10  75 FR 14510

[[Page 7726]]

 
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/24/10  .......................
Final Rule..........................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Nancy Pirt, Regulatory Counsel, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for 
Devices and Radiological Health, WO 66, Room 4438, 10903 New Hampshire 
Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-6248, Fax: 301 847-
8145, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AF88

HHS--FDA

43. Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling for Food Sold in Vending Machines

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a 
proposed rule in the Federal Register of April 6, 2011 (72 FR 19238) to 
establish requirements for nutrition labeling of certain food items 
sold in certain vending machines. FDA also proposed the terms and 
conditions for vending machine operators registering to voluntarily be 
subject to the requirements. FDA took this action to carry out section 
4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (``Affordable 
Care Act'' or ``ACA''), which was signed into law on March 23, 2010.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking was mandated by section 4205 of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).
    Summary of Legal Basis: On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act 
(Pub. L. 111-148) was signed into law. Section 4205 amended 403(q)(5) 
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by, among other 
things, creating new clause (H) to require that vending machine 
operators, who own or operate 20 or more machines, disclose calories 
for certain food items. FDA has the authority to issue this rule under 
sections 403(q)(5)(H) and 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
343(q)(5)(H), and 371(a)). Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act vests the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and, by delegation, the Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) with the authority to issue regulations 
for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
    Alternatives: Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act requires the 
Secretary (and by delegation, the FDA) to establish by regulation 
requirements for calorie labeling of articles of food sold from covered 
vending machines. Therefore, there are no alternatives to rulemaking. 
FDA has analyzed alternatives that may reduce the burden of the 
rulemaking, including analyzing the benefits and costs of: Restricting 
the flexibility of the format for calorie disclosure, lengthening the 
compliance time, and extending the coverage of the rule to bulk vending 
machines without selection buttons.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any vending machine operator 
operating fewer than 20 machines may voluntarily choose to be covered 
by the national standard. It is anticipated that vending machine 
operators that own or operate 20 or more vending machines will bear 
costs associated with adding calorie information to vending machines. 
FDA estimates that the total cost of complying with section 4205 of the 
Affordable Care Act and this rulemaking will be approximately $25.8 
million initially, with a recurring cost of approximately $24 million.
    Because comprehensive national data for the effects of vending 
machine labeling do not exist, FDA has not quantified the benefits 
associated with section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act and this 
rulemaking. Some studies have shown that some consumers consume fewer 
calories when calorie content information is displayed at the point of 
purchase. Consumers will benefit from having this important nutrition 
information to assist them in making healthier choices when consuming 
food away from home. Given the very high costs associated with obesity 
and its associated health risks, FDA estimates that if 0.02 percent of 
the adult obese population reduces energy intake by at least 100 
calories per week, then the benefits of Section 4205 of the Affordable 
Care Act and this rulemaking will be at least as large as the costs.
    Risks: Americans now consume an estimated one-third of their total 
calories from foods prepared outside the home and spend almost half of 
their food dollars on such foods. This rule will provide consumers with 
information about the nutritional content of food to enable them to 
make healthier food choices, and may help mitigate the trend of 
increasing obesity in America.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/06/11  76 FR 19238
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/05/11  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Daniel Reese, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, 
MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-2126, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG56

HHS--FDA

44. Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in 
Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a 
proposed rule in the Federal Register of April 6, 2011 (72 FR 19192), 
to establish requirements for nutrition labeling of standard menu items 
in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments. FDA also 
proposed the terms and conditions for restaurants and similar retail 
food establishments registering to voluntarily be subject to the 
Federal requirements. FDA took this action to carry out section 4205 of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (``Affordable Care Act'' 
or ``ACA''), which was signed into law on March 23, 2010.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking was mandated by section 4205 of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).
    Summary of Legal Basis: On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act 
(Pub. L. 111-148) was signed into law. Section 4205 of the Affordable 
Care Act amended 403(q)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FD&C Act) by, among other things, creating new clause

[[Page 7727]]

(H) to require that certain chain restaurants and similar retail food 
establishments with 20 or more locations disclose certain nutrient 
information for standard menu items. FDA has the authority to issue 
this rule under sections 403(a)(1), 403(q)(5)(H), and 701(a) of the 
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1), 343(q)(5)(H), and 371(a)). Section 
701(a) of the FD&C Act vests the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, and, by delegation, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
with the authority to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement 
of the FD&C Act.
    Alternatives: Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act requires the 
Secretary, and by delegation the FDA, to establish by regulation 
requirements for nutrition labeling of standard menu items for covered 
restaurants and similar retail food establishments. Therefore, there 
are no alternatives to rulemaking. FDA has analyzed alternatives that 
may reduce the burden of this rulemaking, including analyzing the 
benefits and costs of expanding and contracting the set of 
establishments automatically covered by this rule and shortening or 
lengthening the compliance time relative to the rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Chain restaurants and similar retail 
food establishments operating in local jurisdictions that impose 
different nutrition labeling requirements will benefit from having a 
uniform national standard. Any restaurant or similar retail food 
establishment with fewer than 20 locations may voluntarily choose to be 
covered by the national standard. It is anticipated that chain 
restaurants with 20 or more locations will bear costs for adding 
nutrition information to menus and menu boards. FDA estimates that the 
total cost of section 4205 and this rulemaking will be approximately 
$80 million, annualized over 10 years, with a low annualized estimate 
of approximately $33 million and a high annualized estimate of 
approximately $125 million over 10 years. These costs include an 
initial cost of approximately $320 million with an annually recurring 
cost of $45 million.
    Because comprehensive national data for the effects of menu 
labeling do not exist, FDA has not quantified the benefits associated 
with section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act and this rulemaking. Some 
studies have shown that some consumers consume fewer calories when 
menus have information about calorie content displayed. Consumers will 
benefit from having important nutrition information for the 
approximately 30 percent of calories consumed away from home. Given the 
very high costs associated with obesity and its associated health 
risks, FDA estimates that if 0.6 percent of the adult obese population 
reduces energy intake by at least 100 calories per week, then the 
benefits of section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act and this rule will 
be at least as large as the costs.
    Risks: Americans now consume an estimated one-third of their total 
calories on foods prepared outside the home and spend almost half of 
their food dollars on such foods. Unlike packaged foods that are 
labeled with nutrition information, foods in restaurants, for the most 
part, do not have nutrition information that is readily available when 
ordered. Dietary intake data have shown that obese Americans consume 
over 100 calories per meal more when eating food away from home rather 
than food at home. This rule will provide consumers information about 
the nutritional content of food to enable them to make healthier food 
choices and may help mitigate the trend of increasing obesity in 
America.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/06/11  76 FR 19192
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/05/11  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Geraldine A. June, Supervisor, Product Evaluation 
and Labeling Team, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and 
Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 
(HFS-820), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 
240 402-1802, Fax: 301 436-2636, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG57

HHS--CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)

Proposed Rule Stage

45. Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Reform of Hospital and Critical 
Access Hospital Conditions of Participation (CMS-3244-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh and 1395rr
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 482; 42 CFR 485.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would revise the requirements that 
hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) must meet to participate 
in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These changes are necessary to 
reflect substantial advances in health care delivery and in patient 
safety knowledge and practices. They are also an integral part of our 
efforts to achieve broad-based improvements in the quality of health 
care furnished through Federal programs and in patient safety, while at 
the same time reducing procedural burdens on providers.
    Statement of Need: CMS is revising many of the hospital CoPs to 
ensure that they meet the needs of hospital and CAH patients in an 
effective and efficient manner. CMS is proposing changes to reduce 
unnecessary, obsolete, or burdensome regulations on U.S. hospitals. 
This retrospective review of existing regulations meets the President's 
Executive Order that all Federal agencies identify such rules and make 
proposals to ``modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them.'' CMS is 
also proposing additional quality and safety requirements to protect 
patients.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The provisions that are included in this 
proposed rule are necessary to implement the requirements of Executive 
Order 13563 ``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review.''
    Alternatives: To date, nearly 90 specific reforms have been 
identified and scheduled for action. These reforms impact hospitals, 
physicians, home health agencies, ambulance providers, clinical labs, 
skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, managed care 
plans, Medicare Advantage organizations, and States. Many of these 
reforms will be included in proposed rules that relate to particular 
categories of regulations or types of providers. Other reforms are 
being implemented without the need for regulations.
    This proposed rule includes reforms that do not fit directly in 
other rules scheduled for publication.

[[Page 7728]]

    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule would reduce 
costs to tens of thousands of physicians, ambulatory surgical centers, 
End Stage Renal Disease facilities, and other small entities. Achieving 
the full scope of potential savings will depend on future decisions by 
hospitals, by State regulators, and others. Many other factors will 
influence long-term results. We believe, however, that likely savings 
and benefits will reach many billions of dollars. Our primary estimate 
of the net savings to hospitals from reductions in regulatory 
requirements that we can quantify at this time, offset by increases in 
other regulatory costs, are approximately $940 million a year.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/24/11  76 FR 65891
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/23/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: CDR Scott Cooper, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Clinical Standards Group, Mail Stop S3-05-15, 7500 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-9465, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AQ89

HHS--CMS

46. Regulatory Provisions To Promote Program Efficiency, Transparency, 
and Burden Reduction (CMS-9070-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh and 44 U.S.C. 35
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 400, 405, 416, 418, 423; 42 CFR 424, 440, 442, 
486, 494.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule identifies and proposes reforms in 
Medicare and Medicaid regulations that CMS has identified as 
unnecessary, obsolete, or excessively burdensome on health care 
providers and beneficiaries. This proposed rule would increase the 
ability of health care professionals to devote resources to improving 
patient care, by eliminating or reducing requirements that impede 
quality patient care or that divert providing high quality patient 
care.
    Statement of Need: In January 2011, the President issued an 
Executive order that requires agencies to identify rules that may be 
``outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and 
to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what 
has been learned.'' In accordance with the Executive order, we 
identified obsolete and unnecessarily burdensome rules that could be 
eliminated or reformed to achieve similar objectives, with a particular 
focus on freeing up resources that health care providers, health plans, 
and States could use to improve or enhance patient health and safety. 
We examined policies and practices not codified in rules that could be 
changed or streamlined to achieve better outcomes for patients while 
reducing burden on providers of care. We also sought to increase 
transparency and become a better business partner.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The provisions that are included in this 
proposed rule are necessary to implement the requirements of Executive 
Order 13563 ``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review.''
    Alternatives: To date, nearly 90 specific reforms have been 
identified and scheduled for action. These reforms impact hospitals, 
physicians, home health agencies, ambulance providers, clinical labs, 
skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, managed care 
plans, Medicare Advantage organizations, and States. Many of these 
reforms will be included in proposed rules that relate to particular 
categories of regulations or types of providers. Other reforms are 
being implemented without the need for regulations. This proposed rule 
includes reforms that do not fit directly in other rules scheduled for 
publication.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We anticipate that the provider 
industry and health professionals would welcome the proposed changes 
and reductions in burden. We also expect that health professionals 
would experience increased efficiencies and resources to appropriately 
devote to improving patient care, increasing accessibility to care, and 
reducing associated health care costs.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/24/11  76 FR 65909
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/23/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    Agency Contact: Michelle Shortt, Director, Regulations Development 
Group, OSORA, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Mailstop C4-26-05, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4675, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AQ96

HHS--CMS

47.  Proposed Changes to Hospital OPPS and CY 2013 Payment 
Rates; ASC Payment System and CY 2013 Payment Rates (CMS-1589-P) 
(Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Sec 1833 of the Social Security Act
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 410; 42 CFR 416; 42 CFR 419.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2012.
    Abstract: This final rule would revise the Medicare hospital 
outpatient prospective payment system to implement applicable statutory 
requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with 
this system. The proposed rule also describes changes to the amounts 
and factors used to determine payment rates for services. In addition, 
the rule proposes changes to the Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment 
System list of services and rates.
    Statement of Need: Medicare pays over 4,000 hospitals for 
outpatient department services under the hospital outpatient 
prospective payment system (OPPS). The OPPS is based on groups of 
clinically similar services called ambulatory payment classification 
groups (APCs). CMS annually revises the APC payment amounts based on 
the most recent claims data, proposes new payment policies, and updates 
the payments for inflation using the hospital operating market basket. 
The proposed rule solicits comments on the proposed OPPS payment rates 
and new policies. Medicare pays roughly 5,000 Ambulatory Surgical 
Centers (ASCs) under the ASC payment system. CMS annually revises the 
payment under the ASC payment system, proposes new policies, and 
updates payments for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All 
Urban Consumers (CPI-U). CMS will issue a final rule containing the 
payment rates for the 2013 OPPS

[[Page 7729]]

and ASC payment system at least 60 days before January 1, 2013.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1833 of the Social Security Act 
establishes Medicare payment for hospital outpatient services and ASC 
services. The final rule revises the Medicare hospital OPPS and ASC 
payment system to implement applicable statutory requirements. In 
addition, the proposed and final rules describe changes to the 
outpatient APC system, relative payment weights, outlier adjustments, 
and other amounts and factors used to determine the payment rates for 
Medicare hospital outpatient services paid under the prospective 
payment system, as well as changes to the rates and services paid under 
the ASC payment system. These changes would be applicable to services 
furnished on or after January 1, 2013.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for CY 2013.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient 
hospital and ASC services will not be paid appropriately beginning 
January 1, 2013.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Paula Smith, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Mail Stop C4-05-13, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, 
MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4709, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AR10

HHS--CMS

48.  Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee 
Schedule and Part B for CY 2013 (CMS-1590-P) (Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Social Security Act, secs 1102, 1871, 1848
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2012.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise payment polices 
under the physician fee schedule, as well as other policy changes to 
payment under Part B. These changes would be applicable to services 
furnished on or after January 1.
    Statement of Need: The statute requires that we establish each 
year, by regulation, payment amounts for all physicians' services 
furnished in all fee schedule areas. This major proposed rule would 
implement changes affecting Medicare Part B payment to physicians and 
other Part B suppliers. The final rule has a statutory publication date 
of November 1, 2012, and an implementation date of January 1, 2013.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1848 of the Social Security Act 
(the Act) establishes the payment for physician services provided under 
Medicare. Section 1848 of the Act imposes a deadline of no later than 
November 1 for publication of the final rule or final physician fee 
schedule.
    Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for CY 2013.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, physician 
services will not be paid appropriately, beginning January 1, 2013.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Christina Ritter, Director, Division of 
Practitioner Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 
for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Mail Stop C4-03-06, 7500 Security 
Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4636, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AR11

HHS--CMS

49.  Changes to the Hospital Inpatient an Long-Term Care 
Prospective Payment System for FY 2013 (CMS-1588-P) (Section 610 
Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Sec 1886(d) of the Social Security Act
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2012. Final, Statutory, 
August 1, 2012.
    Abstract: This annual major proposed rule would revise the Medicare 
hospital inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective payment 
systems for operating and capital-related costs. This proposed rule 
would implement changes arising from our continuing experience with 
these systems.
    Statement of Need: CMS annually revises the Medicare hospital 
inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-
related costs to implement changes arising from our continuing 
experience with these systems. In addition, we describe the proposed 
changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the rates for 
Medicare hospital inpatient services for operating costs and capital-
related costs. Also, CMS annually updates the payment rates for the 
Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital 
services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). The proposed 
rule solicits comments on the proposed IPPS and LTCH payment rates and 
new policies. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates 
for the FY 2013 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60 days before October 1, 2012.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Social Security Act (the Act) sets 
forth a system of payment for the operating costs of acute care 
hospital inpatient stays under Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) 
based on prospectively set rates. The Act requires the Secretary to pay 
for the capital-related costs of hospital inpatient and Long Term Care 
stays under a PPS. Under these systems, Medicare payment for hospital 
inpatient and Long Term Care operating and capital-related costs is 
made at predetermined, specific rates for each hospital discharge. 
These changes would be applicable to services furnished on or after 
October 1, 2012.
    Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for FY 2013.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient 
hospital and LTCH services will not be paid appropriately beginning 
October 1, 2012.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Ankit Patel, Health Insurance Specialist, Division 
of Acute

[[Page 7730]]

Care, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Hospital and Ambulatory Policy Group, Mail Stop, C4-
25-11, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
4537, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AR12

HHS--CMS

Final Rule Stage

50. Medicaid Eligibility Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act of 
2010 (CMS-2349-F)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, secs 1413, 1414, 2001, 2002, 
2101, 2201
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 431, 435, 457.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2014.
    Abstract: This rule implements provisions of the Affordable Care 
Act expanding access to health insurance through improvements in 
Medicaid, the establishment of American Health Benefit Exchanges 
(``Exchanges''), and coordination between Medicaid, the Children's 
Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Exchanges. This rule also 
implements sections of the Affordable Care Act related to Medicaid 
eligibility, enrollment simplification, and coordination.
    Statement of Need: This rule expands Medicaid eligibility, 
simplifies Medicaid eligibility procedures, and streamlines Medicaid 
enrollment processes. It also coordinates eligibility processes and 
policies with the processes for premium tax credits for Exchange 
coverage. Millions of uninsured low-income persons who do not have 
access to, or could not afford, health insurance will obtain coverage.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The provisions that are included in this 
rule are necessary to implement the requirements of sections 1413, 
1414, 2001, 2002, 2101, and 2201 of the Affordable Care Act.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We anticipate that this rule 
provides significant benefits to low-income individuals by expanding 
the availability of affordable health coverage. We expect that States 
may incur short term increases in administrative costs (depending on 
their current systems and practices) but that these costs will be 
wholly offset by administrative savings over the longer term.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/17/11  76 FR 51148
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/31/11
Final Action........................   02/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Sarah DeLone, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Mail Stop S2-01-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-0615, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AQ62.

HHS--CMS

51. Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans Part I (CMS-
9989-F)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Affordable Care Act, secs 1301 to 1343, secs 1401 
to 1413
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 155 to 157.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2014.
    Abstract: This rule implements the new Affordable Insurance 
Exchanges (``Exchanges''), consistent with title I of the Affordable 
Care Act of 2010, referred to collectively as the Affordable Care Act. 
The Exchanges will provide competitive marketplaces for individuals and 
small employers to directly compare available private health insurance 
options on the basis of price, quality, and other factors. The 
Exchanges, which will become operational by January 1, 2014, will help 
enhance competition in the health insurance market, improve choice of 
affordable health insurance, and give small businesses the same 
purchasing clout as large businesses.
    Statement of Need: A central aim of Title I of the Affordable Care 
Act is to expand access to health insurance coverage through the 
establishment of Exchanges. The number of uninsured Americans is rising 
due to the lack of affordable insurance, barriers to insurance for 
people with pre-existing conditions, and high prices due to limited 
competition and market failures. Millions of people without health 
insurance use health care services for which they do not pay, shifting 
the uncompensated cost of their care to health care providers. 
Providers pass much of this cost to insurance companies, resulting in 
higher premiums that make insurance unaffordable to even more people. 
The Affordable Care Act includes a number of policies to address these 
problems, including the creating of Affordable Insurance Exchanges.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule implements the new Affordable 
Insurance Exchanges consistent with title I of the Affordable Care Act 
of 2010.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will help enhance 
competition in the health insurance market, promote the choice of 
affordable health insurance, and give small businesses the same 
purchasing clout as large businesses. States seeking to operate an 
Exchange will incur administrative expenses as a result of implementing 
and subsequently maintaining Exchanges. There is no Federal requirement 
that each State establish an Exchange.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published, the Exchanges will not 
become operational by January 1, 2014, thereby violating the statute.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/15/11  76 FR 41866
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/28/11
Final Action........................   02/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Alissa DeBoy, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 301 492-4428, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AQ67

HHS--CMS

52.  State Requirements for Exchange--Reinsurance and Risk 
Adjustments (CMS-9975-F)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, secs 1341 and 1342

[[Page 7731]]

    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 155, 156.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2014.
    Abstract: This rule implements requirements for States related to 
reinsurance, risk corridors, and a permanent risk adjustment. The goals 
of these programs are to minimize negative impacts of adverse selection 
inside the Exchanges.
    Statement of Need: This rule finalizes guidelines for the 
transitional risk-sharing programs, reinsurance and risk corridors, as 
well as for the risk adjustment program that will continue beyond the 
first 3 years of Exchange operation. The purpose of these programs is 
to protect health insurance issuers from the negative effects of 
adverse selection and to protect consumers from increases in premiums 
due to uncertainty for issuers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule implements the new Affordable 
Insurance Exchanges consistent with title I of the Affordable Care Act 
of 2010.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Payments through reinsurance, risk 
adjustment, and risk corridors reduce the increased risk of financial 
loss that health insurance issuers might otherwise expect to incur in 
2014 due to market reforms such as guaranteed issue and the elimination 
of medical underwriting. These payments reduce the risk to the issuer 
and the issuer can pass on a reduced risk premium to enrollees. 
Administrative costs will vary across States and health insurance 
issuers depending on the sophistication of technical infrastructure and 
prior experience with data collection and risk adjustment. States and 
issuers that already have systems in place for data collection and 
reporting will have reduced administrative costs.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published, the Exchanges will not 
become operational by January 1, 2014, thereby violating the statute.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/15/11  76 FR 41866
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/28/11
Final Action........................   01/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Alissa DeBoy, Health Insurance Specialist, Center 
for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, Department of Health 
and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 301 492-4428, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AR07
BILLING CODE 4150-24-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

Fall 2011 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was created 
in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296. DHS has a vital mission: To secure the Nation from the many 
threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 225,000 
employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to 
emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility 
inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear--keeping 
America safe.
    Our mission gives us six main areas of responsibility:
    1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security,
    2. Secure and Manage Our Borders,
    3. Enforce and Administer our Immigration Laws,
    4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace,
    5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and
    6. Mature and Strengthen DHS.
    In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our 
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and 
government agencies--at the State, local, tribal, Federal, and 
international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, 
technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure, and we 
are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every 
security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further 
discussion of our main areas of responsibility, see the DHS Web site at 
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/responsibilities.shtm.
    The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 
2011 regulatory plan and in the agenda support the Department's 
responsibility areas listed above. These regulations will improve the 
Department's ability to accomplish its mission.
    The regulations we have identified in this year's fall regulatory 
plan continue to address legislative initiatives including, but not 
limited to, the following acts: The Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 
2007); the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 
(PKEMRA), Public Law 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural 
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law 110-220 (May 7, 2008); the 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), 
Public Law 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the Consolidated Security, 
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Public 
Law 110-329 (Sep. 30, 2008).
    DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized 
and unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office 
of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, 
including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior 
leadership reviews each significant regulatory project to ensure that 
the project fosters and supports the Department's mission.
    The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory 
initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil 
rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and 
partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to 
the American public.
    DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive 
Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive orders direct 
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory 
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory 
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, 
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of 
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing 
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Many of the regulations in DHS' 
regulatory plan support the Department's efforts pursuant to the DHS 
Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations. DHS 
issued its final plan on August 22, 2011.
    Finally, the Department values public involvement in the 
development of its regulatory plan, agenda, and regulations, and takes 
particular concern with the impact its rules have on small businesses. 
DHS and each of its components continue to emphasize the use of plain 
language in our notices and rulemaking documents to promote

[[Page 7732]]

a better understanding of regulations and increased public 
participation in the Department's rulemakings.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), DHS identified the 
following regulatory actions in the Department's Final Plan for the 
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations (``DHS Final Plan''). DHS 
has identified these regulatory actions as associated with 
retrospective review and analysis. You can view the DHS Final Plan on 
www.regulations.gov by searching for docket number DHS-2011-0015. Some 
of the regulatory actions on the below list may be completed actions, 
which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. You can find more 
information about these completed rulemakings in past publications of 
the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions sections) on 
www.reginfo.gov. Some of the entries on this list, however, are active 
rulemakings. You can find entries for these rulemakings on 
www.regulations.gov.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Significantly Reduces
            RIN                    Rule            Burdens on Small
                                                      Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1615-AB71..................  Registration     No.
                              Requirement
                              for
                              Petitioners
                              Seeking to
                              File H-1B
                              Petitions on
                              Behalf of
                              Aliens Subject
                              to Numerical
                              Limitations.
1615-AB76..................  Commonwealth of  No.
                              the Northern
                              Mariana
                              Islands
                              Transitional
                              Worker
                              Classification.
1615-AB83..................  Immigration      No.
                              Benefits
                              Business
                              Transformation
                              , Increment I.
1615-AB95..................  Immigration      No.
                              Benefits
                              Business
                              Transformation
                              :
                              Nonimmigrants;
                              Student and
                              Exchange
                              Visitor
                              Program.
1625-AA16..................  Implementation   No.
                              of the 1995
                              Amendments to
                              the
                              International
                              Convention on
                              Standards of
                              Training,
                              Certification,
                              and
                              Watchkeeping
                              (STCW) for
                              Seafarers,
                              1978.
1625-AB38..................  Updates to       No.
                              Maritime
                              Security.
TBD........................  Elimination of   No.
                              TWIC for
                              Certain
                              Mariner
                              Populations
                              (Implementatio
                              n of Section
                              809 of the
                              2010 Coast
                              Guard
                              Authorization
                              Act).
1651-AA73..................  Establishment    No.
                              of Global
                              Entry Program.
1651-AA93..................  Closing of the   No.
                              Port of
                              Whitetail,
                              Montana.
1651-AA94..................  Internet         No.
                              Publication of
                              Administrative
                              Seizure/
                              Forfeiture
                              Notices.
1652-AA01..................  Aviation         No.
                              Security
                              Infrastructure
                              Fee (ASIF).
1652-AA35..................  Flight Training  No.
                              for Aliens and
                              Other
                              Designated
                              Individuals;
                              Security
                              Awareness
                              Training for
                              Flight School
                              Employees.
1653-AA44..................  Clarification    No.
                              of Eligibility
                              Criteria for F
                              and M Students
                              and for
                              Schools
                              Certified by
                              the Student
                              and Exchange
                              Visitor
                              Program To
                              Enroll F and/
                              or M Students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fall 2011 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from DHS 
components--including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation 
Security Administration (TSA), which have active regulatory programs. 
In addition, it includes regulations from the Department's major 
offices and directorates such as the National Protection and Programs 
Directorate (NPPD). Below is a discussion of the fall 2011 regulatory 
plan for DHS regulatory components, as well as for DHS offices and 
directorates.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers 
immigration benefits and services while protecting and securing our 
homeland. USCIS has a strong commitment to welcoming individuals who 
seek entry through the U.S. immigration system, providing clear and 
useful information regarding the immigration process, promoting the 
values of citizenship, and assisting those in need of humanitarian 
protection. Based on a comprehensive review of the planned USCIS 
regulatory agenda, USCIS will promulgate several rulemakings to 
directly support these commitments and goals.
    Improvements to the Immigration System. USCIS is currently engaged 
in a multi-year transformation effort to create a more efficient, 
effective, and customer-focused organization by improving our business 
processes and technology. In the coming years, USCIS will publish rules 
to facilitate that effort, including rules that will remove references 
to form numbers, form titles, expired regulatory provisions, and 
descriptions of internal procedure; will mandate electronic filing in 
certain circumstances; and will comprehensively reorganize 8 CFR part 
214. In addition, to streamline processes and improve efficiency, USCIS 
plans to revise its regulations governing appeals and motions before 
the Administrative Appeals Office. USCIS will also finalize a final 
rule related to the extension of immigration law to the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands.
    Requirements for Filing Motions and Administrative Appeals. USCIS 
will propose to revise the procedural regulations governing appeals and 
motions to reopen or reconsider before its Administrative Appeals 
Office, and to require that applicants and petitioners exhaust 
administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of an 
unfavorable decision. The changes proposed by the rule will streamline 
the procedures before the Administrative Appeals Office and improve the 
efficiency of the adjudication process.
    Regulations Related to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 
Islands. During 2009, USCIS issued three regulations to implement the 
extension of U.S. immigration law to the Commonwealth of Northern 
Mariana Islands (CNMI), as required under title VII of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008. During fiscal year 2011, USCIS issued 
two final rules related to the extension of the U.S. immigration law to 
the CNMI. In fiscal year 2012, USCIS will issue the following CNMI 
final rule: The joint USCIS/Department of Justice (DOJ) regulation 
``Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI.''
    Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits. USCIS offers 
protection to individuals who face persecution by adjudicating 
applications for refugees and asylees. Other humanitarian benefits are 
available to individuals who have been victims of severe forms of 
trafficking or criminal activity.

[[Page 7733]]

    Asylum and Withholding Definitions. USCIS plans a regulatory 
proposal to amend the regulations that govern asylum eligibility and 
refugee status determinations. The amendments are expected to focus on 
portions of the regulations that deal with determinations of whether 
suffered or feared persecution is on account of a protected ground, the 
requirements for establishing that the government is unable or 
unwilling to protect the applicant, and the definition of membership in 
a particular social group. This effort should provide greater clarity 
and consistency in this important area of the law.
    Exception to the Persecutor Bar for Asylum, Refugee, or Temporary 
Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal. In a joint rulemaking, 
DHS and DOJ will propose amendments to existing DHS and DOJ regulations 
to resolve ambiguity in the statutory language precluding eligibility 
for asylum, refugee resettlement, temporary protected status, and 
withholding or removal of an applicant who ordered, incited, assisted, 
or otherwise participated in the persecution of others. The proposed 
rule would provide a limited exception for persecutory actions taken by 
the applicant under duress and would clarify the required level of the 
applicant's knowledge of the persecution.
    ``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS plans additional regulatory 
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking), U 
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity), and Adjustment of Status 
for T and U status holders. By promulgating additional regulations 
related to these victims of specified crimes or severe forms of human 
trafficking, USCIS hopes to provide greater consistency for these 
vulnerable groups, their advocates, and the community. These 
rulemakings will contain provisions to adjust documentary requirements 
for this vulnerable population and provide greater clarity to the law 
enforcement community.
    Application of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act of 2008. In a joint rulemaking, DHS and DOJ will propose 
amendments to implement the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act of 2008 (TVPRA). Among other things, this statute 
specified that USCIS has initial jurisdiction over an asylum 
application filed by an unaccompanied alien child in removal 
proceedings before an immigration judge in DOJ. The agencies 
implemented this legislation with interim procedures that the TVPRA 
mandated within 90 days after enactment. The proposed rule would amend 
both agencies' regulations to finalize the procedures to determine when 
an alien child is unaccompanied and how jurisdiction is transferred to 
USCIS for initial adjudication of the child's asylum application. In 
addition, this rule would address adjustment of status for special 
immigrant juveniles and voluntary departure for unaccompanied alien 
children in removal proceedings.

United States Coast Guard

    The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission, 
maritime service of the United States and the only military 
organization within DHS. It is the principal Federal agency responsible 
for maritime safety, security, and stewardship, and delivers daily 
value to the Nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and 
capabilities.
    Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an 
integrated approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast 
Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, 
delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships. The 
Coast Guard's ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-
trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and 
important strengths in the maritime environment.
    America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and 
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, 
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are 
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised 
to meet the demands of the modern maritime environment. The Coast Guard 
creates value for the public through solid prevention and response 
efforts. Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, 
maritime presence, and public and private partnership foster increased 
maritime safety, security, and stewardship.
    The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring 
marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting 
the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties, 
and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the 
Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation 
to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and 
other emergencies. The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast 
Guard in the Unified Agenda, and the rules appearing in the fall 2011 
regulatory plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those 
responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.
    Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International 
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping 
(STCW) for Seafarers, 1978. The Coast Guard proposed to amend its 
regulations to implement changes to an interim rule published on June 
26, 1997. These proposed amendments go beyond changes found in the 
interim rule and seek to more fully incorporate the requirements of the 
STCW in the requirements for the credentialing of U.S. merchant 
mariners. The proposed changes are primarily substantive and: (1) Are 
necessary to continue to give full and complete effect to the STCW 
Convention; (2) incorporate lessons learned from implementation of the 
STCW through the interim rule and through policy letters and Navigation 
and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVICs); and (3) attempt to clarify 
regulations that have generated confusion. The Coast Guard published 
this proposal as a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) 
on August 1, 2011. The Coast Guard intends to review and analyze 
comments received on that SNPRM, and publish a subsequent rule 
complying with the requirements of the newly amended STCW Convention. 
DHS included this rulemaking in the DHS Final Plan for the 
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, which DHS released on 
August 22, 2011.
    Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and 
Automatic Identification System. The Coast Guard intends to expand the 
applicability of notice of arrival and departure (NOAD) and automatic 
identification system (AIS) requirements to include more commercial 
vessels. This rule, once final, would expand the applicability of 
notice of arrival (NOA) requirements to include additional vessels, 
establish a separate requirement for vessels to submit notices of 
departure (NOD) when departing for a foreign port or place, set forth a 
mandatory method for electronic submission of NOA and NOD, and modify 
related reporting content, timeframes, and procedures. This rule would 
also extend the applicability of AIS requirements beyond Vessel Traffic 
Service (VTS) areas to all U.S. navigable waters and require additional 
commercial vessels install and use AIS. These changes are intended to 
improve navigation safety, enhance Coast Guard's ability to identify 
and track vessels, and heighten the Coast Guard's overall maritime 
domain awareness, thus helping the Coast Guard address

[[Page 7734]]

threats to maritime transportation safety and security and mitigate the 
possible harm from such threats.
    Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Vessel Response Plan 
Requirements. The Coast Guard intends to promulgate a rule to further 
protect the Nation from the threat of oil spills in U.S. waters, which 
supports the strategic goals of protection of natural resources and 
maritime mobility. The rule, once final, would require owners and 
operators of nontank vessels to prepare and submit oil spill response 
plans. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act defines nontank vessels 
as self-propelled vessels of 400 gross tons or greater that operate on 
the navigable waters of the United States, carry oil of any kind as 
fuel for main propulsion, and are not tank vessels. The rule would 
specify the content of a response plan and would address, among other 
issues, the requirement that a plan for responding to a worst case 
discharge and a substantial threat of such a discharge. Additionally, 
the rule would require vessel owners and operators to submit their 
vessel response plan control number as part of already required notice 
of arrival information.
    Revision to Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) 
Requirements for Mariners. The Coast Guard is developing revisions to 
its merchant mariner credentialing regulations, to implement changes 
made by section 809 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. 
Section 809 eliminated the requirement for certain mariner populations 
to obtain TWIC. The Coast Guard is also considering revising its 
regulations to provide an exemption for certain fees associated with 
merchant mariner credentialing for those mariners not required to hold 
a TWIC who may still be required to visit a TWIC enrollment center to 
provide the information necessary to obtain a Merchant Mariner 
Credential. DHS highlighted this rulemaking in the DHS Final Plan for 
the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, which DHS released on 
August 22, 2011.
    Offshore Supply Vessels of 6,000 or more GT ITC. The Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2010 (the Act) removed the size limit on offshore 
supply vessels (OSVs) and directed the Coast Guard to issue, as soon as 
practicable, regulations to implement section 617 of the Act. As 
required by the Act, this regulation would provide for the safe 
carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to 
crew on OSVs of at least 6,000 gross tonnage as measured under the 
International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (6,000 GT 
ITC). In developing the regulations, the Coast Guard is taking into 
account the characteristics of offshore supply vessels, their methods 
of operation, and their service in support of exploration, 
exploitation, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources.

United States Customs and Border Protection

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the Federal agency 
principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders at and 
between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the United 
States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement mission 
while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. The primary 
mission of CBP is its homeland security mission; that is, to prevent 
terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. An 
important aspect of this priority mission involves improving security 
at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending our zone 
of security beyond our physical borders.
    CBP is also responsible for administering laws concerning the 
import and export of goods into and out of the United States, and 
enforcing the laws concerning the entry of persons into and out of the 
United States. This includes regulating and facilitating international 
trade; collecting import duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration, and 
other laws of the United States at our borders; inspecting imports and 
exports; overseeing the activities of persons and businesses engaged in 
importing; enforcing the laws concerning smuggling and trafficking in 
contraband; apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United 
States illegally; protecting our agriculture and economic interests 
from harmful pests and diseases; conducting inspections of all people, 
vehicles, and cargo entering the United States; enforcing export 
controls; and protecting U.S. businesses from theft of their 
intellectual property.
    In carrying out its priority mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate 
the processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without 
compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland 
security, CBP intends to finalize several rules during the next fiscal 
year that are intended to improve security at our borders and ports of 
entry. We have highlighted some of these rules below.
    Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). On June 9, 2008, 
CBP published an interim final rule amending DHS regulations to 
implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for 
aliens who wish to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver 
Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of entry. This rule is intended to 
fulfill the requirements of section 711 of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The rule 
establishes ESTA and delineates the data field DHS has determined will 
be collected by the system. The rule requires that each alien traveling 
to the United States under the VWP must obtain electronic travel 
authorization via the ESTA in advance of such travel. VWP travelers may 
obtain the required ESTA authorization by electronically submitting to 
CBP biographic and other information as currently required by the I-94W 
Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form (I-94W). By Federal Register 
notice dated November 13, 2008, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
informed the public that ESTA would become mandatory beginning January 
12, 2009. This means that all VWP travelers must either obtain travel 
authorization in advance of travel under ESTA or obtain a visa prior to 
traveling to the United States.
    By shifting from a paper to an electronic form and requiring the 
data in advance of travel, CBP will be able to determine before the 
alien departs for the U.S. the eligibility of nationals from VWP 
countries to travel to the United States and to determine whether such 
travel poses a law enforcement or security risk. By modernizing the 
VWP, the ESTA is intended to increase national security and provide for 
greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by 
allowing for vetting of subjects of potential interest well before 
boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays based on lengthy processes 
at ports of entry. On August 9, 2010, CBP published an interim final 
rule amending the ESTA regulations to require ESTA applicants to pay a 
congressionally mandated fee, which is the sum of two amounts, a $10 
travel promotion fee for an approved ESTA and a $4.00 operational fee 
for the use of ESTA set by the Secretary of Homeland Security to at 
least ensure the recovery of the full costs of providing and 
administering the ESTA system. During the next fiscal year, CBP intends 
to issue a final rule on ESTA and the ESTA fee.
    Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. The 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) 
calls for CBP to promulgate regulations to require the electronic 
transmission of additional data elements for improved high-risk 
targeting. See Public Law 109-

[[Page 7735]]

347, section 203 (October 13, 2006). This includes appropriate security 
elements of entry data for cargo destined for the United States by 
vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign seaports. 
The SAFE Port Act requires that the information collected reasonably 
improve CBP's ability to identify high-risk shipments to prevent 
smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security.
    On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule 
``Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements,'' 
amending CBP Regulations to require carriers and importers to provide 
to CBP via a CBP-approved electronic data interchange system, 
information necessary to enable CBP to identify high-risk shipments to 
prevent smuggling, and ensure cargo safety and security. This rule, 
which became effective on January 26, 2009, improves CBP risk 
assessment and targeting capabilities, facilitates the prompt release 
of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States, and 
assists CBP in increasing the security of the global trading system. 
The comment period for the interim final rule concluded on June 1, 
2009. CBP is analyzing comments and conducting a structured review of 
certain flexibility provided in the interim final rule. CBP intends to 
publish a final rule during the next fiscal year.
    Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. CBP published 
an interim final rule in November 2008 amending the DHS regulations to 
replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver program. This rule implements portions of the Consolidated 
National Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), which extends the immigration 
laws of the United States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands (CNMI) and, among others things, provides for a visa waiver 
program for travel to Guam and the CNMI. The amended regulations set 
forth the requirements for nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for 
business or pleasure and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the 
CNMI without a visa. The rule also establishes six ports of entry in 
the CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver program. CBP intends to issue a final rule during the next 
fiscal year.
    Global Entry Program. In the fall of 2009, pursuant to section 
7208(k) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004, as amended, CBP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 
proposing to establish an international trusted traveler program, 
called Global Entry. This voluntary program would allow CBP to expedite 
clearance of pre-approved, low-risk air travelers into the United 
States. CBP has been operating the Global Entry program as a pilot at 
several airports since June 6, 2008. Based on the successful operation 
of the pilot, CBP proposed to establish Global Entry as a permanent 
voluntary regulatory program. CBP has evaluated the public comments 
received in response to the NPRM and intends to issue a final rule 
during the next fiscal year.
    In the above paragraphs, DHS discusses the CBP regulations that 
foster DHS's mission. CBP also issues regulations related to the 
mission of the Department of the Treasury. Under section 403(1) of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former U.S. Customs Service, 
including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, 
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the 
initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade 
functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural 
inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It 
is noted that certain regulatory authority of the United States Customs 
Service relating to customs revenue function was retained by the 
Department of the Treasury (see the Department of the Treasury 
regulatory plan). In addition to its plans to continue issuing 
regulations to enhance border security, CBP, during fiscal year 2012, 
expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate 
legitimate trade and implement the trade benefit program. CBP 
regulations regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the 
regulatory plan of the Department of the Treasury.

 Federal Emergency Management Agency

    The mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is to 
support our citizens and first responders to ensure that, as a Nation, 
we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to 
prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate 
all hazards. In fiscal year 2012, FEMA will continue to serve that 
mission and promote the Department of Homeland Security's goals. In 
furtherance of the Department and Agency's goals, in the upcoming 
fiscal year, FEMA will work on regulations to implement provisions of 
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) (Pub. 
L. 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006) and to implement lessons learned from past 
events.
    Public Assistance Program Regulations. FEMA will work to revise the 
Public Assistance Program regulations in 44 CFR part 206 to reflect 
changes made to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act by PKEMRA, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation 
Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) (Pub. L. 109-308, Oct. 6, 2006), the 
Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-218, Apr. 20, 2006), 
and the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE 
Port Act) (Pub. L. 109-347, Oct. 13, 2006), and to make other 
substantive and nonsubstantive clarifications and corrections to the 
Public Assistance regulations. The proposed changes would expand 
eligibility to include performing arts facilities and community arts 
centers pursuant to section 688 of PKEMRA; include education in the 
list of critical services pursuant to section 689(h) of PKEMRA, thus 
allowing private nonprofit educational facilities to be eligible for 
restoration funding; add accelerated Federal assistance to available 
assistance pursuant to section 681 of PKEMRA; include household pets 
and service animals in essential assistance pursuant to section 689 of 
PKEMRA and section 4 of the PETS Act; provide for expedited payments of 
grant assistance for the removal of debris pursuant to section 610 of 
the SAFE Port Act; and allow for a contract to be set aside for award 
based on a specific geographic area pursuant to section 2 of the Local 
Community Recovery Act of 2006. Other changes would include adding or 
changing requirements to improve and streamline the Public Assistance 
grant application process.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

    The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have 
any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2012.

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of the Department 
of Homeland Security and one of the three Department components charged 
with the civil enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws. Its 
primary mission is to protect national security, public safety, and the 
integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of 
Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.
    During fiscal year 2012, ICE will pursue rulemaking actions that 
improve two critical subject areas: The detention

[[Page 7736]]

of aliens who are subject to final orders of removal and the processes 
for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
    Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal. 
ICE will improve the post order custody review process in a Final Rule 
related to the continued detention of aliens subject to final orders of 
removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. 
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) and Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), 
as well as changes pursuant to the enactment of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002. During fiscal year 2012, ICE will also issue a companion 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will allow the public an 
opportunity to comment on new sections of the custody determination 
process not previously published for comment.
    Processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. ICE will 
improve SEVP processes by publishing a final Optional Practical 
Training (OPT) rule, which will respond to comments on the OPT Interim 
Final Rule (IFR). The IFR increased the maximum period of OPT from 12 
months to 29 months for nonimmigrant students who have completed a 
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics degree and who accept 
employment with employers who participate in USCIS's E-Verify 
employment verification program.

National Protection and Programs Directorate

    The goal of the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 
is to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk 
requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and 
virtual threats and their associated human elements.
    Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. The Secure Handling of Ammonium 
Nitrate Act, section 563 of the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act, Public Law 110-161, amended the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 to provide DHS with the authority to ``regulate 
the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium nitrate 
facility * * * to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium 
nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
    The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act directs DHS to 
promulgate regulations requiring potential buyers and sellers of 
ammonium nitrate to register with DHS. As part of the registration 
process, the statute directs DHS to screen registration applicants 
against the Federal Government's Terrorist Screening Database. The 
statute also requires sellers of ammonium nitrate to verify the 
identities of those seeking to purchase it; to record certain 
information about each sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate; and to 
report thefts and losses of ammonium nitrate to DHS.
    The Ammonium Nitrate Security Program Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
proposes requirements that would implement the Secure Handling of 
Ammonium Nitrate Act. The rule would aid the Federal Government in its 
efforts to prevent the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in 
acts of terrorism. By preventing such misappropriation, this rule aims 
to limit terrorists' abilities to threaten the public and to threaten 
the Nation's critical infrastructure and key resources. By securing the 
Nation's supply of ammonium nitrate, it will be more difficult for 
terrorists to obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in terrorist 
acts.
    On October 29, 2008, DHS published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program, 
and received a number of public comments on that ANPRM. DHS reviewed 
those comments and published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on 
August 3, 2011. NPPD will accept public comment on until December 1, 
2011, after which NPPD will review the public comments and develop a 
Final Rule related to the Security Handling of Ammonium Nitrate 
Program.

Transportation Security Administration

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the 
Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for 
people and commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the 
standard for excellence in transportation security through its people, 
processes, and technology as we work to meet the immediate and long-
term needs of the transportation sector.
    In fiscal year 2012, TSA will promote the DHS mission by 
emphasizing regulatory efforts that allow TSA to better identify, 
detect, and protect against threats against various modes of the 
transportation system, while facilitating the efficient movement of the 
traveling public, transportation workers, and cargo.
    General Aviation Security and Other Aircraft Operator Security. TSA 
plans to issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) to 
propose amendments to current aviation transportation security 
regulations to enhance the security of general aviation (GA) by 
expanding the scope of current requirements and by adding new 
requirements for certain GA aircraft operators. To date, the 
Government's focus with regard to aviation security generally has been 
on air carriers and commercial operators. As vulnerabilities and risks 
associated with air carriers and commercial operators have been reduced 
or mitigated, terrorists may perceive that GA aircraft are more 
vulnerable and may view them as attractive targets. This rule would 
enhance aviation security by requiring operators of certain GA aircraft 
to adopt a security program and to undertake other security measures. 
TSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 30, 2008, and 
received over 7,000 public comments, generally urging significant 
changes to the proposal. The SNPRM will respond to the comments and 
contain proposals on addressing security in the GA sector.
    Security Training for Surface Mode Employees. TSA will propose 
regulations to enhance the security of several non-aviation modes of 
transportation. In particular, TSA will propose regulations requiring 
freight railroad carriers, public transportation agencies (including 
rail mass transit and bus systems), passenger railroad carriers, and 
over-the-road bus operators to conduct security training for front line 
employees. This regulation would implement sections 1408 (Public 
Transportation), 1517 (Freight Railroads), and 1534(a) (Over the Road 
Buses) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007). In compliance 
with the definitions of frontline employees in the pertinent provisions 
of the 9/11 Act, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would define 
which employees are required to undergo training. The NPRM would also 
propose definitions for transportation security-sensitive materials, as 
required by section 1501 of the 9/11 Act.
    Railroad Carrier Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plans. TSA 
will also propose regulations requiring high-risk freight and passenger 
railroads to conduct vulnerability self-assessments, as well as develop 
and implement comprehensive security plans. TSA would need to approve 
both the vulnerability assessment and security plan. This regulation, 
implementing section 1512 of the 9/11 Act, would include proposed 
provisions to identify which railroads would be considered high-risk 
and include proposed provisions about the associated vulnerability 
assessment and security planning requirements.

[[Page 7737]]

    Aircraft Repair Station Security. TSA will finalize a rule 
requiring repair stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation 
Administration under 14 CFR part 145 to adopt and implement standard 
security programs and to comply with security directives issued by TSA. 
TSA issued an Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 18, 
2009. The final rule will also codify the scope of TSA's existing 
inspection program and could require regulated parties to allow DHS 
officials to enter, inspect, and test property, facilities, and records 
relevant to repair stations. This rulemaking action will implement 
section 1616 of the 9/11 Act.
    Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees. 
TSA is developing a proposed rule to revise and standardize the 
procedures, adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security 
threat assessments (STA) of individuals that TSA conducts. DHS is 
considering a proposal that would include procedures for conducting 
STAs for transportation workers from almost all modes of 
transportation, including those covered under the 9/11 Act. In 
addition, TSA will propose equitable fees to cover the cost of the STAs 
and credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to identify new 
efficiencies in processing STAs and ways to streamline existing 
regulations by simplifying language and removing redundancies.
    As part of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions to the 
Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) regulations. TSA published an 
interim final rule for ASFP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations 
require aliens seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-
regulated flight schools to complete an application and undergo an STA 
prior to beginning flight training. There are four categories under 
which students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the 
student's category. TSA is considering changes to the AFSP that would 
improve equity among fee payers and enable the implementation of new 
technologies to support vetting.

United States Secret Service

    The United States Secret Service does not have any significant 
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2012.

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2012

    A more detailed description of the priority regulations that 
comprise DHS's fall 2011 regulatory plan follows.

DHS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)

Proposed Rule Stage

53. Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, sec 563, 
subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, Pub. L. 110-161
    CFR Citation: 6 CFR 31.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, May 26, 2008, Publication of 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Abstract: This rulemaking will implement the December 2007 
amendment to the Homeland Security Act entitled ``Secure Handling of 
Ammonium Nitrate.'' The amendment requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to ``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an 
ammonium nitrate facility * * * to prevent the misappropriation or use 
of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
    Statement of Need: Pursuant to section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, 
Public Law 110-161, the Department of Homeland Security is required to 
promulgate a rulemaking to create a registration regime for certain 
buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate. The rule, as proposed by this 
NPRM, would create that regime, and would aid the Federal Government in 
its efforts to prevent the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use 
in acts of terrorism. By preventing such misappropriation, this rule 
could limit terrorists' abilities to threaten the public and to 
threaten the Nation's critical infrastructure and key resources. By 
securing the Nation's supply of ammonium nitrate, it should be much 
more difficult for terrorists to obtain ammonium nitrate materials for 
use in improvised explosive devices. As a result, there is a direct 
value in the deterrence of a catastrophic terrorist attack using 
ammonium nitrate, such as the Oklahoma City attack that killed over 160 
and injured 853 people.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, 
Public Law 110-161, authorizes and requires this rulemaking.
    Alternatives: The Department considered several alternatives when 
developing the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program proposed rule. The 
alternatives considered were: (a) Register individuals applying for an 
AN Registered User Number using a paper application (via facsimile or 
the U.S. mail) rather than through in person application at a local 
Cooperative Extension office or only through a web-based portal; (b) 
verify AN Purchasers through both an Internet based verification portal 
and call center rather than only a verification portal or call center; 
(c) communicate with applicants for an AN Registered User Number 
through U.S. Mail rather than only through email or a secure web-based 
portal; (d) establish a specific capability within the Department to 
receive, process, and respond to reports of theft or loss rather than 
leverage a similar capability which already exists with the ATF; (e) 
require AN Facilities to maintain records electronically in a central 
database provided by the Department rather than providing flexibility 
to the AN Facility to maintain their own records either in paper or 
electronically; (f) require agents to register with the Department 
prior to the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate involving an agent 
rather than allow oral confirmation of the agent with the AN Purchaser 
on whose behalf the agent is working; and (g) exempt explosives from 
this regulation rather than not exempting them. As part of its notice 
of proposed rulemaking, the Department seeks public comment on the 
numerous alternative ways in which the final Secure Handling of 
Ammonium Nitrate Program could carry out the requirements of the Secure 
Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department estimates the number 
of entities that purchase ammonium nitrate to range from 64,950 to 
106,200. These purchasers include farms, fertilizer mixers, farm supply 
wholesalers and cooperatives (co-ops), golf courses, landscaping 
services, explosives distributors, mines, retail garden centers, and 
lab supply wholesalers. The Department estimates the number of entities 
that sell ammonium nitrate to be between 2,486 and 6,236, many of which 
are also purchasers. These sellers include ammonium nitrate fertilizer 
and explosive manufacturers, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers 
and co-ops, retail garden centers, explosives distributors, fertilizer 
applicator services, and lab supply wholesalers. Individuals or firms 
that provide transportation services within the distribution chain may 
be categorized as

[[Page 7738]]

sellers, agents, or facilities depending upon their business 
relationship with the other parties to the transaction. The total 
number of potentially regulated farms and other businesses ranges from 
64,986 to 106,236 (including overlap between the categories).
    The cost of this proposed rule ranges from $300 million to $1,041 
million over 10 years at a 7 percent discount rate. The primary 
estimate is the mean which is $670.6 million. For comparison, at a 3 
percent discount rate, the cost of the program ranges from $364 million 
to $1.3 billion with a primary (mean) estimate of $814 million. The 
average annualized cost for the program ranges from $43 million to $148 
million (with a mean of $96 million), also employing a 7 percent 
discount rate.
    Because the value of the benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist 
attack is a function of both the probability of an attack and the value 
of the consequence, it is difficult to identify the particular risk 
reduction associated with the implementation of this rule. These 
elements and related qualitative benefits include point of sale 
identification requirements and requiring individuals to be screened 
against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) resulting in known bad 
actors being denied the ability to purchase ammonium nitrate.
    The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist 
attacks within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the 
United States to terrorism. By preventing the misappropriation or use 
of ammonium nitrate in acts of terrorism, this rulemaking will support 
the Department's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the 
Nation's vulnerability to terrorist attacks. This rulemaking is 
complementary to other Department programs seeking to reduce the risks 
posed by terrorism, including the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
Standards program (which seeks in part to prevent terrorists from 
gaining access to dangerous chemicals) and the Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential program (which seeks in part to prevent 
terrorists from gaining access to certain critical infrastructure), 
among other programs.
    Risks: Explosives containing ammonium nitrate are commonly used in 
terrorist attacks. Such attacks have been carried out both domestically 
and internationally. The 1995 Murrah Federal Building attack in 
Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 167 individuals and demonstrated 
firsthand to America how ammonium nitrate could be misused by 
terrorists. In addition to the Murrah Building attack, the Provisional 
Irish Republican Army used ammonium nitrate as part of its London, 
England bombing campaign in the early 1980s. More recently, ammonium 
nitrate was used in the 1998 East African Embassy bombings and in 
November 2003 bombings in Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, since the 
events of 9/11, stores of ammonium nitrate have been confiscated during 
raids on terrorist sites around the world, including sites in Canada, 
England, India, and the Philippines.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   10/29/08  73 FR 64280
Correction..........................   11/05/08  73 FR 65783
ANPRM Comment Period End............   12/29/08  .......................
NPRM................................   08/03/11  76 FR 46908
Notice of Public Meetings...........   10/07/11  76 FR 62311
Notice of Public Meetings...........   11/14/11  76 FR 70366
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/01/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Jon MacLaren, Ammonium Nitrate Program Manager, 
Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary, 
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (NPPD/ISCD), Mail Stop 
0610, 245 Murray Lane SW., Arlington, VA 20598-0610, Phone: 703 235-
5263, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1601-AA52

DHS--U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS)

Proposed Rule Stage

54. Asylum and Withholding Definitions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 
U.S.C. 1252; 8 U.S.C. 1282
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 2; 8 CFR 208.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland 
Security regulations that govern asylum eligibility. The amendments 
focus on portions of the regulations that deal with the definitions of 
membership in a particular social group, the requirements for failure 
of State protection, and determinations about whether persecution is 
inflicted on account of a protected ground. This rule codifies long-
standing concepts of the definitions. It clarifies that gender can be a 
basis for membership in a particular social group. It also clarifies 
that a person who has suffered or fears domestic violence may under 
certain circumstances be eligible for asylum on that basis. After the 
Board of Immigration Appeals published a decision on this issue in 
1999, Matter of R-A-, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999), it became clear that 
the governing regulatory standards required clarification. The 
Department of Justice began this regulatory initiative by publishing a 
proposed rule addressing these issues in 2000.
    Statement of Need: This rule provides guidance on a number of key 
interpretive issues of the refugee definition used by adjudicators 
deciding asylum and withholding of removal (withholding) claims. The 
interpretive issues include whether persecution is inflicted on account 
of a protected ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of 
State protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a 
particular social group. This rule will aid in the adjudication of 
claims made by applicants whose claims fall outside of the rubric of 
the protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political 
opinion. One example of such claims which often fall within the 
particular social group ground concerns people who have suffered or 
fear domestic violence. This rule is expected to consolidate issues 
raised in a proposed rule in 2000 and to address issues that have 
developed since the publication of the proposed rule. This rule should 
provide greater stability and clarity in this important area of the 
law.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The purpose of this rule is to provide 
guidance on certain issues that have arisen in the context of asylum 
and withholding adjudications. The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to 
the Status of Refugees contains the internationally accepted definition 
of a refugee. United States immigration law incorporates an almost 
identical definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her 
country of origin ``who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is 
unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, 
that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of 
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 
particular social group,

[[Page 7739]]

or political opinion.'' Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
    Alternatives: A sizable body of interpretive case law has developed 
around the meaning of the refugee definition. Historically, much of 
this case law has addressed more traditional asylum and withholding 
claims based on the protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, 
or political opinion. In recent years, however, the United States 
increasingly has encountered asylum and withholding applications with 
more varied bases, related, for example, to an applicant's gender or 
sexual orientation. Many of these new types of claims are based on the 
ground of ``membership in a particular social group,'' which is the 
least well-defined of the five protected grounds within the refugee 
definition.
    On December 7, 2000, DOJ published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register providing guidance on the definitions of ``persecution'' and 
``membership in a particular social group.'' Prior to publishing a new 
proposed rule, the Department will be considering how the nexus between 
persecution and a protected ground might be further conceptualized; how 
membership in a particular social group might be defined and evaluated; 
and what constitutes a State's inability or unwillingness to protect 
the applicant where the persecution arises from a non-State actor. This 
rule will provide guidance to the following adjudicators: USCIS asylum 
officers, Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR) immigration judges, and members of the EOIR Board of Immigration 
Appeals. The alternative to publishing this rule would be to allow the 
standards governing this area of law to continue to develop piecemeal 
through administrative and judicial precedent. This approach has 
resulted in inconsistent and confusing standards, and the Department 
has therefore determined that promulgation of the new proposed rule is 
necessary.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By providing a clear framework for 
key asylum and withholding issues, we anticipate that adjudicators will 
have clear guidance, increasing administrative efficiency and 
consistency in adjudicating these cases. The rule will also promote a 
more consistent and predictable body of administrative and judicial 
precedent governing these types of cases. We anticipate that this will 
enable applicants to better assess their potential eligibility for 
asylum, and to present their claims more efficiently when they believe 
that they may qualify, thus reducing the resources spent on 
adjudicating claims that do not qualify. In addition, a more consistent 
and predictable body of law on these issues will likely result in fewer 
appeals, both administrative and judicial, and reduce associated 
litigation costs. The Department has no way of accurately predicting 
how this rule will impact the number of asylum applications filed in 
the United States. Based on anecdotal evidence and on the reported 
experience of other nations that have adopted standards under which the 
results are similar to those we anticipate for this rule, we do not 
believe this rule will cause a change in the number of asylum 
applications filed.
    Risks: The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents 
significant risks of further inconsistency and confusion in the law. 
The Government's interests in fair, efficient, and consistent 
adjudications would be compromised.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/07/00  65 FR 76588
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/22/01  .......................
NPRM................................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: CIS No. 2092-00, Transferred from RIN 1115-
AF92.
    Agency Contact: Ted Kim, Deputy Chief, Asylum Division, Department 
of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office 
of Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations, Suite 3200, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20259, Phone: 202 272-1614, 
Fax: 202 272-1994, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AA41

DHS--USCIS

55. New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility 
for the U Nonimmigrant Status

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 
U.S.C. 1101 note; 8 U.S.C. 1102
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 
299.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule sets forth application requirements for a new 
nonimmigrant status. The U classification is for non-U.S. Citizen/
Lawful Permanent Resident victims of certain crimes who cooperate with 
an investigation or prosecution of those crimes. There is a limit of 
10,000 principals per year.
    This rule establishes the procedures to be followed in order to 
petition for the U nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, the rule 
addresses the essential elements that must be demonstrated to receive 
the nonimmigrant classification, procedures that must be followed to 
make an application, and evidentiary guidance to assist in the 
petitioning process. Eligible victims will be allowed to remain in the 
United States. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 
of 2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant 
status provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 
Department will issue a proposed rule to make the changes required by 
recent legislation and to provide the opportunity for notice and 
comment.
    Statement of Need: This rule provides requirements and procedures 
for aliens seeking U nonimmigrant status. U nonimmigrant classification 
is available to alien victims of certain criminal activity who assist 
government officials in the investigation or prosecution of that 
criminal activity. The purpose of the U nonimmigrant classification is 
to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate 
and prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual assault, and 
trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien crime 
victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United 
States.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress created the U nonimmigrant 
classification in the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 
(BIWPA). Congress intended to strengthen the ability of law enforcement 
agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of domestic violence, 
sexual assault, trafficking of aliens, and other crimes, while offering 
protection to victims of such crimes. Congress also sought to encourage 
law enforcement officials to better serve immigrant crime victims.
    Alternatives: USCIS has identified four alternatives, the first 
being chosen for the rule:
    1. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis. 
Petitions received after the limit has been reached would be reviewed 
to determine whether or not they are approvable, but for the numerical 
cap. Approvable petitions that are reviewed after the numerical cap has 
been reached would be placed on a waiting list and written notice sent 
to the petitioner. Priority on

[[Page 7740]]

the waiting list would be based upon the date on which the petition is 
filed. USCIS would provide petitioners on the waiting list with interim 
relief until the start of the next fiscal year in the form of deferred 
action, parole, or a stay of removal.
    2. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis, 
establishing a waiting list for petitions that are pending or received 
after the numerical cap has been reached. Priority on the waiting list 
would be based upon the date on which the petition was filed. USCIS 
would not provide interim relief to petitioners whose petitions are 
placed on the waiting list.
    3. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis. 
However, new filings would be reviewed to identify particularly 
compelling cases for adjudication. New filings would be rejected once 
the numerical cap is reached. No official waiting list would be 
established; however, interim relief until the start of the next fiscal 
year would be provided for some compelling cases. If a case was not 
particularly compelling, the filing would be denied or rejected.
    4. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis. 
However, new filings would be rejected once the numerical cap is 
reached. No waiting list would be established nor would interim relief 
be granted.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: USCIS estimates the total annual 
cost of this interim rule to applicants to be $6.2 million. This cost 
includes the biometric services fee that petitioners must pay to USCIS, 
the opportunity cost of time needed to submit the required forms, the 
opportunity cost of time required for a visit to an Application Support 
Center, and the cost of traveling to an Application Support Center.
    This rule will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies 
to investigate and prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual 
assault, and trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien 
crime victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United 
States.
    Risks: In the case of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or 
perjury, the interpretive challenge for USCIS was to determine whom the 
BIWPA was meant to protect, given that these criminal activities are 
not targeted against a person. Accordingly it was determined that a 
victim of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or perjury is an 
alien who has been directly and proximately harmed by the perpetrator 
of one of these three crimes, where there are reasonable grounds to 
conclude that the perpetrator principally committed the offense as a 
means: (1) To avoid or frustrate efforts to investigate, arrest, 
prosecute, or otherwise bring him or her to justice for other criminal 
activity; or (2) to further his or her abuse or exploitation of, or 
undue control over, the alien through manipulation of the legal system.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   09/17/07  72 FR 53013
Interim Final Rule Effective........   10/17/07  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      11/17/07  .......................
 End.
NPRM................................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39.
    Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins, Chief, Family Immigration and 
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-
1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AA67

DHS--USCIS

56. Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary 
Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 
U.S.C. 1226; Pub. L. 107-26; Pub. L. 110-229
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 244; 8 CFR 1244.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This joint rule proposes amendments to Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to 
describe the circumstances under which an applicant will continue to be 
eligible for asylum, refugee, or temporary protected status, special 
rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and 
Central American Relief Act, and withholding of removal, even if DHS or 
DOJ has determined that the applicant's actions contributed, in some 
way, to the persecution of others. The purpose of this rule is to 
resolve ambiguity in the statutory language precluding eligibility for 
asylum, refugee, and temporary protected status of an applicant who 
ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the 
persecution of others. The proposed amendment would provide a limited 
exception for actions taken by the applicant under duress and clarify 
the required levels of the applicant's knowledge of the persecution.
    Statement of Need: This rule resolves ambiguity in the statutory 
language precluding eligibility for asylum, refugee, and temporary 
protected status of an applicant who ordered, incited, assisted, or 
otherwise participated in the persecution of others. The proposed 
amendment would provide a limited exception for actions taken by the 
applicant under duress and clarify the required levels of the 
applicant's knowledge of the persecution.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In Negusie v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1159 
(2009), the Supreme Court addressed whether the persecutor bar should 
apply where an alien's actions were taken under duress. DHS believes 
that this is an appropriate subject for rulemaking and proposes to 
amend the applicable regulations to set out its interpretation of the 
statute. In developing this regulatory initiative, DHS has carefully 
considered the purpose and history behind enactment of the persecutor 
bar, including its international law origins and the criminal law 
concepts upon which they are based.
    Alternatives: DHS did consider the alternative of not publishing a 
rulemaking on these issues. To leave this important area of the law 
without an administrative interpretation would confuse adjudicators and 
the public.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The programs affected by this rule 
exist so that the United States may respond effectively to global 
humanitarian situations and assist people who are in need. USCIS 
provides a number of humanitarian programs and protection to assist 
individuals in need of shelter or aid from disasters, oppression, 
emergency medical issues, and other urgent circumstances. This rule 
will advance the humanitarian goals of the asylum/refugee program, and 
other specialized programs. The main benefits of such goals tend to be 
intangible and difficult to quantify in economic and monetary terms. 
These forms of relief have not been available to certain persecutors. 
This rule will allow an exception to this bar from protection for 
applicants who can meet the appropriate evidentiary standard. 
Consequently, this rule may result in a small increase in the number of 
applicants for humanitarian programs.

[[Page 7741]]

To the extent a small increase in applicants occurs, there could be 
additional fee costs incurred by these applicants.
    Risks: If DHS were not to publish a regulation, the public would 
face a lengthy period of confusion on these issues. There could also be 
inconsistent interpretations of the statutory language, leading to 
significant litigation and delay for the affected public.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Molly Groom, Office of the Chief Counsel Department 
of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20259, Phone: 202 272-1400, 
Fax: 202 272-1408, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AB89

DHS--USCIS

57.  Electronic Filing of Requests for Immigration Benefits; 
Requiring an Application To Change or Extend Nonimmigrant Status To Be 
Filed Electronically

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1151; 8 
U.S.C. 1153
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing 
regulations to govern the electronic filing of requests for immigration 
benefit requests with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS). DHS also proposes to mandate electronic applications in the 
new Integrated Operating Environment that is under development, with 
limited exceptions, for an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant 
Status from any individual in the M, J, B-1, and B-2 classifications; 
change of status requests to the F, M, J, B-1, or B-2 classifications; 
and reinstatement of status requests in the F or M classification.
    Statement of Need: USCIS is in the process of transforming its 
operations to improve service, operational efficiency, and national 
security. This rule will allow USCIS to modernize its processes, which 
will provide applicants and petitioners with better and faster services 
and enhance the ability of USCIS to process cases with greater 
accuracy, security, and timeliness.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Authority for this rule falls within the 
broad authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to administer 
DHS, the administration of immigration and nationality laws, and other 
delegated authority. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296 section 102 (Nov. 25, 2002), 6 U.S.C. 112, and the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103.
    The Government Paperwork Elimination Act provides that, when 
possible, Federal agencies are directed to make available electronic 
forms and provide for electronic filing and submissions when conducting 
agency business with the public. See Public Law 105-277, section 1703 
(Oct. 21, 1998), 44 U.S.C. 3504. GPEA also establishes the means for 
the use and acceptance of electronic signatures.
    The INA provides a detailed list of classes of nonimmigrant aliens. 
See, e.g., INA sections 101(a)(15)(B), (C), (F), and (M); 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15) (B), (C), (F), and (M). The Secretary of Homeland Security 
may authorize a change to any other nonimmigrant classification in the 
case of any alien who is lawfully admitted to the United States as a 
nonimmigrant, maintains his or her lawful status, does not fall under 
certain nonimmigrant visa categories that are listed in the statute, 
and is not inadmissible or whose inadmissibility has been waived under 
the pertinent sections of the immigration and nationality laws of the 
United States. See INA section 248(a); 8 U.S.C. 1258(a).
    This rule is also proposed in compliance with Executive Order 13571 
``Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service.'' See 
Executive Order No. 13571, 76 FR 24339 (Apr. 27, 2011). Executive Order 
13571 tasks each Federal department and agency with establishing an 
initiative that uses technology to improve the experience of 
individuals and entities receiving services from that Federal 
department or agency. See Executive Order No. 13571, section 2(a).
    Alternatives: DHS has examined the alternative of maintaining paper 
processing for applications to extend/change status (Form I-539) and 
has determined that the continuation of legacy data systems and current 
processes do not meet the need for USCIS to modernize operations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is proposing to mandate the 
electronic filing of stand-alone Applications to Extend/Change 
Nonimmigrant Status. Only a limited number of nonimmigrants would be 
impacted by this change. Specifically, those individuals in the 
following nonimmigrant classifications would be required to file this 
application electronically: B-1, B-2, F, M, or J. In transforming its 
immigration benefit processes into a paperless system, DHS anticipates 
the following benefits:
     Streamlined operations
     More timely submission and adjudication of the benefit 
requested
     Reduced requests for additional or missing information
     Enhanced security for the applicant
     Enhanced customer service
    For those applicants that do not currently possess or have access 
to the tools needed to submit immigration benefit requests 
electronically--namely, computer, Internet service, and a scanner--this 
rule would result in additional costs to these petitioners or 
applicants. DHS is in the process of examining the potential monetary 
costs and benefits of the proposed rule.
    Risks: Populations with no or limited Internet access and 
individuals with no or limited English proficiency may be affected by 
this rule. This risk can be mitigated by including a waiver process.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Dan Konnerth, Policy and Coordination Chief, Office 
of Transformation Coordination, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, 6th Floor, 633 Third Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 233-2381, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AB94

DHS--USCIS

58.  Immigration Benefits Business Transformation: 
Nonimmigrants; Student and Exchange Visitor Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 
U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245; 8 CFR 
248; 8 CFR 274a.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending

[[Page 7742]]

its nonimmigrant regulations to enable U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) to migrate from a paper file-based, non-integrated 
systems environment to an electronic, customer-focused, centralized 
case management environment for benefit processing. This rulemaking, 
the second in a series of business transformation rules, primarily 
focuses on 8 CFR part 214, reorganizes and streamlines general 
information relating to nonimmigrant classifications, and relocates 
other information relating to specific, individual nonimmigrant 
classifications to a separate subpart for each major nonimmigrant 
classification. DHS is making these amendments because part 214 
contains more than 20 nonimmigrant classifications, and it has become 
very large and complex to navigate. This regulation will provide the 
public with simpler, better organized regulatory requirements for each 
nonimmigrant classification and facilitate future revisions.
    Statement of Need: USCIS is in the process of transforming its 
operations to improve service, operational efficiency, and national 
security. This rule will provide the public with clearly written, 
better organized regulatory requirements for each nonimmigrant 
classification.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public 
Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), 6 U.S.C. 112, 
and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), charge the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) with administration and 
enforcement of the immigration and nationality laws. See INA section 
103, 8 U.S.C. 1103.
    This rule will significantly enhance the ability of USCIS to fully 
implement the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA). See Public 
Law 105-277, tit. XVII, section 1701 to 1710, 112 Stat. 2681 at 2681-
749, (Oct. 21, 1998) (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3504 & note). GPEA provides 
that, when possible, Federal agencies use electronic forms, electronic 
filing, and electronic submissions to conduct agency business with the 
public. Id. The USCIS modernization and transformation effort will move 
its operations away from a paper-based system to an electronic 
environment wherever possible in an effort to implement the 
requirements of GPEA.
    Alternatives: The regulations for the more than 20 nonimmigrant 
classifications are included in 8 CFR 214. As more nonimmigrant 
classifications have been added to the Act and as the statutory 
requirements for existing classifications have become more complex, 
sections within 8 CFR 214 have become increasingly difficult to read, 
comprehend and cite. DHS will reorganize 8 CFR 214 to address this lack 
of clarity.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS will amend its regulations at 8 
CFR part 214 to streamline and reorganize the content into a more 
reader-friendly and logical format. DHS is not making substantive 
changes to the content or requirements of existing regulations. There 
are no additional costs anticipated as a result of this rulemaking.
    Risks: This rule may initially lead to confusion of those who are 
familiar with the previous organization of 8 CFR 214. USCIS can 
mitigate this risk by informing the public of these changes.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: CIS 2505-11. This rule (RIN 1615-
AB95) is adopting the following three rules as final rules: 1615-AA35, 
1615-AA56, and 1615-AA53.
    Agency Contact: Dan Konnerth, Policy and Coordination Chief, Office 
of Transformation Coordination, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, 6th Floor, 633 Third Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 233-2381, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AB95

DHS--USCIS

59.  Application of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to Unaccompanied Alien Children 
Seeking Asylum

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-457
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule implements the provisions of the William 
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 
(TVPRA), Public Law 110-457, 122 Stat. 5074 (Dec. 23, 2008) relating to 
unaccompanied alien children seeking asylum. Specifically, the rule 
proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security and Department of 
Justice regulations relating to asylum applications filed by 
unaccompanied alien children. The rule will amend both Departments' 
regulations to reflect that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) has initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by 
an unaccompanied alien child. The rule will also add new special 
procedures for all children in interviews before USCIS officers and for 
unaccompanied alien children in proceedings before immigration judges 
in the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
    Statement of Need: The TVPRA mandated promulgation of regulations 
taking into account the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien 
children and addressing both procedural and substantive aspects of 
handling unaccompanied alien children's cases. This rule will codify 
existing agency guidance on the specialized needs of unaccompanied 
alien children. The rule will also codify agency guidance implementing 
the TVPRA. Such guidance has been in effect since March 2009 and, based 
on experience gained in following the guidance, will be revised in the 
rule.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The purpose of this rule is to comply with 
the TVPRA mandate to promulgate regulations taking into account the 
specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children and addressing both 
procedural and substantive aspects of handling unaccompanied alien 
children's cases.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Congress has given USCIS initial 
jurisdiction over the asylum claims of unaccompanied alien children. 
New costs can accrue when EOIR immigration judges transfer cases 
involving unaccompanied alien minors to USCIS for asylum interviews and 
adjudication if USCIS does not grant the asylum application and the 
case is returned to EOIR for further adjudication. This additional cost 
is offset, however, when USCIS grants such an application because the 
costs of USCIS asylum adjudications are generally much lower than the 
processing of immigration court applications for that benefit. In 
addition, USCIS provides a non-adversarial setting for asylum seeker 
interviews and has recently developed extensive and ongoing training in 
children's issues. These factors can assist unaccompanied children in 
expressing their fear of return to their native countries. 
Unaccompanied alien children also compose a uniquely vulnerable 
population with often compelling protection issues; therefore, 
affording unaccompanied alien children every

[[Page 7743]]

consideration in the asylum process greatly benefits them. Finally, 
benefits will also accrue because the regulation will improve upon the 
process initially implemented upon passage of the TVPRA, incorporating 
lessons learned and optimizing the procedures for USCIS and EOIR.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Ted Kim, Deputy Chief, Asylum Division, Department 
of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office 
of Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations, Suite 3200, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20259, Phone: 202 272-1614, 
Fax: 202 272-1994, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AB96

DHS--USCIS

60.  Administrative Appeals Office: Procedural Reforms To 
Improve Efficiency

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 
U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1304; 6 U.S.C. 112
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 205; 8 CFR 210; 8 CFR 
214; 8 CFR 245a; 8 CFR 320; 8 CFR 105 (new); * * *.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule revises the requirements and 
procedures for the filing of motions and appeals before the 
Department's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and its 
Administrative Appeals Office. The proposed changes are intended to 
streamline the existing processes for filing motions and appeals and 
will reduce delays in the review and appellate process. This rule also 
makes additional changes necessitated by the establishment of the 
Department of Homeland Security and its components.
    Statement of Need: This rule proposes to make numerous changes to 
streamline the current appeal and motion processes which: (1) Will 
result in cost savings to the Government, applicants, and petitioners; 
and (2) will provide for a more efficient use of USCIS officer and 
clerical staff time, as well as more uniformity with Board of 
Immigration Appeals appeal and motion processes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 
8 U.S.C. 1101 and note 1102, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1184, 1185 
note (sec. 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458; title VII of Pub. L. 110-229), 
1186a, 1187, 1221,1223, 1225 to 1227, 1255a, and 1255a note, 1281, 
1282, 1301 to 1305, 1324a, 1356, 1372, 1379, 1409(c), 1443 to 1444, 
1448, 1452, 1455, 1641, 1731 to 1732; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 48 U.S.C. 1901, 
1931 note; section 643, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; section 
141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of 
Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the 
Government of Palau,; title VII of Public Law 110-229; Public Law 107-
296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); Public Law 82-414, 66 Stat. 
173, 238, 254, 264; title VII of Public Law 110-229; E.O. 12356.
    Alternatives: The alternative to this rule would be to continue 
under the current process without change.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As a result of streamlining the 
appeal and motion process, USCIS anticipates quantitative and 
qualitative benefits to DHS and the public. We also anticipate cost 
savings to DHS and applicants as a result of the proposed changes.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Previously 1615-AB29 (CIS 2311-04), which 
was withdrawn in 2007. DHS has included this rule in its Final Plan for 
the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, which DHS issued on 
August 22, 2011.
    Agency Contact: William K Renwick, Supervisory Citizenship and 
Immigration Appeals Officer, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Administrative Appeals Office, 
Washington, DC 20529-2090, Phone: 703 224-4501, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Duplicate of 1615-AB29.
    RIN: 1615-AB98

DHS--USCIS

Final Rule Stage

61. New Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in 
Persons; Eligibility for T Nonimmigrant Status

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 
1104; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8 
U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 22 U.S.C. 7101; 22 U.S.C. 
7105
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR 
299.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: T classification was created by 107(e) of the Victims of 
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law 
106-386. The T nonimmigrant classification was designed for eligible 
victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons who aid law 
enforcement with their investigation or prosecution of the traffickers, 
and who can establish that they would suffer extreme hardship involving 
unusual and severe harm if they were removed from the United States. 
The rule establishes application procedures and responsibilities for 
the Department of Homeland Security and provides guidance to the public 
on how to meet certain requirements to obtain T nonimmigrant status. 
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public 
Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status provisions of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The Department will issue 
another interim final rule to make the changes required by recent 
legislation and to provide the opportunity for notice and comment.
    Statement of Need: T nonimmigrant status is available to eligible 
victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons who have complied 
with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or 
prosecution of acts of trafficking in persons, and who can demonstrate 
that they would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe 
harm if removed from the United States. This rule addresses the 
essential elements that must be demonstrated for classification as a T 
nonimmigrant alien; the procedures to be followed by applicants to 
apply for T nonimmigrant status; and evidentiary guidance to assist in 
the application process.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 107(e) of the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act (TVPA), Public Law 106-386, as amended, established the 
T classification to create a safe haven for certain eligible victims of 
severe forms

[[Page 7744]]

of trafficking in persons, who assist law enforcement authorities in 
investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators of these crimes.
    Alternatives: To develop a comprehensive Federal approach to 
identifying victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, to 
provide them with benefits and services, and to enhance the Department 
of Justice's ability to prosecute traffickers and prevent trafficking 
in persons in the first place, a series of meetings with stakeholders 
were conducted with representatives from key Federal agencies; 
national, State, and local law enforcement associations; non-profit, 
community-based victim rights organizations; and other groups. 
Suggestions from these stakeholders were used in the drafting of this 
regulation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There is no cost to applicants 
associated with this regulation. Applicants for T nonimmigrant status 
do not pay application or biometric fees.
    The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Assistance 
to trafficked victims and their families, prosecution of traffickers in 
persons, and the elimination of abuses caused by trafficking 
activities.
    Benefits which may be attributed to the implementation of this rule 
are expected to be:
    1. An increase in the number of cases brought forward for 
investigation and/or prosecution;
    2. Heightened awareness by the law enforcement community of 
trafficking in persons;
    3. Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in 
persons cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may 
begin to influence changes in trafficking patterns.
    Risks: There is a 5,000-person limit to the number of individuals 
who can be granted T-1 status per fiscal year. Eligible applicants who 
are not granted T-1 status due solely to the numerical limit will be 
placed on a waiting list to be maintained by U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS).
    To protect T-1 applicants and their families, USCIS will use 
various means to prevent the removal of T-1 applicants on the waiting 
list, and their family members who are eligible for derivative T 
status, including its existing authority to grant deferred action, 
parole, and stays of removal.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   01/31/02  67 FR 4784
Interim Final Rule Effective........   03/04/02  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      04/01/02  .......................
 End.
Interim Final Rule..................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: CIS No. 2132-01; AG Order No. 2554-2002. 
There is a related rulemaking, CIS No. 2170-01, the new U nonimmigrant 
status (RIN 1615-AA67). Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19.
    Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins, Chief, Family Immigration and 
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-
1480, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1615-AA67.
    RIN: 1615-AA59

DHS--USCIS

62. Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T 
and U Nonimmigrant Status

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 
1104; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8 
U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 22 U.S.C. 
7101; 22 U.S.C. 7105
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule sets forth measures by which certain victims of 
severe forms of trafficking who have been granted T nonimmigrant status 
and victims of certain criminal activity who have been granted U 
nonimmigrant status may apply for adjustment to permanent resident 
status in accordance with Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking 
and Violence Protection Act of 2000; and Public Law 109-162, Violence 
Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. 
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public 
Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status provisions of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The Department will issue 
another interim final rule to make the changes required by recent 
legislation and to provide the opportunity for notice and comment.
    Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to permit aliens in 
lawful T or U nonimmigrant status to apply for adjustment of status to 
that of lawful permanent residents. T nonimmigrant status is available 
to aliens who are victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons 
and who are assisting law enforcement in the investigation or 
prosecution of the acts of trafficking. U nonimmigrant status is 
available to aliens who are victims of certain crimes and are being 
helpful to the investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule implements the Victims of 
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law 
106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 (Oct. 28, 2000), as amended, to permit aliens 
in lawful T or U nonimmigrant status to apply for adjustment of status 
to that of lawful permanent residents.
    Alternatives: USCIS did not consider alternatives to managing T and 
U applications for adjustment of status. Ease of administration 
dictates that adjustment of status applications from T and U 
nonimmigrants would be best handled on a first in, first out basis, 
because that is the way applications for T and U status are currently 
handled.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: USCIS uses fees to fund the cost of 
processing applications and associated support benefits. The fees to be 
collected resulting from this rule will be approximately $3 million in 
the first year, $1.9 million in the second year, and an average of 
about $32 million in the third and subsequent years. To estimate the 
new fee collections to be generated by this rule, USCIS estimated the 
fees to be collected for new applications for adjustment of status from 
T and U nonimmigrants and their eligible family members. After that, 
USCIS estimated fees from associated applications that are required 
such as biometrics, and others that are likely to occur in direct 
connection with applications for adjustment, such as employment 
authorization or travel authorization.
    The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued 
assistance to trafficked victims and their families, increased 
investigation and prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the 
elimination of abuses caused by trafficking activities.
    Benefits that may be attributed to the implementation of this rule 
are expected to be:

[[Page 7745]]

    1. An increase in the number of cases brought forward for 
investigation and/or prosecution;
    2. Heightened awareness of trafficking-in-persons issues by the law 
enforcement community; and
    3. Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in 
persons cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may 
begin to influence changes in trafficking patterns.
    Risks: Congress created the U nonimmigrant status (``U visa'') to 
provide immigration protection to crime victims who assist in the 
investigation and prosecution of those crimes. Although there are no 
specific data on alien crime victims, statistics maintained by the 
Department of Justice have shown that aliens, especially those aliens 
without legal status, are often reluctant to help in the investigation 
or prosecution of crimes. U visas are intended to help overcome this 
reluctance and aid law enforcement accordingly.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/12/08  73 FR 75540
Interim Final Rule Effective........   01/12/09  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      02/10/09  .......................
 End.
Interim Final Rule..................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: CIS No. 2134-01. Transferred from RIN 1115-
AG21.
    Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins, Chief, Family Immigration and 
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-
1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AA60

DHS--USCIS

63. Application of Immigration Regulations to the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-229
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208 and 209; 8 CFR 214 and 215; 8 CFR 217; 8 
CFR 235; 8 CFR 248; 8 CFR 264; 8 CFR 274a.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 28, 2009, Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act (CNRA) of 2008.
    Abstract: This final rule amends the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to 
comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). The 
CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United States to the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This rule 
finalizes the interim rule and implements conforming amendments to 
their respective regulations.
    Statement of Need: This rule finalizes the interim rule to conform 
existing regulations with the CNRA. Some of the changes implemented 
under the CNRA affect existing regulations governing both DHS 
immigration policy and procedures and proceedings before the 
immigration judges and the Board. Accordingly, it is necessary to make 
amendments both to the DHS regulations and to the DOJ regulations. The 
Secretary and the Attorney General are making conforming amendments to 
their respective regulations in this single rulemaking document.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress extended the immigration laws of 
the United States to the CNMI. The stated purpose of the CNRA is to 
ensure effective border control procedures, to properly address 
national security and homeland security concerns by extending U.S. 
immigration law to the CNMI (phasing-out the CNMI's nonresident 
contract worker program while minimizing to the greatest extent 
practicable the potential adverse economic and fiscal effects of that 
phase-out), to maximize the CNMI's potential for future economic and 
business growth, and to assure worker protections from the potential 
for abuse and exploitation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs: The interim rule established 
basic provisions necessary for the application of the INA to the CNMI 
and updated definitions and existing DHS and DOJ regulations in areas 
that were confusing or in conflict with how they are to be applied to 
implement the INA in the CNMI. As such, that rule made no changes that 
had identifiable direct or indirect economic impacts that could be 
quantified.
    Benefits: This final rule makes additional regulatory changes in 
order to lessen the adverse impacts of the CNRA on employers and 
employees in the CNMI and assist the CNMI in its transition to the INA.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   10/28/09  74 FR 55725
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      11/27/09
 End.
Correction..........................   12/22/09  74 FR 67969
Final Action........................   03/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: CIS 2460-08.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Branch Chief, Business and Trade 
Services, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Second Floor, Office of Program and Regulations 
Development, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 
202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB76, Related to 1615-AB75.
    RIN: 1615-AB77

DHS--U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG)

Final Rule Stage

64. Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International 
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping 
(STCW) for Seafarers, 1978

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103; 46 U.S.C. chapters 71 and 73; DHS 
Delegation No. 0170.1
    CFR Citation: 46 CFR 10; 46 CFR 11; 46 CFR 12; 46 CFR 15.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) 
comprehensively amended the International Convention on Standards of 
Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978, 
in 1995 and 2010. The 1995 amendments came into force on February 1, 
1997. This project implements those amendments by revising current 
rules to ensure that the United States complies with their requirements 
on: The training of merchant mariners, the documenting of their 
qualifications, and watch-standing and other arrangements aboard 
seagoing merchant ships of the United States. In addition, the Coast 
Guard has identified the need for additional changes to the interim 
rule issued in 1997. This project supports the Coast Guard's broad role 
and responsibility of maritime safety. It also supports the roles and 
responsibilities of the Coast Guard of reducing deaths and injuries of 
crew

[[Page 7746]]

members on domestic merchant vessels and eliminating substandard 
vessels from the navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard 
published an NPRM on November 17, 2009, and Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) 
on March 23, 2010.
    At a June 2010 diplomatic conference, the IMO adopted additional 
amendments to the STCW convention, which change the minimum training 
requirements for seafarers. In response to feedback and to the adoption 
of those amendments, the Coast Guard developed a second Supplemental 
NPRM to incorporate the 2010 Amendments into the 1990 interim rule.
    Statement of Need: The Coast Guard proposed to amend its 
regulations to implement changes to its interim rule published on June 
26, 1997. These proposed amendments go beyond changes found in the 
interim rule and seek to more fully incorporate the requirements of the 
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and 
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW), in the 
requirements for the credentialing of United States merchant mariners. 
The new changes are primarily substantive and: (1) Are necessary to 
continue to give full and complete effect to the STCW Convention; (2) 
Incorporate lessons learned from implementation of the STCW through the 
interim rule and through policy letters and NVICs; and (3) Attempt to 
clarify regulations that have generated confusion.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for the Coast Guard to 
prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations is provided under 
46 U.S.C. 2103 and 46 U.S.C. chapters 71 and 73; and Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Alternatives: For each proposed change, the Coast Guard has 
considered various alternatives. We considered using policy statements, 
but they are not enforceable. We also considered taking no action, but 
this does not support the Coast Guard's fundamental safety and security 
mission. Additionally, we considered comments made during our 1997 
rulemaking to formulate our alternatives. When we analyzed issues, such 
as license progression and tonnage equivalency, the alternatives chosen 
were those that most closely met the requirements of STCW.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the SNPRM, we estimated the 
annualized cost of this rule over a 10-year period to be $32.8 million 
per year at a 7 percent discount rate. We estimate the total 10-year 
cost of this rulemaking to be $230.7 million at a 7 percent discount 
rate and $274.3 million at a 3 percent discount rate.
    The changes in anticipated costs since the publication of 2009 NPRM 
are due to the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention: Medical 
examinations and endorsements, leadership and management skills, engine 
room management training, tankerman endorsements, safety refresher 
training and able seafarer deck and engine certification requirements. 
However, there would be potential savings from the costs of training 
requirements as the Coast Guard would accept various methods for 
demonstrating competence, including the on-the-job training and 
preservation of the ``hawsepipe'' programs.
    We anticipate the primary benefit of this rulemaking is to ensure 
that the U.S. meets its obligations under the STCW Convention. Another 
benefit is an increase in vessel safety and a resulting decrease in the 
risk of shipping casualties.
    Risks: No risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Meeting...................   08/02/95  60 FR 39306
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   09/29/95
Notice of Inquiry...................   11/13/95  60 FR 56970
Comment Period End..................   01/12/96
NPRM................................   03/26/96  61 FR 13284
Notice of Public Meetings...........   04/08/96  61 FR 15438
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/24/96
Notice of Intent....................   02/04/97  62 FR 5197
Interim Final Rule..................   06/26/97  62 FR 34505
Interim Final Rule Effective........   07/28/97
NPRM................................   11/17/09  74 FR 59353
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/16/10
Supplemental NPRM...................   03/23/10  75 FR 13715
Supplemental NPRM...................   08/01/11  76 FR 45908
Public Meeting Notice...............   08/02/11  76 FR 46217
Comment Period End..................   09/30/11
Final Action........................   01/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: The docket number for this rulemaking is 
USCG-2004-17914. The docket is located at www.regulations.gov. The old 
docket number is CGD 95-062.
    Include Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Mark Gould, Project Manager, CG-5221, Department of 
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7126, 
Washington, DC 20593-7126, Phone: 202 372-1409.
    RIN: 1625-AA16

DHS--USCG

65. Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and 
Automatic Identification System

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223; 33 U.S.C. 1225; 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 
U.S.C. 3716; 46 U.S.C. 8502 and ch 701; sec 102 of Pub. L. 107-295; EO 
1223
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 62; 33 CFR 66; 33 CFR 160; 33 CFR 161; 33 CFR 
164; 33 CFR 165.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would expand the applicability for Notice 
of Arrival and Departure (NOAD) and Automatic Identification System 
(AIS) requirements. These expanded requirements would better enable the 
Coast Guard to correlate vessel AIS data with NOAD data, enhance our 
ability to identify and track vessels, detect anomalies, improve 
navigation safety, and heighten our overall maritime domain awareness.
    The NOAD portion of this rulemaking could expand the applicability 
of the NOAD regulations by changing the minimum size of vessels covered 
below the current 300 gross tons, require a notice of departure when a 
vessel is departing for a foreign port or place, and mandate electronic 
submission of NOAD notices to the National Vessel Movement Center. The 
AIS portion of this rulemaking would expand current AIS carriage 
requirements for the population identified in the Safety of Life at Sea 
(SOLAS) Convention and the Marine Transportation Marine Transportation 
Security Act (MTSA) of 2002.
    Statement of Need: There is no central mechanism in place to 
capture vessel, crew, passenger, or specific cargo information on 
vessels less than or equal to 300 gross tons (GT) intending to arrive 
at or depart from U.S. ports unless they are arriving with certain

[[Page 7747]]

dangerous cargo (CDC) or at a port in the 7th Coast Guard District; nor 
is there a requirement for vessels to submit notification of departure 
information. The lack of NOAD information of this large and diverse 
population of vessels represents a substantial gap in our maritime 
domain awareness (MDA). We can minimize this gap and enhance MDA by 
expanding NOAD applicability to vessels greater than 300 GT, all 
foreign commercial vessels and all U.S. commercial vessels coming from 
a foreign port, and further enhance (and corroborate) MDA by tracking 
those vessels (and others) with AIS. This information is necessary in 
order to expand our MDA and provide Nation maritime safety and 
security.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is based on congressional 
authority provided in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and the 
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.
    Alternatives: Our goal is to extend our MDA and to identify 
anomalies by correlating vessel NOAD data with AIS data. NOAD and AIS 
information from a greater number of vessels, as proposed in this 
rulemaking, would expand our MDA. We considered expanding NOAD and AIS 
to even more vessels, but we determined we needed additional 
legislative authority to expand AIS beyond what we propose in this 
rulemaking; and that it was best to combine additional NOAD expansion 
with future AIS expansion. Although not in conjunction with a proposed 
rule, the Coast Guard sought comment regarding expansion of AIS 
carriage to other waters and other vessels not subject to the current 
requirements (68 FR 39369, Jul. 1, 2003; USCG 2003-14878; see also 68 
FR 39355). Those comments were reviewed and considered in drafting this 
rule and are available in this docket. To fulfill our agency 
obligations, the Coast Guard needs to receive AIS reports and NOADs 
from vessels identified in this rulemaking that currently are not 
required to provide this information. Policy or other non-binding 
statements by the Coast Guard addressed to the owners of these vessels 
would not produce the information required to sufficiently enhance our 
MDA to produce the information required to fulfill our Agency 
obligations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rulemaking will enhance the 
Coast Guard's regulatory program by making it more effective in 
achieving the regulatory objectives, which, in this case, is improved 
MDA. We provide flexibility in the type of AIS system that can be used, 
allowing for reduced cost burden. This rule is also streamlined to 
correspond with Customs and Border Protection's APIS requirements, 
thereby reducing unjustified burdens. We are further developing 
estimates of cost and benefit that were published in 2008. In the 2008 
NPRM, we estimated that both segments of the proposed rule would affect 
approximately 42,607 vessels. The total number of domestic vessels 
affected is approximately 17,323 and the total number of foreign 
vessels affected is approximately 25,284. We estimated that the 10-year 
total present discounted value or cost of the proposed rule to U.S. 
vessel owners is between $132.2 and $163.7 million (7 and 3 percent 
discount rates, respectively, 2006 dollars) over the period of 
analysis.
    The Coast Guard believes that this rule, through a combination of 
NOAD and AIS, would strengthen and enhance maritime security. The 
combination of NOAD and AIS would create a synergistic effect between 
the two requirements. Ancillary or secondary benefits exist in the form 
of avoided injuries, fatalities, and barrels of oil not spilled into 
the marine environment. In the 2008 NPRM, we estimated that the total 
discounted benefit (injuries and fatalities) derived from 68 marine 
casualty cases analyzed over an 8-year data period from 1996 to 2003 
for the AIS portion of the proposed rule is between $24.7 and $30.6 
million using $6.3 million for the value of statistical life (VSL) at 
seven and three percent discount rates, respectively. Just based on 
barrels of oil not spilled, we expect the AIS portion of the proposed 
rule to prevent 22 barrels of oil from being spilled annually.
    Risks: Considering the economic utility of U.S. ports, waterways, 
and coastal approaches, it is clear that a terrorist incident against 
our U.S. Maritime Transportation System (MTS) would have a direct 
impact on U.S. users and consumers and could potentially have a 
disastrous impact on global shipping, international trade, and the 
world economy. By improving the ability of the Coast Guard both to 
identify potential terrorists coming to the United States while the 
terrorists are far from our shores and to coordinate appropriate 
responses and intercepts before the vessel reaches a U.S. port, this 
rulemaking would contribute significantly to the expansion of MDA, and 
consequently is instrumental in addressing the threat posed by 
terrorist actions against the MTS.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/16/08  73 FR 76295
Notice of Public Meeting............   01/21/09  74 FR 3534
Notice of Second Public Meeting.....   03/02/09  74 FR 9071
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/15/09  .......................
Notice of Second Public Meeting        04/15/09  .......................
 Comment Period End.
Final Rule..........................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: We have indicated in past notices and 
rulemaking documents, and it remains the case that we have worked to 
coordinate implementation of AIS MTSA requirements with the development 
of our ability to take advantage of AIS data (68 FR 39355 and 39370, 
Jul. 1, 2003).
    The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2005-21869. The 
docket can be found at www.regulations.gov.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: LT Sharmine Jones, Program Manager, Office of 
Vessel Activities, Foreign and Offshore Vessel Activities Div. (CG-
5432), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd 
Street SW., STOP 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581, Phone: 202 372-1234, 
Email: [email protected].
    Jorge Arroyo, Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems CG-
5531, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd 
Street SW., STOP 7683, Washington, DC 20593-7683, Phone: 202 372-1563, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1625-AA93, Related to 1625-AB28.
    RIN: 1625-AA99

DHS--USCG

66. Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Vessel Response Plan 
Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301 to 303; 33 U.S.C. 1223; 33 U.S.C. 
1231; 33 U.S.C. 3121; 33 U.S.C. 1903; 33 U.S.C. 1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 151; 33 CFR 155; 33 CFR 160.

[[Page 7748]]

    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 15, 2012, Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2010.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would establish regulations requiring 
owners or operators of nontank vessels to prepare and submit oil spill 
response plans. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act defines nontank 
vessels as self-propelled vessels of 400 gross tons or greater that 
operate on the navigable waters of the United States, carry oil of any 
kind as fuel for main propulsion, and are not tank vessels. The NPRM 
proposed to specify the content of a response plan, and among other 
issues, address the requirement to plan for responding to a worst case 
discharge and a substantial threat of such a discharge. Additionally, 
the NPRM proposed to update International Shipboard Oil Pollution 
Emergency Plan (SOPEP) requirements that apply to certain nontank 
vessels and tank vessels. Finally, the NPRM proposed to require vessel 
owners and operators to submit their vessel response plan control 
number as part of the notice of arrival information. This project 
supports the Coast Guard's broad roles and responsibilities of maritime 
stewardship.
    Statement of Need: This rule implements the statutory requirement 
for an owner or operator of a self-propelled, nontank vessel of 400 
gross tons or greater, which operates on the navigable waters of the 
United States, to prepare and submit an oil spill response plan to the 
Coast Guard. This rule specifies the content of a vessel response plan 
(VRP), including the requirement to plan for responding to a worst-case 
discharge (WCD) and a substantial threat of such a discharge as 
mandated in statute. The rule also specifies the procedures for 
submitting a VRP to the Coast Guard. This rule will improve our 
Nation's pollution response planning and preparedness posture, and help 
limit the environmental damage resulting from nontank vessel marine 
casualties.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)), as amended by 
section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-
380, 104 Stat. 484); the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
2004 (Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 102); and the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241, 120 Stat. 516) sets out 
the statutory mandate requiring tank and nontank vessel owners or 
operators to prepare and submit oil or hazardous substance discharge 
response plans for certain vessels operating on the navigable waters of 
the United States.
    Alternatives: In the development of these regulations, the Coast 
Guard considered four alternatives: Three regulatory alternatives and 
one non-regulatory alternative. The alternatives are--(1) Establish 
regulations for the submission of NTVRPs to the USCG; (2) amend the 
tank vessel response plan (TVRP) regulations to incorporate NTVRPs; (3) 
acceptance of flag-approved SOPEPs; and (4) provide interpretive 
guidance through a USCG's Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 
(NVIC).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are developing the cost and 
benefit estimates associated with this step of the rulemaking. The cost 
elements associated with this rule include: (1) Nontank vessel plan 
development, maintenance, and submission; (2) the service of an Oil 
Spill Response Organization (OSRO); (3) the contract with a Qualified 
Individual (QI) along with a Spill Management Team; and (4) training 
and exercises. We expect this proposed rule to provide quantifiable 
benefits in the form of barrels of oil not spilled into the water in 
addition to qualitative benefits, which include improved preparedness 
and reaction to an incident, including a worst-case discharge and 
improved effectiveness of onboard and shore-side response activities.
    In the 2009 NPRM, we estimated that the rulemaking would affect 
about 2,951 U.S. flag vessels and 1,228 associated planholders. We 
estimated the total 10-year present value cost of the proposed rule to 
U.S. flag nontank vessel owners and operators to be about $111.4 
million at a 7 percent discount rate and $134.8 million at a 3 percent 
discount rate. We found the training and exercise requirements to be 
the most costly element or over 90 percent of the total discounted cost 
of the proposed rule for vessel owners. We estimated the total U.S. 
annualized cost of the proposed rule over the 10-year period of 
analysis to be about $15.8 million at both 7 and 3 percent discount 
rates.
    Risks: Response plans are required by statute. A response plan will 
not prevent a discharge of oil, but it may help minimize the discharge 
and resulting damage to the environment. We estimate the proposed rule 
would prevent between 2,014 and 2,446 barrels of oil from being spilled 
into the water during the 10-year period of analysis.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/31/09  74 FR 44970
Public Meeting......................   09/25/09  74 FR 48891
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/30/09  .......................
Final Rule..........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: The docket number for this rulemaking is 
USCG-2008-1070. The docket can be found at www.regulations.gov.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: LCDR Kevin B. Ferrie, Project Manager, Department 
of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street SW., Stop 7581, 
Washington, DC 20593-7581, Phone: 202 372-1000, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1625-AA19, Related to 1625-AA26.
    RIN: 1625-AB27

DHS--USCG

67. Offshore Supply Vessels of at Least 6000 GT ITC

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-281, sec 617
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, January 1, 2012, Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2010.
    Abstract: The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 removed the 
size limit on offshore supply vessels (OSVs). The Act also directed the 
Coast Guard to issue, as soon as is practicable, a regulation to 
implement section 617 of the Act and to ensure the safe carriage of 
oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to the crew on 
vessels of at least 6,000 gross tonnage as measured under the 
International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (6,000 GT 
ITC). Accordingly, the Coast Guard's rule will address design, manning, 
carriage of personnel, and related topics for OSVs of at least 6,000 GT 
ITC. This rulemaking will meet the requirements of the Act and will 
support the Coast Guard's mission of marine safety, security, and 
stewardship.
    Statement of Need: In section 617 of Public Law 111-281, Congress 
removed OSV tonnage limits and instructed the Coast Guard to promulgate 
regulations

[[Page 7749]]

to implement the amendments and authorities of section 617. 
Additionally, Congress directed the Coast Guard to ensure the safe 
carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to 
the crew on OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authority to promulgate these 
regulations is found in section 617(f) of Public Law 111-281.
    Alternatives: The Coast Guard Authorization Act removed OSV tonnage 
limits and the Coast Guard will examine alternatives during the 
development of the regulatory analysis.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Coast Guard is currently 
developing a regulatory impact analysis of regulations that ensure the 
safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition 
to the crew on OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC. A potential benefit of 
this rulemaking is the ability of industry to expand and take advantage 
of new commercial opportunities in the building of larger OSVs.
    Risks: No risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Thomas L. Neyhart, Program Manager, Department of 
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7126, 
Washington, DC 20593-7126, Phone: 202 372-1360, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1625-AB62

DHS--USCG

68.  Revision to Transportation Worker Identification 
Credential (TWIC) Requirements for Mariners

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: sec 809 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
2010, Pub. L. 111-281, codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105(b)(2); 46 U.S.C. 
2110(g)
    CFR Citation: 46 CFR 10; 46 CFR 11; 46 CFR 12; 46 CFR 15.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This Policy Letter describes both short-term and long-
term steps that the Coast Guard is taking to implement the requirements 
of section 809 of Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, Public Law 
111-281. Section 809 excludes certain mariners from the statutory 
requirement to obtain and hold a Transportation Worker Identification 
Credential (TWIC) in order to receive a Merchant Mariner Credential 
(MMC).
    In the short-term, while working to promulgate implementing 
regulations, the Coast Guard is relaxing its enforcement posture for 
mariners without a valid TWIC who operate on board vessels that do not 
have a security plan. The Coast Guard is also altering its policies to 
allow these mariners to obtain a MMC without holding a valid TWIC. 
Specifically, mariners already hold or held a TWIC, and who no longer 
require a TWIC, may skip the TWIC enrollment process and apply for a 
renewal MMC directly with a Regional Examination Center (REC), in 
accordance with title 46 CFR, section 10.209. However, mariners that 
are being issued an initial MMC, or who never held a TWIC, will need to 
enroll for a TWIC at a TWIC enrollment center. They will also have to 
pay all applicable fees associated with getting a TWIC. This is 
required because the TWIC enrollment center is the only place where the 
Coast Guard can obtain biometric information (fingerprints) from the 
applicant.
    In the long-term, as part of a rulemaking to promulgate 
implementing regulations, the Coast Guard is considering waiving a 
portion of the fees for a MMC in order to compensate the mariner for 
the cost of enrolling for a TWIC. However, it is emphasized that such 
action is contingent on the promulgation of a regulation to adjust the 
fee structure.
    Statement of Need: The Coast Guard is revising its merchant mariner 
credentialing regulations to implement changes made by section 809 of 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, codified at 46 U.S.C. 
70105(b)(2), which reduces the population of mariners who are required 
to obtain and hold a valid Transportation Worker Identification 
Credential (TWIC). Prior to section 809, 46 U.S.C. 70105(b)(2) required 
each mariner required to hold an MMC issued by the Coast Guard to also 
obtain and hold a valid TWIC issued by the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA). Section 809 removes this requirement, and now a 
TWIC is statutorily required if the mariner is ``allowed unescorted 
access to a secure area designated in a vessel security plan approved 
under section 70103 of title 46 [U.S.C.]''
    The Coast Guard is revising the applicability of the TWIC 
requirements in Coast Guard merchant mariner credentialing regulations 
as well as revising some of its merchant mariner credentialing 
processes contained in Coast Guard regulations. Current Coast Guard 
regulations in 46 CFR parts 10, 11, 12, and 15 contain the processes 
for issuing an MMC that are intertwined with TSA processes for issuing 
a TWIC. The Coast Guard utilizes the TWIC enrollment process to capture 
information necessary to issue an MMC. Although the Coast Guard is 
changing some of its processes for obtaining an MMC, some mariners no 
longer required to hold a TWIC may still have to complete the TWIC 
enrollment process in order to provide information necessary to obtain 
an MMC. For any such mariner that must still go through the TWIC 
enrollment process, including paying the full TWIC enrollment fee, the 
Coast Guard is revising its regulations to exempt these mariners from 
paying a portion of the MMC fees in order to offset the TWIC fee and to 
minimize the burden on those mariners of paying for a TWIC when the 
mariner is no longer statutorily required to hold one.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Coast Guard's statutory authority to 
promulgate regulations addressing TWIC requirements for mariners is 
found in 46 U.S.C. 70105(a) and (b). The Coast Guard's statutory 
authority to promulgate regulations addressing fee exemptions is found 
in 46 U.S.C. 2110(g).
    Alternatives: This rulemaking implements section 809 of the 2010 
Coast Guard Authorization Act. The Coast Guard is currently evaluating 
the alternatives as we complete the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rulemaking would provide 
certain mariner populations a fee exemption when applying or renewing 
an MMC. These mariner populations would also benefit from cost savings 
associated with reduced travels to TWIC enrollment centers.
    Risks: No risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Additional Information: DHS has included this rule in its Final 
Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, which DHS 
issued on August 22, 2011.
    Agency Contact: Davis Breyer, Project Manager, Department of 
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, CG-5221,

[[Page 7750]]

2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC 20593, Phone: 202 372-1445, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1625-AB80

DHS--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (USCBP)

Final Rule Stage

69. Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 109-347, sec 203; 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 
66; 19 U.S.C. 1431; 19 U.S.C. 1433 to 1434; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 19 U.S.C. 
2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 60105
    CFR Citation: 19 CFR 4; 19 CFR 12.3; 19 CFR 18.5; 19 CFR 103.31a; 
19 CFR 113; 19 CFR 123.92; 19 CFR 141.113; 19 CFR 146.32; 19 CFR 149; 
19 CFR 192.14.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This interim final rule implements the provisions of 
section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 
2006. It amended CBP Regulations to require carriers and importers to 
provide to CBP, via a CBP-approved electronic data interchange system, 
information necessary to enable CBP to identify high-risk shipments to 
prevent smuggling and insure cargo safety and security. Under the rule, 
importers and carriers must submit specified information to CBP before 
the cargo is brought into the United States by vessel. This advance 
information will improve CBP's risk assessment and targeting 
capabilities, assist CBP in increasing the security of the global 
trading system, and facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo 
following its arrival in the United States. The interim final rule 
requested comments on those required data elements for which CBP 
provided certain flexibilities for compliance and on the revised costs 
and benefits and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. CBP plans to issue a 
final rule after CBP completes a structured review of the flexibilities 
and analyzes the comments.
    Statement of Need: Vessel carriers are currently required to 
transmit certain manifest information by way of the CBP Vessel 
Automated Manifest System (AMS) 24 hours prior to lading of 
containerized and non-exempt break bulk cargo at a foreign port. For 
the most part, this is the ocean carrier's or non-vessel operating 
common carrier's (NVOCC) cargo declaration. CBP analyzes this 
information to generate its risk assessment for targeting purposes.
    Internal and external government reviews have concluded that more 
complete advance shipment data would produce even more effective and 
vigorous cargo risk assessments. In addition, pursuant to section 203 
of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 
109-347, 6 U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP, must promulgate 
regulations to require the electronic transmission of additional data 
elements for improved high-risk targeting, including appropriate 
security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the United States 
by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign 
seaports.
    Based upon its analysis, as well as the requirements under the SAFE 
Port Act, CBP is requiring the electronic transmission of additional 
data for improved high-risk targeting. Some of these data elements are 
being required from carriers (Container Status Messages and Vessel Stow 
Plan) and others are being required from ``importers,'' as that term is 
defined for purposes of the regulations.
    This rule intends to improve CBP's risk assessment and targeting 
capabilities and enables the agency to facilitate the prompt release of 
legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States. The 
information will assist CBP in increasing the security of the global 
trading system and, thereby, reducing the threat to the United States 
and world economy.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Pursuant to section 203 of the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C. 
943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
through the Commissioner of CBP, must promulgate regulations to require 
the electronic transmission of additional data elements for improved 
high-risk targeting, including appropriate security elements of entry 
data for cargo destined to the United States by vessel prior to loading 
of such cargo on vessels at foreign seaports.
    Alternatives: CBP considered and evaluated the following four 
alternatives:
    Alternative 1 (the chosen alternative): Importer Security Filings 
and Additional Carrier Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is exempt 
from the Importer Security Filing requirements;
    Alternative 2: Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier 
Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is not exempt from the Importer 
Security Filing requirements;
    Alternative 3: Only Importer Security Filings are required. Bulk 
cargo is exempt from the Importer Security Filing requirements; and
    Alternative 4: Only the Additional Carrier Requirements are 
required.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: When the NPRM was published, CBP 
estimated that approximately 11 million import shipments conveyed by 
1,000 different carrier companies operating 37,000 unique voyages or 
vessel-trips to the United States will be subject to the rule. 
Annualized costs range from $890 million to $7.0 billion (7 percent 
discount rate over 10 years).
    The annualized cost range estimate resulted from varying 
assumptions about the importers' estimated security filing transaction 
costs or fees charged to the importers by the filing parties, the 
potential for supply chain delays, and the estimated costs to carriers 
for transmitting additional data to CBP.
    The regulation may increase the time shipments are in transit, 
particularly for shipments consolidated in containers. For such 
shipments, the supply chain is generally more complex and the importer 
has less control of the flow of goods and associated security filing 
information. Foreign cargo consolidators may be consolidating multiple 
shipments from one or more shippers in a container destined for one or 
more buyers or consignees. In order to ensure that the security filing 
data is provided by the shippers to the importers (or their designated 
agents) and is then transmitted to and accepted by CBP in advance of 
the 24-hour deadline, consolidators may advance their cut-off times for 
receipt of shipments and associated security filing data.
    These advanced cut-off times would help prevent a consolidator or 
carrier from having to unpack or unload a container in the event the 
security filing for one of the shipments contained in the container is 
inadequate or not accepted by CBP. For example, consolidators may 
require shippers to submit, transmit, or obtain CBP approval of their 
security filing data before their shipments are stuffed in the 
container, before the container is sealed, or before the container is 
delivered to the port for lading. In such cases, importers would likely 
have to increase the times they hold their goods as inventory, and thus 
incur additional inventory carrying costs to sufficiently meet these 
advanced cut-off times imposed by their foreign consolidators. The high 
end of the cost ranges presented assumes an initial supply chain delay 
of 2 days for the first year

[[Page 7751]]

of implementation (2008) and a delay of 1 day for years 2 through 10 
(2009 to 2017).
    Ideally, the quantification and monetization of the benefits of 
this regulation would involve estimating the current level of risk of a 
successful terrorist attack, absent this regulation, and the 
incremental reduction in risk resulting from implementation of the 
regulation. CBP would then multiply the change by an estimate of the 
value individuals place on such a risk reduction to produce a monetary 
estimate of direct benefits. However, existing data limitations and a 
lack of complete understanding of the true risks posed by terrorists 
prevent us from establishing the incremental risk reduction 
attributable to this rule. As a result, CBP has undertaken a ``break-
even'' analysis to inform decisionmakers of the necessary incremental 
change in the probability of such an event occurring that would result 
in direct benefits equal to the costs of the proposed rule. CBP's 
analysis finds that the incremental costs of this regulation are 
relatively small compared to the median value of a shipment of goods, 
despite the rather large absolute estimate of present value cost.
    The benefit of this rule is the improvement of CBP's risk 
assessment and targeting capabilities, while at the same time, enabling 
CBP to facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its 
arrival in the United States. The information will assist CBP in 
increasing the security of the global trading system, and thereby 
reducing the threat to the United States and the world economy.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/02/08  73 FR 90
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/03/08  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   02/01/08  73 FR 6061
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/18/08  .......................
Interim Final Rule..................   11/25/08  73 FR 71730
Interim Final Rule Effective........   01/26/09  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      06/01/09  .......................
 End.
Correction..........................   07/14/09  74 FR 33920
Correction..........................   12/24/09  74 FR 68376
Final Action........................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kennally, Acting Director, Cargo 
Control, Office of Field Operations, CBP, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 344-2476, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1651-AA70

DHS--USCBP

70. Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic 
System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1187
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 217.5.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This interim final rule implements the Electronic System 
for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for aliens who travel to the United 
States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of 
entry. Under the rule, VWP travelers are required to provide certain 
biographical information to CBP electronically before departing for the 
United States. This allows CBP to determine before their departure 
whether these travelers are eligible to travel to the United States 
under the VWP and whether such travel poses a security risk. The rule 
is intended to fulfill the requirements of section 711 of the 
Implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 
Act). In addition to fulfilling a statutory mandate, the rule serves 
the twin goals of promoting border security and legitimate travel to 
the United States. By modernizing the VWP, the ESTA is intended to 
increase national security and to provide for greater efficiencies in 
the screening of international travelers by allowing for vetting of 
subjects of potential interest well before boarding, thereby reducing 
traveler delays at the ports of entry. CBP requested comments on all 
aspects of the interim final rule and plans to issue a final rule after 
completion of the comment analysis.
    Statement of Need: Section 711 of the 9/11 Act requires the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to develop and implement a fully automated electronic travel 
authorization system that will collect biographical and other 
information in advance of travel to determine the eligibility of the 
alien to travel to the United States, and to determine whether such 
travel poses a law enforcement or security risk. ESTA is intended to 
fulfill these statutory requirements.
    Under this rule, VWP travelers provide certain information to CBP 
electronically before departing for the United States. VWP travelers 
who receive travel authorization under ESTA are not required to 
complete the paper Form I-94W when arriving on a carrier that is 
capable of receiving and validating messages pertaining to the 
traveler's ESTA status as part of the traveler's boarding status. By 
automating the I-94W process and establishing a system to provide VWP 
traveler data in advance of travel, CBP is able to determine the 
eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to 
travel to the United States and to determine whether such travel poses 
a law enforcement or security risk, before such individuals begin 
travel to the United States. ESTA provides for greater efficiencies in 
the screening of international travelers by allowing CBP to identify 
subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United 
States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler delays upon 
arrival at U.S. ports of entry.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The ESTA program is based on congressional 
authority provided under section 711 of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and section 217 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
    Alternatives: CBP considered three alternatives to this rule:
    1. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with a $1.50 fee per each 
travel authorization (more costly).
    2. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with only the name of the 
passenger and the admissibility questions on the I-94W form (less 
burdensome).
    3. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but only for the countries 
entering the VWP after 2009 (no new requirements for VWP, reduced 
burden for newly entering countries).
    CBP determined that the rule provides the greatest level of 
enhanced security and efficiency at an acceptable cost to traveling 
public and potentially affected air carriers.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The purpose of ESTA is to allow DHS 
and CBP to establish the eligibility of certain

[[Page 7752]]

foreign travelers to travel to the United States under the VWP, and 
whether the alien's proposed travel to the United States poses a law 
enforcement or security risk. Upon review of such information, DHS will 
determine whether the alien is eligible to travel to the United States 
under the VWP.

Costs to Air & Sea Carriers

    CBP estimated that eight U.S.-based air carriers and eleven sea 
carriers will be affected by the rule. An additional 35 foreign-based 
air carriers and five sea carriers will be affected. CBP concluded that 
costs to air and sea carriers to support the requirements of the ESTA 
program could cost $137 million to $1.1 billion over the next 10 years 
depending on the level of effort required to integrate their systems 
with ESTA, how many passengers they need to assist in applying for 
travel authorizations, and the discount rate applied to annual costs.

Costs to Travelers

    ESTA will present new costs and burdens to travelers in VWP 
countries who were not previously required to submit any information to 
the U.S. Government in advance of travel to the United States. 
Travelers from Roadmap countries who become VWP countries will also 
incur costs and burdens, though these are much less than obtaining a 
nonimmigrant visa (category B1/B2), which is currently required for 
short-term pleasure or business to travel to the United States. CBP 
estimated that the total quantified costs to travelers will range from 
$1.1 billion to $3.5 billion depending on the number of travelers, the 
value of time, and the discount rate. Annualized costs are estimated to 
range from $133 million to $366 million.

Benefits

    As set forth in section 711 of the 9/11 Act, it was the intent of 
Congress to modernize and strengthen the security of the Visa Waiver 
Program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, 
8 U.S.C. 1187) by simultaneously enhancing program security 
requirements and extending visa-free travel privileges to citizens and 
eligible nationals of eligible foreign countries that are partners in 
the war on terrorism.
    By requiring passenger data in advance of travel, CBP may be able 
to determine, before the alien departs for the United States, the 
eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to 
travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether such travel 
poses a law enforcement or security risk. In addition to fulfilling a 
statutory mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border 
security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the 
VWP, ESTA is intended to both increase national security and provide 
for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by 
allowing for the screening of subjects of potential interest well 
before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays based on potentially 
lengthy processes at U.S. ports of entry.
    CBP concluded that the total benefits to travelers could total $1.1 
billion to $3.3 billion over the period of analysis. Annualized 
benefits could range from $134 million to $345 million.
    In addition to these benefits to travelers, CBP and the carriers 
should also experience the benefit of not having to administer the I-
94W except in limited situations. While CBP has not conducted an 
analysis of the potential savings, it should accrue benefits from not 
having to produce, ship, and store blank forms. CBP should also be able 
to accrue savings related to data entry and archiving. Carriers should 
realize some savings as well, though carriers will still have to 
administer the I-94 for those passengers not traveling under the VWP 
and the Customs Declaration forms for all passengers aboard the 
aircraft and vessel.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Action................   06/09/08  73 FR 32440
Interim Final Rule Effective........   08/08/08  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      08/08/08  .......................
 End.
Notice--Announcing Date Rule Becomes   11/13/08  73 FR 67354
 Mandatory.
Final Action........................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/esta/.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd, Director, Electronic System for 
Travel Authorization, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, 
Phone: 202 344-2073, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA83.
    RIN: 1651-AA72

DHS--USCBP

71. Establishment of Global Entry Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1365b(k)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1365b(k)(3); 8 
U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C. 1185(b)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 103.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: CBP already operates several regulatory and non-
regulatory international registered traveler programs, also known as 
trusted traveler programs. In order to comply with the Intelligence 
Reform Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRPTA), CBP is proposing to 
amend its regulations to establish another international registered 
traveler program called Global Entry. The Global Entry program would 
expedite the movement of low-risk, frequent international air travelers 
by providing an expedited inspection process for pre-approved, pre-
screened travelers. These travelers would proceed directly to automated 
Global Entry kiosks upon their arrival in the United States. This 
Global Entry Program, along with the other programs that have already 
been established, are consistent with CBP's strategic goal of 
facilitating legitimate trade and travel while securing the homeland. A 
pilot of Global Entry has been operating since June 6, 2008.
    Statement of Need: CBP has been operating the Global Entry program 
as a pilot at several airports since June 6, 2008, and the pilot has 
been very successful. As a result, there is a desire on the part of the 
public that CBP establish the program as a permanent program, and 
expanded the program to additional airports and to citizens from other 
countries if possible. By establishing this program, CBP will make 
great strides toward facilitating the movement of people in a more 
efficient manner, thereby accomplishing our strategic goal of balancing 
legitimate travel with security. Through the use of biometric and 
recordkeeping technologies, the risk of terrorists entering the United 
States would be reduced. Improving security and facilitating travel at 
the border, both of which are accomplished by Global Entry, are primary 
concerns within CBP jurisdiction.

[[Page 7753]]

    Summary of Legal Basis: The Global Entry program is based on 
section 7208(k) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
of 2004 (IRTPA), as amended by section 565 of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to create a program to expedite the screening and processing of pre-
approved low risk air travelers into the United States.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Global Entry is a voluntary program 
that provides a benefit to the public by speeding the CBP processing 
time for participating travelers. Travelers who are otherwise 
admissible to the United States will be able to enter or exit the 
country regardless of whether they participate in Global Entry. CBP 
estimates that over a 5-year period, 250,000 enrollees will be 
processed (an annual average of 50,000 individuals). CBP estimates that 
each application will require 40 minutes (0.67 hours) of the enrollee's 
time to search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and 
complete and review the application form. Additionally, an enrollee 
will experience an ``opportunity cost of time'' to travel to an 
Enrollment Center upon acceptance of the initial application. We assume 
that 1 hour will be required for this time spent at the Enrollment 
Center and travel to and from the Center, though we note that during 
the pilot program, many applicants coordinated their trip to an 
Enrollment Center with their travel at the airport. CBP has used 1 hour 
of travel time so as not to underestimate potential opportunity costs 
for enrolling in the program. CBP used a value of $28.60 for the 
opportunity cost for this time, which is taken from the Federal 
Aviation Administration's ``Economic Values for FAA Investment and 
Regulatory Decisions, A Guide.'' (Jul. 3, 2007) This value is the 
weighted average for U.S. business and leisure travelers. For this 
evaluation, CBP assumed that all enrollees will be U.S. citizens, U.S. 
nationals, or Lawful Permanent Residents.
    Timetable:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/19/09  74 FR 59932
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/19/10  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for More Information: www.globalentry.gov
    Agency Contact: John P. Wagner, Executive Director, Admissibility 
and Passenger Programs, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, 1300 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 344-2118, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1651-AA73

DHS--USCBP

72. Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-229, sec 702
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 100.4; 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 233.5; 8 CFR 235.5; 
19 CFR 4.7b; 19 CFR 122.49a
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 4, 2008, Pub. L. 110-
229.
    Abstract: This rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
regulations to implement section 702 of the Consolidated Natural 
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). This law extends the immigration laws of 
the United States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
(CNMI) and provides for a joint visa waiver program for travel to Guam 
and the CNMI. This rule implements section 702 of the CNRA by amending 
the regulations to replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a 
new Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. The amended regulations set forth 
the requirements for nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for 
business or pleasure and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the 
CNMI without a visa. This rule also establishes six ports of entry in 
the CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver Program.
    Statement of Need: Currently, aliens who are citizens of eligible 
countries may apply for admission to Guam at a Guam port of entry as 
nonimmigrant visitors for a period of fifteen (15) days or less, for 
business or pleasure, without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, 
provided that they are otherwise eligible for admission. Section 702(b) 
of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), supersedes 
the Guam visa waiver program by providing for a visa waiver program for 
Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Guam-CNMI 
Visa Waiver Program). Section 702(b) requires DHS to promulgate 
regulations within 180 days of enactment of the CNRA to allow 
nonimmigrant visitors from eligible countries to apply for admission 
into Guam and the CNMI, for business or pleasure, without a visa, for a 
period of authorized stay of no longer than 45 days.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is based 
on congressional authority provided under 702(b) of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The most significant change for 
admission to the CNMI as a result of the rule will be for visitors from 
those countries who are not included in either the existing U.S. Visa 
Waiver Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program established by the 
rule. These visitors must apply for U.S. visas, which require in-person 
interviews at U.S. embassies or consulates and higher fees than the 
CNMI currently assesses for its visitor entry permits. CBP anticipates 
that the annual cost to the CNMI will be $6 million. These are losses 
associated with the reduced visits from foreign travelers who may no 
longer visit the CNMI upon implementation of this rule. In addition, we 
estimate Government implementation costs of between $87 and 91 million 
over the 5-year period of analysis.
    The anticipated benefits of the rule are enhanced security that 
will result from the federalization of the immigration functions in the 
CNMI.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   01/16/09  74 FR 2824
Interim Final Rule Effective........   01/16/09  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      03/17/09  .......................
 End.
Technical Amendment; Change of         05/28/09  74 FR 25387
 Implementation Date.
Final Action........................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Erin Martin, Program Manager, Office of Field 
Operations, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,

[[Page 7754]]

DC 20229, Phone: 202 344-2728, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA81.
    RIN: 1651-AA77

DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

73. General Aviation Security and Other Aircraft Operator Security

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 469; 18 U.S.C. 842; 18 U.S.C. 845; 46 
U.S.C. 70102 to 70106; 46 U.S.C. 70117; 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 
114(f)(3); 49 U.S.C. 5103; 49 U.S.C. 5103a; 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 
44901 to 44907; 49 U.S.C. 44913 to 44914; 49 U.S.C. 44916 to 44918; 49 
U.S.C. 44932; 49 U.S.C. 44935 to 44936; 49 U.S.C. 44942; 49 U.S.C. 
46105
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1515; 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 
49 CFR 1542; 49 CFR 1544; 49 CFR 1550.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On October 30, 2008, the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 
proposing to amend current aviation transportation security regulations 
to enhance the security of general aviation by expanding the scope of 
current requirements, and by adding new requirements for certain large 
aircraft operators and airports serving those aircraft. TSA also 
proposed that all aircraft operations, including corporate and private 
charter operations, with aircraft having a maximum certificated takeoff 
weight (MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (large aircraft) be required to adopt 
a large aircraft security program. TSA also proposed to require certain 
airports that serve large aircraft to adopt security programs. TSA is 
preparing a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM), which will include a comment 
period for public comments.
    After considering comments received on the NPRM and meeting with 
stakeholders, TSA decided to revise the original proposal to tailor 
security requirements to the general aviation industry. TSA is 
considering alternatives to the following proposed provisions in the 
SNPRM: (1) The type of aircraft subject to TSA regulation; (2) 
compliance oversight; (3) watch list matching of passengers; (4) 
prohibited items; (5) scope of the background check requirements and 
the procedures used to implement the requirement; and (6) other issues. 
Additionally, in the SNPRM, TSA plans to propose security measures for 
foreign aircraft operators. U.S. and foreign operators would implement 
commensurate measures under the proposed rule.
    Statement of Need: This rule would enhance current security 
measures and might apply security measures currently in place for 
operators of certain types of aircraft to operators of other aircraft, 
including general aviation operators. While the focus of TSA's existing 
aviation security programs has been on air carriers and commercial 
operators, TSA is aware that general aviation aircraft of sufficient 
size and weight may inflict significant damage and loss of lives if 
they are hijacked and used as missiles. TSA has current regulations 
that apply to large aircraft operated by air carriers and commercial 
operators, including the twelve-five program, the partial program, and 
the private charter program. However, the current regulations in 49 CFR 
part 1544 do not cover all general aviation operations, such as those 
operated by corporations and individuals, and such operations do not 
have the features that are necessary to enhance security. Therefore, 
TSA is preparing a SNPRM which proposes to establish new security 
measures for operators, including general aviation operators, that are 
not covered under TSA's current regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114, 40113, 44903.
    Alternatives: DHS considered continuing to use voluntary guidance 
to secure general aviation, but determined that to ensure that each 
aircraft operator maintains an appropriate level of security, these 
security measures would need to be mandatory requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA has not quantified benefits. 
Unquantified benefits of this rule include those in the areas of 
security and quality governance. The rule would enhance security by 
expanding the mandatory use of security measures to certain operators 
of large aircraft that are not currently required to have a security 
plan. These measures would deter malicious individuals from 
perpetrating acts that might compromise transportation or national 
security by using large aircraft for these purposes.
    As stated above, TSA is revising this proposed rule and preparing a 
SNPRM. Aircraft operators, passengers, and TSA would incur costs to 
comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. TSA is currently 
evaluating the costs of the revised rule which will be published in the 
SNPRM.
    TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the 
beneficial effects of the SNPRM and the costs of implementing the 
rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses scenarios extracted from the 
TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA) to determine 
the degree to which the SNPRM must reduce the overall risk of a 
terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the SNPRM to 
justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses scenarios with 
varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence estimates. To 
maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar 
to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in earlier DHS 
rules. After estimating the total consequences of each scenario by 
monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, capital replacement, and 
clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the SNPRM 
to calculate the frequency of attacks averted in order for the SNPRM to 
break even.
    Risks: This rulemaking addresses the national security risk of 
general aviation aircraft being used as a weapon or as a means to 
transport persons or weapons that could pose a threat to the United 
States.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/30/08  73 FR 64790
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/29/08  .......................
Notice--NPRM Comment Period Extended   11/25/08  73 FR 71590
NPRM Extended Comment Period End....   02/27/09  .......................
Notice--Public Meetings; Requests      12/28/08  73 FR 77045
 for Comments.
Supplemental NPRM...................   09/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Public Meetings held on: Jan. 6, 2009, at 
White Plains, NY; Jan. 8, 2009, at Atlanta, GA; Jan 16, 2009, at 
Chicago, IL; Jan. 23, 2009, at Burbank, CA; and Jan. 28, 2009, at 
Houston, TX.
    Additional Comment Sessions held in Arlington, VA, on April 16, 
2009, May 6, 2009, and June 15, 2009.

[[Page 7755]]

    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Erik Jensen, Assistant General Manager, General 
Aviation Security, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Office of Transportation Sector Network 
Management, TSA-28, HQ, E10-132S, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 
20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-2154, Fax: 571 227-1923, Email: 
[email protected].
    Thomas Philson, Deputy Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis, 
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, 
TSA-28, HQ, E10-411N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, 
Phone: 571 227-3236, Fax: 571 227-1362, Email: [email protected].
    Denise Daniels, Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12-127S, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3443, Fax: 
571 227-1381, Email: [email protected].
    Kiersten Ols, Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12-316N, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-2403, Fax: 
571 227-1378, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA03, Related to 1652-AA04.
    RIN: 1652-AA53

DHS--TSA

74. Freight Railroads, Public Transportation and Passenger Railroads, 
and Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs 1408, 1517, 
and 1534
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582 
(New); 49 CFR 1584 (New).
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2007, Interim Rule 
for public transportation agencies is due 90 days after date of 
enactment.
    Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-
the-road buses are due 6 months after date of enactment.
    Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation 
agencies is due 1 year after date of enactment.
    According to section 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), interim final regulations for public transportation 
agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007), 
and final regulations are due 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will 
propose a new regulation to improve the security of freight railroads, 
public transportation and passenger railroads, and over-the-road buses 
in accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007. This rulemaking will propose general 
requirements for the owner/operators of a freight railroad, a public 
transportation system or passenger railroad, and over-the-road bus 
operation determined by TSA to be high-risk to develop and implement a 
security training program to prepare security-sensitive employees, 
including frontline employees identified in sections 1402 and 1501 of 
the Act, for potential security threats and conditions. The rulemaking 
will also propose extending the security coordinator and reporting 
security incident requirements applicable to rail operators under 
current 49 CFR part 1580 to the non-rail transportation components of 
covered public transportation agencies. In addition, the rulemaking 
will also propose requiring the affected over-the-road bus owner/
operators to identify security coordinators and report security 
incidents, similar to the requirements for rail in current 49 CFR 1580. 
The regulation will take into consideration any current security 
training requirements or best practices.
    Statement of Need: A security training program for freight 
railroads, public transportation agencies and passenger railroads, and 
over-the-road bus operations is proposed to prepare freight railroad 
security-sensitive employees, public transportation and passenger 
railroad security-sensitive employees, and over-the-road bus security 
sensitive employees for potential security threats and conditions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408, 1517, and 
1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).
    Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations 
requiring security training programs for these owner/operators. As part 
of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on 
the alternative ways in which the final rule could carry out the 
requirements of the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA will estimate the costs that the 
freight railroad systems, public transportation agencies and passenger 
railroads, and over-the-road bus (OTRB) entities covered by this 
proposed rule would incur following its implementation. These costs 
will include estimates for the following elements: (1) Creating or 
modifying a security training program and submitting it to TSA; (2) 
Training (initial and recurrent) all security-sensitive employees; (3) 
Maintaining records of employee training; (4) Being available for 
inspections; (5) As applicable, providing information on security 
coordinators and alternates; and (6) As applicable, reporting security 
concerns. TSA will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to 
incur with the implementation of this rule.
    TSA has not quantified benefits. However, the primary benefit of 
the Security Training NPRM will be to enhance United States surface 
transportation security by reducing the vulnerability of freight 
railroad systems, public transportation agencies, and passenger 
railroads to terrorist activity through the training of security-
sensitive employees. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the 
trade-off between the beneficial effects of the Security Training NPRM 
and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis 
uses scenarios extracted from the TSA Transportation Sector Security 
Risk Assessment (TSSRA) to determine the degree to which the Security 
Training NPRM must reduce the overall risk of a terrorist attack in 
order for the expected benefits of the NPRM to justify the estimated 
costs. For its analyses, TSA uses scenarios with varying levels of 
risk, but only details the consequence estimates. To maintain 
consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar to that 
used for the break-even analyses conducted in earlier DHS rules.
    After estimating the total consequence of each scenario by 
monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, and capital replacement and 
clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM 
for freight rail, public transportation and passenger rail, and

[[Page 7756]]

OTRB operators to calculate a breakeven annual likelihood of attack.
    Risks: The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent 
terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the 
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By providing for 
security training for personnel, TSA intends in this rulemaking to 
reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on this transportation sector.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Scott Gorton, Policy and Plans Branch Chief for 
Freight Rail, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, 
TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, 
Phone: 571 227-1251, Fax: 571 227-2930, Email: [email protected].
    David Kasminoff, Sr. Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3583, Fax: 
571 227-1378, Email: [email protected].
    Steve Sprague, Highway Passenger, Infrastructure and Licensing 
Branch Chief, Highway and Motor Carrier Programs, Department of 
Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of 
Transportation Sector Network Management, TSA-28, HQ, E, 601 South 12th 
Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-1468, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA57, Related to 1652-AA59.
    RIN: 1652-AA55

DHS--TSA

75. Freight Railroads and Passenger Railroads--Vulnerability Assessment 
and Security Plan

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, sec 1512
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582 
(New).
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for freight 
railroads and passenger railroads is due no later than 12 months after 
date of enactment.
    According to section 1512 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), a final regulation for freight railroads and passenger 
railroads is due no later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 
the Act.
    Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will 
propose a new regulation to improve the security of freight railroads 
and passenger railroads in accordance with the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. This rulemaking 
will propose thresholds for which a risk determination can be made to 
determine whether a freight railroad and passenger railroad should be 
considered ``high risk.'' The rulemaking will also propose requirements 
for vulnerability assessments and security plans for owner/operators of 
those railroads. The proposed requirements include procedures for TSA's 
review and approval of these assessments and plans, and recordkeeping 
requirements. The regulation will take into consideration any current 
security assessment and planning requirements or best practices.
    Statement of Need: The rulemaking will propose requirements for 
owner/operators of high-risk freight railroads and high-risk passenger 
railroads to conduct vulnerability assessments and carry-out security 
plans to address the railroad carrier's preparedness and response for 
potential security threats and conditions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; section 1512 of Public Law 
110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 
(Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).
    Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations 
requiring vulnerability assessments and security plans for owner/
operators of high-risk freight railroads and high-risk passenger 
railroads. As part of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek 
public comment on the alternative ways in which the final rule could 
carry out the requirements of the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA will estimate the costs that the 
freight rail systems and passenger railroad carriers covered by this 
proposed rule would incur following its implementation. These costs 
will include estimates for the following elements: (1) Completing, 
modifying, or updating a vulnerability assessment and submitting it to 
TSA; (2) Developing, modifying, or updating a security plan and 
submitting it to TSA; (3) Implementing a security plan; (4) Maintaining 
records, including master copies of the vulnerability assessment and 
security plan and all plans or documents referenced in the security 
plan; and (5) Being available for inspection.
    The expected primary benefit of the Vulnerability Assessment and 
Security Plan NPRM will be to enhance U.S. surface transportation 
security by reducing vulnerability to terrorist attacks in two 
different ways. First, vulnerability assessments, as required in this 
proposed rule, would identify assets and infrastructure that are 
critical to owner/operators and provide an assessment of security risks 
that need to be mitigated at these locations. Second, in an effort to 
mitigate security risks, security plans would help target resources and 
mitigation strategies toward security gaps in an owner/operator's 
specific freight or passenger railroad operation to address the risks 
identified by the vulnerability assessments.
    TSA has not quantified benefits. For the purposes of this 
rulemaking, TSA employs a break even analysis to compare the cost of 
the risk reduction resulting from the proposed rule with the dollar 
value of the type of terrorist attacks that could potentially be 
averted due to the requirements in the proposed rule. This provides a 
framework for evaluating the tradeoff between program costs and 
benefits. For purposes of this analysis, TSA evaluates three scenarios 
in the freight rail mode of surface transportation and three scenarios 
in the passenger railroad mode of surface transportation covered by the 
proposed rule. For each scenario, TSA calculates a total monetary 
consequence from an estimated statistical value of the human casualties 
and capital replacement resulting from the attack. TSA compared an 
expected value of the monetary cost of an attack to the each rail mode 
and TSA's annualized cost of conducting vulnerability assessments and 
implementing security plans, discounted at 7 percent, to estimate how 
often an attack of that nature would need to be averted for the 
expected benefits to equal estimated costs. For a given level of pre-
existing or baseline risk of an attack, the calculation of the break-
even point--the reduction in baseline risk for which the estimated 
costs and expected benefits are equal--

[[Page 7757]]

and a detailed description of each scenario is presented in the 
regulatory evaluation for this NPRM.
    Risks: The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent 
terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the 
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By providing for 
owner/operators of high-risk freight railroads and owner/operators of 
high-risk passenger railroads to conduct vulnerability assessments and 
adopt and carry out security plans, TSA intends in this rulemaking to 
reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on the passenger rail 
transportation sector.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FR
                Action                             Date             Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM..................................  09/00/12..................  ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Scott Gorton, Policy and Plans Branch Chief for 
Freight Rail, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, 
TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, 
Phone: 571 227-1251, Fax: 571 227-2930, Email: [email protected].
    David Kasminoff, Sr. Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3583, Fax: 
571 227-1378, Email: [email protected].
    Morvarid Zolghadr, Branch Chief, Policy and Plans, Mass Transit and 
Passenger Rail Security, Department of Homeland Security, 
Transportation Security Administration, Office of Transportation Sector 
Network Management, TSA-28, E10-113S, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, 
VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-2957, Fax: 571 227-0729, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA58, Related to 1652-AA60.
    RIN: 1652-AA56

DHS--TSA

76. Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs 1411, 1414, 
1520, 1522, 1602; 6 U.S.C. 469
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will 
propose new regulations to revise and standardize the procedures, 
adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security threat 
assessments (STA) of individuals for which TSA is responsible. In 
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), the scope of the rulemaking will include 
transportation workers from all modes of transportation who are 
required to undergo an STA in other regulatory programs, including 
certain aviation workers and frontline employees for public 
transportation agencies and railroads.
    In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs, 
and credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to improve efficiencies 
in processing STAs and streamline existing regulations by simplifying 
language and removing redundancies.
    As part of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions to the 
Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) regulations. TSA published an 
interim final rule for ASFP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations 
require aliens seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-
regulated flight schools to complete an application and undergo an STA 
prior to beginning flight training. There are four categories under 
which students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the 
student's category. TSA is considering changes to the AFSP that would 
improve the equity among fee payers and enable the implementation of 
new technologies to support vetting.
    Statement of Need: Through this rulemaking, TSA proposes to carry 
out statutory mandates to perform security threat assessments (STA) of 
certain transportation workers pursuant to the 9/11 Act. Also, TSA 
proposes to fully satisfy 6 U.S.C. 469, which requires TSA to fund 
security threat assessment and credentialing activities through user 
fees. The proposed rulemaking would increase transportation security by 
enhancing identification and immigration verification standards, 
providing for more thorough vetting, improving the reliability and 
consistency of the vetting process, and increasing fairness to vetted 
individuals by providing more robust redress and reducing redundant STA 
requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114(f): Under the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 170-71, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 
Stat. 597), TSA assumed responsibility to oversee the vetting of 
certain aviation workers. See 49 U.S.C. 44936.
    Under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), (Pub. L. 
107-295, sec. 102, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2064), codified at 46 
U.S.C. 70105, TSA vets certain merchant mariners and individuals who 
require unescorted access to secure areas of vessels and maritime 
facilities.
    Under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA 
PATRIOT Act) (Pub. L. 107-56, Oct. 25, 2001, 115 Stat. 272), TSA vets 
individuals seeking hazardous materials endorsements (HME) to 
commercial driver's licenses (CDL) issued by the States.
    In the Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 266), Congress directed 
TSA to vet additional populations of transportation workers, including 
certain public transportation and railroad workers.
    In 6 U.S.C. 469, Congress directed TSA to fund vetting and 
credentialing programs through user fees.
    Alternatives: TSA considered a number of viable alternatives to 
lessen the impact of the proposed on entities deemed ``small'' by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. This included: (1) 
Extending phone pre-enrollment to populations eligible to enroll via 
the web; and (2) changing the current delivery and activation process 
and instituting centralized activation of biometric credentials that 
allow applicants to receive their credentials through the mail rather 
than returning to the enrollment center to pick up the credential. 
These alternatives are discussed in detail in the rule and regulatory 
evaluation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA conducted a regulatory 
evaluation to estimate the costs regulated entities, individuals, and 
TSA would incur to comply with the requirements of the NPRM. The NPRM 
would impose new requirements for some individuals, codify existing 
requirements not included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and 
modify current STA requirements for many

[[Page 7758]]

transportation workers. The primary benefit of the NPRM would be that 
it will improve TSA's vetting product, process, and structure by 
improving STAs, increasing equity, decreasing reliance on appropriated 
funds, and improving reusability of STAs and mitigating redundant STAs.
    TSA has not quantified benefits. TSA uses a break-even analysis to 
assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of the NPRM and the 
costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses 
scenarios from the TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment 
(TSSRA) to determine the degree to which the NPRM must reduce the 
overall risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits 
of the NPRM to justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses 
scenarios with varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence 
estimates. To maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a 
method similar to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in 
earlier DHS rules. After estimating the total consequences of each 
scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, capital 
replacement, and clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized 
cost of the NPRM to calculate the frequency of attacks averted in order 
for the NPRM to break even.
    TSA estimates that the total savings to the alien flight students, 
over a 5-year period, will be $18,107 at a 7 percent discount rate.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Hao-y Tran Froemling, Program Manager, Maritime and 
Surface Credentialing, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Office of Transportation Threat Assessment and 
Credentialing, TSA-19, HQ, E3-401N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, 
VA 20598-6019, Phone: 571 227-2782, Email: [email protected].
    Thomas Philson, Deputy Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis, 
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, 
TSA-28, HQ, E10-411N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, 
Phone: 571 227-3236, Fax: 571 227-1362, Email: [email protected].
    John Vergelli, Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, DHS, TSA, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12-
309N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-
4416, Fax: 571 227-1378, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA35.
    RIN: 1652-AA61

DHS--TSA

Final Rule Stage

77. Aircraft Repair Station Security

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 44924
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1554.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 8, 2004, Rule within 240 
days of the date of enactment of Vision 100.
    Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule within 1 year after the date 
of enactment of 9/11 Commission Act. Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 
2003; 117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44924, requires TSA issue 
``final regulations to ensure the security of foreign and domestic 
aircraft repair stations.'' Section 1616 of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-531; 
Aug. 3, 2007; 21 Stat. 266) requires TSA issue a final rule on foreign 
repair station security.
    Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposed 
to add a new regulation to improve the security of domestic and foreign 
aircraft repair stations, as required by the section 611 of Vision 
100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act and section 1616 of the 9/
11 Commission Act of 2007. The regulation proposed general requirements 
for security programs to be adopted and implemented by repair stations 
certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register on 
November 18, 2009, requesting public comments to be submitted by 
January 19, 2010. The comment period was extended to February 19, 2010, 
on request of the stakeholders to allow the aviation industry and other 
interested entities and individuals additional time to complete their 
comments.
    TSA has coordinated its efforts with the FAA throughout the 
rulemaking process to ensure that the final rule does not interfere 
with FAA's ability or authority to regulate part 145 repair station 
safety matters.
    Statement of Need: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
is proposing regulations to improve the security of domestic and 
foreign aircraft repair stations. The NPRM proposed to require repair 
stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration 
to adopt and carry out a security program. The proposal will codify the 
scope of TSA's existing inspection program. The proposal also provides 
procedures for repair stations to seek review of any TSA determination 
that security measures are deficient.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of 
Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat. 
2490), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44924, requires TSA to issue ``final 
regulations to ensure the security of foreign and domestic aircraft 
repair stations'' within 240 days from date of enactment of Vision 100. 
Section 1616 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266) requires that 
the FAA may not certify any foreign repair stations if the regulations 
are not issued within 1 year after the date of enactment of the 9/11 
Commission Act unless the repair station was previously certificated or 
is in the process of certification.
    Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations 
requiring security programs for aircraft repair stations. As part of 
its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA sought public comment on the 
numerous alternative ways in which the final rule could carry out the 
requirements of the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA anticipates costs to aircraft 
repair stations mainly related to the establishment of security 
programs, which may include adding such measures as access controls, a 
personnel identification system, security awareness training, the 
designation of a security coordinator, employee background 
verification, and contingency plan.
    The NPRM estimated the total 10-year undiscounted cost of the 
program at $344 million. The cost of the program, annualized and 
discounted at 7 percent, is $241 million. Security coordinator and 
training costs represent the largest portions of the program.
    TSA has not quantified benefits. However, a major line of defense 
against an aviation-related terrorist act is the prevention of 
explosives, weapons, and/

[[Page 7759]]

or incendiary devices from getting on board a plane. To date, efforts 
have been primarily related to inspection of baggage, passengers, and 
cargo, and security measures at airports that serve air carriers. With 
this rule, attention is given to aircraft that are located at repair 
stations, and to aircraft parts that are at repair stations themselves, 
to reduce the likelihood of an attack against aviation and the country. 
Since repair station personnel have direct access to all parts of an 
aircraft, the potential exists for a terrorist to seek to commandeer or 
compromise an aircraft when the aircraft is at one of these facilities. 
Moreover, as TSA tightens security in other areas of aviation, repair 
stations increasingly may become attractive targets for terrorist 
organizations attempting to evade aviation security protections 
currently in place.
    TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the 
beneficial effects of the final rule and the costs of implementing the 
rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses three attack scenarios to 
determine the degree to which the final rule must reduce the overall 
risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the 
final rule to justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses 
scenarios with varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence 
estimates. To maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a 
method similar to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in 
earlier DHS rules. After estimating the total consequences of each 
scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, and capital 
replacement, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the 
final rule to calculate the frequency of attacks averted in order for 
the final rule to break even.
    Risks: The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent 
terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the 
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By requiring security 
programs for aircraft repair stations, TSA will focus on preventing 
unauthorized access to repair work and to aircraft to prevent sabotage 
or hijacking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice--Public Meeting; Request for    02/24/04  69 FR 8357
 Comments.
Report to Congress..................   08/24/04  .......................
NPRM................................   11/18/09  74 FR 59873
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/19/10  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   12/29/09  74 FR 68774
NPRM Extended Comment Period End....   02/19/10  .......................
Final Rule..........................   09/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Celio Young, Program Manager, Repair Stations, 
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, 
General Aviation Division, TSA-28, HQ, E5, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3580, Fax: 571 227-1362, 
Email: [email protected].
    Thomas Philson, Deputy Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis, 
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, 
TSA-28, HQ, E10-411N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, 
Phone: 571 227-3236, Fax: 571 227-1362, Email: [email protected].
    Linda L. Kent, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security 
Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12-
126S, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-
2675, Fax: 571 227-1381, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1652-AA38

DHS--U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE)

Proposed Rule Stage

78. Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1223; 8 U.S.C. 1227; 8 
U.S.C. 1231; 8 U.S.C. 1253
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 241.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is proposing to 
amend the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulatory provisions 
for custody determinations for aliens in immigration detention who are 
subject to an administratively final order of removal. The proposed 
amendment would add a paragraph to 8 CFR 241.4(g) providing that U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shall have a reasonable 
period of time to effectuate an alien's removal where the alien is not 
in immigration custody when the order of removal becomes 
administratively final. The proposed rule would also clarify the 
removal period time frame afforded to the agency following an alien's 
compliance with his or her obligations regarding removal subsequent to 
a period of obstruction or failure to cooperate. The rule proposes to 
make conforming changes to 241.13(b)(2). Lastly, the rule proposes to 
add a paragraph to 8 CFR 241.13(b)(3) to make clear that aliens 
certified by the Secretary under section 236A of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226a, are not subject to the provisions of 8 
CFR 241.13, in accordance with the separate detention standard provided 
under the Act.
    Statement of Need: The companion final rule will improve the post 
order custody review process in the final rule related to the Detention 
of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal in light of the U.S. 
Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), 
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) and conforming changes as 
required by the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). 
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will propose to amend 8 CFR 
241.1(g) to provide for a new 90-day removal period once an alien comes 
into compliance with his or her obligation to make timely application 
in good faith for travel or other documents and not conspire or act to 
prevent removal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule will clarify the 
regulatory provisions concerning the removal of aliens that are subject 
to an administratively final order of removal. DHS does not anticipate 
there will be cost impacts to the public as a result of the rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Alexander Hartman, Regulatory Coordinator, 
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration

[[Page 7760]]

and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536, 
Phone: 202 732-6202, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1653-AA13.
    RIN: 1653-AA60

DHS--USICE

Final Rule Stage

79. Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1223; 8 U.S.C. 1227; 8 
U.S.C. 1231; 8 U.S.C. 1253; * * *
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 241.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is finalizing, 
with amendments, the interim rule that was published on November 14, 
2001, by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service). 
The interim rule included procedures for conducting custody 
determinations in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which held that the detention 
period of certain aliens who are subject to a final administrative 
order of removal is limited under section 241(a)(6) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (Act) to the period reasonably necessary to effect 
their removal. The interim rule amended section 241.4 of title 8, Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR), in addition to creating two new sections: 
8 CFR 241.13 (establishing custody review procedures based on the 
significant likelihood of the alien's removal in the reasonably 
foreseeable future) and 241.14 (establishing custody review procedures 
for special circumstances cases). Subsequently, in the case of Clark v. 
Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), the Supreme Court clarified a question 
left open in Zadvydas, and held that section 241(a)(6) of the Act 
applies equally to all aliens described in that section. This rule 
amends the interim rule to conform to the requirements of Martinez. 
Further, the procedures for custody determinations for post-removal 
period aliens who are subject to an administratively final order of 
removal, and who have not been released from detention or repatriated, 
have been revised in response to comments received and experience 
gained from administration of the interim rule published in 2001. This 
final rule also makes conforming changes as required by the enactment 
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). Additionally, certain 
portions of the final rule were determined to require public comment 
and, for this reason, have been developed into a separate/companion 
notice of proposed rulemaking; RIN 1653-AA60.
    Statement of Need: This rule will improve the post order custody 
review process in the final rule related to the Detention of Aliens 
Subject to Final Orders of Removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 
decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), Clark v. Martinez, 
543 U.S. 371 (2005) and conforming changes as required by the enactment 
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). A companion notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will propose to amend 8 CFR 241.1(g) to 
provide for a new 90-day removal period once an alien comes into 
compliance with his or her obligation to make timely application in 
good faith for travel or other documents and not conspire or act to 
prevent removal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes are administrative and 
procedural in nature, and will not result in cost impacts to the 
public. The benefits of making these changes to the regulations will 
allow for expedited review of the post-order custody review process.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   11/14/01  66 FR 56967
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      01/14/02  .......................
 End.
Final Action........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: INS No. 2156-01. Transferred from RIN 1115-
AG29.
    Agency Contact: Alexander Hartman, Regulatory Coordinator, 
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-
6202, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1653-AA13

DHS--USICE

80. Extending Period for Optional Practical Training by 17 Months for 
F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and Expanding the Cap-Gap 
Relief for All F-1 Students With Pending H-1B Petitions

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 
1184 to 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281 and 1282; 8 U.S.C. 1301 to 
1305
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Currently, foreign students in F-1 nonimmigrant status 
who have been enrolled on a full-time basis for at least one full 
academic year in a college, university, conservatory, or seminary 
certified by U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement's (ICE) Student 
and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) are eligible for 12 months of 
optional practical training (OPT) to work for a U.S. employer in a job 
directly related to the student's major area of study. The maximum 
period of OPT is 29 months for F-1 students who have completed a 
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree and 
accept employment with employers enrolled in U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services' (USCIS') E-Verify employment verification 
program. Employers of F-1 students with an extension of post-completion 
OPT authorization must report to the student's designated school 
official (DSO) within 48 hours after the OPT student has been 
terminated from, or otherwise leaves, his or her employment with that 
employer prior to end of the authorized period of OPT.
    The final rule will respond to public comments and may make 
adjustments to the regulations.
    Statement of Need: ICE will improve SEVP processes by publishing 
the Final Optional Practical Training (OPT) rule, which will respond to 
comments on the OPT interim final rule (IFR). The IFR increased the 
maximum period of OPT from 12 months to 29 months for nonimmigrant 
students who have completed a science, technology, engineering, or 
mathematics (STEM) degree and who accept employment with employers who 
participate in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS') 
E-Verify employment verification program.
    Alternatives: DHS is considering several alternatives to the 17-
month extension of OPT and cap-gap extension, ranging from taking no 
action to further extension for a larger populace. The interim final 
rule addressed an immediate competitive disadvantage faced by U.S. 
industries and ameliorated some of the adverse impacts on the U.S. 
economy. DHS continues to evaluate both quantitative and qualitative 
alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on an estimated 12,000 
students per year that will receive an OPT extension and an estimated 
5,300 employers that will need to enroll in E-Verify, DHS

[[Page 7761]]

projects that this rule will cost students approximately $1.49 million 
per year in additional information collection burdens, $4,080,000 in 
fees, and cost employers $1,240,000 to enroll in E-Verify and $168,540 
per year thereafter to verify the status of new hires. However, this 
rule will increase the availability of qualified workers in science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematical fields; reduce delays that 
place U.S. employers at a disadvantage when recruiting foreign job 
candidates, thereby improving strategic and resource planning 
capabilities; increase the quality of life for participating students, 
and increase the integrity of the student visa program.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   04/08/08  73 FR 18944
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      06/09/08  .......................
 End.
Final Rule..........................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.dhs.gov/sevis/.
    Agency Contact: Sharon Snyder, Acting Branch Chief, SEVP Policy, 
Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Department of Homeland Security, 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Potomac Center North, 500 
12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024-6121, Phone: 703 603-3415.
    RIN: 1653-AA56

DHS--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)

Proposed Rule Stage

81. Update of FEMA's Public Assistance Regulations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 to 5207
    CFR Citation: 44 CFR 206.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would revise the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's Public Assistance program regulations. Many of 
these changes reflect amendments made to the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by the Post-Katrina 
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 and the Security and 
Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006. The proposed rule also 
proposes to reflect lessons learned from recent events, and propose 
further substantive and non-substantive clarifications and corrections 
to improve upon the Public Assistance regulations. This proposed rule 
is intended to improve the efficiency and consistency of the Public 
Assistance program, as well as implement new statutory authority by 
expanding Federal assistance, improving the Project Worksheet process, 
empowering grantees, and improving State Administrative Plans.
    Statement of Need: The proposed changes implement new statutory 
authorities and incorporate necessary clarifications and corrections to 
streamline and improve the Public Assistance program. Portions of 
FEMA's Public Assistance regulations have become out of date and do not 
implement all of FEMA's available statutory authorities. The current 
regulations inhibit FEMA's ability to clearly articulate its regulatory 
requirements, and the Public Assistance applicants' understanding of 
the program. The proposed changes are intended to improve the 
efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal authority for the changes in this 
proposed rule is contained in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 to 5207, as amended by the 
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, Public Law 109-
295, the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, 6 
U.S.C. 901 note, the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 
109-218, 120 Stat. 333, and the Pets Evacuation and Transportation 
Standards Act of 2006, Public Law 109-308, 120 Stat. 1725.
    Alternatives: One alternative is to revise some of the current 
regulatory requirements (such as application deadlines) in addition to 
implementing the amendments made to the Stafford Act by (1) the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), Public Law 
109-295, 120 Stat. 1394; (2) the Security and Accountability For Every 
Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884; 
(3) the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 109-218, 120 
Stat. 333; and (4) the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act 
of 2006 (PETS Act), Public Law 109-308, 120 Stat. 1725. Another 
alternative is to expand funding by expanding force account labor cost 
eligibility to Category A Projects (debris removal).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule is expected to 
have economic impacts on the public, grantees, subgrantees, and FEMA. 
The expected benefits are a reduction in property damages, societal 
losses, and losses to local businesses, as well as improved efficiency 
and consistency of the Public Assistance program. FEMA estimates the 
primary economic impact of the proposed rule is the additional transfer 
of funding from FEMA through the Public Assistance program to grantees 
and subgrantees that is effectuated by this rulemaking.
    Risks: This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, 
or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate, Department of 
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, Phone: 202 646-3936, Fax: 202 646-3363, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1660-AA51

BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The regulatory plan for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) for fiscal year (FY) 2012 highlights the most 
significant regulations and policy initiatives that HUD seeks to 
complete during the upcoming fiscal year. As the Federal agency that 
serves as the Nation's housing agency, HUD's mission is to create 
strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes 
for all. HUD strives to meet the challenges of this mission by focusing 
on people and places through policies and initiatives that address the 
unique conditions and needs of communities. For example, HUD recognizes 
that the ``American Dream'' no longer refers to a singular vision of 
success, such as owning a home, and, therefore, through programs such 
as HUD's Housing Counseling program, HUD assists individuals and 
families to make decisions about owning or renting that are financially 
appropriate to the

[[Page 7762]]

individual or family.\1\ HUD also has been placing greater focus on 
improving locational outcomes for households receiving rental 
assistance. HUD's Choice Neighborhood initiative provides funding for 
plans that link housing to schools, jobs, and affordable transportation 
in order to transform neighborhoods of concentrated poverty into 
sustainable mixed-income communities with well-functioning services, 
public assets, and access to opportunity. HUD's Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program helps communities acquire, rehabilitate, and 
resell foreclosed and abandoned properties in order to more quickly 
prevent decline in neighborhoods hard-hit by the foreclosure process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This statement is based on language found on page 4, 
paragraph 2, of the Introduction to HUD's FY 2010 to 2015 Strategic 
Plan. (See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_4436.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to meeting the challenges of HUD's mission through 
revitalized policies and initiatives, President Obama challenged all 
agencies to identify opportunities to significantly improve near-term 
performance. These opportunities were incorporated as key outcome 
measures into HUD's strategic plan, representing challenging, near-
term, high-impact outcomes that reflect HUD's commitment to addressing 
some of the most fundamental housing and community challenges facing 
America. Building on the directions to improve performance, but on a 
longer-term basis, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563 
entitled ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' Executive 
Order 13563 supplements and reaffirms the rulemaking principles of 
Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' which include 
identifying regulatory approaches that reduce burden, considering the 
costs and benefits of rules, and encouraging public participation, but 
also directs agencies to undertake a retrospective analysis of rules 
that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 
burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal such 
regulations as appropriate. The Executive order recognizes the 
significant role that regulations play in protecting public health, 
welfare, safety, and the environment, and in promoting economic growth, 
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation, but also that 
regulations cannot remain stagnant. Agencies must frequently review 
regulations to ensure that they are meeting the challenges of today and 
not addressing conditions, whether housing, health, business, labor, or 
environmental, that are no longer reflected in today's economy. In this 
regard, Executive Order 13563 directed agencies to undertake periodic 
retrospective review of their regulations, and to develop, prepare, and 
post their plans for retrospective review of rules. HUD's plan and that 
of all agencies can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21st-century-regulatory-system. HUD's semiannual 
agenda of regulations includes the rules highlighted in HUD's 
retrospective review of rules plans.
    The rules highlighted in HUD's regulatory plan for FY 2011 reflect 
both HUD's continuing efforts to fulfill its mission and improve 
performance, including by addressing regulations that necessitate 
update and modification. HUD's FY 2011 regulatory plan reflects HUD's 
retrospective review of the regulations governing one of HUD's major 
mortgage insurance programs. Another rule highlighted in this 
regulatory plan revises the regulations of another significant program 
to address the unique conditions and needs of participants in one of 
HUD's major assistance programs. The third rule related to a 
significant HUD program is designed to implement flexibility provided 
by a recently enacted statute.

Priority: Create Financially Sustainable Homeownership Opportunities

    HUD's HECM program was established by statute to assist in 
alleviating economic hardship caused by the increasing costs of health, 
housing, and other needs at a time in life when one's income is 
reduced. The HECM program, administered through HUD's Federal Housing 
Administration (FHA), enables older homeowners to withdraw some of the 
equity in their home in the form of monthly payments for life or a 
fixed term, or in a lump sum, or through a line of credit. In addition, 
the HECM mortgage can be used to purchase a primary home when the 
borrower is 62 years of age or older and is able to use cash in hand, 
money from the sale of assets, or money from an allowable FHA funding 
source to pay the difference between the reverse mortgage and the sales 
price plus closing costs for the property.
    To be eligible for a HECM mortgage, current homeowners must be 62 
years of age or older, own their home outright, or have a low mortgage 
balance that can be paid off at closing with proceeds from the reverse 
mortgage. Homeowners can only have one HECM at any one time and the 
home must be their principal residence. In addition, the HECM can be 
used to purchase a primary home if the borrower is able to pay the 
difference between the HECM and the sales price and closing costs for 
the property. The borrower remains the owner of the home and may sell 
it and move at any time, keeping the sales proceeds that exceed the 
mortgage balance. A borrower cannot be forced to sell the home to pay 
off the mortgage, even if the mortgage balance grows to exceed the 
value of the property, unless they fail to perform an obligation of the 
mortgage.
    As the Nation's population has increased in age, the attraction of 
the HECM has increased as well. In 1990, there were approximately 157 
HECMs. By 2008, there were more than 112,000 HECMs. The situation that 
HUD has confronted recently with increasing frequency is that HECM 
homeowners are not paying property taxes, insurance, and other property 
charges. Payment of these items is the responsibility of the homeowner, 
and failure to pay places the homeowner in default of its obligations 
under the mortgage and makes the homeowner vulnerable to loss of his or 
her home. FHA-approved lenders are responsible for keeping all tax and 
insurance payments current, in compliance with the HECM regulations. If 
homeowners stop making payments, lenders are allowed to access any 
remaining home equity to pay taxes and insurance premiums. Once 
homeowner funds are exhausted, lenders are legally required to advance 
their own funds for such payments and seek reimbursement from 
homeowners.
    With the same recognition that homeownership may not be the best 
choice for every individual or family, a HECM may not be the best 
choice for every senior homeowner. The security that the HECM program 
was designed to bring to seniors may be lost if the senior homeowner 
cannot maintain payment of taxes and insurance payments.
 Regulatory Action: Strengthening the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage 
(HECM) Program To Promote Sustained Homeownership
    To address this growing issue in the HECM program, HUD proposes to 
require FHA-approved mortgagees that originate HECM mortgages to 
perform a financial capacity and credit history assessment of 
prospective HECM mortgagors prior to loan approval and closing. 
Mortgagees will be required to evaluate whether the HECM mortgagor's 
cash flow and credit history support the mortgagor's ability to comply 
with the obligations of the HECM and are sufficient to meet recurring 
living expenses. The proposed rule would also

[[Page 7763]]

cap the amount of insurance benefits paid in connection with a claim 
involving amounts advanced by the mortgagee on behalf of a HECM 
mortgagor who fails to pay such property charges when the HECM proceeds 
have been exhausted, and establish a new property inspection 
requirement to insure that homes secured with a HECM mortgage are 
adequately maintained and meet applicable property standards.
    These changes to the HECM program are necessary to ensure that 
senior homeowners do not enter a program seeking security in their 
later life only to find themselves without a home. Additionally, 
without such changes, the HECM program will place the FHA Insurance 
Fund at significant risk, with the possible result being the 
unavailability of HECMs in the future.

Priority: Improve the Quality of Affordable Rental Housing

    In an era when more than one-third of all American families rent 
their homes, the current housing market does not create and sustain a 
sufficient supply of affordable rental homes, especially for low-income 
households. In many communities, affordable rental housing does not 
exist without public support. Despite significant improvements in 
housing quality in recent decades, much of America's rental housing 
stock is not energy efficient or even accessible to people with 
disabilities, and pockets of severely substandard housing remain across 
the country. Even before the recent recession, the number of households 
with severe housing cost burdens had increased substantially since 
2000, and homelessness among families with children is a growing 
problem throughout our Nation. When it comes to strong, safe, and 
healthy communities, lower-cost rental housing is particularly scarce. 
As the lead Federal housing agency, HUD will work with its Federal, 
State, local, and private partners to meet affordable and quality 
rental housing needs for all.\2\ In this regard, HUD will strengthen 
the indicators by which HUD measures the performance of public housing 
agencies in administering its Section 8 rental assistance program, 
referred to as the Housing Choice Voucher program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This statement is taken from the first column of page 19 of 
section 2 of HUD's FY 2010 to 2015 Strategic Plan. (See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_4436.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD's Housing Choice Voucher program is the Federal Government's 
major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and 
the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the 
private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the 
family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, 
including single-family homes, townhouses, and apartments. The 
participant is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements 
of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized 
housing projects. Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by 
public housing agencies (PHAs). The PHAs receive Federal funds from HUD 
to administer the voucher program. A family that is issued a housing 
voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of the 
family's choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. 
Rental units must meet minimum standards of health and safety, as 
determined by the PHA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The information in this paragraph is taken from HUD's Web 
page on Housing Choice Vouchers found at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/about/fact_sheet.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through HUD's Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP), 
HUD measures the performance of PHAs in their administration of the 
Housing Choice Voucher program in key areas. The areas of review 
indicate whether PHAs are helping eligible families to afford decent 
rental units at a reasonable subsidy cost. SEMAP requires PHAs to 
undertake an annual Housing Quality Standard (HQS) inspection of units.
Regulatory Action: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance; Improving 
Performance Through a Strengthened SEMAP
    HUD recognizes that SEMAP is more process-oriented than results-
oriented. To make SEMAP a more effective assessment tool, HUD is 
proposing to revise the management indicators used by HUD to measure 
the performance of PHAs. For example, the proposed rule would revise 
the indicator that measures Section 8 voucher use to encourage PHAs to 
maximize the number of Section 8 families served. Under this revised 
indicator, HUD will not only consider the number of vouchers available 
to a PHA, but also the funds available to the PHA, including budget 
authority and a portion of reserves. HUD also proposes to assume 
responsibility for conducting the inspections used to measure a PHA's 
compliance with housing quality standards (HQS). Currently, HUD 
measures HQS compliance through a reporting requirement for PHA self-
conducted inspections. The proposed rule would also establish a new 
deconcentration indicator that will evaluate the ability of Section 8 
families with children to access neighborhoods with below-average 
poverty rates or neighborhoods with above-average schools.

Priority: Utilize Housing as a Platform for Improving the Quality of 
Life

    Stable housing, made possible with HUD support, provides an ideal 
platform for delivering a wide variety of health and social services to 
improve health, education, and economic outcomes. HUD housing serves at 
least two broad populations: People who are in a position to markedly 
increase their self-sufficiency and people who will need long-term 
support (for example, the frail elderly and people with severe 
disabilities). For those individuals who are able, increasing self-
sufficiency requires access to life-skills training, wealth-creation 
and asset-building opportunities, job training, and career services. 
For those who need long-term support, HUD housing will provide access 
to income support and other benefits that can enhance an individual's 
quality of life.
    HUD's Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program 
(Section 811) is a critical HUD program that allows persons with 
disabilities to live as independently as possible in the community by 
increasing the supply of rental housing with the availability of 
supportive services. HUD increases the supply of rental housing for 
persons with disabilities by providing interest-free capital advances 
to nonprofit sponsors to help them finance the development of rental 
housing such as independent living projects, condominium units, and 
small group homes with the availability of supportive services for 
persons with disabilities. The capital advance can finance the 
construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition with or without 
rehabilitation of supportive housing. The advance does not have to be 
repaid as long as the housing remains available for very low-income 
persons with disabilities for at least 40 years. Over the last several 
years, the Section 811 program has not been as effective as desired 
because the underlying statutory foundation for the program required 
substantial reform and improvements to meet the challenges of current 
market conditions and reflect modern practices with respect to 
production of housing.
    The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 (Pub. 
L. 111-374) (Melville Act), which was enacted on January 4, 2011, 
amended section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), which authorizes the supportive housing 
program for persons

[[Page 7764]]

with disabilities (Section 811 program). The Melville Act made 
significant changes to the Section 811 program, with one of the most 
significant changes being the establishment of new project rental 
assistance authority. This new authority allows HUD to make Section 811 
program operating assistance available to State housing agencies and 
similar organizations for the purposes of granting funds to the 
development of supportive housing for persons with disabilities, and 
overseeing compliance with the requirements applicable to such housing.
Regulatory Action: Supportive Housing for Persons With Disabilities: 
Implementing New Project Rental Assistance Authority
    While the Melville Act makes many important changes to the Section 
811 program, HUD's first priority is to implement the requirements for 
the new project rental assistance authority. Project rental assistance 
has long been part of eligible assistance for the Section 811 program, 
and the existing Section 811 program regulations provide that project 
rental assistance is available for operating costs. The new project 
rental assistance provided by the Melville Act offers another method of 
financing for supportive housing for persons with disabilities for 
projects that do not receive capital advances. The new project rental 
assistance is designed to promote and facilitate the creation of 
integrated supportive housing units, which is achieved by making funds 
available to State housing agencies and other appropriate entities. As 
provided by the Melville Act, projects eligible for the new project 
rental assistance can be either new or existing multifamily housing 
projects.
    HUD's proposed rule establishes the requirements and procedures 
that would govern the eligibility and use of the new project rental 
assistance authority in HUD's Section 811 program.

Retrospective Review of Agency Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. HUD's retrospective review plan can 
be found at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/general_counsel/Review_of_Regulations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulation  Identifier                           Anticipated Reductions
       No. (RIN)                  Title            in Regulatory Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2502-AI92..............  Federal Housing           Removes a
                          Administration (FHA):    regulatory
                          Refinancing an           restriction on FHA
                          Existing Cooperative     refinancing of
                          Under Section 207        existing mortgage
                          Pursuant to Section      debt by owners of
                          223(f) of the National   multifamily
                          Housing Act; Final       cooperative projects,
                          Rule.                    thus expanding the
                                                   number of individuals
                                                   eligible to
                                                   participate in FHA
                                                   programs.
2502-AJ03..............  Streamlining Inspection   Removes the
                          and Warranty             regulations for the
                          Requirements for         FHA Inspector Roster,
                          Federal Housing          making it easier for
                          Administration (FHA)     lenders and borrowers
                          Single Family Mortgage   to have inspections
                          Insurance: Removal of    performed and
                          the FHA Inspector        streamlining the
                          Roster and of the 10-    mortgage insurance
                          Year Protection Plan     application process.
                          Requirements for High    Removes the
                          Loan-to-Value Ratio      outdated 10-year
                          Mortgages; Proposed      protection plan
                          Rule.                    requirement for high
                                                   Loan-to-Value newly
                                                   constructed single
                                                   family homes securing
                                                   FHA-insured
                                                   mortgages. This
                                                   eliminates an
                                                   unnecessary layer of
                                                   regulatory burden.
2502-AI91..............  Approval of Farm Credit   Enables
                          System Lending           direct lending
                          Institutions in FHA      institutions of the
                          Mortgage Insurance       Farm Credit System to
                          Programs; Proposed       seek approval as FHA
                          Rule.                    mortgagees and
                                                   lenders, removing a
                                                   regulatory barrier to
                                                   participation in FHA
                                                   programs.
2502-AJ06..............  Expansion of              Expands
                          Eligibility of           roster eligibility to
                          Nonprofit                include nonprofit
                          Organizations To         organizations created
                          Participate in FHA       by State and local
                          Single Family Mortgage   governments that
                          Insurance Programs;      qualify for tax
                          Proposed Rule.           exemption under
                                                   section 115 of the
                                                   Internal Revenue
                                                   Code.
                                                   Removes
                                                   requirement that a
                                                   nonprofit
                                                   organization have a
                                                   voluntary board in
                                                   order to be eligible
                                                   for roster placement.
2502-AJ02..............  Federal Housing           Brings
                          Administration (FHA)     certainty to and
                          Single Family Mortgage   streamlines the
                          Insurance: Removal of    announced maximum
                          Requests for             mortgage amounts for
                          Alternative Mortgage     each calendar year by
                          Amounts; Proposed Rule.  removing a regulation
                                                   that is no longer
                                                   relevant.
2502-AI99..............  Federal Housing           Removes
                          Administration (FHA):    permanent time
                          Suspension of FHA's      restrictions on
                          Regulation Placing       resale of FHA-insured
                          Time Restrictions on     properties, thus
                          Resale of FHA-Insured    lifting burdensome
                          Property; Proposed       regulatory
                          Rule.                    impediments to
                                                   receiving FHA
                                                   mortgage insurance.
2502-AJ01..............  Federal Housing           Removes
                          Administration (FHA):    regulations for an
                          Suspension of Single     underutilized
                          Family Mortgage          program, streamlining
                          Insurance for Military   the application
                          Impacted Areas;          process for FHA-
                          Proposed Rule.           insured.
2502-AJ00..............  Federal Housing           Removes
                          Administration (FHA):    overly burdensome
                          Approval of Lending      reporting
                          Institutions and         requirements for
                          Mortgagees--Alternativ   small lenders wishing
                          e Reporting              to participate in FHA
                          Requirements for Small   programs.
                          Supervised Lenders.      Eliminates
                                                   duplicative reporting
                                                   requirements for
                                                   lenders who already
                                                   report to other
                                                   Federal agencies,
                                                   thus reducing
                                                   paperwork and
                                                   minimizing the burden
                                                   of the process of
                                                   becoming an FHA-
                                                   approved.
2502-AI98..............  Section 8 New             By reducing
                          Construction and         regulatory barriers,
                          Substantial              this change removes a
                          Rehabilitation           disincentive for
                          Programs: Changes to     nonprofit owners to
                          Limitation on            promote affordable
                          Distributions of         housing.
                          Project Funds and
                          Adjustment of Initial
                          Equity; Proposed Rule.

[[Page 7765]]

 
2502-AI67..............  Streamlining              Removes
                          Requirements Governing   restrictions on the
                          the Use of Funding for   portions of
                          Supportive Housing for   developments not
                          the Elderly and          funded through
                          Persons With             capital advances.
                          Disabilities Programs;   Removes
                          Proposed Rule.           regulatory barriers
                                                   on participations by
                                                   creating new
                                                   exemptions to the
                                                   conflict of interest
                                                   provisions.
                                                   Provides
                                                   flexibility regarding
                                                   amenities that may be
                                                   provided in projects.
                                                   Streamlines
                                                   requirements for
                                                   release of capital
                                                   advance funds upon
                                                   completion.
2577-AC68..............  Public Housing            Consolidates
                          Assessment System        assessment
                          (PHAS); Final Rule.      regulations in 24 CFR
                                                   part 902.
                                                   Removes
                                                   outdated Public
                                                   Housing Management
                                                   Assessment Program
                                                   (PHMAP) regulations
                                                   at 24 CFR part 901.
2577-AC50..............  Public Housing Capital    Streamlines
                          Fund Program; Final      public housing
                          Rule.                    modernization
                                                   requirements.
                                                   Consolidates
                                                   the modernization
                                                   requirements for the
                                                   public housing
                                                   programs in HUD's
                                                   Capital Fund Program
                                                   regulations at 24 CFR
                                                   part 905.
                                                   Removes
                                                   outdated parts 941,
                                                   968, 969, which
                                                   currently codify the
                                                   legacy modernization
                                                   program requirements.
2577-AC88..............  Streamlined Application   Reduces
                          Process in Public/       document submission
                          Private Partnerships     burdens on Public
                          for Mixed-Finance        Housing Agencies
                          Development of Public    (PHAs).
                          Housing Units;
                          Proposed Rule.
2577-AC89..............  Revisions to the          Enables PHAs
                          Consortia of Public      to establish cross-
                          Housing Agencies;        jurisdictional
                          Proposed Rule.           consortia that would
                                                   be treated as a
                                                   single PHA, with a
                                                   single jurisdiction
                                                   and a single set of
                                                   reporting and audit
                                                   requirements, for
                                                   purposes of
                                                   administering the
                                                   Housing Choice
                                                   Voucher program in a
                                                   more streamlined and
                                                   less burdensome
                                                   fashion.
2577-AC87..............  Removal of the Indian     Removes
                          HOME Investment          outdated regulations
                          Partnerships Program     for the legacy Indian
                          Regulations; Final       HOME program.
                          Rule.
2577-AC86..............  Public Housing and        Removes the
                          Section 8 Programs:      administrative
                          Housing Choice           burdens involved with
                          Voucher--Improving       processing
                          Portability for          portability requests.
                          Voucher Families
                          Proposed Rule.
2577-AC76..............  Revision to the Section   Removes
                          8 Management             complexity and
                          Assessment Program       administrative burden
                          (SEMAP) Lease-Up         caused by use of both
                          Indicator; Proposed      the fiscal year and
                          Rule.                    calendar year
                                                   systems.
                                                   Provides a
                                                   critical
                                                   synchronization of
                                                   administration of the
                                                   voucher program,
                                                   which will reduce
                                                   program
                                                   inefficiencies.
2506-AC26, 2506-AC29,    Implementation of the     Provides for
 2506-AC31, 2506-AC32,    Homeless Emergency       consolidated grant
 2506-AC33.               Assistance and Rapid     application and
                          Transition to Housing    administration to
                          Act of 2009 (HEARTH      ease administrative
                          Act).                    burden and improve
                                                   coordination among
                                                   providers and,
                                                   consequently,
                                                   increase the
                                                   effectiveness of
                                                   responses to the
                                                   needs of homeless
                                                   persons.
                                                   Provides for
                                                   increased
                                                   coordination and
                                                   planning between
                                                   programs to better
                                                   meet the needs of
                                                   homeless persons.
                                                   Modernizes
                                                   the Continuum of Care
                                                   program and Emergency
                                                   Shelter Grants
                                                   program.
2501-AC94..............  HOME Investment           This proposed
                          Partnerships--Improvin   rule would update
                          g Performance and        HUD's program
                          Accountability;          regulations to
                          Updating Property        reflect current legal
                          Standards and            requirements with
                          Instituting Energy       respect to HOME
                          Efficiency Standards.    projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aggregate Costs and Benefits

    Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide 
its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all 
regulations included in the agency's regulatory plan that will be made 
effective in calendar year 2011. HUD expects that neither the total 
economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million. 
None of the rules on HUD's regulatory plan is anticipated to have an 
economically significant impact. The revisions proposed to be made to 
HUD's HECM program are anticipated to strengthen the program, keep 
seniors in their homes, and protect the FHA Insurance Fund, but the 
proposed changes are prospective and are not expected to result in an 
economic impact of $100 million or more annually. The changes proposed 
to be made to the SEMAP program are similarly designed to strengthen 
the program and are intended to have the Housing Choice Voucher program 
be administered more effectively and efficiently but will also not 
result in an economic impact of $100 million or more. Implementation of 
the new project rental assistance authority in the Section 811 program, 
as authorized by the Melville Act, will open up another source of 
financing for supportive housing for persons with disabilities but not 
at a level of $100 million or more.

The Priority Regulations That Comprise HUD's Regulatory Plan

    A more detailed description of the priority regulations that 
comprise HUD's regulatory plan follows.

HUD--OFFICE OF HOUSING (OH)

Proposed Rule Stage

82. Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Strengthening the Home Equity 
Conversion Mortgages (HECM) Program To Promote Sustained Homeownership 
(FR-5353)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715z to 1720; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)

[[Page 7766]]

    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 206.19; 24 CFR 206.32; 24 CFR 206.25; 24 CFR 
206.27; 24 CFR 206.29; 24 CFR 206.38.24; 24 CFR 206.51; 24 CFR 206.53; 
24 CFR 206.105; 24 CFR 206.107; 24 CFR 206.124; 24 CFR 206.129; 24 CFR 
206.140, 206.142; 24 CFR 206.203, 19; 24 CFR 206.58; 24 CFR 206.47.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: HUD is taking another step to reform and strengthen the 
mortgage insurance functions and responsibilities of the Federal 
Housing Administration (FHA), and concomitantly protect the individuals 
and families that use FHA-mortgage products. This proposed rule would 
revise the regulations governing FHA's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage 
(HECM) program, which is FHA's reverse mortgage program that enables 
senior homeowners who have equity in their homes to withdraw a portion 
of the accumulated equity. Most significantly, this rule proposes to 
require FHA-approved mortgagees that originate HECM mortgages (HECM 
mortgagees) to perform a financial capacity and credit history 
assessment of prospective HECM mortgagors prior to loan approval and 
closing. Mortgagees will be required to evaluate whether the HECM 
mortgagor's cash flow and credit history support the mortgagor's 
ability to comply with the obligations of the HECM and are sufficient 
to meet recurring living expenses. A mortgagee may deny the HECM loan 
application if the prospective mortgagor fails either the financial 
capacity or credit history assessment. As an alternative to declining 
the HECM loan application, the mortgagee may require the establishment 
of a principal limit set-aside for payment of property charges. The 
proposed rule would also cap the amount of insurance benefits paid in 
connection with a claim involving amounts advanced by the mortgagee on 
behalf of a HECM mortgagor who fails to pay such property charges when 
the HECM proceeds have been exhausted and establish a new property 
inspection requirement to insure that home secured with a HECM mortgage 
are adequately maintained and meet applicable property standards. The 
proposed rule would also make several non-substantive changes to 
reflect the statutory flexibility provided to HUD in establishing the 
mortgage insurance premiums for FHA-insured mortgages, conform the 
regulations to existing HUD interpretations and industry practices 
regarding HECM program requirements, and reduce administrative 
paperwork.
    Statement of Need: HUD does not currently require HECM mortgagees 
to verify the mortgagor's income, assets, and debt obligations. Neither 
do the HECM regulations require a mortgagee to assess the mortgagor's 
credit history and capacity to pay future living expenses and meet all 
other future financial obligations related to the property under the 
HECM loan. Such a financial capacity and credit history assessment is a 
prudent underwriting practice currently required by mortgagees for FHA 
forward mortgage products. Based on data available to HUD, HECM 
delinquencies are growing and occurring soon after origination. This 
data also indicates that these delinquencies are largely the result of 
the failure of mortgagors to pay recurring property charges. The 
proposed rule would address these concerns by requiring that mortgagees 
determine whether the potential mortgagor has the capacity to pay 
recurring property charges and meet recurring living expenses.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The HECM program is authorized under 
section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z to 1720). This 
rulemaking is undertaken pursuant to the general rulemaking authority 
granted to the Secretary under section 7(d) of the Department of HUD 
Act (42 U.S.C. 35335(d)), which authorizes the Secretary to make ``such 
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out his functions, 
powers, and duties.'' In addition, the National Housing Act at 12 
U.S.C. 1701c(a) uses the exact wording in conferring general rulemaking 
authority to the Secretary for implementing the insured mortgage 
programs authorized under the National Housing Act.
    Alternatives: Rulemaking is required to ensure that the financial 
capacity and credit history requirements are generally applicable and 
enforceable by HUD. Where appropriate, HUD will provide mortgagees with 
flexibility in determining the method for conducting the required 
assessments and for considering additional factors in determining and 
verifying the financial capacity and credit history of prospective HECM 
mortgagors.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of this rule would be 
the reduced transaction costs and externalities associated with 
foreclosure. The costs of the rule would be the additional 
administrative and financial costs associated with carrying out the 
required assessments.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Kari B. Hill, Director, Office of Single Family 
Program Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
Office of Housing, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 
708-2121.
    RIN: 2502-AI79

HUD--OH

83.  Supportive Housing for Persons With Disabilities 
Implementing New Project Rental Assistance Authority (FR-5576)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535(d), and 
8013
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 891.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule commences the rulemaking process to 
implement the project rental assistance authority as provided under the 
Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-
374) (Melville Act), which was enacted on January 4, 2011. The Melville 
Act amended section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), which authorizes the supportive housing 
program for persons with disabilities (Section 811 program). The 
Melville Act made significant changes to the Section 811 program, with 
one of the most significant changes being the establishment of new 
project rental assistance authority. This new authority allows HUD to 
make Section 811 program operating assistance available to State 
housing agencies and similar organizations for the purposes of granting 
funds to the development of supportive housing for persons with 
disabilities and overseeing compliance with the requirements applicable 
to such housing. This proposed rule establishes the requirements and 
procedures that would govern the eligibility and use of project rental 
assistance in HUD's supportive housing program for persons with 
disabilities.
    Statement of Need: The Melville Act makes many important reforms 
and improvements to the Section 811 program. One of the most 
significant new features introduced by the Melville Act is the 
establishment of new project

[[Page 7767]]

rental assistance authority (section 811(b)(3) of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
National Affordable Housing Act, as amended by the Melville Act) that 
is separate from the existing project rental assistance under the 
Section 811 program that is available to cover operating costs. 
Although the Melville Act establishes the prerequisite statutory 
framework, the full and successful implementation of the new project 
rental assistance authority requires rulemaking. This proposed rule 
addresses the need for rulemaking by establishing the necessary 
policies, procedures, and other requirements that will govern the 
eligibility and use of project rental assistance. HUD intends to 
implement other changes made by the Melville Act through separate 
rulemaking.
    Summary of Legal Basis: As noted, the Melville Act amended section 
811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to 
establish new project rental assistance authority. This rulemaking is 
undertaken pursuant to the general rulemaking authority granted to the 
Secretary under section 7(d) of the Department of HUD Act (42 U.S.C. 
35335(d)), which authorizes the Secretary to make ``such rules and 
regulations as may be necessary to carry out his functions, powers, and 
duties.''
    Alternatives: Rulemaking is required to ensure that the new 
requirements and procedures governing the eligibility and use of 
project rental assistance are generally applicable to participants in 
HUD's supportive housing program for persons with disabilities and 
enforceable by HUD.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The new project rental assistance 
authority offers another method of financing for supportive housing for 
persons with disabilities for projects that do not receive capital 
advances. The new authority is designed to promote and facilitate the 
creation of integrated supportive housing units, which is achieved by 
making funds available to State housing agencies and other appropriate 
entities. While there may be incremental costs associated with 
compliance with the new requirements, to the extent that program 
participants incur such costs, it will be as a result of their 
voluntary participation in the project rental assistance component of 
the Section 811 program. The benefits are increased affordability of 
providing housing for persons with disabilities.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Benjamin T. Metcalf, Senior Advisor, Office of 
Multifamily Houisng Programs, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Office of Housing, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 
20410, Phone: 202 708-2495.
    RIN: 2502-AJ10

HUD--OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING (PIH)

Proposed Rule Stage

84. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance; Improving Performance Through a 
Strengthened Section 8 Management Assessment Program (FR-5201)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 985.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: SEMAP establishes the management indicators used by HUD 
to measure the performance of public housing agencies (PHA) in key 
areas of the Section 8 rental assistance programs and to assign 
performance ratings. The proposed rule would revise the indicator that 
measures Section 8 voucher use to encourage PHAs to maximize the number 
of Section 8 families served. Specifically, under this revised 
indicator, HUD will not only consider the number of vouchers available 
to a PHA, but also the funds available to the PHA, including budget 
authority and a portion of reserves. HUD also proposes to assume 
responsibility for conducting the inspections used to measure a PHA's 
compliance with housing quality standards (HQS). Currently, HUD 
measures HQS compliance through a reporting requirement for PHA self-
conducted inspections. The proposed rule would also establish a new 
deconcentration indicator that will evaluate the ability of Section 8 
families with children to access neighborhoods with below-average 
poverty rates or neighborhoods with above-average schools.
    Statement of Need: While the SEMAP is currently an effective 
oversight tool, HUD's experience indicates that modifications are 
needed to increase its utility and to better reflect policy priorities. 
The proposed regulatory amendments address these needs. For example, 
the change to the voucher utilization indicator will allow HUD to 
better assess whether PHAs are maximizing their use of available 
voucher authority and funds to assist families. By assuming 
responsibility for HQS inspections, HUD will be in a better position to 
assess their quality and accuracy. The new deconcentration indicator 
addresses one of HUD's highest priorities; namely, improving the 
housing and educational opportunities afforded to families receiving 
HUD assistance.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Section 8 rental assistance programs 
are authorized under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
(42 U.S.C. 1437f). This rulemaking is undertaken pursuant to the 
general rulemaking authority granted to the Secretary under section 
7(d) of the Department of HUD Act (42 U.S.C. 35335(d)), which 
authorizes the Secretary to make ``such rules and regulations as may be 
necessary to carry out his functions, powers, and duties.''
    Alternatives: Rulemaking is required to ensure that revised SEMAP 
indicators are generally applicable to all PHAs administering Section 8 
programs, and are enforceable by HUD. Moreover, the current SEMAP 
requirements are codified in regulation and, therefore, notice and 
comment rulemaking is required for their revision.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There may be some incremental 
administrative costs borne by PHAs as a result of revised indicators. 
The benefits are the cost savings of no longer having to conduct HQS 
inspections, resulting in a net economic benefit. HUD will assume the 
costs of conducting these inspections, but these costs will be balanced 
by the management and operational benefits resulting from the proposed 
SEMAP enhancements. Moreover, HUD is considering whether HQS 
inspections should be conducted less frequently than on an annual 
basis, in order to allow for the best use of departmental resources.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes retrospective review under 
Executive Order 13563.

[[Page 7768]]

    Agency Contact: Laure Rawson, Director, Housing Voucher Management 
and Operations Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 
20410, Phone: 202 402-2425.
    RIN: 2577-AC76

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the principal Federal 
steward of our Nation's public lands and resources, including many of 
our cultural treasures. DOI serves as trustee to Native Americans and 
Alaska natives and is responsible for relations with the island 
territories under United States jurisdiction. The Department manages 
more than 500 million acres of Federal lands, including 397 park units, 
555 wildlife refuges, and approximately 1.7 billion of submerged 
offshore acres. This includes some of the highest quality renewable 
energy resources available to help the United States achieve the 
President's goal of energy independence, including geothermal, solar, 
and wind.
    The Department protects and recovers endangered species; protects 
natural, historic, and cultural resources; manages water projects that 
are a lifeline and economic engine for many communities in the West; 
manages forests and fights wildfires; manages Federal energy resources; 
regulates surface coal mining operations; reclaims abandoned coal 
mines; educates children in Indian schools; and provides recreational 
opportunities for over 400 million visitors annually in the Nation's 
national parks, public lands, national wildlife refuges, and recreation 
areas.
    The DOI will continue to review and update its regulations and 
policies to ensure that they are effective and efficient, and that they 
promote accountability and sustainability. The DOI will emphasize 
regulations and policies that:
     Promote environmentally responsible, safe, and balanced 
development of renewable and conventional energy on our public lands 
and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS);
     Use the best available science to ensure that public 
resources are protected, conserved, and used wisely;
     Adopt performance approaches focused on achieving cost-
effective, timely results;
     Improve the nation-to-nation relationship with American 
Indian tribes;
     Promote partnerships with States, tribes, local 
governments, other groups, and individuals to achieve common goals;
     Promote transparency, fairness, accountability, and the 
highest ethical standards while maintaining performance goals.

Major Regulatory Areas

    The DOI bureaus implement congressionally mandated programs through 
their regulations. Some of these regulatory programs include:
     Developing onshore and offshore energy, including 
renewable, minerals, oil and gas, and other energy resources;
     Regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations 
on public and private lands;
     Managing migratory birds and preserving marine mammals and 
endangered species;
     Managing dedicated lands, such as national parks, wildlife 
refuges, National Landscape Conservation System lands, and American 
Indian trust lands;
     Managing public lands open to multiple use;
     Managing revenues from American Indian and Federal 
minerals;
     Fulfilling trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
American Indians;
     Managing natural resource damage assessments; and
     Managing assistance programs.

Regulatory Policy

How DOI Regulatory Priorities Support the President's Energy, Resource 
Management, Environmental Sustainability, and Economic Recovery Goals
    The DOI's regulatory programs seek to operate programs 
transparently, efficiently, and cooperatively while maximizing 
protection of our land, resources, and environment in a fiscally 
responsible way by:
(1) Protecting Natural, Cultural, and Heritage Resources
    The Department's mission includes protecting and providing access 
to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honoring our trust 
responsibilities to tribes. We are committed to this mission and to 
applying laws and regulations fairly and effectively. Our priorities 
include protecting public health and safety, restoring and maintaining 
public lands, protecting threatened and endangered species, 
ameliorating land- and resource-management problems on public lands, 
and ensuring accountability and compliance with Federal laws and 
regulations.
    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wildlife Program continues to 
focus on maintaining and managing wildlife habitat to ensure self-
sustaining populations and a natural abundance and diversity of 
wildlife resources on public lands. The BLM-managed lands are vital to 
game species and hundreds of species of non-game mammals, reptiles, and 
amphibians. In order to provide for long-term protection of wildlife 
resources, especially given other mandated land use requirements, the 
Wildlife Program supports aggressive habitat conservation and 
restoration activities, many funded by partnerships with Federal, 
State, and non-governmental organizations. For instance, the Wildlife 
Program is restoring wildlife habitat across a multi-state region to 
support species that depend upon sagebrush vegetation. Projects are 
tailored to address regional issues such as fire (as in the western 
portion of the sagebrush biome) or habitat degradation and loss (as in 
the eastern portion of the sagebrush biome). Additionally, BLM 
undertakes habitat improvement projects in partnership with a variety 
of stakeholders and consistent with State fish and game wildlife action 
plans and local working group plans.
    The National Park Service (NPS) is working with BLM and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to finalize a rule implementing Public 
Law 106-206, which directs the Secretary to establish a system of 
location fees for commercial filming and still photography activities 
on public lands. While commercial filming and still photography are 
generally allowed on Federal lands, managing this activity through a 
permitting process will minimize damage to cultural or natural 
resources and interference with other visitors to the area. This 
regulation would standardize location fee rates and collection for all 
DOI agencies.
    The NPS is proposing a new winter use rule for Yellowstone National 
Park. This rule is proposed to replace an interim rule that expired at 
the end of the 2010 to 2011 winter season and that was recently 
reauthorized for the current (2011-2012) winter season. It would allow 
a variety of winter uses for visitors while protecting park resources 
by establishing maximum numbers of snowmobiles and snowcoaches 
permitted in the Park on a given day. It would also require most 
snowmobiles and snowcoaches operating in the Park

[[Page 7769]]

to meet air and sound emission requirements and would require a 
commercial guide. The NPS intends to publish a final rule by mid-
November 2012.
    The NPS is prepared to publish final rules for Off Road Vehicle use 
at Cape Hatteras National Seashore and bicycle routes at Mammoth Cave 
National Park. Proposed rules for bicycle routes are pending for other 
park areas. These rules would manage use to protect and preserve 
natural and cultural resources, and natural processes, and provide a 
variety of safe visitor experiences while minimizing conflicts among 
various users.
(2) Sustainably Using Energy, Water, and Natural Resources
    The BLM has identified approximately 20.6 million acres of public 
land with wind energy potential in the 11 western States and 
approximately 29.5 million acres with solar energy potential in the six 
southwestern States. There are over 140 million acres of public land in 
western States and Alaska with geothermal resource potential. There is 
also significant wind and wave potential in our offshore waters. The 
National Renewable Energy Lab, a Department of Energy national 
laboratory, has identified more than 1,000 gigawatts of wind potential 
off the Atlantic coast--roughly equivalent to the Nation's existing 
installed electric generating capacity--and more than 900 gigawatts of 
wind potential off the Pacific Coast. Because public lands are 
extensive and widely distributed, the Department has an important role, 
in consultation with Federal, State, regional, and local authorities, 
in approving and building new transmission lines that are crucial to 
deliver renewable energy to America's homes and businesses.
    Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Department has 
focused on renewable energy issues and has established priorities for 
environmentally responsible development of renewable energy on public 
lands and the OCS. Industry has started to respond by investing in 
development of wind farms off the Atlantic seacoast and solar, wind, 
and geothermal energy facilities throughout the west. Power generation 
from these new energy sources produces virtually no greenhouse gases 
and, when done in an environmentally sensitive manner, harnesses with 
minimum impact abundant renewable energy that nature itself provides. 
The Department will continue its intra- and inter-departmental efforts 
to move forward with the environmentally responsible review and 
permitting of renewable energy projects on public lands.
    The Secretary issued his first Secretarial Order on March 11, 2009, 
making renewable energy on public lands and the OCS top priorities at 
the Department. These remain top priorities. In implementing these 
priorities through its regulations, the Department will continue to 
create jobs and contribute to a healthy economy while protecting our 
signature landscapes, natural resources, wildlife, and cultural 
resources.
(3) Empowering People and Communities
    The Department strongly encourages public participation in the 
regulatory process. For example, every year the FWS establishes 
migratory bird hunting seasons in partnership with flyway councils 
composed of State fish and wildlife agencies. The FWS also holds a 
series of public meetings to give other interested parties, including 
hunters and other groups, opportunities to participate in establishing 
the upcoming season's regulations.
    Similarly, the BLM uses Resource Advisory Councils made up of 
affected parties to help prepare land management plans and regulations.
    The NPS has begun revising its rules on non-Federal development of 
gas and oil in units of the National Park System. Of the approximately 
700 gas and oil wells in 13 NPS units, 55 percent, or 385 wells, are 
exempt from current regulations. The NPS is revising the regulations to 
improve protection of NPS resources. The NPS actively sought public 
input into designing the rule and published an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking with a comment period from November 15, 2009, 
through January 25, 2010. Interested members of the public were able to 
make suggestions for the content of the rule, which NPS will consider 
in writing the proposed rule. After developing a proposed rule, NPS 
will solicit further public comment. The NPS expects to publish a 
proposed rule in 2012.
    In October 2010, NPS published an interim final rule with request 
for comments revising the former regulations for management of 
demonstrations and the sale or distribution of printed matter in most 
areas of the National Park System to allow a small-group exception to 
permit requirements. In essence, under specific criteria, 
demonstrations, and the sale or distribution of printed matter 
involving 25 or fewer persons may be held in designated areas, without 
first obtaining a permit; i.e. making it easier for individuals and 
small groups to express their views. The NPS has analyzed the comments 
and expects to publish a final rule in early 2012.

Retrospective Review of Regulations

    President Obama's Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to make 
the regulatory system work better for the American public. Regulations 
should ``* * * protect public health, welfare, safety, and our 
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 
competitiveness, and job creation.'' DOI's plan for retrospective 
regulatory review identifies specific efforts to relieve regulatory 
burdens, add jobs to the economy, and make regulations work better for 
the American public while protecting our environment and resources. The 
DOI plan seeks to strengthen and maintain a culture of retrospective 
review by consolidating all regulatory review requirements \1\ into 
DOI's annual regulatory plan. DOI has selected the following regulatory 
efforts to focus on over the next 2 years:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOI conducts regulatory review under numerous statutes, 
Executive orders, memoranda, and policies, including but not limited 
to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, and the DOI Departmental Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Oil and Gas Royalty Valuation Rules (Office of Natural 
Resources Revenue)--DOI is exploring a simplified market-based approach 
to arrive at the value of oil and gas for royalty purposes that could 
dramatically reduce accounting and paperwork requirements and costs on 
industry and better ensure proper royalty valuation by creating a more 
transparent royalty calculation method.
     Endangered Species Act Rules (Fish and Wildlife Service)--
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), working in conjunction with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, will revise and update the ESA 
implementing regulations and policies to improve conservation 
effectiveness, reduce administrative burden, enhance clarity and 
consistency for impacted stakeholders and agency staff, and encourage 
partnerships, innovation, and cooperation. FWS has already proposed a 
rule on May 17, 2011, that would minimize the requirements for written 
descriptions of critical habitat boundaries in favor of map and 
Internet-based descriptions. FWS anticipates issuing the final rule in 
the spring of 2012. Additionally, FWS will develop proposed rules and/
or policies to amend existing regulations related to:
     Habitat conservation plans;

[[Page 7770]]

     Safe harbor agreements;
     Candidate conservation agreements;
     The process and procedures for designation of critical 
habitat;
     Section 7 consultation to revise the definition of 
``destruction or adverse modification'' of critical habitat; and
     Issuance of incidental take permits during section 7 
consultation.
     Commercial Filming on Public Land Rules--This joint effort 
between the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 
and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will create consistent regulations 
and a unified fee schedule for commercial filming and still photography 
on public land. It will provide the commercial filming industry with a 
predictable fee for using Federal lands, while earning the Government a 
fair return for the use of that land.
     Offshore Energy Safety and Environmental Rules (BSEE)--In 
the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, DOI immediately instituted 
regulatory reforms that strengthened the protection of workers' health 
and safety and enhanced environmental safeguards. The Bureau of Safety 
and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), formerly part of the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) is now 
considering ways to apply ``safety case''-type performance standards, 
such as those widely applied internationally, to the U.S. offshore 
drilling regulatory regime. A hybrid combination of performance-based 
and prescriptive standards will provide flexibility to adapt to 
changing technologies and increasingly complex operational conditions, 
while maintaining worker and environmental protections.
     Leasing (BIA)--BIA is amending its leasing regulations to 
eliminate the need to follow multiple cross-references in the 
regulations. The amendments will also delete the requirement for BIA 
review of permits, which some view as unjustified and excessively 
burdensome.
     Land Classification Regulations (BLM)--BLM is amending its 
regulations to remove obsolete land classification regulations and 
consolidate these regulations into the existing planning system 
regulations. These changes will benefit the public by consolidating all 
land use decisions into one systematic process.
    DOI bureaus work to make our regulations easier to comply with and 
understand. Our regulatory process ensures that bureaus share ideas on 
how to reduce regulatory burdens while meeting the requirements of the 
laws they enforce and improving their stewardship of the environment 
and resources. Results include:
     Effective stewardship of our Nation's resources in a way 
that is responsive to the needs of small businesses;
     Increased benefits per dollars spent by carefully 
evaluating the economic effects of planned rules; and
     Improved compliance and transparency by use of plain 
language in our regulations and guidance documents.

Bureaus and Offices Within DOI

    The focus of DOI's major regulatory bureaus and offices is 
summarized below.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
    The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administers and manages 56 
million acres of land held in trust by the United States for Indians 
and Indian tribes, providing services to approximately 1.9 million 
Indians and Alaska Natives, and maintaining a government-to-government 
relationship with the 565 federally recognized Indian tribes. The BIA's 
mission is to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic 
opportunity, and to carry out the responsibility to protect and improve 
the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska 
Natives, as well as to provide quality education opportunities to 
students in Indian schools.
    In the coming year, BIA will continue its regulatory focus on 
improved management of trust responsibilities and promotion of economic 
development in Indian communities. In addition, BIA will focus on 
updating Indian education regulations and on other regulatory changes 
to increase transparency in support of the President's Open Government 
Initiative.
    With the input of tribal leaders, individual Indian beneficiaries, 
and other subject matter experts, BIA has been examining better ways to 
serve its beneficiaries. The American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 
(AIPRA) made clear that regulatory changes were necessary. BIA has 
promulgated regulations implementing the probate-related provisions of 
AIPRA and will now focus on regulations to implement other AIPRA 
provisions related to managing Indian land.
    The focus on promoting economic development in Indian communities 
is a core component of BIA's mission. Economic development initiatives 
can attract businesses to Indian communities that provide jobs and fund 
services that support the health and well-being of tribal members. 
Economic development can enable tribes to attain self-sufficiency, 
strengthen their governments, and reduce crime.
    Indian education is a top priority of the Assistant Secretary for 
Indian Affairs. BIA will review Indian education regulations to ensure 
that they adequately support efforts to provide students of BIA-funded 
schools with the best education possible.
    Finally, BIA's regulatory focus on increasing transparency 
implements the President's Open Government Initiative. BIA will ensure 
that all regulations that it drafts or revises meet high standards of 
readability and accurately and clearly describe BIA processes.
    BIA's regulatory priorities are to:
     Develop regulations to meet the Indian trust reform goals 
for land consolidation and land use management.
    BIA is amending regulations affecting land title and records, 
conveyances of trust or restricted land, leasing, grazing, trespass, 
rights-of-way, and energy and minerals. These regulatory changes will 
help the Department better serve beneficiaries and will standardize 
procedures for consistent execution of fiduciary responsibilities 
across the BIA.
     Identify and develop regulatory changes necessary for 
improved Indian education.
    BIA is reviewing regulations addressing grants to tribally 
controlled community colleges and other Indian education regulations. 
The review will identify provisions that need to be updated to comply 
with applicable statutes and ensure that the proper regulatory 
framework is in place to support students of Bureau-funded schools.
     Develop regulatory changes to reform the process for 
Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes.
    Over the years, BIA has received significant comments from American 
Indian groups and members of Congress on the Federal acknowledgment 
process. Most of these comments claim that the current process is 
cumbersome and overly restrictive. The BIA is reviewing the Federal 
acknowledgment regulations to determine if any regulatory changes are 
appropriate.
     Revise regulations governing administrative appeals and 
other processes to increase transparency.
    The BIA is making a concentrated effort to improve the readability 
and precision of its regulations. Because trust beneficiaries often 
turn to the regulations for guidance on how a given BIA process works, 
BIA is ensuring that each revised regulation is written as

[[Page 7771]]

clearly as possible and accurately reflects the current organization of 
the Bureau. A few of the regulations BIA will be focusing this effort 
on include the regulation governing administrative appeals (25 CFR part 
2), the land use management regulations mentioned above, and 
regulations addressing various Indian services.
The Bureau of Land Management
    The BLM manages the 245-million-acre National System of Public 
Lands, located primarily in the western States, including Alaska, and 
the 700-million-acre subsurface mineral estate located throughout the 
Nation. BLM's complex multiple-use mission affects the lives of a great 
number of Americans, including those who live near and visit the public 
lands, as well as millions of Americans who benefit from commodities, 
such as minerals, energy, or timber, produced from the lands' rich 
resources.
    The BLM's multiple-use mission conserves the lands' natural and 
cultural resources and sustains the health and productivity of the 
public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 
generations. The BLM manages such varied uses as energy and mineral 
development, outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, and forestry and 
woodlands products.
    The BLM has identified the following three areas of regulatory 
priorities.
     Energy Independence
     Treasured Landscapes
     Native American Nations
    The summaries that follow explain how these three areas promote the 
BLM mission and the priorities of the Department.
Energy Independence
    BLM manages more Federal land than any other agency--more than 245 
million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres of mineral 
estate. Thus, it plays a key role in ensuring that the Nation's energy 
needs are met by managing both Federal renewable and non-renewable 
sources of energy. The BLM is analyzing proposals for increasing 
renewable energy development on public lands. The BLM will manage these 
proposals to assure they proceed in an environmentally and fiscally 
sound way that protects our natural resources and critical wildlife 
habitat for such species as the sage grouse and lynx. These projects 
will create environmentally friendly jobs and help sustain the quality 
of life that Americans enjoy today.
    Another BLM priority is siting and authorizing transmission 
corridors to assist the national effort to move renewable energy from 
production sites to market. The BLM has already designated more than 
5,000 miles of energy transport corridors. The BLM will authorize 
rights-of-way across public lands through these energy transport 
corridors to allow development of transmission lines.
Treasured Landscapes
    Protecting the landscapes of the National System of Public Lands 
involves numerous BLM programs as the agency moves toward a holistic, 
landscape-level approach to managing multiple public land uses. The BLM 
also engages partners interested in working on a broader scale across 
jurisdictional lines to achieve a common landscape vision. For the past 
several years, BLM, which manages the largest amount and the greatest 
diversity of fish and wildlife habitat of any Federal agency, has 
focused on restoring healthy landscapes in a number of ways, including:
     Reducing the number of wild horses and burros on public 
lands, particularly in areas most affected by drought and wildfire. 
Maintaining the wild horse and burro population at appropriate 
management levels is critical in the effort to conserve forage 
resources that also sustain native wildlife and livestock.
     Restoring habitat for sensitive, rare, threatened, and 
endangered species, such as sage grouse, desert tortoise, and salmon.
     Supporting greater biodiversity through noxious weed and 
invasive species treatments to bring back native plants.
     Improving water quality by restoring riparian areas and 
protecting watersheds. Enhanced water quality aids in the restoration 
of habitat for fish and other aquatic and riparian species.
     Conducting post-fire recovery efforts to promote healthy 
landscapes and discourage the spread of invasive species.
Native American Nations
    BLM consults with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis 
under multiple authorities and is continually working to assess and 
improve its tribal consultation practices. The BLM held listening 
sessions throughout the West on this important issue in 2009 and 2010 
and received many valuable comments. BLM has continued its efforts to 
improve its tribal consultation practices by participating with the 
Department in multiple listening sessions with tribes throughout the 
country.
    The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 
(NAGPRA), enacted in 1990, addresses the rights of lineal descendants, 
Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to certain Native 
American human remains, funerary objects, associated funerary objects, 
sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony with which they are 
affiliated. The statute and implementing regulations represent a 
careful balance between the legitimate interests of lineal descendants, 
Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to control the remains 
of their ancestors and cultural property and the legitimate public 
interests in scientific and educational information associated with the 
human remains and cultural items.
    BLM is complying with the new NAGPRA regulations, including 
inventorying and repatriating human remains and other cultural items 
that are in BLM museum collections. BLM also consults with Indian 
tribes on implementing appropriate actions when human remains and other 
cultural items subject to NAGPRA are inadvertently discovered or 
intentionally excavated on the public lands.
    Additionally, BLM, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, helps tribes and individual Indian allottees develop their 
solid and fluid mineral resources. BLM is responsible for development, 
product measurement, and inspection and enforcement of extracting 
operations of the mineral estate on trust properties.
BLM's Regulatory Priorities
    The BLM's regulatory focus is directed primarily by the priorities 
of the President and Congress, which include:
     Generating jobs and promoting a healthy economy by 
facilitating domestic production of various sources of energy, 
including biomass, wind, solar, and other alternative sources.
     Providing for a wide variety of public uses while 
maintaining the long-term health and diversity of the land.
     Preserving significant natural, cultural, and historic 
resource values.
     Understanding the arid, semi-arid, arctic, and other 
ecosystems that BLM manages.
     Using the best scientific and technical information to 
make resource management decisions.
     Understanding the needs of the people who use and enjoy 
BLM-managed public lands and providing them with quality service.
     Securing the recovery of a fair return for using publicly 
owned resources, and avoiding the creation of long-term liabilities for 
American taxpayers.

[[Page 7772]]

     Resolving problems and implementing decisions in 
cooperation with other agencies, states, tribal governments, and the 
public.
    In developing regulations, BLM recognizes the need to ensure 
communication, coordination, and consultation with the public, 
including affected interests, tribes, and other stakeholders. BLM also 
works to draft regulations that are easy for the public to understand 
and that provide clarity to those most affected by them.
    The BLM's specific regulatory priorities include:
     Revising onshore oil and gas operating standards.
    The BLM expects to publish rules to revise several existing onshore 
oil and gas operating orders and propose one new onshore order. Onshore 
orders establish requirements and minimum standards and provide 
standard operating procedures. The orders are binding on operating 
rights owners and operators of Federal and Indian (except the Osage 
Nation) oil and gas leases and on all wells and facilities on state or 
private lands committed to Federal agreements. The BLM is responsible 
for ensuring that oil or gas produced and sold from Federal or Indian 
leases is accurately measured for quantity and quality. The volume and 
quality of oil or gas sold from leases is key to determining the proper 
royalty to be paid by the lessee to the Office of Natural Resources 
Revenue. Existing Onshore Orders Number 3, 4, and 5 would be revised to 
use new industry standards so that they reflect current operating 
procedures and to require that proper verification and accounting 
practices are used consistently. New Onshore Order Number 9 would cover 
waste prevention and beneficial use. The revisions would ensure that 
proper royalties are paid on oil and gas removed from Federal and Trust 
lands.
     Revising coal-management regulations.
    The BLM plans to publish a proposed rule to amend the coal-
management regulations that pertain to the administration of Federal 
coal leases and logical mining units. The rule would primarily 
implement provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that pertain to 
administering coal leases. The rule also would clarify the royalty rate 
applicable to continuous highwall mining, a new coal-mining method in 
use on some Federal coal leases.
     Publishing rules on paleontological resources 
preservation.
    The 2009 omnibus public lands law included provisions on permitting 
for the collection of paleontological resources. The BLM and the 
National Park Service are co-leads of a team with the U.S. Forest 
Service that will be drafting a paleontological resources rule. The 
rule would address the protection of paleontological resources and how 
BLM would permit the collection of these resources. The rule would also 
address other issues such as administering permits, casual collection 
of rocks and minerals, hobby collection of common invertebrate plants 
and fossils, and civil and criminal penalties for violation of these 
rules.
     Amending rules on royalty rate increases for new Federal 
Onshore Competitive Oil and Gas Leases.
    The BLM will consider amending its oil and gas regulations to set 
higher royalty rates for new Federal onshore competitive oil and gas 
leases issued on or after the effective date of the rule. This rule 
would revise existing regulations by increasing royalty rates based on 
the options set out in the proposed rule.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement
    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement 
(BOEMRE) replaced the former Minerals Management Service (MMS). On 
October 1, 2011, BOEMRE was reorganized and divided into two new 
Bureaus, under the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 
Management:
    (1) The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) now functions as 
the resource manager for the conventional and renewable energy and 
mineral resources on the OCS. It fosters environmentally responsible 
and appropriate development of the OCS for both conventional and 
renewable energy and mineral resources in an efficient and effective 
manner that ensures fair market value for the rights conveyed.
    (2) The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 
applies independent regulation, oversight, and enforcement powers to 
promote and enforce safety in offshore energy exploration and 
production operations and ensure that potentially negative 
environmental impacts on marine ecosystems and coastal communities are 
appropriately considered and mitigated.
    Our regulatory focus for fiscal year 2012 is directed by 
Presidential and legislative priorities that emphasize contributing to 
America's energy supply, protecting the environment, and ensuring a 
fair return for taxpayers for energy production from Federal and Indian 
lands.
    BOEM's regulatory priorities are to:
     Finalize Regulations for Leasing of Sulphur or Oil and Gas 
and Bonding Requirements in the Outer Continental Shelf
    This final rule updates and streamlines the existing OCS leasing 
regulations and clarifies implementation of the Federal Oil and Gas 
Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule 
reorganizes leasing requirements to communicate more effectively the 
leasing process, as it has evolved over the years. This final rule 
makes changes to 30 CFR parts 250, 256, and 260 that relate to the oil 
and gas leasing and bonding requirements.
    BSEE's regulatory priorities are to:
     Establish Additional Requirements for Safety Measures for 
Drilling and Other Well Operations for Oil and Gas
    This will be an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address 
recommendations from the ``Increased Safety Measures for Energy 
Development on the Outer Continental Shelf'' report that were not 
covered by an Interim Final Rule BOEMRE, BSEE's predecessor, published 
on October 14, 2010. The safety measures recommendations include 
additional requirements for blowout preventers, remotely operated 
vehicles, secondary control systems, and cement evaluation techniques. 
Detailed responses to the questions and ideas posed in this Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would allow BSEE to develop more 
comprehensive regulations, if needed, and have a better understanding 
of the impacts.
     Revise Regulations on Safety and Environmental Management 
Programs for Offshore Operations and Facilities
    This rulemaking proposes to revise 30 CFR part 250 (subpart S) 
regulations to require operators to develop and implement additional 
provisions in their Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) 
programs for oil, gas, and sulphur operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS). These revisions pertain to developing and implementing: 
(1) Stop work authority, (2) ultimate work authority, (3) requiring 
employee participation in the development and implementation of SEMS 
programs, and (4) establishing requirements for reporting unsafe 
working conditions. In addition, this proposed rule (5) requires 
independent third parties to conduct audits of operators' SEMS programs 
and (6) establishes further requirements relating to conducting job 
safety analyses (JSA) for activities identified in an operator's SEMS 
program. BSEE believes that these new requirements will further reduce 
the likelihood of accidents, injuries, and spills in connection with 
OCS activities,

[[Page 7773]]

by requiring OCS operators to specifically address issues associated 
with human behavior as it applies to their SEMS program.
     Develop additional rules and regulations as a result of 
ongoing reviews of BSEE's offshore regulatory regime.
    Several investigations and reviews of BOEMRE, now BSEE, have been 
and are being conducted by various agencies and entities--including the 
Safety Oversight Board, the Office of Inspector General, the 
President's Deepwater Horizon Commission, the National Academy of 
Engineering, and the joint BOEMRE/United States Coast Guard (USCG) 
investigation of Deepwater Horizon. Some of these investigations and 
reviews focus narrowly on the Deepwater Horizon explosion; others are 
broader in focus and include many aspects of the current regulatory 
system. BSEE expects that recommendations for regulatory changes--both 
substantive and procedural--will be generated by these investigations 
and reviews, and will need to be reviewed, analyzed, and potentially 
incorporated in new or modified regulations. The Secretary established 
the Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee to provide advice on matters 
related to drilling and workplace safety, and spill containment and 
response. This Committee is expected to make recommendations for new or 
modified regulations.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
    The revenue responsibilities of the former MMS now are located in 
the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), which will continue to 
collect, account for, and disburse revenues from Federal offshore 
energy and mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases on Federal 
and Indian lands. The program operates nationwide and is primarily 
responsible for timely and accurate collection, distribution, and 
accounting for revenues associated with mineral and energy production. 
The regulatory program of ONRR seeks to:
     Simplify valuation regulations.
    ONRR plans to simplify the regulations at 30 CFR part 1206 for 
establishing the value for royalty purposes of (1) oil and natural gas 
produced from Federal leases; and (2) coal and geothermal resources 
produced from Federal and Indian leases. Additionally, the proposed 
rules would consolidate sections of the regulations common to all 
minerals, such as definitions and instructions regarding how a payor 
should request a valuation determination. ONRR published Advance 
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) to initiate the rulemaking 
process and to obtain input from interested parties.
     Finalize debt collection regulations.
    ONRR is preparing regulations governing collection of delinquent 
royalties, rentals, bonuses, and other amounts due under Federal and 
Indian oil, gas, and other mineral leases. The regulations would 
include provisions for administrative offset and would clarify and 
codify the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 and the Debt 
Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
     Continue to meet Indian trust responsibilities.
    ONRR has a trust responsibility to accurately collect and disburse 
oil and gas royalties on Indian lands. ONRR will increase royalty 
certainty by addressing oil valuation for Indian lands through a 
negotiated rulemaking process involving key stakeholders.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
    The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was 
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSM has two principal functions. They are:
     The regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation 
operations; and
     The reclamation and restoration of abandoned coal mine 
lands.
    In enacting SMCRA, Congress directed OSM to ``strike a balance 
between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and 
the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy.'' In 
response to its statutory mandate, OSM has sought to develop and 
maintain a stable regulatory program that is safe, cost-effective, and 
environmentally sound. A stable regulatory program ensures that the 
coal mining industry has clear guidelines for operation and 
reclamation, and that citizens know how the program is being 
implemented.
    OSM's Federal regulatory program sets minimum requirements for 
obtaining a permit for surface and underground coal mining operations, 
sets performance standards for those operations, requires reclamation 
of lands and waters disturbed by mining, and requires enforcement to 
ensure that the standards are met.
    OSM is the primary regulatory authority for SMCRA enforcement until 
a State or Indian tribe develops its own regulatory program, which is 
no less effective than the Federal program. When a State or Indian 
tribe achieves ``primacy,'' it assumes direct responsibility for 
permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities under its federally 
approved regulatory program. Today, 24 of the 26 coal-producing States 
have primacy. In the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, Indian tribes with coal 
resources were provided the opportunity to assume primacy. No tribes 
have done so to date, although three tribes have expressed an interest 
in submitting a tribal program.
    OSM's regulatory priorities for the coming year will focus on:
     Stream Protection.
    Protect streams from the adverse effects of surface coal mining 
operations; and
     Coal Combustion Residues
    Establish Federal standards for the beneficial use of coal 
combustion residues on active and abandoned coal mines.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to work 
with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 
people. FWS also helps ensure a healthy environment for people by 
providing opportunities for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and our 
shared natural heritage.
    FWS fulfills its responsibilities through a diverse array of 
programs that:
     Protect and recover endangered and threatened species;
     Monitor and manage migratory birds;
     Restore native aquatic populations and nationally 
significant fisheries;
     Enforce Federal wildlife laws and regulate international 
trade;
     Conserve and restore wildlife habitat such as wetlands;
     Help foreign governments conserve wildlife through 
international conservation efforts;
     Distribute Federal funds to States, territories, and 
tribes for fish and wildlife conservation projects; and
     Manage the almost 150-million-acre National Wildlife 
Refuge System, which includes 555 National Wildlife Refuges and which 
protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their habitats and allows 
the public to engage in outdoor recreational activities.
    Critical challenges to the work of FWS include global climate 
change; shortages of clean water suitable for wildlife; invasive 
species that are harmful to our fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 
their habitats; and the alienation of children and adults from the 
natural world. To address these challenges, FWS has identified six 
priorities:
     The National Wildlife Refuge System--conserving our lands 
and resources;

[[Page 7774]]

     Landscape conservation--working with others;
     Migratory birds--conservation and management;
     Threatened and endangered species--achieving recovery and 
preventing extinction;
     Connecting people with nature--ensuring the future of 
conservation; and
     Aquatic species--the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (a 
plan that brings public and private partners together to restore U.S. 
waterways to sustainable health).
    To carry out these priorities, FWS has a large regulatory agenda 
that will, among other things:
     List, delist, and reclassify species on the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and designate critical 
habitat for certain listed species;
     Update our regulations to carry out the Convention on 
International Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora;
     Manage migratory bird populations;
     Administer the subsistence program for harvest of fish and 
wildlife in Alaska;
     Update our regulations governing the Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Program; and
     Set forth hunting and sport fishing regulations for the 
National Wildlife Refuge System.
    Additionally, FWS is working with the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, via 
a contract with the National Research Council (NRC), to review 
scientific issues associated with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act. Once the NRC's report is completed, the agencies 
will work together to develop an approach that produces efficient, 
scientifically defensible biological evaluations protective of listed 
species.
    Further, the FWS' Regional Directors and/or Ecological Services 
State Supervisors or Project leaders will be meeting with their State 
counterparts to discuss the role of State agencies in ESA initiatives 
to enhance their involvement in implementing the ESA's provisions.
National Park Service
    The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and 
values within almost 400 units of the National Park System encompassing 
nearly 84 million acres of lands and waters for the enjoyment, 
education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The NPS also 
cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and resource 
conservation and outdoor recreation throughout the United States and 
the world.
    To achieve this mission the NPS adheres to the following guiding 
principles:
     Excellent Service: Providing the best possible service to 
park visitors and partners.
     Productive Partnerships: Collaborating with Federal, 
State, tribal, and local governments, private organizations, and 
businesses to work toward common goals.
     Citizen Involvement: Providing opportunities for citizens 
to participate in the decisions and actions of the National Park 
Service.
     Heritage Education: Educating park visitors and the 
general public about their history and common heritage.
     Outstanding Employees: Empowering a diverse workforce 
committed to excellence, integrity, and quality work.
     Employee Development: Providing developmental 
opportunities and training so employees have the ``tools to do the 
job'' safely and efficiently.
     Wise Decisions: Integrating social, economic, 
environmental, and ethical considerations into the decisionmaking 
process.
     Effective Management: Instilling a performance management 
philosophy that fosters creativity, focuses on results, and requires 
accountability at all levels.
     Research and Technology: Incorporating research findings 
and new technologies to improve work practices, products, and services.
    The NPS Division of Regulations and Special Park Uses provides 
agency coordination for a variety of activities that directly affect 
the management of visitor use and resource protection within the 
National Park System to carry out this mission. Our regulatory 
priorities include among other issues:
    Revising existing regulations pertaining to:
     Commercial Film and Related Activities
     Solid Waste Disposal
     Non-Federal Oil and Natural Gas Rights
     Rights-of-Way
    Establishing rules related to:
     Collection of Natural Products by Members of Federally 
Recognized Tribes for Traditional and Cultural Purposes
     Managing Winter Use at Yellowstone NP
     Managing Off Road Vehicle Use and Bicycling
     Implementation of the Native American Graves Protection 
and Repatriation Act
     Establishing Standards and Procedures for Disposition of 
Archeological Materials
Bureau of Reclamation
    The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and 
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and 
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To 
accomplish this mission, Reclamation employs management, engineering, 
and science to achieve effective and environmentally sensitive 
solutions.
    Reclamation projects provide: Irrigation water service, municipal 
and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water 
quality improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife 
enhancement, outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river 
regulation and control, system optimization, and related uses. 
Reclamation has continued to focus on increased security at its 
facilities.
    The Reclamation regulatory program focus in fiscal year 2012 is to 
ensure that its mission and laws that require regulatory actions are 
carried out expeditiously, efficiently, and with an emphasis on 
cooperative problem solving by implementing two newly authorized 
programs:
     Rural Water Supply Program
    Title I of Public Law 109-451 authorizes the establishment of a 
rural water supply program to enable the Bureau of Reclamation to 
coordinate with rural communities throughout the Western United States 
to identify their potable water supply needs and evaluate options for 
meeting those needs. Under the Act, Reclamation is finalizing a rule 
that will define how it will identify and work with eligible rural 
communities. Reclamation published an interim final rule on November 
17, 2008, and expects to publish a Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
in 2012 that will address comments received from the public.
     Loan Guarantees
    Title II of Public Law 109-451 authorizes the Secretary of the 
Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to issue loan guarantees 
to assist in financing: (a) Rural water supply projects, (b) 
extraordinary maintenance and rehabilitation of Reclamation project 
facilities, and (c) improvements to infrastructure directly related to 
Reclamation projects. This new program will provide an additional 
funding option to help western communities and water managers to cost 
effectively meet their water supply and maintenance needs. Under the 
Act, Reclamation is working with the Office of Management and Budget to 
publish a rule that will establish criteria for administering the

[[Page 7775]]

loan guarantee program. Reclamation published a proposed rule on 
October 6, 2008, and expects to publish a Second Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in 2012 that will address comments received from the public.

BILLING CODE 4310-10-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The mission of the Department of Justice is to enforce the law and 
defend the interests of the United States according to the law, to 
ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic, to provide 
Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just 
punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure fair 
and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. In carrying 
out its mission, the Department is guided by four core values: (1) 
Equal justice under the law; (2) honesty and integrity; (3) commitment 
to excellence; and (4) respect for the worth and dignity of each human 
being. The Department of Justice is primarily a law-enforcement agency, 
not a regulatory agency; it carries out its principal investigative, 
prosecutorial, and other enforcement activities through means other 
than the regulatory process.
    The Department of Justice's key regulatory priority is the Prison 
Rape Elimination Act (PREA) rulemaking which will establish national 
standards for the prevention, detection, reduction, and punishment of 
prison rape. The regulatory priorities of the Department also include 
initiatives in the areas of civil rights, criminal justice, and 
immigration. These initiatives are summarized below. In addition, 
several other components of the Department carry out important 
responsibilities through the regulatory process. Although their 
regulatory efforts are not separately discussed in this overview of the 
regulatory priorities, those components have key roles in implementing 
the Department's anti-terrorism and law enforcement priorities.

Prison Rape Elimination

    Pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA or the 
``Act''), 42 U.S.C. section 15601 et seq., the Department is drafting 
regulations to adopt national standards for the prevention, detection, 
reduction, and punishment of prison rape. On February 3, 2011, the 
Department published for public comment a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
setting forth comprehensive national standards for the detection, 
prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape in prisons, jails, 
lockups, community confinement facilities, and juvenile facilities 
operated by Department of Justice, State, local, and private agencies. 
See 76 FR 6248 (Feb. 3, 2011). In developing these proposed standards, 
the Department benefited from the findings and recommendations of the 
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC), which had 
undertaken a comprehensive legal and factual study of the penological, 
physical, mental, medical, social, and economic impacts of prison 
sexual assaults on government functions and on the communities and 
social institutions in which they operate. The Department received over 
1,300 public comments in response to the proposed rule, reviewed and 
analyzed those comments, and drafted the final rule for submission to 
OMB. PREA mandates that the national standards shall be based upon the 
independent judgment of the Attorney General, after giving due 
consideration to the recommended national standards provided by the 
Commission * * * and being informed by such data, opinions, and 
proposals that the Attorney General determines to be appropriate to 
consider.'' The Act further provides that the Department ``shall not 
establish a national standard * * * that would impose substantial 
additional costs compared to the costs presently expended by Federal, 
State, and local prison authorities.''
    The Department worked with an outside contractor to assess the 
costs imposed by its proposed rule and to support a Regulatory Impact 
Assessment that will accompany the final rule. Once the rulemaking 
process has been completed, the Department's PREA standards will 
constitute the most comprehensive and assertive approach ever 
undertaken in this country to combating sexual abuse against persons 
who are incarcerated

Civil Rights

    In September 2010, the Department published its final rules 
amending its regulations implementing title II and title III of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title II prohibits disability 
based discrimination by public entities. Title III prohibits disability 
based discrimination by public accommodations and certain testing 
entities, and requires commercial facilities to be constructed or 
altered in compliance with the ADA accessibility standards. These key 
regulations adopt revised ADA Standards for Accessible Design and 
address certain important policy issues. During the course of this 
rulemaking, the Department became aware of the need to promulgate 
regulations in four additional subject matter areas--the accessibility 
of emergency call center services (Next Generation 9-1-1), captioning 
and video description in movie theaters,, use of accessible Web sites, 
and accessible equipment and furniture. On July 26, 2010, the 
Department published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 
for each of these subject areas. The comment period for these ANPRMs 
closed on January 24, 2011. In addition to soliciting written public 
comments, the Department held public hearings on the ANPRMs in November 
and December 2010 and January 2011. The subject matter of these ANPRMs 
will be the focus of the Civil Rights Division's regulatory activities 
for FY 2012, as well as FY 2013. The Department also plans to propose 
amendments to its ADA regulations and its section 504 regulations to 
implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which took effect on January 
1, 2009.
    The subjects addressed in the ANPRMs published on July 26, 2010, 
included:
    Next Generation 9-1-1. This ANPRM sought information on possible 
revisions to the Department's regulation to ensure direct access to 
Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1) services for individuals with 
disabilities. In 1991, the Department of Justice published a regulation 
to implement title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(ADA). That regulation requires public safety answering points (PSAPs) 
to provide direct access to persons with disabilities who use analog 
telecommunication devices for the deaf (TTYs), 28 CFR 35.162. Since 
that rule was published, there have been major changes in the types of 
communications technology used by the general public and by people who 
have disabilities that affect their hearing or speech. Many individuals 
with disabilities now use the Internet and wireless text devices as 
their primary modes of telecommunications. At the same time, PSAPs are 
planning to shift from analog telecommunications technology to new 
Internet-Protocol (IP)-enabled NG 9-1-1 services that will provide 
voice and data (such as text, pictures, and video) capabilities. As 
PSAPs transition from the analog systems to the new technologies, it is 
essential people with communication disabilities will be able to use 
the new systems. Therefore, the Department published this ANPRM to 
begin to develop appropriate regulatory guidance for PSAPs that are 
making this transition. The Department is in the

[[Page 7776]]

process of completing its review of the approximately 146 public 
comments it received in response to its NG 9-1-1 ANPRM and expects to 
publish an NPRM addressing accessibility of NG 9-1-1 in FY 2012.
    Captioning and Video Description in Movie Theaters. Title III of 
the ADA requires public accommodations to take ``such steps as may be 
necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is treated 
differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, 
unless the covered entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would 
cause a fundamental alteration or would result in an undue burden.'' 42 
U.S.C. section 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Both open and closed captioning and 
audio recordings are examples of auxiliary aids and services that 
should be provided by places of public accommodations, 28 CFR section 
36.303(b)(1)-(2). The Department stated in the preamble to its 1991 
rule that ``[m]ovie theaters are not required * * * to present open-
captioned films,'' 28 CFR part 36, app. C (2011), but it did not 
address closed captioning and video description in movie theaters.
    Since 1991, there have been many technological advances in the area 
of closed captioning and video description for first-run movies. In 
June 2008, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
to revise the ADA title III regulation, 73 FR 34466, in which the 
Department stated that it was considering options for requiring that 
movie theater owners or operators exhibit movies that are captioned or 
that provide video (narrative) description. The Department received 
numerous comments urging the Department to issue captioning and video 
description regulations. The Department is persuaded that such 
regulations are appropriate. The Department issued an ANPRM on July 26, 
2010, to obtain more information regarding issues raised by commenters; 
to seek comment on technical questions that arose from the Department's 
research; and to learn more about the status of digital conversion. In 
addition, the Department sought information regarding whether other 
technologies or areas of interest (e.g., 3D) have developed or are in 
the process of development that either would replace or augment digital 
cinema or make any regulatory requirements for captioning and video 
description more difficult or expensive to implement. The Department 
received approximately 1171 public comments in response to its movie 
captioning and video description ANPRM. The Department is in the 
process of completing its review of these comments and expects to 
publish an NPRM addressing captioning and video description in movie 
theaters in FY 2012.
    Web Site Accessibility. The Internet as it is known today did not 
exist when Congress enacted the ADA, yet today the World Wide Web plays 
a critical role in the daily personal, professional, civic, and 
business life of Americans. The ADA's expansive nondiscrimination 
mandate reaches goods and services provided by public accommodations 
and public entities using Internet Web sites. Being unable to access 
Web sites puts individuals at a great disadvantage in today's society, 
which is driven by a dynamic electronic marketplace and unprecedented 
access to information. On the economic front, electronic commerce, or 
``e-commerce,'' often offers consumers a wider selection and lower 
prices than traditional, ``brick-and-mortar'' storefronts, with the 
added convenience of not having to leave one's home to obtain goods and 
services. For individuals with disabilities who experience barriers to 
their ability to travel or to leave their homes, the Internet may be 
their only way to access certain goods and services. Beyond goods and 
services, information available on the Internet has become a gateway to 
education, socializing, and entertainment.
    The Internet is also dramatically changing the way that 
governmental entities serve the public. Public entities are 
increasingly providing their constituents access to government services 
and programs through their web sites. Through government web sites, the 
public can obtain information or correspond with local officials 
without having to wait in line or be placed on hold. They can also pay 
fines, apply for benefits, renew State-issued identification, register 
to vote, file taxes, request copies of vital records, and complete 
numerous other everyday tasks. The availability of these services and 
information online not only makes life easier for the public but also 
often enables governmental entities to operate more efficiently and at 
a lower cost.
    The ADA's promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals 
with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of 
American civic and economic life will be achieved in today's 
technologically advanced society only if it is clear to State and local 
governments, businesses, educators, and other public accommodations 
that their web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the Department 
is considering amending its regulations implementing title II and title 
III of the ADA to require public entities and public accommodations 
that provide products or services to the public through Internet web 
sites to make their sites accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities.
    In particular, the Department's ANPRM on Web site accessibility 
sought public comment regarding what standards, if any, it should adopt 
for Web site accessibility, whether the Department should adopt 
coverage limitations for certain entities, like small businesses, and 
what resources and services are available to make existing web sites 
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Department also 
solicited comments on the costs of making Web sites accessible and on 
the existence of any other effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives to making Web sites accessible. The Department received 
approximately 440 public comments and is in the process of reviewing 
these comments. The Department anticipates publishing separate NPRMs 
addressing Web site accessibility pursuant to titles II and III of the 
ADA in FY 2013.
    Equipment and Furniture. Both title II and title III of the ADA 
require covered entities to make reasonable modifications in their 
programs or services to facilitate participation by persons with 
disabilities. In addition, covered entities are required to ensure that 
people are not excluded from participation because facilities are 
inaccessible or because the entity has failed to provide auxiliary 
aids. The use of accessible equipment and furniture is often critical 
to an entity's ability to provide a person with a disability equal 
access to its services. Changes in technology have resulted in the 
development and improved availability of accessible equipment and 
furniture that benefit individuals with disabilities. Consequently, it 
is easier now to specify appropriate accessibility standards for such 
equipment and furniture, as the 2010 ADA Standards do for several types 
of fixed equipment and furniture, including ATMs, washing machines, 
dryers, tables, benches, and vending machines. To the extent that ADA 
standards apply requirements for fixed equipment and furniture, the 
Department will look to those standards for guidance on accessibility 
standards for equipment and furniture that are not fixed. The ANPRM 
sought information about other categories of equipment, including beds 
in accessible guest rooms, and medical equipment and furniture. The 
Department received approximately 420 comments in response to its ANPRM 
and is in the process of reviewing these comments. The Department has 
decided to publish

[[Page 7777]]

in FY 2012 a separate NPRM pursuant to title III of the ADA on beds in 
accessible guest rooms and a more detailed ANPRM pursuant to titles II 
and III of the ADA that focuses solely on accessible medical equipment 
and furniture. The remaining items of equipment and furniture addressed 
in the 2010 ANPRM will be the subject of an NPRM that the Department 
anticipates publishing in FY 2013.

Federal Habeas Corpus Review Procedures in Capital Cases

    Pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
2005, on December 11, 2008, the Department promulgated a final rule to 
implement certification procedures for States seeking to qualify for 
the expedited Federal habeas corpus review procedures in capital cases 
under chapter 154 of title 28 of the United States Code. On February 5, 
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice 
soliciting further public comment on all aspects of the December 2008 
final rule. (74 FR 6131) As the Department reviewed the comments 
submitted in response to the February 2009 notice, it considered 
further the statutory requirements governing the regulatory 
implementation of the chapter 154 certification procedures. The 
Attorney General determined that chapter 154 reasonably could be 
construed to allow the Attorney General greater discretion in making 
certification determinations than the December 2008 regulations 
allowed. Accordingly, the Department published a notice in the Federal 
Register on May 25, 2010, proposing to remove the December 2008 
regulations pending the completion of a new rulemaking process. The 
Department finalized the removal of the December 2008 regulations on 
November 23, 2010. The Department published an NPRM in the Federal 
Register on March 3, 2011, proposing a new rule and seeking public 
input on the certification procedure for chapter 154 and the standards 
the Attorney General will apply in making certification decisions. The 
comment period for the proposed new rule closed on June 1, 2011.

Criminal Law Enforcement

    For the most part, the Department's criminal law enforcement 
components do not rely on the rulemaking process to carry out their 
assigned missions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for 
example, is responsible for protecting and defending the United States 
against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, upholding and 
enforcing the criminal laws of the United States, and providing 
leadership and criminal justice services to Federal, State, municipal, 
and international agencies and partners. Only in very limited contexts 
does the FBI rely on rulemaking. For example, the FBI is currently 
updating its National Instant Criminal Background Check System 
regulations to allow criminal justice agencies to conduct background 
checks prior to the return of firearms.
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 
Initiatives. ATF issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws 
relating to the manufacture and commerce of firearms and explosives. 
ATF's mission and regulations are designed to, among other objectives, 
curb illegal traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms, and to assist 
State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in reducing 
crime and violence. ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 
2012, to seek modifications to its regulations governing commerce in 
firearms and explosives. ATF plans to issue final regulations 
implementing the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act, title XI, 
subtitle C, of Public Law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
(enacted Nov. 25, 2002).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review,'' ATF is initiating a rulemaking proceeding to amend 
existing regulations and extend the term of import permits for 
firearms, ammunition, and defense articles from 1 year to 2 years. The 
additional time will allow importers sufficient time to complete the 
importation of an authorized commodity before the permit expires and 
eliminate the need for importers to submit new and duplicative import 
applications. ATF believes that extending the term of import permits 
will result in substantial cost and time savings for both ATF and 
industry. ATF also has begun a rulemaking process that will lead to 
promulgation of a revised set of regulations (27 CFR part 771) 
governing the procedure and practice for disapproval of applications 
for explosives licenses or permits.
    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Initiatives. DEA is the 
primary agency responsible for coordinating the drug law enforcement 
activities of the United States. DEA also assists in the implementation 
of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. DEA's mission is to 
enforce U.S. controlled substance laws and regulations and bring to the 
criminal and civil justice system those organizations and individuals 
involved in the growing, manufacturing, or distribution of controlled 
substances and listed chemicals appearing in or destined for illicit 
traffic in the United States, including organizations that use drug 
trafficking proceeds to finance terrorism. A strategic component of the 
DEA's law enforcement mission is the diversion control program (DCP). 
The DCP carries out the mandates of the Controlled Substances and 
Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Acts. DEA drafts and publishes the 
implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. The CSA, together with 
these regulations, are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the 
diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the 
illicit market while ensuring a sufficient supply of controlled 
substances and listed chemicals for legitimate medical, scientific, 
research, and industrial purposes.
    In 2011, the President declared a national epidemic of prescription 
drug abuse, which has emphasized the importance of the Department's 
regulatory role with respect to controlled substances. DEA has 
initiated National Take-Back events to purge America's home medicine 
cabinets of unwanted and unused drugs, as well as assisting in other 
strategies and increased enforcement to address doctor shopping and 
pill mills. DEA schedules new and emerging substances for control under 
the CSA to protect public health and safety. During fiscal year 2012, 
among other regulatory reviews and initiatives, DEA plans to propose 
regulations implementing the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act 
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-273). DEA also plans to issue final regulations on 
electronic prescriptions for controlled substances subsequent to an 
Interim Final Rule currently in effect, which provides practitioners 
with the option of writing prescriptions for controlled substances 
electronically and permits pharmacies to receive, dispense, and archive 
electronic prescriptions for controlled substances.
    Bureau of Prisons Initiatives. The Federal Bureau of Prisons issues 
regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to its mission: to 
protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments 
of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-
efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other 
self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-
abiding citizens. During the next 12 months, in addition to other 
regulatory objectives aimed at accomplishing its mission, the Bureau

[[Page 7778]]

will continue its ongoing efforts to: streamline regulations, 
eliminating unnecessary language and improving readability; improve 
disciplinary procedures through a revision of the subpart relating to 
the disciplinary process; reduce the introduction of contraband through 
various means, such as clarifying drug and alcohol surveillance testing 
programs; protect the public from continuing criminal activity 
committed within prison; and enhance the Bureau's ability to more 
closely monitor the communications of high-risk inmates.

Immigration

    On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
(HSA), the responsibility for immigration enforcement and for providing 
immigration-related services and benefits, such as naturalization and 
work authorization, was transferred from the Justice Department's 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS). However, the immigration judges and the Board 
of Immigration Appeals (Board) in the Executive Office for Immigration 
Review (EOIR) remain part of the Department of Justice. The immigration 
judges adjudicate approximately 300,000 cases each year to determine 
whether aliens should be removed from the United States or should be 
granted some form of relief from removal. The Board has jurisdiction 
over appeals from the decisions of immigration judges, as well as other 
matters. Accordingly, the Attorney General has a continuing role in the 
conduct of removal hearings, the granting of relief from removal, and 
custody determinations regarding the detention of aliens pending 
completion of removal proceedings. The Attorney General also is 
responsible for civil litigation and criminal prosecutions relating to 
the immigration laws.
    In several pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to 
revise and update the regulations relating to removal proceedings in 
order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the hearings. In 
furtherance of these goals, the Department is drafting a regulation to 
improve the recognition and accreditation process for organizations and 
representatives that appear in immigration proceedings. With the 
assistance of DHS, the Department is also drafting a regulation 
pursuant to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2008 to implement procedures that take into 
account the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children in 
removal proceedings. In addition, the Department is considering 
regulatory action to address mental incompetency issues in removal 
proceedings. Finally, in response to Executive Order 13653, the 
Department is retrospectively reviewing EOIR's regulations to eliminate 
regulations that unnecessarily duplicate DHS's regulations and update 
outdated references to the pre-2002 immigration system.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final Justice Department plan can 
be found at: http://www.justice.gov/open/doj-rr-final-plan.pdf.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          RIN                     Title                 Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1140-AA42..............  Importation of Arms,     The regulations in 27
                          Ammunition and           CFR 447 and 479
                          Implements of War and    generally provide
                          Machine Guns,            that firearms,
                          Destructive Devices,     ammunition, and
                          and Certain Other        defense articles may
                          Firearms; Extending      not be imported into
                          the Term of Import       the United States
                          Permits''.               except pursuant to a
                                                   permit. Section
                                                   447.43 provides that
                                                   import permits are
                                                   valid for one year
                                                   from their issuance
                                                   date. I ATF will
                                                   consider whether
                                                   these regulations
                                                   could be revised to
                                                   achieve the same
                                                   regulatory objective
                                                   in a manner that is
                                                   less burdensome for
                                                   both industry and
                                                   ATF.
1117-AB34..............  Establishment of Quotas  The regulations in 21
                          Required by the          CFR parts 1303 and
                          Controlled Substances    1315 apply quotas to
                          Act''.                   registered
                                                   manufacturers of
                                                   Schedule I and II
                                                   controlled substances
                                                   and certain List I
                                                   chemicals. The quotas
                                                   are intended to
                                                   control the available
                                                   quantities of the
                                                   basic ingredients
                                                   needed for the
                                                   manufacture of
                                                   certain substances,
                                                   to reduce the risk of
                                                   diversion while
                                                   ensuring sufficient
                                                   availability to
                                                   satisfy the
                                                   legitimate needs of
                                                   the United States.
                                                   DEA will explore
                                                   strategies to
                                                   modernize the quota
                                                   system to achieve
                                                   greater efficiency
                                                   and effectiveness and
                                                   reduce the burden on
                                                   applicants. Although
                                                   the Department
                                                   expects that
                                                   manufacturers and the
                                                   DEA will benefit from
                                                   enhanced efficiency
                                                   and a reduction in
                                                   paperwork, it cannot
                                                   quantify the burden
                                                   and cost reductions
                                                   until the working
                                                   group identifies the
                                                   specific changes it
                                                   will implement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


DOJ--LEGAL ACTIVITIES (LA)

Final Rule Stage

85. National Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509; 28 U.S.C. 510; 42 
U.S.C. 15607
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 115.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 23, 2010. 42 U.S.C. section 
15607 directed the Attorney General to promulgate a final rule within 1 
year after receiving the report and recommendations of the National 
Prison Rape Elimination Commission.
    Abstract: In the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), Public 
Law 108-79, codified at 42 U.S.C. sections 15601 to 15609, Congress

[[Page 7779]]

directed the Attorney General to ``publish a final rule adopting 
national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and 
punishment of prison rape.'' 42 U.S.C. section 15607(a)(1). The statute 
further directed that the Attorney General ``shall not establish a 
national standard * * * that would impose substantial additional costs 
compared to the costs presently expended by Federal, State, and local 
prison authorities.'' 42 U.S.C. section 15607(a)(3). In accordance with 
PREA, the Department is drafting a final rule setting forth national 
standards for enhancing the prevention, detection, and response to 
sexual abuse in confinement settings. The Department published a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking on February 3, 2011 (see 76 FR 6248), 
identifying the proposed standards, and it received over 1,300 public 
comments in response.
    Statement of Need: Many of the evidentiary and public policy bases 
for the final rule are set forth in the statute, in which Congress set 
forth 15 findings relating to the prevalence of prison rape and its 
impact on society. See 42 U.S.C. section 15601. In summary, prison rape 
is a widespread problem that causes significant harm to its victims and 
imposes significant costs to society as a whole. Given the violent, 
destructive, reprehensible, and illegal nature of rape and sexual abuse 
in any setting, strong measures are needed to combat its prevalence in 
correctional settings. Tolerance of sexual abuse of prisoners in the 
government's custody is incompatible with American values.
    Summary of Legal Basis: PREA states that the Attorney General 
``shall publish a final rule adopting national standards for the 
detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape.'' 42 
U.S.C. section 15607(a)(1). The standards ``shall be based upon the 
independent judgment of the Attorney General, after giving due 
consideration to the recommended national standards provided by the 
[National Prison Rape Elimination] Commission * * *, and being informed 
by such data, opinions, and proposals that the Attorney General 
determines to be appropriate to consider.'' Id. section 15607(a)(2) and 
(a)(3). In June 2009, the Commission forwarded to the Attorney General 
a lengthy report describing its findings and recommending national 
standards.
    Alternatives: Given the specific direction of Congress, the 
Department is obligated to issue a rule that promulgates national 
standards to combat prison rape. PREA also gives the Attorney General 
the option of ``providing a list of improvements for consideration by 
correctional facilities,'' to the extent that a particular national 
standard would impose substantial additional costs compared to the 
costs presently expended by Federal, State, and local prison 
authorities. 42 U.S.C. section 15607(a)(3). The Department has received 
input from numerous stakeholders concerning the development of the 
national standards and, as part of the development process, considered 
a wide range of proposals and alternatives. These proposals include the 
standards recommended by the Commission, as well as alternative 
approaches proposed by various public stakeholders.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In directing the Attorney General to 
promulgate national standards that would ``eliminate'' prison rape by 
enhancing its prevention, detection, reduction, and punishment, 
Congress understood that Federal, State, and local agencies (as well as 
private entities) that operate inmate confinement facilities and that 
adopt the standards would likely have to incur costs to come into, and 
remain in, compliance with the standards. However, any such costs more 
than outweighed by the benefits of avoiding prison rape. Prevention of 
prison rape has benefits that can be monetized, as well as benefits 
that cannot be monetized. The monetized benefits inure primarily to the 
victims of prison sexual abuse (which number over 200,000 per year) and 
include the costs of medical and mental health care treatment as well 
as pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life, among other 
factors. For the most serious category of prison sexual abuse, the 
Department's Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment (IRIA) accompanying 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking estimated the cost per adult victim 
as ranging from $200,000 to $300,000. Correspondingly, the IRIA 
estimated that if all affected agencies adopt the standards, full 
compliance with the standards would cost, in the aggregate, over half a 
billion dollars a year when annualized over 15 years. Using a breakeven 
analysis, this means that the standards would have to result in the 
avoidance of approximately 2 percent or less of the baseline number of 
annual prison sexual abuse victims for the costs of full compliance to 
break-even with the monetized benefits of the standards. This does not 
include the many non-monetizable benefits of prison rape avoidance, 
which include benefits for victims, for inmates who are not victims, 
for families of inmates, for prison administrators and staff, and for 
society at large. The final rule will include a final Regulatory Impact 
Assessment.
    Risks: The final rule is intended to carry out the intent of 
Congress to eliminate prison rape. The risks from the failure to 
promulgate the final rule are primarily that inmates in Federal, State, 
and local facilities would continue to be at a higher risk of sexual 
assault than they would be if the final rule is not promulgated.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/10/10  75 FR 11077
ANPRM Comment Period End............   05/10/10  .......................
NPRM................................   02/03/11  76 FR 6248
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/04/11  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    URL for Public Comments: regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal 
Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 202 514-8059, Fax: 202 353-2371, Email: 
[email protected]
    RIN: 1105-AB34
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Fall 2011 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Labor's fall 2011 agenda continues Secretary 
Solis' vision of Good Jobs for Everyone. It also renews the Labor 
Department's commitment to efficient and effective regulation through 
the review and modification of our existing regulations, consistent 
with Executive Order 13563 (``E.O. 13563'').
    The Labor Department's vision of a ``good job'' includes jobs that:
     Increase workers' incomes and narrow wage and income 
inequality;
     Assure workers are paid their wages and overtime;
     Are in safe and healthy workplaces, and fair and diverse 
workplaces;
     Provide workplace flexibility for family and personal 
care-giving;
     Improve health benefits and retirement security for all 
workers; and
     Assure workers have a voice in the workplace.

[[Page 7780]]

    The Department continues to use a variety of mechanisms to achieve 
the goal of Good Jobs for Everyone, including increased enforcement 
actions, increased education and outreach, and regulatory actions that 
foster compliance. At the same time, the Department is enhancing the 
efficiency and effectiveness of its efforts through targeted regulatory 
actions designed to improve compliance while reducing regulatory 
burdens. The Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect and Openness and 
Transparency compliance strategies and the implementation of E.O. 13563 
create unifying themes that seek to foster a new calculus that 
strengthens protections for workers. By requiring employers and other 
regulated entities to take full ownership over their adherence to 
Department regulations and promoting greater openness and transparency 
to put workers in a better position to judge whether their workplace is 
one that values health and safety, work-life balance, and diversity, 
the Department seeks to significantly increase compliance. The 
increased effectiveness of this compliance strategy will enable the 
Department to achieve the Good Jobs for Everyone goal in a regulatory 
environment that is more efficient and less burdensome.

Plan/Prevent/Protect Compliance Strategy

    The Department has already published several regulatory actions 
toward the completion of requirements that employers develop programs 
to address specific issues of worker protection, security, and equity. 
Some of these issues have included controlling the spread of infectious 
diseases, examining work areas in underground coal mines for mandatory 
violations, and identifying patterns of violations in mines. The 
collection of regulatory actions in the Department's Plan/Prevent/
Protect strategy is designed to ensure employers and other regulated 
entities are in full compliance with the law every day, not just when 
Department inspectors come calling. As announced with the spring 2010 
regulatory agenda, this strategy requires employers and other regulated 
entities to:
    ``Plan'': Create a plan for identifying and remediating risks of 
legal violations and other risks to workers; for example, a plan to 
inspect their workplaces for safety hazards that might injure or kill 
workers. Workers will be given opportunities to participate in the 
creation of the plans. In addition, the plans would be made available 
to workers so they can fully understand them and help to monitor their 
implementation.
    ``Prevent'': Thoroughly and completely implement the plan in a 
manner that prevents legal violations. The plan cannot be a mere paper 
process. This will not be an exercise in drafting a plan only to put it 
on a shelf. The plan must be fully implemented.
    ``Protect'': Verify on a regular basis that the plan's objectives 
are being met. The plan must actually protect workers from health and 
safety risks and other violations of their workplace rights.
    Employers and other regulated entities who fail to take these steps 
to comprehensively address the risks, hazards, and inequities in their 
workplaces will be considered out of compliance with the law and, may 
be subject to remedial action. However, employers, unions, and others 
who follow the Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy will assure 
compliance with employment laws before Labor Department enforcement 
personnel arrive at their doorsteps. Most important, they will assure 
that workers get the safe, healthy, diverse, family-friendly, and fair 
workplaces they deserve.
    In the fall 2011 regulatory agenda, the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration 
(MSHA), and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) 
will all propose regulatory actions furthering the Department's 
implementation of the Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy.

Openness and Transparency: Tools for Achieving Compliance

    Greater openness and transparency continues to be central to the 
Department's compliance and regulatory strategies. The fall 2011 
regulatory plan demonstrates the Department's continued commitment to 
conducting the people's business with openness and transparency, not 
only as good Government and stakeholder engagement strategies, but as 
important means to achieve compliance with the employment laws 
administered and enforced by the Department. Openness and transparency 
will not only enhance agencies' enforcement actions but will encourage 
greater levels of compliance by the regulated community and enhance 
awareness among workers of their rights and benefits. When employers, 
unions, workers, advocates, and members of the public have greater 
access to information concerning workplace conditions and expectations, 
then we all become partners in the endeavor to create Good Jobs for 
Everyone.

Worker Protection Responsiveness

    The Department believes Plan/Prevent/Protect and increased Openness 
and Transparency will result in improvements to worker health and 
safety. However, when the Department identifies specific hazards and 
risks to worker health, safety, security, or fairness, we will utilize 
our regulatory powers to limit the risk to workers. The fall 2011 
regulatory plan includes examples of such regulatory initiatives to 
address such specific concerns.
    MSHA is planning regulatory initiatives to respond to specific 
health and safety needs of workers: (1) MSHA plans to finalize the 
standard Lowering Miners' Exposure to Coal Mine Dust, including 
Continuous Personal Dust Monitors in April 2012; and (2) MSHA plans to 
finalize the rule covering Examinations of Work Areas in Underground 
Coal Mines in March 2012.
    Workers across many industries face serious hazards from vehicles 
perform backing maneuvers and from equipment that can pin, crush, or 
strike. OSHA and MSHA will both publish regulatory actions concerning 
these hazards.
    Crystalline silica exposure is one of the most serious hazards 
workers face. OSHA and MSHA are both proposing to address worker 
exposures to crystalline silica through the promulgation and 
enforcement of a comprehensive health standard.

Retrospective Review of Existing Rules

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found 
at: http://www.dol.gov/regulations/EO13563Plan.pdf.

[[Page 7781]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Whether It Is Expected to Significantly
        Regulatory Identifier No.               Title of Rulemaking         Reduce Burdens on Small Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1218-AC20................................  Hazard Communication........  Yes.
1218-AC34................................  Bloodborne Pathogens........  No.
1218-AC64; 1218-AC65.....................  Updating OSHA Standards       No.
                                            Based on National Consensus
                                            Standards--Acetylene and
                                            Personal Protective
                                            Equipment.
1218-AC67................................  Standard Improvement          To be determined.
                                            Project--Phase IV (SIP IV).
1218-AC75................................  Cranes and Derricks in        No.
                                            Construction: Revision to
                                            Digger Derricks'
                                            Requirements.
1218-AC74................................  Review/Lookback of OSHA       To be determined.
                                            Chemical Standards.
1219-AB72................................  Criteria and Procedures for   To be determined.
                                            Proposed Assessment of
                                            Civil Penalties (Part 100).
1250-AA05................................  Sex Discrimination            To be determined.
                                            Guidelines.
1210-AB47................................  Amendment of Abandoned Plan   Yes.
                                            Program.
1205-AB59................................  Equal Employment Opportunity  To be determined.
                                            in Apprenticeship and
                                            Training, Amendment of
                                            Regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fall 2011 regulatory agenda aims to achieve more efficient and 
less burdensome regulation through our renewed commitment to conduct 
retrospective reviews of regulations. On January 18, 2011, the 
President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 entitled ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' The E.O. aims to ``strike the right 
balance'' between what is needed to protect health, welfare, safety, 
and the environment for all Americans, and what we need to foster 
economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness.
    In August 2011, as part of a Governmentwide response to E.O. 13563, 
the Department published its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of 
Existing Rules, which identifies several burden-reducing review 
projects. For example, OSHA's Standards Improvement Project III (SIP 
III) rulemaking achieved a 1.9 million burden hour reduction, and we 
anticipate that OSHA's SIP IV project will similarly yield savings for 
employers. OSHA's Hazard Communication/Globally Harmonized System for 
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals proposal has estimated savings 
for employers ranging from $585 million to $792.7 million. Based on 
preliminary estimates, EBSA's Abandoned Plan Program amendments may 
reduce costs by approximately $1.12 million. These projects estimate 
monetized savings that would eliminate roughly between $580 to $790 
million in annual regulatory burdens.
    The Plan also formalizes the development of this semiannual 
regulatory agenda as a system through which the Department identifies 
potential regulations for review. This regulatory agenda provides 
public notice of the Department's intention to initiate or continue 
work on approximately 10 review projects; more than 13 percent of all 
of the Department's planned regulatory actions.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

    OSHA's regulatory program is designed to help workers and employers 
identify hazards in the workplace, prevent the occurrence of injuries 
and adverse health effects, and communicate with the regulated 
community regarding hazards and how to effectively control them. Long-
recognized health hazards and emerging hazards place American workers 
at risk of serious disease and death and are initiatives on OSHA's 
regulatory agenda. In addition to targeting specific hazards, OSHA is 
focusing on systematic processes that will modernize the culture of 
safety in America's workplaces and retrospective review projects that 
will update regulations and reduce burdens on regulated communities. 
OSHA's retrospective review projects under E.O.13563 include 
consideration of the Bloodborne Pathogens standard, updating consensus 
standards, phase IV of OSHA's standard improvement project (SIP IV), 
and reviewing various permissible exposure levels.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
Infectious Diseases
    OSHA is considering the need for regulatory action to address the 
risk to workers exposed to infectious diseases in healthcare and other 
related high-risk environments. OSHA is interested in all routes of 
infectious disease transmission in healthcare settings not already 
covered by its bloodborne pathogens standard (e.g. contact, droplet, 
and airborne). The Agency is particularly concerned by studies that 
indicate that transmission of infectious diseases to both patients and 
healthcare workers may be occurring as a result of incomplete adherence 
to recognized, but voluntary, infection control measures. The Agency is 
considering an approach that would combine elements of the Department's 
Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy with established infection control 
practices. The Agency received strong stakeholder participation in 
response to its May 2010 request for information and July 2011 
stakeholder meetings.
    In 2007, the healthcare and social assistance sector as a whole had 
16.5 million employees. Healthcare workplaces can range from small, 
private practices of physicians to hospitals that employ thousands of 
workers. In addition, healthcare is increasingly being provided in 
other settings such as nursing homes, free-standing surgical and 
outpatient centers, emergency care clinics, patients' homes, and pre-
hospitalization emergency care settings. OSHA is concerned with the 
movement of healthcare delivery from the traditional hospital setting, 
with its greater infrastructure and resources to effectively implement 
infection control measures, into more diverse and smaller workplace 
settings with less infrastructure and fewer resources, but with an 
expanding worker population.
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (12P2)
    OSHA's Injury and Illness Prevention Program is the prototype for 
the Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy. OSHA's first step in 
this important rulemaking was to hold stakeholder meetings. Stakeholder 
meetings were held in East Brunswick, New Jersey; Dallas, Texas; 
Washington, DC; and Sacramento, California, beginning in June 2010 and 
ending in August 2010. More than 200 stakeholders participated in these 
meetings, and in addition, nearly 300 stakeholders attended as 
observers. The proposed rule will explore requiring employers to 
provide their employees with opportunities to participate in the 
development and implementation of an injury and illness prevention 
program,

[[Page 7782]]

including a systematic process to proactively and continuously address 
workplace safety and health hazards. This rule will involve planning, 
implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and activities that 
promote worker safety and health hazards. OSHA has substantial evidence 
showing that employers that have implemented similar injury and illness 
prevention programs have significantly reduced injuries and illnesses 
in their workplaces. The new rule would build on OSHA's existing Safety 
and Health Program Management Guidelines and lessons learned from 
successful approaches and best practices that have been applied by 
companies participating in OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program and 
Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program, and similar industry 
and international initiatives.
Openness and Transparency
Modernizing Recordkeeping
    OSHA held informal meetings to gather information from experts and 
stakeholders regarding the modification of its current injury and 
illness data collection system that will help the agency, employers, 
employees, researchers, and the public prevent workplace injuries and 
illnesses, as well as support President Obama's Open Government 
Initiative. Under the proposed rule, OSHA will explore requiring 
employers to electronically submit to the Agency data required by part 
1904 (Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries). The proposed rule 
will enable OSHA to conduct data collections ranging from the periodic 
collection of all part 1904 data from a handful of employers to the 
annual collection of summary data from many employers. OSHA learned 
from stakeholders that most large employers already maintain their part 
1904 data electronically; as a result, electronic submission will 
constitute a minimal burden on these employers, while providing a 
wealth of data to help OSHA, employers, employees, researchers, and the 
public prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. The proposed rule also 
does not add to or change the recording criteria or definitions in part 
1904. The proposed rule only modifies employers' obligations to 
transmit information from these records to OSHA.
Whistleblower Protection Regulations
    The ability of workers to speak out and exercise their legal rights 
without fear of retaliation is essential to many of the legal 
protections and safeguards that all Americans value. Whether the goal 
is the safety of our food, drugs, or workplaces, the integrity of our 
financial system, or the security of our transportation systems, 
whistleblowers have been essential to ensuring that our laws are fully 
and fairly executed. In the fall regulatory agenda, OSHA proposes to 
issue procedural rules that will establish consistent and transparent 
procedures for the filing of whistleblower complaints under eight 
statutes. They include procedures for handling employee retaliation 
complaints filed under the:
     National Transit System Security Act, and Federal Railroad 
Safety Act, as amended by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act, as amended by the 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
     Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, and section 
1057 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
of 2010
     Sarbanes Oxley Act, as amended by section 922 (b) and (c) 
and section 929A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act
     Affordable Care Act
     Seaman's Protection Act
     FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
    These procedural rules will strengthen OSHA's enforcement of its 
whistleblower program by providing specific timeframes and guidance for 
filing a complaint with OSHA, issuing a finding, avenues of appeal, and 
allowable remedies. OSHA is committed to its whistleblower program and 
to ensuring that all America's workers have a voice in the workplace.
Addressing Targeted Hazards
Silica
    In order to target one of the most serious hazards workers face, 
OSHA is proposing to address worker exposures to crystalline silica 
through the promulgation and enforcement of a comprehensive health 
standard. Exposure to silica causes silicosis, a debilitating 
respiratory disease, and may cause cancer, other chronic respiratory 
diseases, and renal and autoimmune disease as well. The seriousness of 
the health hazards associated with silica exposure is demonstrated by 
the large number of fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to 
occur. Over 2 million workers are exposed to crystalline silica in 
general industry, construction, and maritime industries. Reducing these 
hazardous exposures through promulgation and enforcement of a 
comprehensive health standard will contribute to OSHA's goal of 
reducing occupational fatalities and illnesses. As a part of the 
Secretary's strategy for securing safe and healthy workplaces, MSHA 
will also utilize information provided by OSHA to undertake regulatory 
action related to silica exposure in mines.
Preventing Backover Injuries and Fatalities
    Workers across many industries face a serious hazard when vehicles 
perform backing maneuvers, especially vehicles with an obstructed view 
to the rear. OSHA is collecting information on this hazard and 
researching emerging technologies that may help to reduce this risk. 
NIOSH reports, for example, that one-half of the fatalities involving 
construction equipment occur while the equipment is backing. Backing 
accidents cause at least 60 occupational deaths per year. Emerging 
technologies that address the risks of backing operations include 
cameras, radar, and sonar--to help view or detect the presence of 
workers on foot in blind areas--and new monitoring technology, such as 
tag-based warning systems that use radio frequency (RFID) and magnetic 
field generators on equipment to detect electronic tags worn by 
workers. Along with MSHA, which is developing regulations concerning 
Proximity Detection Systems, and based on information collected and the 
Agency's review and research, the Agency may consider rulemaking as an 
appropriate measure to address this source of employee risk.
E.O. 13563
Hazard Communication/Globally Harmonized System for Classification and 
Labeling of Chemicals
    The proposed modifications in its NPRM concerning the HCS are 
expected to benefit employers in two primary ways. First, the 
harmonization of hazard classifications, safety data sheet (SDSs) 
formats, and warning labels will yield substantial savings to 
businesses, once the standard is fully implemented. On the producer 
side, fewer different SDSs will have to be produced for affected 
chemicals, and many SDSs will be able to be produced at lower cost due 
to harmonization and standardization. Second, for users, OSHA expects 
that they will see reductions in operating costs due to the decreased 
number of SDSs, the standardization of SDSs that will make it easier to 
locate information

[[Page 7783]]

and determine handling requirements, and other factors related to 
simplification and uniformity that will improve workplace efficiency. 
Finally, OSHA estimates that the revisions to the HCS will result in 
reductions in the cost of training employees on the HCS in future 
periods because standardized SDS and label formats will reduce the 
amount of time needed to familiarize employees with the HCS and fewer 
systems will have to be taught since all producers will be using the 
same system.
    OSHA's preliminary estimate is that establishing a harmonized 
system for the classification and labeling of chemicals will create a 
substantial annualized savings for employers ranging from $585 million 
to $792.7 million. The majority of these benefits will be realized 
through increases in productivity for health and safety managers, as 
well as for logistics personnel with savings ranging from $475.2 
million to $569 million. Simplifying requirements for hazard 
communication training are estimated to provide savings up to $285.3 
million. Additionally, establishing uniform safety data sheets and 
labels will save between $16 million and $32.2 million. OSHA plans to 
publish the final rule in 2012. This rulemaking is economically 
significant with an estimated annual cost of over $200 million.
Bloodborne Pathogens
    OSHA will undertake a review of the Bloodborne Pathogen Standard in 
accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
section 5 of Executive Order 12866, and E.O. 13563. The review will 
consider the continued need for the rule; whether the rule overlaps, 
duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State or local 
regulations; and the degree to which technology, economic conditions, 
or other factors may have changed since the rule was evaluated.
Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards--
Acetylene and Personal Protective Equipment Standards
    Under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, during the first 2 years of the 
Act, the Agency was directed to adopt national consensus standards as 
OSHA standards. In the more than 40 years since these standards were 
adopted by OSHA, the organizations responsible for these consensus 
standards have issued updated versions of these standards. However, in 
most cases, OSHA has not revised its regulations to reflect later 
editions of the consensus standards. This project is part of a multi-
year project to update OSHA standards that are based on consensus 
standards.
Standard Improvement Project--Phase IV (SIP IV)
    OSHA's Standards Improvement Projects (SIPs) are intended to remove 
or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety and health 
standards. The Agency has published three earlier final standards to 
remove unnecessary provisions, thus reducing costs or paperwork burden 
on affected employers. The Agency believes that these standards have 
reduced the compliance costs and eliminated or reduced the paperwork 
burden for a number of its standards. The Agency only considers such 
changes to its standards so long as they do not diminish employee 
protections. The Agency is initiating a fourth rulemaking effort to 
identify unnecessary or duplicative provisions or paperwork 
requirements that is limited solely to its construction standards in 29 
CFR 1926.
Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Revision to Digger Derricks' 
Requirements
    OSHA published its final Cranes and Derricks in Construction 
Standard in August 2010. Edison Electric Institute (EEI) filed a 
petition for review challenging several aspects of the standard, 
including the scope of the exemption for digger derricks. As part of 
the settlement agreement with EEI, OSHA agreed to publish a direct 
final rule expanding the scope of a partial exemption for work by 
digger derricks. In the direct final rule, OSHA will revise the scope 
provision on digger derricks as an exemption for all work done by 
digger derricks covered by subpart V of 29 CFR 1926.
Review--Lookback of OSHA Chemical Standards
    The majority of OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) were 
adopted in 1971 under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, and only a few have 
been successfully updated since that time. There is widespread 
agreement among industry, labor, and professional occupational safety 
and health organizations that OSHA's PELs are outdated and need 
revising in order to take into account newer scientific data that 
indicates that significant occupational health risks exist at levels 
below OSHA's current PELs. In 1989, OSHA issued a final standard that 
lowered PELs for over 200 chemicals and added PELs for 164. However, 
the final rule was challenged and ultimately vacated by the 11th 
Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 citing deficiencies in OSHA's 
analyses. Since that time, OSHA has made attempts to examine its 
outdated PELs in light of the Court's 1991 decision. Most recently, 
OSHA sought input through a stakeholder meeting and web forum to 
discuss various approaches that might be used to address its outdated 
PELs. As part of the Department's Regulatory Review and Lookback 
Efforts, OSHA is developing a Request for Information (RFI), seeking 
input from the public to help the Agency identify effective ways to 
address occupational exposure to chemicals.

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration is the worker protection 
agency focused on the prevention of death, disease, and injury from 
mining and the promotion of safe and healthful workplaces for the 
Nation's miners. The Department believes that every worker has a right 
to a safe and healthy workplace. Workers should never have to sacrifice 
their lives for their livelihood, and all workers deserve to come home 
to their families at the end of their shift safe and whole. MSHA's 
approach to reducing workplace fatalities and injuries includes 
promulgating and enforcing mandatory health and safety standards. 
MSHA's retrospective review projects under E.O. 13563 addresses 
revising the process for proposing civil penalties.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
Examinations of Work Areas in Underground Coal Mines for Violations of 
Mandatory Health or Safety Standards
    MSHA plans to issue a proposed rule to address section 303(d) of 
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act that requires mine operators to 
conduct examinations, in areas where miners work or travel, to address 
violations of standards. The final rule would assure that underground 
coal mine operators find and fix violations during pre-shift, 
supplemental, on-shift, and weekly examinations, thereby improving 
health and safety for miners.
Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard
    The Agency's regulatory actions also exemplify a commitment to 
protecting the most vulnerable populations while assuring broad-based 
compliance. Health hazards are pervasive in both coal and metal/
nonmetal mines, including surface and underground mines and large and 
small mines. As mentioned previously, as part of the Secretary's 
strategy for securing safe and healthy workplaces, both MSHA and OSHA 
will be undertaking regulatory

[[Page 7784]]

actions related to silica. Overexposure to crystalline silica can 
result in some miners developing silicosis, an irreversible but 
preventable lung disease, which ultimately may be fatal. In its 
proposed rule, MSHA plans to follow the recommendations of the 
Secretary of Labor's Advisory Committee on the Elimination of 
Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers, the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and other groups to address the 
exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica. As another example of 
intra-departmental collaboration, MSHA intends to consider OSHA's work 
on the health effects of occupational exposure to silica and OSHA's 
risk assessment in developing the appropriate standard for the mining 
industry.
Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in 
Underground Coal Mines
    MSHA published a proposed rule to address the danger that miners 
face when working near continuous mining machines in underground coal 
mines. MSHA has concluded, from investigations of accidents involving 
mobile equipment and other reports, that action was necessary to 
protect miners. From 1984 to 2011, there have been 31 fatalities 
resulting from crushing and pinning accidents involving continuous 
mining machines. Continuous mining machines can pin, crush, or strike a 
miner working near the equipment. Proximity detection technology can 
prevent these types of accidents. Proximity detection systems can be 
installed on mining machinery to detect the presence of personnel or 
equipment within a certain distance of the machine. The rule would 
strengthen the protection for underground miners by reducing the 
potential for pinning, crushing, or striking hazards associated with 
working close to continuous mining machines.
Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground Mines
    MSHA plans to publish a proposed rule to require underground coal 
mine operators to equip shuttle cars, coal hauling machines, continuous 
haulage systems, and scoops with proximity detection systems. Miners 
working near these machines face pinning, crushing, and striking 
hazards that have resulted, and continue to result, in accidents 
involving life threatening injuries and death. The proposal would 
strengthen protections for miners by reducing the potential for 
pinning, crushing, or striking accidents in underground mines.
Openness and Transparency
Pattern of Violations
    MSHA has determined that the existing pattern criteria and 
procedures contained in 30 CFR part 104 do not reflect the statutory 
intent for section 104(e) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 
1977 (Mine Act). The legislative history of the Mine Act explains that 
Congress intended the pattern of violations to be an enforcement tool 
for operators who have demonstrated a disregard for the health and 
safety of miners. These mine operators, who have a chronic history of 
persistent significant and substantial (S&S) violations, needlessly 
expose miners to the same hazards again and again. This indicates a 
serious safety and health management problem at a mine. The goal of the 
pattern of violations final rule is to compel operators to manage 
health and safety conditions so that the root causes of S&S violations 
are found and fixed before they become a hazard to miners. The final 
rule would reflect statutory intent, simplify the pattern of violations 
criteria, and improve consistency in applying the pattern of violations 
criteria.
    MSHA developed an online service that enables mine operators, 
miners, and others to monitor a mining operation to determine if the 
mine could be approaching a potential pattern of violations. The web 
tool contains the specific criteria that MSHA uses to review a mine for 
a potential pattern of violations. The pattern of violations monitoring 
tool promotes openness and transparency in government.
Notification of Legal Identity
    The existing requirements do not provide sufficient information for 
MSHA to identify all of the mine ``operators'' responsible for operator 
safety and health obligations under the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
Act of 1977, as amended. This proposed regulation would expand the 
information required to be submitted to MSHA to create more transparent 
and open records that would allow the Agency to better identify and 
focus on the most egregious or persistent violators and more 
effectively deter future violations by imposing penalties and other 
remedies on those violators.
Addressing Targeted Hazards
Lowering Miners' Exposure to Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous 
Personal Dust Monitors
    MSHA will continue its regulatory action related to preventing 
Black Lung disease. Data from the NIOSH indicate increased prevalence 
of coal workers pneumoconiosis (CWP) ``clusters'' in several 
geographical areas, particularly in the Southern Appalachian Region. 
MSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to address continued 
risk to coal miners from exposure to respirable coal mine dust. This 
regulatory action is part of MSHA's Comprehensive Black Lung Reduction 
Strategy for reducing miners' exposure to respirable dust. This 
strategy includes enhanced enforcement, education and training, and 
health outreach and collaboration.
E.O. 13563
Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties 
(Part 100)
    MSHA plans to publish a proposed rule to revise the process for 
proposing civil penalties. The assessment of civil penalties is a key 
component in MSHA's strategy to enforce safety and health standards. 
The Congress intended that the imposition of civil penalties would 
induce mine operators to be proactive in their approach to mine safety 
and health, and take necessary action to prevent safety and health 
hazards before they occur. MSHA believes that the procedures for 
assessing civil penalties can be revised to improve the efficiency of 
the Agency's efforts and to facilitate the resolution of enforcement 
issues.

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)

    Through the work of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 
Programs, DOL ensures that contractors and subcontractors doing 
business with the Federal Government at nearly 200,000 establishments 
take affirmative action to create fair and diverse workplaces. OFCCP 
also combats discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, 
national origin, disability, or status as a protected veteran by 
ensuring that Federal contractors recruit, hire, train, promote, 
terminate, and compensate workers in a non-discriminatory manner. DOL, 
through OFCCP, protects workers, promotes diversity and enforces civil 
rights laws.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
Construction Contractor Affirmative Action Requirements
    OFCCP will publish a proposed rule that would enhance the 
effectiveness of the affirmative action programs of Federal and 
federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors. The 
proposed rule would strengthen affirmative action programs particularly 
in the areas of recruitment, training, and apprenticeships. The 
proposed rule

[[Page 7785]]

would also provide contractors and subcontractors the tools to assess 
their progress and appropriately tailor their affirmative action plans. 
The proposed rule would also allow contractors and subcontractors to 
focus on their affirmative action obligations earlier in the 
contracting process. OFCCP is coordinating with the Employment and 
Training Administration (ETA), which is developing a proposed 
regulation revising the equal opportunity regulatory framework under 
the National Apprenticeship Act.
E.O. 13563
Sex Discrimination Guidelines
    The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is 
charged with enforcing Executive Order 11246, as amended, which 
prohibits Federal Government contractors and subcontractors from 
discriminating against individuals in employment on the basis of race, 
color, sex, religion, or national origin, and requires them to take 
affirmative action. OFCCP regulations at 41 CFR part 60-20 set forth 
the interpretations and guidelines for implementing Executive Order 
11246, as amended, in regard to promoting and ensuring equal 
opportunities for all persons employed or seeking employment with 
Government contractors and subcontractors without regard to sex. This 
nondiscrimination requirement also applies to contractors and 
subcontractors performing under federally assisted construction 
contracts. The guidance in part 60-20 is more than 30 years old and 
warrants a regulatory lookback. OFCCP will issue a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to create sex discrimination regulations that reflect the 
current state of the law in this area.

Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)

    The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is responsible 
for administering and enforcing the fiduciary, reporting and 
disclosure, and health coverage provisions of title I of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This includes recent 
amendments and additions to ERISA enacted in the Pension Protection Act 
of 2006, as well as new health coverage provisions under the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the Affordable Care Act). 
EBSA's regulatory plan initiatives are intended to improve health 
benefits and retirement security for workers in every type of job at 
every income level. EBSA is charged with protecting approximately 140 
million Americans covered by an estimated 718,000 private retirement 
plans, 2.5 million health plans, and similar numbers of other welfare 
benefit plans, which together hold $6.7 trillion in assets.
    EBSA will continue to issue guidance implementing the health reform 
provisions of the Affordable Care Act to help provide better quality 
health care for American workers and their families. EBSA's regulations 
reduce discrimination in health coverage, promote better access to 
quality coverage, and protect the ability of individuals and businesses 
to keep their current health coverage. Many regulations are joint 
rulemakings with the Departments of Health and Human Services and the 
Treasury.
    Using regulatory changes to produce greater openness and 
transparency is an integral part of EBSA's contribution to a 
departmentwide compliance strategy. These efforts will not only enhance 
EBSA's enforcement toolbox but will encourage greater levels of 
compliance by the regulated community and enhance awareness among 
workers of their rights and benefits. Several proposals from the EBSA 
agenda expand disclosure requirements, substantially enhancing the 
availability of information to employee benefit plan participants and 
beneficiaries and employers, and strengthening the retirement security 
of America's workers. EBSA's retrospective review project under 
E.O.13563 is Abandoned Plan Program amendments.
Addressing Targeted Issues of Employee Benefits
Health Reform Implementation
    Since the passage of health care reform, EBSA has helped put the 
employment-based health provisions into action. Working with HHS and 
Treasury, EBSA has issued regulations covering issues such as the 
elimination of preexisting condition exclusions for children under age 
19, internal and external appeals of benefit denials, the extension of 
coverage for children up to age 26, and a ban on rescissions (which are 
retroactive terminations of health care coverage). These regulations 
will eventually impact up to 138 million Americans in employer-
sponsored plans. EBSA will continue its work in this regard, to ensure 
a smooth implementation of the legislation's market reforms, minimizing 
disruption to existing plans and practices, and strengthening America's 
health care system.
Enhancing Participant Protections
    EBSA will re-propose amendments to its regulations to clarify the 
circumstances under which a person will be considered a ``fiduciary'' 
when providing investment advice to retirement plans and other employee 
benefit plans and participants and beneficiaries of such plans. The 
amendments would take into account current practices of investment 
advisers and the expectations of plan officials and participants who 
receive investment advice. This initiative is intended to assure 
retirement security for workers in all jobs regardless of income level 
by ensuring that financial advisers and similar persons are required to 
meet ERISA's standards of care when providing the investment advice 
that is relied upon by millions of plan sponsors and workers.
Lifetime Income Options
    EBSA, in 2010, published a request for information concerning steps 
it can take by regulation, or otherwise, to encourage the offering of 
lifetime annuities or similar lifetime benefit distribution options for 
participants and beneficiaries of defined contribution plans. EBSA also 
held a hearing with the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue 
Service to further explore these possibilities. This initiative is 
intended to assure retirement security for workers in all jobs 
regardless of income level by helping to ensure that participants and 
beneficiaries have the benefit of their plan savings throughout 
retirement. EBSA now has established a public record which supports 
further consideration or action in a number of areas including pension 
benefit statements, participant education, and fiduciary guidance. With 
regard to pension benefit statements specifically, EBSA is working on a 
proposed rule under ERISA section 105 that would require or facilitate 
the presentation of a participant's accrued benefits; i.e., the 
participant's account balance, as a lifetime income stream of payments, 
in addition to presenting the benefits as an account balance.
Promoting Openness and Transparency
    In addition to its health care reform and participant protection 
initiatives discussed above, EBSA is pursuing a regulatory program 
that, as reflected in the Unified Agenda, is designed to encourage, 
foster, and promote openness, transparency, and communication with 
respect to the management and operations of pension plans, as well as 
participant rights and

[[Page 7786]]

benefits under such plans. Among other things, EBSA will be issuing a 
final rule addressing the requirement that administrators of defined 
benefit pension plans annually disclose the funding status of their 
plan to the plan's participants and beneficiaries (RIN 1210-AB18). In 
addition, EBSA will be finalizing amendments to the disclosure 
requirements applicable to plan investment options, including Qualified 
Default Investment Alternatives, to better ensure that participants 
understand the operations and risks associated with investments in 
target date funds (RIN 1210-AB38). A complete listing of EBSA's 
regulatory initiatives (both Plan and non-Plan items) is provided in 
the Unified Agenda portion of this document.
E.O. 13563
Abandoned Plan Program Amendment
    In 2006, the Department published regulations that facilitate the 
termination and winding up of 401(k)-type retirement plans that have 
been abandoned by their plan sponsors. The regulation establishes a 
streamlined program under which plans are terminated with very limited 
involvement of EBSA regional offices. EBSA now has 6 years of 
experience with this program and believes certain changes would improve 
the overall efficiency of the program and increase its usage.
    EBSA intends to revise the regulations to expand the program to 
include plans of businesses in liquidation proceedings to reflect 
recent changes in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Department believes 
that this expansion has the potential to substantially reduce burdens 
on these plans and bankruptcy trustees. Plans of businesses in 
liquidation currently do not have the option of using the streamlined 
termination and winding-up procedures under the program. This is true 
even though bankruptcy trustees, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code, can 
have a legal duty to administer the plan. Thus, bankruptcy trustees, 
who often are unfamiliar with applicable fiduciary requirements and 
plan-termination procedures, presently have little in the way of a 
blueprint or guide for efficiently terminating and winding up such 
plans. Expanding the program to cover these plans will allow eligible 
bankruptcy trustees to use the streamlined termination process to 
better discharge its obligations under the law. The use of streamlined 
procedures will reduce the amount of time and effort it would take 
ordinarily to terminate and wind up such plans. The expansion also will 
eliminate Government filings ordinarily required of terminating plans. 
Participation in the program will reduce the overall cost of 
terminating and winding up such plans, which will result in larger 
benefit distributions to participants and beneficiaries in such plans.
    EBSA preliminarily estimates that approximately 165 additional 
plans will benefit from the amended abandoned plans regulation and 
accompanying class exemption. EBSA expects that the cost burden 
reduction that will result from this initiative will be approximately 
$1.12 million.
    Please note that this preliminary estimate only reflects short-term 
burden reduction costs for bankruptcy trustees to terminate plans under 
the rule. EBSA expects substantial benefits will accrue to participants 
and beneficiaries covered by these plans, because their account 
balances will be maximized for two primary reasons. First, prompt, 
efficient termination of these plans will eliminate future 
administrative expenses charged to the plans that otherwise would 
diminish plan assets. Second, by following the specific standards and 
procedures set forth in the rule, the Department expects that overall 
plan termination costs will be reduced due to increased efficiency.

Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)

    The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) administers and 
enforces most provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The LMRDA promotes labor-management 
transparency by requiring unions, employers, labor-relations 
consultants, and others to file reports, which are publicly available. 
The LMRDA includes provisions protecting union member rights to 
participate in their union's governance, to run for office and fully 
exercise their union citizenship, as well as procedural safeguards to 
ensure free and fair union elections. Besides enforcing these 
provisions, OLMS also ensures the financial accountability of unions, 
their officers and employees, through enforcement and voluntary 
compliance efforts. Because of these activities, OLMS better ensures 
that workers have a more effective voice in the governance of their 
unions, which in turn affords them a more effective voice in their 
workplaces. OLMS also administers Executive Order 13496, which requires 
Federal contractors to notify their employees concerning their rights 
to organize and bargain collectively under Federal labor laws.
Openness and Transparency
Persuader Agreements: Employer and Labor Relations Consultant Reporting 
Under the LMRDA
    OLMS published a proposed regulatory initiative in June 2011, which 
is a transparency regulation intended to provide workers with 
information critical to their effective participation in the workplace. 
The proposed regulations would better implement the public disclosure 
objectives of the LMRDA in situations where an employer engages a 
consultant in order to persuade employees concerning their rights to 
organize and bargain collectively. Under LMRDA section 203, an employer 
must report any agreement or arrangement with a consultant to persuade 
employees concerning their rights to organize and collectively bargain, 
or to obtain certain information concerning activities of employees or 
a labor organization in connection with a labor dispute involving the 
employer. The consultant is also required to report such an agreement 
or arrangement with an employer. Statutory exceptions to these 
reporting requirements are set forth in LMRDA section 203(c), which 
provides, in part, that employers and consultants are not required to 
file a report by reason of the consultant's giving or agreeing to give 
``advice'' to the employer. The Department in its proposal reconsidered 
the current policy concerning the scope of the ``advice'' exception. 
When workers have the necessary information about arrangements that 
have been made by their employer to persuade them whether or not to 
form, join, or assist a union, they are better able to make a more 
informed choice about representation.
Form LM-30: Labor Organization Officer and Employee Conflict-of-
Interest Reporting
    OLMS published a final rule in October 2011 revising the Form LM-30 
Labor Organization Officer and Employee Report, which discloses actual 
or likely conflicts between the financial interests of a union official 
and the interests of the union. In addition to seeking greater 
transparency of actual or likely conflicts of interest, this rule is 
also a burden reduction regulation.

Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

    The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers and 
oversees programs that prepare workers for good jobs at good wages by 
providing high quality job training, employment, labor market 
information,

[[Page 7787]]

and income maintenance services through its national network of One-
Stop centers. The programs within ETA promote pathways to economic 
independence for individuals and families. Through several laws, ETA is 
charged with administering numerous employment and training programs 
designed to assist the American worker in developing the knowledge, 
skills, and abilities that are sought after in the 21st century's 
economy. ETA plans a retrospective review of the Rounding Rule for the 
Total Unemployment Rate Benefits Trigger.
Addressing Targeted Concerns of Workers
Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment of H-2B Aliens in the United 
States
    As part of the Department's foreign labor certification 
responsibilities, ETA certifies whether U.S. workers capable of 
performing the jobs for which employers are seeking foreign workers are 
available and whether the employment of foreign workers will adversely 
affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly 
employed. Through the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), the Department 
enforces compliance with the conditions of an approved temporary labor 
certification.
    This rulemaking seeks to ensure that only those employers who 
demonstrate a real temporary need for foreign workers will have access 
to H-2B workers. The rule also will seek to provide U.S. workers with 
greater access to the jobs employers wish to fill with temporary H-2B 
workers through more robust recruitment by employers to demonstrate the 
unavailability of U.S. workers and through the creation of a national, 
electronic job registry. The rule will explore strengthening existing 
worker enforcement to ensure adequate protections for both U.S. and H-
2B workers. The rulemaking will include greater transparency and 
openness to provide U.S. workers with greater information and access to 
job opportunities.
E.O. 13563
Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training, Amendment 
of Regulations
    The revision of the National Apprenticeship Act Equal Opportunity 
in Apprenticeship and Training (EEO) regulations is a critical element 
in the Department's vision to promote and expand registered 
apprenticeship opportunities in the 21st Century while safeguarding the 
welfare and safety of all apprentices. In October 2008, ETA issued a 
final rule updating 29 CFR part 29, the regulatory framework for 
registration of apprenticeship programs and apprentices, and 
administration of the National Apprenticeship System. The companion EEO 
regulations, 29 CFR part 30, have not been amended since 1978. ETA 
proposes to update part 30 EEO in the Apprenticeship and Training 
regulations to ensure that they act in concert with the 2008 revised 
part 29 rule. The proposed EEO regulations also will further Secretary 
Solis' vision of good jobs for everyone by ensuring that apprenticeship 
program sponsors develop and fully implement nondiscrimination and 
affirmative action efforts that provide equal opportunity for all 
applicants to apprenticeship and apprentices, regardless of race, 
gender, national origin, color, religion, or disability.

DOL--OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS (OFCCP)

Proposed Rule Stage

86. Construction Contractors' Affirmative Action Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 201, 202, 205, 211, 301, 302, and 303 of E.O. 
11246, as amended; 30 FR 12319; 32 FR 14303, as amended by E.O. 12086
    CFR Citation: 41 CFR 60-1; 41 CFR 60-4.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The regulations implementing the affirmative action 
obligations of construction contractors under Executive Order 11246, as 
amended, were last revised in 1980. Recent data show that disparities 
in the representation of women and racial minorities continue to exist 
in on-site construction occupations in the construction industry. This 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would revise 41 CFR part 60-1 and 
60-4 by removing outdated regulatory provisions, proposing a new method 
for establishing affirmative action goals, and proposing other 
revisions to the affirmative action requirements that reflect the 
realities of the labor market and employment practices in the 
construction industry today.
    Statement of Need: These regulations, last revised in 1980, have 
proven ineffective at making meaningful progress in the employment of 
women and certain minorities in the construction industry. Analysis of 
2006 to 2008 ACS data for 27 on-site construction occupations reveals a 
significant disparity between the percentage of women in construction 
occupations in the construction industry and the percentage of women in 
construction occupations in all other industries. The representation of 
African Americans in the construction industry is substantially less 
than would be expected given their representation in all other 
industries. For example, in 23 of the 27 occupations analyzed, 
disparities were found in the representation of African Americans. The 
NPRM would remove outdated regulatory provisions, propose a new method 
for establishing affirmative action goals, and propose other revisions 
to the affirmative action requirements that reflect the realities of 
the labor market and employment practices in the construction industry 
today.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This action is not required by statute or 
court order. Legal Authority: Sections 201, 202, 205, 211, 301, 302, 
and 303 of E.O. 11246, as amended; 30 FR 12319; 32 FR 14303, as amended 
by E.O. 12086.
    Alternatives: Regulatory alternatives will be addressed as the NPRM 
is developed.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would adopt a new 
framework for implementing affirmative action requirements in the 
construction industry and proposes standards for designating projects 
``mega construction projects.'' There may be some additional costs to 
contractors as a result of the increased scope of required actions. The 
benefits would likely include increased diversity in construction 
workplaces and increased opportunities for women and minorities to 
obtain on-site construction jobs. Recent reports on the national 
unemployment rate show significantly higher unemployment in these 
populations than in others. The African American unemployment rate is 
at record high numbers. More detailed cost and benefit analyses will be 
made as the NPRM is developed. Data all show significant 
underrepresentation of these groups in the construction industry.
    Risks: Failure to provide updated regulations may impede the equal 
opportunity rights of some workers in protected classes.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.

[[Page 7788]]

    Agency Contact: Debra A. Carr, Director, Division of Policy, 
Planning, and Program Development, Department of Labor, Office of 
Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Room C3325, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-0103, TDD Phone: 202 
693-1337, Fax: 202 693-1304, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Previously reported as 1215-AB81.
    RIN: 1250-AA01

DOL--OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS (OLMS)

Final Rule Stage

87. Persuader Agreements: Employer and Labor Relations Consultant 
Reporting Under the LMRDA

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 433; 29 U.S.C. 438
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 405; 29 CFR 406.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department published a notice and comment rulemaking 
seeking consideration of a revised interpretation of section 203(c) of 
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). That 
statutory provision creates an ``advice'' exemption from reporting 
requirements that apply to employers and other persons in connection 
with persuading employees about the right to organize and bargain 
collectively. A revised interpretation would narrow the scope of the 
advice exemption.
    Statement of Need: The Department of Labor proposed a regulatory 
initiative to better implement the public disclosure objectives of the 
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) regarding 
employer-consultant agreements to persuade employees concerning their 
rights to organize and bargain collectively. Under LMRDA section 203, 
an employer must report any agreement or arrangement with a third party 
consultant to persuade employees as to their collective bargaining 
rights or to obtain certain information concerning the activities of 
employees or a labor organization in connection with a labor dispute 
involving the employer. The consultant also is required to report 
concerning such an agreement or arrangement with an employer. Statutory 
exceptions to these reporting requirements are set forth in LMRDA 
section 203(c), which provides, in part, that employers and consultants 
are not required to file a report by reason of the consultant's giving 
or agreeing to give ``advice'' to the employer. The Department's 
proposal stated that its current policy concerning the scope of the 
``advice exception'' is overbroad and that a narrower construction 
would better allow for the employer and consultant reporting intended 
by the LMRDA. The proposal stated that regulatory action is needed to 
provide workers with information critical to their effective 
participation in the workplace.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This proposed rulemaking is authorized 
under U.S.C. sections 433 and 438 and applies to regulations at 29 CFR 
part 405 and 29 CFR part 406.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed and considered in the 
course of notice and comment rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Anticipated costs and benefits of 
this proposed regulatory initiative have not been assessed and will be 
determined at a later date, as appropriate.
    Risks: This action does not affect public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/21/11  76 FR 36178
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/22/11  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/29/11  76 FR 45480
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/21/11  .......................
Final Action........................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.olms.dol.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Andrew R. Davis, Chief, Division of Interpretations 
and Standards, Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of 
Labor, Office of Labor-Management Standards, Room N-5609, FP Building, 
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1254, 
Fax: 202 693-1340, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Previously reported as 1215-AB79.
    RIN: 1245-AA03

DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)

Proposed Rule Stage

88. Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship Amendment of 
Regulations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 1, 50 Stat 664, as amended (29 U.S.C. 50; 40 
U.S.C. 276c; 5 U.S.C. 301); Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 
Stat. 1267 (5 U.S.C. app. p. 534)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 30 (Revision).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Revisions to the equal opportunity regulatory framework 
for the National Apprenticeship Act are a critical element in the 
Department's vision to promote and expand Registered Apprenticeship 
opportunities in the 21st century while continuing to safeguard the 
welfare and safety of apprentices. In October 2008, the Agency issued a 
Final Rule updating regulations for Apprenticeship Programs and Labor 
Standards for Registration. These regulations, codified at title 29 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 29, had not been updated since 
1977. The companion regulations, 29 CFR part 30, Equal Employment 
Opportunity (EEO) in Apprenticeship and Training, have not been amended 
since 1978.
    The Agency now proposes to update 29 CFR part 30 to ensure that the 
National Registered Apprenticeship System is consistent and in 
alignment with EEO law, as it has developed since 1978, and recent 
revisions to 29 CFR part 29. This second phase of regulatory updates 
will ensure that Registered Apprenticeship is positioned to continue to 
provide economic opportunity for millions of Americans while keeping 
pace with these new requirements.
    Statement of Need: Federal regulations for Equal Employment 
Opportunity (EEO) in Apprenticeship have not been updated since 1978. 
Updates to these regulations are necessary to ensure that DOL 
regulatory requirements governing the National Registered 
Apprenticeship System are consistent with the current state of EEO law 
and recent revisions to 29 CFR part 29.
    Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are authorized by the 
National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (29 U.S.C. 50) and the Copeland Act 
(40 U.S.C. 276c). These regulations will set forth policies and 
procedures to promote equality of opportunity in apprenticeship 
programs registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or in State 
Apprenticeship Agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor.
    Alternatives: The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide 
comments on the proposed amendment to Apprenticeship EEO regulations 
when the Department publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 
the Federal Register. A Final Rule will be issued after analysis and

[[Page 7789]]

incorporation of public comments to the NRPM.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes are thought to 
raise ``novel legal or policy issues'' but are not economically 
significant within the context of Executive Order 12866 and are not a 
``major rule'' under section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act.
    Risks: This action does not affect the public health, safety, or 
the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Agency Contact: John V. Ladd, Office of Apprenticeship, Department 
of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Room N5311, FP 
Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 
693-2796, Fax: 202 693-3799, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1205-AB59

DOL--ETA

Final Rule Stage

89. Labor Certification Process and Enforcement for Temporary 
Employment in Occupations Other Than Agriculture or Registered Nursing 
in the United States (H-2B Workers)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(B)); 8 U.S.C. 
1184(c)(1); 8 CFR 214.2(h)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 655.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) on March 18, 2011. The public comment period closed on May 17, 
2011. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations require 
employers to apply for a temporary labor certification from the 
Department of Labor before H-2B petitions may be approved. DOL 
certifies that there are not sufficient U.S. worker(s) who are capable 
of performing the temporary services or labor at the time of an 
application for a visa, and that the employment of the H-2B workers 
will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly 
employed U.S. workers. This NPRM proposed to re-engineer the H-2B 
program in order to enhance transparency and strengthen program 
integrity and protections of both U.S. workers and H-2B workers.
    Statement of Need: The Department has determined that a new 
rulemaking effort is necessary for the H-2B program. The policy 
underpinnings of the current regulation; e.g., streamlining the H-2B 
process to defer many determinations of program compliance until after 
an application has been adjudicated do not provide an adequate level of 
protection for either U.S. or foreign workers. The proposed rule seeks 
to enhance worker protections and increase the availability of job 
opportunities to qualified U.S. workers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department of Labor's authority to 
revise these regulations derives from 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(B), 8 
U.S.C. 1184(c)(1), and 8 CFR 214.2(h).
    Alternatives: The public was afforded an opportunity to provide 
comments on the proposed regulatory changes when the Department 
published the NPRM in the Federal Register. A final rule will be issued 
after analysis of, and response to, public comments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates of the 
anticipated costs of this regulatory action have been provided in the 
NPRM. The Department of Labor sought information on potential 
additional or actual costs from employers and other interested parties 
through the NPRM in order to better assess the costs and benefits of 
the proposed provisions of the program. The proposed changes are 
thought to raise ``novel legal or policy issues'' but are not 
economically significant within the context of Executive Order 12866 
and are not a ``major rule'' under section 804 for the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
    Risks: This action does not affect the public health, safety, or 
the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/18/11  76 FR 15130
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/17/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Agency Contact: William L. Carlson, Ph.D., Administrator, Office of 
Foreign Labor Certification, Department of Labor, Employment and 
Training Administration, Room C-4312, FP Building, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-3010, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1205-AB58

DOL--EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (EBSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

90. Definition of ``Fiduciary''

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1002; ERISA sec 3(21); 29 U.S.C. 1135; 
ERISA sec 505
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the regulatory definition of 
the term ``fiduciary'' set forth at 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) to more broadly 
define as employee benefit plan fiduciaries persons who render 
investment advice to plans for a fee within the meaning of section 
3(21) of ERISA. The amendment would take into account current practices 
of investment advisers and the expectations of plan officials and 
participants who receive investment advice.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking is needed to bring the 
definition of ``fiduciary'' into line with investment advice practices 
and to recast the current regulation to better reflect relationships 
between investment advisers and their employee benefit plan clients. 
The current regulation may inappropriately limit the types of 
investment advice relationships that should give rise to fiduciary 
duties on the part of the investment adviser.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 505 of ERISA provides that the 
Secretary may prescribe such regulations as she finds necessary and 
appropriate to carry out the provisions of title I of the Act. 
Regulation 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) defines the term fiduciary for certain 
purposes under section 3(21) of ERISA.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be considered following a 
determination of the scope and nature of the regulatory guidance needed 
by the public.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates of the 
anticipated costs and benefits will be developed, as appropriate, 
following a determination regarding the alternatives to be considered.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/22/10  75 FR 65263
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/20/11  .......................

[[Page 7790]]

 
Second NPRM.........................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Jeffrey J. Turner, Chief, Division of Regulations, 
Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Department of Labor, 
Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Room N-5655, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-8500.
    RIN: 1210-AB32

DOL--MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

Proposed Rule Stage

91. Respirable Crystalline Silica

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 58.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Current standards limit exposures to quartz (crystalline 
silica) in respirable dust. The metal and nonmetal mining industry 
standard is based on the 1973 American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values formula: 10 mg/
m\3\ divided by the percentage of quartz plus 2. Overexposure to 
crystalline silica can result in some miners developing silicosis, an 
irreversible but preventable lung disease, which ultimately may be 
fatal. The formula is designed to limit exposures to 0.1 mg/m\3\ (100 
[mu]g) of silica. NIOSH recommends a 50 [mu]g/m\3\ exposure limit for 
respirable crystalline silica. MSHA will publish a proposed rule to 
address miners' exposure to respirable crystalline silica.
    Statement of Need: MSHA standards are outdated; current regulations 
may not protect workers from developing silicosis. Evidence indicates 
that miners continue to develop silicosis. MSHA's proposed regulatory 
action exemplifies the Agency's commitment to protecting the most 
vulnerable populations while assuring broad-based compliance. MSHA will 
regulate based on sound science to eliminate or reduce the hazards with 
the broadest and most serious consequences. MSHA intends to use OSHA's 
work on the health effects and risk assessment, adapting it as 
necessary for the mining industry.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Promulgation of this standard is authorized 
by section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
    Alternatives: This rulemaking would improve health protection from 
that afforded by the existing standards. MSHA will consider alternative 
methods of addressing miners' exposures based on the capabilities of 
the sampling and analytical methods.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA will prepare estimates of the 
anticipated costs and benefits associated with the proposed rule.
    Risks: For over 70 years, toxicology information and 
epidemiological studies have shown that exposure to respirable 
crystalline silica presents potential health risks to miners. These 
potential adverse health effects include simple silicosis and 
progressive massive fibrosis (lung scarring). Evidence indicates that 
exposure to silica may cause cancer. MSHA believes that the health 
evidence forms a reasonable basis for reducing miners' exposures to 
respirable crystalline silica.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety 
and Health Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, 
VA 22209-3939, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1219-AB36

DOL--MSHA

92. Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 815; 30 U.S.C. 820; 30 U.S.C. 957
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 100.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: MSHA will develop a proposed rule to revise the process 
for proposing civil penalties. The assessment of civil penalties is a 
key component in MSHA's strategy to enforce safety and health 
standards. The Congress intended that the imposition of civil penalties 
would induce mine operators to be proactive in their approach to mine 
safety and health, and take necessary action to prevent safety and 
health hazards before they occur. MSHA believes that the procedures for 
assessing civil penalties can be revised to improve the efficiency of 
the Agency's efforts and to facilitate the resolution of enforcement 
issues.
    Statement of Need: Section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) requires MSHA to assess a civil penalty 
for a violation of a mandatory health or safety standard or violation 
of any provision of the Mine Act. The mine operator has 30 days from 
receipt of the proposed assessment to contest it before the Federal 
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission), an independent 
adjudicatory agency established under the Mine Act. A proposed 
assessment that is not contested within 30 days becomes a final order 
of the Commission. A proposed assessment that is contested within 30 
days proceeds to the Commission for adjudication. The proposed rule 
would promote consistency, objectivity, and efficiency in the proposed 
assessment of civil penalties.
    When issuing citations or orders, inspectors are required to 
evaluate safety and health conditions and make decisions about the 
statutory criteria related to assessing penalties. The proposed changes 
in the measures of the evaluation criteria would result in fewer areas 
of disagreement and earlier resolution of enforcement issues. The 
proposal would require conforming changes to the Mine Citation/Order 
form (MSHA Form 7000-3).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 104 of the Mine Act requires MSHA 
to issue citations or orders to mine operators for any violations of a 
mandatory health or safety standard, rule, order, or regulation 
promulgated under the Mine Act. Sections 105 and 110 of the Mine Act 
provide for assessment of these penalties.
    Alternatives: The proposal would include several alternatives in 
the preamble and requests comments on them.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA will prepare estimates of the 
anticipated costs and benefits in a preliminary regulatory economic 
analysis to accompany the proposed rule.
    Risks: MSHA's existing procedures for assessing civil penalties can 
be revised to improve the efficiency of the Agency's efforts and to 
facilitate the resolution of enforcement issues. In the overwhelming 
majority of contested cases before the Commission, the issue is not 
whether a violation occurred.

[[Page 7791]]

Rather, the parties disagree on the gravity of the violation, the 
degree of mine operator negligence, and other criterion. The proposed 
changes should result in fewer areas of disagreement and earlier 
resolution of enforcement issues, which should result in fewer contests 
of violations or proposed assessments.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety 
and Health Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, 
VA 22209-3939, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1219-AB72

DOL--MSHA

93.  Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in 
Underground Mines

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: MSHA will develop a proposed rule to address the hazards 
that miners face when working near mobile equipment in underground 
mines. MSHA has concluded, from investigations or accidents involving 
mobile equipment and other reports, that action is needed to protect 
miner safety. Mobile equipment can pin, crush, or strike a miner 
working near the equipment. Proximity detection technology can prevent 
these types of accidents. The proposed rule would strengthen the 
protection for underground miners by reducing the potential of pinning, 
crushing, or striking hazards associated with working close to mobile 
equipment. As part of the Secretary's strategy for securing safe and 
healthy workplaces, the OSHA will also undertake regulatory action 
related to reducing injuries and fatalities to workers in close 
proximity to moving equipment and vehicles.
    Statement of Need: Mining is one of the most hazardous industries 
in this country. Miners continue to be injured or killed resulting from 
pinning, crushing, or striking accidents involving mobile equipment. 
Equipment is available to help prevent accidents that cause 
debilitating injuries and accidental death.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Promulgation of this standard is authorized 
by section 101(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as 
amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006.
    Alternatives: No reasonable alternatives to this regulation would 
be as comprehensive or as effective in eliminating hazards and 
preventing injuries.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA will develop a preliminary 
regulatory economic analysis to accompany the proposed rule.
    Risks: The lack of proximity detection systems on mobile equipment 
in underground mines contributes to a higher incidence of debilitating 
injuries and accidental deaths.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information.............   02/01/10  75 FR 5009
RFI Comment Period Ended............   04/02/10  .......................
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety 
and Health Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, 
VA 22209-3939, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1219-AB65.
    RIN: 1219-AB78

DOL--MSHA

Final Rule Stage

94. Lowering Miners' Exposure to Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous 
Personal Dust Monitors

    Priority: Other Significant
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811; 30 U.S.C. 813(h)
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71; 30 CFR 72; 30 CFR 75; 30 CFR 90
    Legal Deadline: None
    Abstract: The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 
established the first comprehensive respirable dust standards for coal 
mines. These standards were designed to reduce the incidence of coal 
workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP or black lung) and silicosis and 
eventually eliminate these diseases. While significant progress has 
been made toward improving the health conditions in our Nation's coal 
mines, miners continue to be at risk of developing occupational lung 
disease, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health (NIOSH). In September 1995, NIOSH issued a Criteria Document 
in which it recommended that the respirable coal mine dust permissible 
exposure limit (PEL) be cut in half. In February 1996, the Secretary of 
Labor convened a Federal Advisory Committee on the Elimination of 
Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Miners (Advisory Committee) to assess the 
adequacy of MSHA's current program and standards to control respirable 
dust in underground and surface coal mines, as well as other ways to 
eliminate black lung and silicosis among coal miners. The Committee 
represented the labor, industry and academic communities. The Committee 
submitted its report to the Secretary of Labor in November 1996, with 
the majority of the recommendations unanimously supported by the 
Committee members. The Committee recommended a number of actions to 
reduce miners' exposure to respirable coal mine dust. This final rule 
is an important element in MSHA's Comprehensive Black Lung Reduction 
Strategy (Strategy) to ``End Black Lung Now.''
    Statement of Need: Comprehensive respirable dust standards for coal 
mines were designed to reduce the incidence, and eventually eliminate, 
CWP and silicosis. While significant progress has been made toward 
improving the health conditions in our Nation's coal mines, miners 
remain at risk of developing occupational lung disease, according to 
NIOSH. Recent NIOSH data indicates increased prevalence of CWP 
``clusters'' in several geographical areas, particularly in the 
Southern Appalachian Region.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Promulgation of this regulation is 
authorized by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended 
by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006.

[[Page 7792]]

    Alternatives: MSHA is considering amendments, revisions, and 
additions to existing standards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA will develop a regulatory 
economic analysis to accompany the final rule.
    Risks: Respirable coal dust is one of the most serious occupational 
hazards in the mining industry. Occupational exposure to excessive 
levels of respirable coal mine dust can cause coal workers' 
pneumoconiosis and silicosis, which are potentially disabling and can 
cause death. MSHA is pursuing both regulatory and nonregulatory actions 
to eliminate these diseases through the control of coal mine respirable 
dust levels in mines and reduction of miners' exposure. MSHA developed 
a risk assessment to accompany the proposed rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/19/10  75 FR 64412
Notice of Public Hearings;             11/15/10  75 FR 69617
 Corrections.
NPRM--Rescheduling of Public           11/30/10  75 FR 73995
 Hearings; Correction.
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/28/10  .......................
Public Hearing......................   12/07/10  .......................
Public Hearing......................   01/11/11  .......................
Public Hearing......................   01/13/11  .......................
Public Hearing......................   01/25/11  .......................
Public Hearing......................   02/08/11  .......................
Public Hearing......................   02/10/11  .......................
Public Hearing......................   02/15/11  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   01/14/11  76 FR 2617
Request for Comment.................   03/08/11  76 FR 12648
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/02/11  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/04/11  76 FR 25277
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/31/11  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/27/11  76 FR 30878
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/20/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.msha.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety 
and Health Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, 
VA 22209-3939, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1219-AB64

DOL--MSHA

95. Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in 
Underground Coal Mines

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 75.1732.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will 
develop a final rule to address hazards that miners face when working 
near continuous mining machines in underground coal mines. MSHA has 
concluded, from investigations of accidents involving continuous mining 
machines and other reports, that action is necessary to protect miners. 
Continuous mining machines can pin, crush, or strike a miner working 
near the equipment. Proximity detection technology can prevent these 
types of accidents. The final rule would strengthen the protection for 
underground coal miners by reducing the potential of pinning, crushing, 
or striking hazards associated with working close to continuous mining 
machines. As a part of the Secretary's strategy for securing safe and 
healthy workplaces, the OSHA will also undertake regulatory action 
related to reducing injuries and fatalities to workers in close 
proximity to moving equipment and vehicles.
    Statement of Need: Mining is one of the most hazardous industries 
in this country. Miners continue to be injured or killed resulting from 
pinning, crushing, or striking accidents involving mobile equipment. 
Equipment is available to help prevent accidents that cause 
debilitating injuries and accidental death.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Promulgation of this standard is authorized 
by section 101(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as 
amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006.
    Alternatives: No reasonable alternatives to this regulation would 
be as comprehensive or as effective in eliminating hazards and 
preventing injuries.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA will develop a regulatory 
economic analysis to accompany the final rule.
    Risks: The lack of proximity detection systems on continuous mining 
machines in underground coal mines contributes to a higher incidence of 
debilitating injuries and accidental deaths.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   02/01/10  75 FR 5009
RFI Comment Period Ended............   04/02/10  .......................
NPRM................................   08/31/11  76 FR 54163
Notice of Public Hearing............   10/12/11  76 FR 63238
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/14/11  .......................
Final Action........................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/reginfo.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety 
and Health Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, 
VA 22209-3939, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1219-AB65

DOL--MSHA

96. Pattern of Violations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 814(e); 30 U.S.C. 957
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 104.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: MSHA is preparing a final rule to revise the Agency's 
existing regulation for pattern of violations contained in 30 CFR part 
104. MSHA has determined that the existing pattern criteria and 
procedures do not reflect the statutory intent for section 104(e) of 
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) that 
operators manage health and safety conditions at mines so that the root 
causes of significant and substantial (S&S) violations are addressed 
before they become a hazard to the health and safety of miners. The 
legislative history of the Mine Act explains that Congress intended the 
pattern of violations tool to be used for operators who have 
demonstrated a disregard for the health and safety of miners. The final 
rule would reflect statutory intent, simplify the pattern of violations 
criteria, and improve consistency in applying the patterns of 
violations criteria.

[[Page 7793]]

    Statement of Need: The pattern of violations provision was a new 
enforcement tool in the Mine Act. The Mine Act places the ultimate 
responsibility for ensuring the safety and health of miners on mine 
operators. The goal of the pattern of violations proposed rule is to 
compel operators to manage health and safety conditions so that the 
root causes of S&S violations are found and fixed before they become a 
hazard to miners. MSHA's existing regulation is not consistent with the 
language, purpose, and legislative history of the Mine Act and hinders 
the Agency's use of pattern of violations to identify chronic violators 
who thumb their noses at the law by a continuing cycle of citation and 
abatement.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Promulgation of this standard is authorized 
by sections 104(e) and 508 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 
1977.
    Alternatives: MSHA will consider alternative criteria for 
determining when a pattern of significant and substantial violations 
exists in order to improve health and safety conditions in mines and 
provide protection for miners. Congress provided the Secretary with 
broad discretion in determining criteria, recognizing that MSHA may 
need to modify the criteria as Agency experience dictates.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA will develop a regulatory 
economic analysis to accompany the final rule.
    Risks: Mine operators with a chronic history of persistent serious 
violations needlessly expose miners to the same hazards again and 
again. These operators demonstrate a disregard for the safety and 
health of miners; this indicates a serious safety and health management 
problem at the mine. The existing regulation has not been effective in 
reducing repeated risks to miners at these mines.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/02/11  76 FR 5719
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/04/11  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   04/04/11  76 FR 18467
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/18/11  .......................
Notice of Public Hearing and           05/04/11  76 FR 25277
 Extension of Comment Period.
Notice of Public Hearing and           06/20/11  76 FR 35801
 Extension of Comment Period.
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/30/11  .......................
Comment Period End..................   08/01/11  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety 
and Health Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, 
VA 22209-3939, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1219-AB73

DOL--MSHA

97. Examination of Work Areas in Underground Coal Mines for Violations 
of Mandatory Health or Safety Standards

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811; 30 U.S.C. 961
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 75.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In the ever changing mine environment, it is critical 
that hazardous conditions be recognized and abated quickly. 
Additionally, other conditions that could develop into a hazard if left 
uncorrected must also be eliminated. Operator examinations for hazards 
and violations of mandatory health or safety standards are mandated in 
the Mine Act and are a critical component of an effective safety and 
health program for underground mines. While this requirement was 
previously included in regulations, the 1992 final rule addressing 
ventilation in underground coal mines only included the requirement 
that the mine examiners look for hazardous conditions. The 1992 rule 
omitted from the standard the text taken from the Mine Act requiring 
examinations for violations of mandatory health or safety standards 
during preshift examinations. The final rule will revise existing 
standards for preshift, supplemental, on-shift, and weekly examinations 
to address violations of mandatory health or safety standards.
    Statement of Need: Underground coal mines usually present harsh and 
hostile working environments, and the ventilation system is the most 
vital life support system in underground mining. A properly operating 
ventilation system is essential for maintaining a safe and healthful 
working environment. Examinations of work areas that include the 
ventilation system are the first line of defense for miners working in 
underground coal mines and are necessary to protect miners. Conditions 
in underground coal mines change rapidly--roof that appears adequately 
supported can quickly deteriorate and fall; stoppings can crush out and 
short-circuit air currents; conveyor belts can become misaligned or 
belt roller bearings can fail, resulting in an ignition source; and 
methane can accumulate in areas where it may not have been detected.
    Diligent compliance with safety and health standards and safety-
conscious work practices provide a substantial measure of protection 
against mine accidents and emergencies. To assure optimum safety of 
miners, it is imperative that operators find violations of health or 
safety standards, correct them, and record corrective actions taken.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Promulgation of this regulation is 
authorized by sections 101 and 303 (d)(1) and (f) of the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977.
    Alternatives: The proposal included several alternatives in the 
preamble and requested comments on them.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA estimated that the proposed 
rule would cost $15.3 million yearly and result in net benefits of $6.0 
million yearly.
    Risks: Failure to conduct adequate examinations to identify, 
report, and correct hazardous conditions and violations of health and 
safety standards has resulted in serious accidents and fatalities. Lack 
of adequate ventilation in underground mines has resulted in fatalities 
from asphyxiation and explosions.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/27/10  75 FR 81165
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/25/11  .......................
NPRM Extension of Comment Period....   03/01/11  76 FR 11187
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/28/11  .......................
Notice of Public Hearing and           05/04/11  76 FR 25277
 Extension of Comment Period.
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/30/11  .......................

[[Page 7794]]

 
Notice of Public Hearing and           06/20/11  76 FR 35801
 Extension of Comment Period.
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/01/11  .......................
Final Action........................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm.
    Agency Contact: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety 
and Health Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, 
VA 22209-3939, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1219-AB71.
    RIN: 1219-AB75

DOL--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

Prerule Stage

98. Infectious Diseases

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 533; 29 U.S.C. 657 and 658; 29 U.S.C. 
660; 29 U.S.C. 666; 29 U.S.C. 669; 29 U.S.C. 673
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Employees in health care and other high-risk environments 
face long-standing infectious diseases hazards such as tuberculosis 
(TB), varicella disease (chickenpox, shingles), and measles (rubeola), 
as well as new and emerging infectious disease threats, such as Severe 
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and pandemic influenza. Health care 
workers and workers in related occupations, or who are exposed in other 
high-risk environments, are at increased risk of contracting TB, SARS, 
MRSA, and other infectious diseases that can be transmitted through a 
variety of exposure routes. OSHA is concerned about the ability of 
employees to continue to provide health care and other critical 
services without unreasonably jeopardizing their health.
    OSHA is considering the need for a standard to ensure that 
employers establish a comprehensive infection control program and 
control measures to protect employees from infectious disease exposures 
to pathogens that can cause significant disease. Workplaces where such 
control measures might be necessary include: Health care, emergency 
response, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, drug treatment 
programs, and other occupational settings where employees can be at 
increased risk of exposure to potentially infectious people. A standard 
could also apply to laboratories, which handle materials that may be a 
source of pathogens, and to pathologists, coroners' offices, medical 
examiners, and mortuaries.
    OSHA published an RFI on May 6, 2010, the comment period closed on 
August 4, 2010.
    Statement of Need: In 2007, the healthcare and social assistance 
sector as a whole had 16.5 million employees. Healthcare workplaces can 
range from small private practices of physicians to hospitals that 
employ thousands of workers. In addition, healthcare is increasingly 
being provided in other settings such as nursing homes, free-standing 
surgical and outpatient centers, emergency care clinics, patients' 
homes, and prehospitalization emergency care settings. The Agency is 
particularly concerned by studies that indicate that transmission of 
infectious diseases to both patients and healthcare workers may be 
occurring as a result of incomplete adherence to recognized, but 
voluntary, infection control measures. Another concern is the movement 
of healthcare delivery from the traditional hospital setting, with its 
greater infrastructure and resources to effectively implement infection 
control measures, into more diverse and smaller workplace setting with 
less infrastructure and fewer resources, but with an expanding worker 
population.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational 
safety and health standards to assure safe and healthful working 
conditions for working men and women (29 U.S.C. 651).
    Alternatives: The alternative to the proposed rulemaking would be 
to take no regulatory action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimates of the costs and 
benefits are still under development.
    Risks: Analysis of risks is still under development.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   05/06/10  75 FR 24835
RFI Comment Period End..............   08/04/10  .......................
Analyze Comments....................   12/30/10  .......................
Stakeholder Meetings................   07/29/11  .......................
Initiate SBREFA.....................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of 
Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, Room N-3641, FP Building, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2400, Fax: 202 693-
1641, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AC46

DOL--OSHA

99. Injury and Illness Prevention Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653; 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: OSHA is developing a rule requiring employers to 
implement an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. It involves 
planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and 
activities that protect employee safety and health. OSHA has 
substantial data on reductions in injuries and illnesses from employers 
who have implemented similar effective processes. The Agency currently 
has voluntary Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines (54 FR 
3904 to 3916), published in 1989. An injury and illness prevention rule 
would build on these guidelines as well as lessons learned from 
successful approaches and best practices under OSHA's Voluntary 
Protection Program Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program 
and similar industry and international initiatives such as American 
National Standards Institute/American Industrial Hygiene Association 
Z10 and Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series 18001.
    Statement of Need: There are approximately 5,000 workplace 
fatalities and approximately 3.5 million serious workplace injuries 
every year. There are also many workplace illnesses caused by exposure 
to common

[[Page 7795]]

chemical, physical, and biological agents. OSHA believes that an injury 
and illness prevention program is a universal intervention that can be 
used in a wide spectrum of workplaces to dramatically reduce the number 
and severity of workplace injuries. Such programs have been shown to be 
effective in many workplaces in the United States and internationally.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational 
safety and health standards to assure safe and healthful working 
conditions for working men and women (29 U.S.C. 651).
    Alternatives: The alternatives to this rulemaking would be to issue 
guidance, recognition programs, or allow for the States to develop 
individual regulations. OSHA has used voluntary approaches to address 
the need, including publishing Safety and Health Program Management 
Guidelines in 1989. In addition, OSHA has two recognition programs, the 
Voluntary Protection Program (known as VPP), and the Safety and Health 
Achievement Recognition Program (known as SHARP). These programs 
recognize workplaces with effective safety and health programs. Several 
States have issued regulations that require employers to establish 
effective safety and health programs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rulemaking 
and the costs and benefits are still under development for this 
regulatory action.
    Risks: A detailed risk analysis is underway.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Meetings................   06/03/10  .......................
Initiate SBREFA.....................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of 
Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, Room N-3641, FP Building, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2400, Fax: 202 693-
1641, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AC48

DOL--OSHA

Proposed Rule Stage

100. Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal 
governments.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 
29 CFR 1926.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Crystalline silica is a significant component of the 
earth's crust, and many workers in a wide range of industries are 
exposed to it, usually in the form of respirable quartz or, less 
frequently, cristobalite. Chronic silicosis is a uniquely occupational 
disease resulting from exposure of employees over long periods of time 
(10 years or more). Exposure to high levels of respirable crystalline 
silica causes acute or accelerated forms of silicosis that are 
ultimately fatal. The current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for 
general industry is based on a formula proposed by the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1968 (PEL = 
10mg/cubic meter/(% silica + 2), as respirable dust). The current PEL 
for construction and shipyards (derived from ACGIH's 1970 Threshold 
Limit Value) is based on particle counting technology, which is 
considered obsolete. NIOSH and ACGIH recommend 50[micro]g/m3 and 
25[micro]g/m3 exposure limits, respectively, for respirable crystalline 
silica.
    Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a 
comprehensive standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for 
exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. ASTM 
International has published recommended standards for addressing the 
hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction Trades 
Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended 
comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for 
methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical 
surveillance.
    Statement of Need: Workers are exposed to crystalline silica dust 
in general industry, construction, and maritime industries. Industries 
that could be particularly affected by a standard for crystalline 
silica include: Foundries, industries that have abrasive blasting 
operations, paint manufacture, glass and concrete product manufacture, 
brick making, china and pottery manufacture, manufacture of plumbing 
fixtures, and many construction activities including highway repair, 
masonry, concrete work, rock drilling, and tuckpointing. The 
seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is 
demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to 
occur. In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, 
silicosis was identified on 161 death certificates as an underlying or 
contributing cause of death. It is likely that many more cases have 
occurred where silicosis went undetected. In addition, the 
International Agency for Research on Cancer has designated crystalline 
silica as carcinogenic to humans, and the National Toxicology Program 
has concluded that respirable crystalline silica is a known human 
carcinogen. Exposure to crystalline silica has also been associated 
with an increased risk of developing tuberculosis and other 
nonmalignant respiratory diseases, as well as renal and autoimmune 
diseases. Exposure studies and OSHA enforcement data indicate that some 
workers continue to be exposed to levels of crystalline silica far in 
excess of current exposure limits. Congress has included compensation 
of silicosis victims on Federal nuclear testing sites in the Energy 
Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. There 
is a particular need for the Agency to modernize its exposure limits 
for construction and shipyard workers, and to address some specific 
issues that will need to be resolved to propose a comprehensive 
standard.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a 
preliminary determination that workers are exposed to a significant 
risk of silicosis and other serious disease and that rulemaking is 
needed to substantially reduce the risk. In addition, the proposed rule 
will recognize that the PELs for construction and maritime are outdated 
and need to be revised to reflect current sampling and analytical 
technologies.
    Alternatives: Over the past several years, the Agency has attempted 
to address this problem through a variety of non-regulatory approaches, 
including initiation of a Special Emphasis Program on silica in October 
1997, sponsorship with NIOSH and MSHA of the National Conference to 
Eliminate Silicosis, and dissemination of guidance information on its 
Web site.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rulemaking 
and estimates of the costs and benefits are still under development.

[[Page 7796]]

    Risks: A detailed risk analysis is under way.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed SBREFA Report.............   12/19/03  .......................
Initiated Peer Review of Health        05/22/09  .......................
 Effects and Risk Assessment.
Completed Peer Review...............   01/24/10  .......................
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of 
Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, Room N-3641, FP Building, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2400, Fax: 202 693-
1641, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AB70

DOL--OSHA

101. Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: OSHA is proposing changes to its reporting system for 
occupational injuries and illnesses. An updated and modernized 
reporting system would enable a more efficient and timely collection of 
data and would improve the accuracy and availability of the relevant 
records and statistics. This proposal involves modification to 29 CFR 
part 1904.41 to expand OSHA's legal authority to collect and make 
available injury and illness information required under part 1904.
    Statement of Need: The collection of establishment specific injury 
and illness data in electronic format on a timely basis is needed to 
help OSHA, employers, employees, researchers, and the public more 
effectively prevent workplace injuries and illnesses, as well as 
support President Obama's Open Government Initiative to increase the 
ability of the public to easily find, download, and use the resulting 
dataset generated and held by the Federal Government.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to develop and maintain an 
effective program of collection, compilation, and analysis of 
occupational safety and health statistics (29 U.S.C. 673).
    Alternatives: The alternative to the proposed rulemaking would be 
to take no regulatory action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimates of the costs and 
benefits are still under development.
    Risks: Analysis of risks is still under development.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Meetings................   05/25/10  75 FR 24505
Comment Period End..................   06/18/10  .......................
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of 
Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, Room N-3641, FP Building, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2400, Fax: 202 693-
1641, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AC49

DOL--OSHA

Final Rule Stage

102. Hazard Communication

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1200; 29 CFR 1915.1200; 29 CFR 1917.28; 
29 CFR 1918.90; 29 CFR 1926.59; 29 CFR 1928.21.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires 
chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate the hazards of the 
chemicals they produce or import, and prepare labels and material 
safety data sheets to convey the hazards and associated protective 
measures to users of the chemicals. All employers with hazardous 
chemicals in their workplaces are required to have a hazard 
communication program, including labels on containers, material safety 
data sheets (MSDS), and training for employees. Within the United 
States (U.S.), there are other Federal agencies that also have 
requirements for classification and labeling of chemicals at different 
stages of the life cycle. Internationally, there are a number of 
countries that have developed similar laws that require information 
about chemicals to be prepared and transmitted to affected parties. 
These laws vary with regard to the scope of substances covered, 
definitions of hazards, the specificity of requirements (e.g., 
specification of a format for MSDSs), and the use of symbols and 
pictograms. The inconsistencies between the various laws are 
substantial enough that different labels and safety data sheets must 
often be used for the same product when it is marketed in different 
nations.
    The diverse and sometimes conflicting national and international 
requirements can create confusion among those who seek to use hazard 
information. Labels and safety data sheets may include symbols and 
hazard statements that are unfamiliar to readers or not well 
understood. Containers may be labeled with such a large volume of 
information that important statements are not easily recognized. 
Development of multiple sets of labels and safety data sheets is a 
major compliance burden for chemical manufacturers, distributors, and 
transporters involved in international trade. Small businesses may have 
particular difficulty in coping with the complexities and costs 
involved.
    As a result of this situation, and in recognition of the extensive 
international trade in chemicals, there has been a long-standing effort 
to harmonize these requirements and develop a system that can be used 
around the world. In 2003, the United Nations adopted the Globally 
Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). 
Countries are now adopting the GHS into their national regulatory 
systems. OSHA published the NPRM on September 30, 2009, and held public 
hearings in Washington, DC, and Pittsburgh, PA, in March 2010. The 
record closed on June 1, 2010.
    Statement of Need: Multiple sets of requirements for labels and 
safety data sheets present a compliance burden for U.S. manufacturers, 
distributors, and transports involved in international trade. The 
comprehensibility of hazard information and worker safety will be

[[Page 7797]]

enhanced as the GHS will: (1) Provide consistent information and 
definitions for hazardous chemicals; (2) address stakeholder concerns 
regarding the need for a standardized format for material safety data 
sheets; and (3) increase understanding by using standardized pictograms 
and harmonized hazard statements. The increase in comprehensibility and 
consistency will reduce confusion and thus improve worker safety and 
health. In addition, the adoption of the GHS would facilitate 
international trade in chemicals, reduce the burdens caused by having 
to comply with differing requirements for the same product, and allow 
companies that have not had the resources to deal with those burdens to 
be involved in international trade. This is particularly important for 
small producers who may be precluded currently from international trade 
because of the compliance resources required to address the extensive 
regulatory requirements for classification and labeling of chemicals. 
Thus, every producer is likely to experience some benefits from 
domestic harmonization, in addition to the benefits that will accrue to 
producers involved in international trade. Several nations, including 
the European Union, have adopted the GHS with an implementation 
schedule through 2015. U.S. manufacturers, employers, and employees 
will be at a disadvantage in the event that our system of hazard 
communication is not in compliance with the GHS.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational 
safety and health standards to assure safe and healthful working 
conditions for working men and women (29 U.S.C. 651).
    Alternatives: The alternative to the proposed rulemaking would be 
to take no regulatory action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimates of the costs and 
benefits are still under development.
    Risks: OSHA's risk analysis is under development.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/12/06  71 FR 53617
ANPRM Comment Period End............   11/13/06  .......................
Complete Peer Review of Economic       11/19/07  .......................
 Analysis.
NPRM................................   09/30/09  74 FR 50279
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/29/09  .......................
Hearing.............................   03/02/10  .......................
Hearing.............................   03/31/10  .......................
Post Hearing Comment Period End.....   06/01/10  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of 
Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, Room N-3641, FP Building, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2400, Fax: 202 693-
1641, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AC20

BILLING CODE 4510-04-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Introduction: Department Overview and Summary of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of 10 operating 
administrations and the Office of the Secretary, each of which has 
statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. DOT regulates 
safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor vehicle, 
commercial space, and pipeline transportation areas. DOT also regulates 
aviation consumer and economic issues and provides financial assistance 
for programs involving highways, airports, public transportation, the 
maritime industry, railroads, and motor vehicle safety. The Department 
writes regulations to carry out a variety of statutes ranging from the 
Americans With Disabilities Act to the Uniform Time Act. Finally, DOT 
develops and implements a wide range of regulations that govern 
internal programs such as acquisitions and grants, access for the 
disabled, environmental protection, energy conservation, information 
technology, occupational safety and health, property asset management, 
seismic safety, and the use of aircraft and vehicles.

The Department's Regulatory Priorities

    The Department's regulatory priorities respond to the challenges 
and opportunities we face. Our mission generally is as follows:
    The national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and 
stability, and the security of the United States require the 
development of transportation policies and programs that contribute to 
providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the 
lowest cost consistent with those and other national objectives, 
including the efficient use and conservation of the resources of the 
United States.
    To help us achieve our mission, we have five strategic goals:
     Safety: Improve public health and safety by reducing 
transportation-related fatalities and injuries.
     State of Good Repair: Ensure the U.S. proactively 
maintains its critical transportation infrastructure in a state of good 
repair.
     Economic Competitiveness: Promote transportation policies 
and investments that bring lasting and equitable economic benefits to 
the Nation and its citizens.
     Livable Communities: Foster livable communities through 
place-based policies and investments that increase transportation 
choices and access to transportation services.
     Environmental Sustainability: Advance environmentally 
sustainable policies and investments that reduce carbon and other 
harmful emissions from transportation sources.
    In identifying our regulatory priorities for the next year, the 
Department considered its mission and goals and focused on a number of 
factors, including the following:
     The relative risk being addressed
     Requirements imposed by statute or other law
     Actions on the National Transportation Safety Board ``Most 
Wanted List''
     The costs and benefits of the regulations
     The advantages of nonregulatory alternatives
     Opportunities for deregulatory action
     The enforceability of any rule, including the effect on 
agency resources
    This regulatory plan identifies the Department's regulatory 
priorities--the 16 pending rulemakings chosen from among the dozens of 
significant rulemakings listed in the Department's broader regulatory 
agenda that the Department believes will merit special attention in the 
upcoming year. The rules included in the regulatory plan embody the 
Department's focus on our strategic goals.
    The regulatory plan reflects the Department's primary focus on 
safety--a focus that extends across several modes of transportation. 
For example:
     The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will continue 
its

[[Page 7798]]

efforts to implement safety management systems.
     The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
continues its work to strengthen the requirements for Electronic On-
Board Recorders.
     The FMCSA will continue its work to revise motor carrier 
safety fitness procedures.
     The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
will continue its rulemaking to reduce death and injury resulting from 
incidents involving motorcoaches.
    We are taking actions to address other important issues. For 
example:
     The NHTSA is engaged in a major rulemaking to address fuel 
economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
     The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) 
remains focused on aviation consumer rulemaking designed to further 
safeguard the interests of consumers flying the Nation's skies.
    Each of the rulemakings in the regulatory plan is described below 
in detail. In order to place them in context, we first review the 
Department's regulatory philosophy and our initiatives to educate and 
inform the public about transportation safety issues. We then describe 
the role of the Department's regulatory process and other important 
regulatory initiatives of OST and of each of the Department's 
components. Since each transportation ``mode'' within the Department 
has its own area of focus, we summarize the regulatory priorities of 
each mode and of OST, which supervises and coordinates modal 
initiatives and has its own regulatory responsibilities, such as 
consumer protection in the aviation industry.
     The Department's Regulatory Philosophy and Initiatives
    The Department has adopted a regulatory philosophy that applies to 
all its rulemaking activities. This philosophy is articulated as 
follows: DOT regulations must be clear, simple, timely, fair, 
reasonable, and necessary. They will be issued only after an 
appropriate opportunity for public comment, which must provide an equal 
chance for all affected interests to participate, and after appropriate 
consultation with other governmental entities. The Department will 
fully consider the comments received. It will assess the risks 
addressed by the rules and their costs and benefits, including the 
cumulative effects. The Department will consider appropriate 
alternatives, including nonregulatory approaches. It will also make 
every effort to ensure that regulation does not impose unreasonable 
mandates.
    The Department stresses the importance of conducting high-quality 
rulemakings in a timely manner and reducing the number of old 
rulemakings. To implement this, the Department has required the 
following actions: (1) Regular meetings of senior DOT officials to 
ensure effective policy leadership and timely decisions, (2) effective 
tracking and coordination of rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4) 
early briefings of interested officials, (5) regular training of staff, 
and (6) adequate allocations of resources. The Department has achieved 
significant success because of this effort. It allows the Department to 
use its resources more effectively and efficiently.
    The Department's regulatory policies and procedures provide a 
comprehensive internal management and review process for new and 
existing regulations and ensure that the Secretary and other 
appropriate appointed officials review and concur in all significant 
DOT rules. DOT continually seeks to improve its regulatory process. A 
few examples include: The Department's development of regulatory 
process and related training courses for its employees; its use of an 
electronic, Internet-accessible docket that can also be used to submit 
comments electronically; a ``list serve'' that allows the public to 
sign up for email notification when the Department issues a rulemaking 
document; creation of an electronic rulemaking tracking and 
coordination system; the use of direct final rulemaking; the use of 
regulatory negotiation; a continually expanding Internet page that 
provides important regulatory information, including ``effects'' 
reports and status reports (http://regs.dot.gov/); and the continued 
exploration and use of Internet blogs and other Web 2.0 technology to 
increase and enhance public participation in its rulemaking process.
    In addition, the Department continues to engage in a wide variety 
of activities to help cement the partnerships between its agencies and 
its customers that will produce good results for transportation 
programs and safety. The Department's agencies also have established a 
number of continuing partnership mechanisms in the form of rulemaking 
advisory committees.
     Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' the Department actively engaged in 
a special retrospective review of our existing rules to determine 
whether they need to be revised or revoked. This review was in addition 
to those reviews in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and the Department's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. As part of this effort, we also reviewed our 
processes for determining what rules to review and ensuring the rules 
are effectively reviewed. As a result of the review, we identified many 
rules for expedited review and changes to our retrospective review 
process. Our retrospective review plan in response to E.O. 13563 can be 
found at www.regs.dot.gov; the results of the review of our rules can 
also be found there and in appendix D to our regulatory agenda.
     Each rulemaking initiated as a result of the retrospective 
review is included in the list below with a Regulation Identification 
Number (RIN) to assist in following the action through the rulemaking 
process. Additionally, at the end of each title, existing rulemaking 
actions will be been identified by adding ``RRR'' and those that are 
new will be indicated by ``RRR*''.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Likely Potential for
           RIN                    Title            Positive Effects on
                                                    Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AJ94................  Enhanced Flight                            Y
                            Vision System
                            (EFVS) (RRR*).
2120-AJ97................  14 CFR Part 16;
                            Rules of Practice
                            for Federally-
                            Assisted Airport
                            Enforcement
                            Proceedings (RRR*).
2120-AK00................  Medical Certificate
                            Endorsement Issue
                            (RRR*)
2120-AK01................  Combined Drug and                          Y
                            Alcohol Testing
                            Programs for
                            Operators
                            Conducting
                            Commercial Air
                            Tours (RRR*).
2120-AK03................  CAT III Definitions
                            (RRR*).
2125-AF41................  National Standards
                            for Traffic
                            Control Devices;
                            the Manual on
                            Uniform Traffic
                            Control Devices
                            for Streets and
                            Highways;
                            Engineering
                            Judgments (RRR).

[[Page 7799]]

 
2125-AF43................  National Standards
                            for Traffic
                            Control Devices;
                            the Manual on
                            Uniform Traffic
                            Control Devices
                            for Streets and
                            Highways;
                            Compliance Dates
                            Revision (RRR*).
2127-AK98................  Pedestrian Safety                          Y
                            Global Technical
                            Regulation (GTR)
                            (RRR*).
2127-AK99................  Federal Motor                              Y
                            Vehicle Standard
                            No. 108; Lamps,
                            reflective
                            devices, and
                            associated
                            equipment--Color
                            Boundaries (RRR*).
2127-AL00................  Federal Motor
                            Vehicle Safety
                            Standard No. 108;
                            Lamps, reflective
                            devices, and
                            associated
                            equipment--Reconsi
                            deration (RRR*).
2127-AL02................  FMVSS No. 126,
                            Petition for
                            Reconsideration of
                            Electronic
                            Stability Control
                            (ESC) (RRR*).
2127-AL03................  Part 571 FMVSS No.                         Y
                            205, Glazing
                            Materials, GTR
                            (RRR*).
2127-AL05................  Amend FMVSS No. 210
                            to Incorporate the
                            Use of a New Force
                            Application Device
                            (RRR*).
2130-AC06................  Training Standards
                            for Railroad
                            Employees (RRR).
2130-AC16................  Locomotive Safety                          Y
                            Standards
                            Amendments (RRR).
2130-AC27................  Positive Train
                            Control Systems
                            Amendments (RRR*).
2132-AB02................  Major Capital
                            Investment
                            Projects (RRR).
2133-AB74................  Cargo Preference
                            (RRR).
2133-AB77................  MARAD NEPA
                            Procedures (RRR*).
2133-AB78................  Transportation
                            Priority
                            Allocation System,
                            Part 341 (RRR*).
2133-AB79................  Administrative
                            Claims, Part 327
                            (RRR*).
2133-AB80................  Operating
                            Differential
                            Subsidy and
                            Construction
                            Differential
                            Subsidy Programs
                            (RRR*).
2133-AB81................  Foreign Transfer
                            Regulations
                            (RRR*).
2133-AB82................  War Risk Ship
                            Valuation (RRR*).
2137-AE77................  Hazardous
                            Materials: Minor
                            Editorial
                            Corrections and
                            Clarifications
                            (RRR*).
2137-AE78................  Hazardous                                  Y
                            Materials:
                            Miscellaneous
                            Amendments (RRR*).
2137-AE79................  Hazardous                                  Y
                            Materials:
                            Miscellaneous
                            Amendments;
                            Petitions for
                            Rulemaking (RRR*).
2137-AE80................  Hazardous                                  Y
                            Materials:
                            Miscellaneous
                            Pressure Vessel
                            Requirements (DOT
                            Spec Cylinders)
                            (RRR*).
2137-AE81................  Hazardous                                  Y
                            Materials: Reverse
                            Logistics (RRR*).
2137-AE82................  Hazardous                                  Y
                            Materials:
                            Incorporation of
                            Certain Special
                            Permits and
                            Competent
                            Authorities into
                            the HMR (RRR*).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some of the entries on this list may be completed actions, which do
  not appear in The Regulatory Plan/Agenda. However, more information
  can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of
  the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for
  DOT.

    The Department will also continue its efforts to use advances in 
technology to improve its rulemaking management process. For example, 
the Department created an effective tracking system for significant 
rulemakings to ensure that either rules are completed in a timely 
manner or delays are identified and fixed. Through this tracking 
system, a monthly status report is generated. To make its efforts more 
transparent, the Department has made this report Internet accessible at 
www.regs.dot.gov, as well as through a list-serve. By doing this, the 
Department is providing valuable information concerning our rulemaking 
activity and is providing information necessary for the public to 
evaluate the Department's progress in meeting its commitment to 
completing quality rulemakings in a timely manner.
    The Department continues to place great emphasis on the need to 
complete high-quality rulemakings by involving senior departmental 
officials in regular meetings to resolve issues expeditiously.

Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)

    The Office of the Secretary (OST) oversees the regulatory process 
for the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies 
and procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of top 
management in regulatory decisionmaking. Through the General Counsel's 
office, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department 
complies with the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866 
(Regulatory Planning and Review), DOT's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures, and other legal and policy requirements affecting 
rulemaking. Although OST's principal role concerns the review of the 
Department's significant rulemakings, this office has the lead role in 
the substance of projects concerning aviation economic rules and other 
rules that affect multiple elements of the Department.
    OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with 
regulatory requirements and process for use by personnel throughout the 
Department. OST also plays an instrumental role in the Department's 
efforts to improve our economic analyses; risk assessments; regulatory 
flexibility analyses; other related analyses; and data quality, 
including peer reviews.
    OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) intergovernmental review of 
other agencies' significant rulemaking documents and to Administration 
and congressional proposals that concern the regulatory process. The 
General Counsel's office works closely with representatives of other 
agencies, OMB, the White House, and congressional staff to provide 
information on how various proposals would affect the ability of the 
Department to perform its safety, infrastructure, and other missions.
    During fiscal year 2012, OST will continue to focus its efforts on 
enhancing airline passenger protections by requiring carriers to adopt 
various consumer service practices under the following rulemaking 
initiatives:
     Accessibility of Carrier Web sites and Ticket Kiosks 
(2105-AD96)
     Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III (2105-AE11)
     Carrier-Supplied Medical Oxygen, Accessible In-Flight 
Entertainment Systems, Service Animals, and Accessible Lavatories on 
Single-Aisle Aircraft (2105-AE12).
    OST will also continue its efforts to help coordinate the 
activities of several operating administrations that advance various 
departmental efforts that support the Administration's initiatives on 
promoting safety, stimulating the economy and creating jobs, sustaining 
and building America's transportation

[[Page 7800]]

infrastructure, and improving livability for the people and communities 
who use transportation systems subject to the Department's policies.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    The Federal Aviation Administration is charged with safely and 
efficiently operating and maintaining the most complex aviation system 
in the world. It is guided by Destination 2025--a transformation of the 
Nation's aviation system in which air traffic will move safely, 
swiftly, efficiently, and seamlessly around the globe. Our vision is to 
develop new systems and to enhance a culture that increases the safety, 
reliability, efficiency, capacity, and environmental performance of our 
aviation system. To meet our vision will require enhanced skills, clear 
communication, strong leadership, effective management, innovative 
technology, new equipment, advanced system oversight, and global 
integration.
    FAA activities that may lead to rulemaking in fiscal year 2012 
include continuing to:
     Promote and expand safety information-sharing efforts, 
such as FAA-industry partnerships and data-driven safety programs that 
prioritize and address risks before they lead to accidents. 
Specifically, FAA will continue implementing Commercial Aviation Safety 
Team projects related to controlled flight into terrain, loss of 
control of an aircraft, uncontained engine failures, runway incursions, 
weather, pilot decisionmaking, and cabin safety. Some of these projects 
may result in rulemaking and guidance materials.
     Work cooperatively to harmonize the U.S. aviation 
regulations with those of other countries, without compromising 
rigorous safety standards. The differences worldwide in certification 
standards, practice and procedures, and operating rules must be 
identified and minimized to reduce the regulatory burden on the 
international aviation system. The differences between the FAA 
regulations and the requirements of other nations impose a heavy burden 
on U.S. aircraft manufacturers and operators, some of which are small 
businesses. Standardization should help the U.S. aerospace industry 
remain internationally competitive. The FAA continues to publish 
regulations based on recommendations of Aviation Rulemaking Committees 
that are the result of cooperative rulemaking between the U.S. and 
other countries.
     Develop and implement Safety Management Systems (SMS) 
where these systems will improve safety of aviation and aviation-
related activities. An SMS proactively identifies potential hazards in 
the operating environment, analyzes the risks of those hazards, and 
encourages mitigation prior to an accident or incident. In its most 
general form, an SMS is a set of decisionmaking tools that can be used 
to plan, organize, direct, and control activities in a manner that 
enhances safety.
    FAA top regulatory priorities for 2011 through 2012 include:
     Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and 
Aircraft Dispatchers (2120-AJ00)
     Helicopter Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Safety 
Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments (2120-AJ53)
     Congestion Management for LaGuardia Airport, John F. 
Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport 
(2120-AJ89)
     Safety Management System for Certificate Holders Operating 
Under 14 CFR Part 121 (2120-AJ86)
    The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking would:
     Reduce human error and improve performance;
     Enhance traditional training programs through the use of 
flight simulation training devices for flight crewmembers; and
     Include additional training in areas critical to safety.
    The Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter rulemaking would:
     Codify current agency guidance
     Address National Transportation Safety Board 
recommendations;
     Provide certificate holders and pilots with tools and 
procedures that will aid in reducing accidents, including potential 
equipage requirements; and
     Amend all part 135 commercial helicopter operations 
regulations to include pilot training and alternate airport weather 
minimums.
    The Congestion Management rulemaking for LaGuardia Airport, John F. 
Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport 
would:
     Replace the orders limiting scheduled operations at John 
F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), limiting scheduled operations 
at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and limiting scheduled 
and unscheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA); and
     Provide a longer-term and comprehensive approach to 
congestion management at JFK, EWR, and LGA
    The Safety Management System for Certificate Holders Operating 
Under 14 CFR Part 121 rulemaking would:
     Require certain certificate holders to develop and 
implement an SMS;
     Propose a general framework from which a certificate 
holder can build its SMS; and
     Conform to International Civil Aviation Organization 
Annexes and adopt several National Transportation Safety Board 
recommendations.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carries out the Federal 
highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet 
the Nation's transportation needs. The FHWA's mission is to improve 
continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system 
and its intermodal connectors.
    Consistent with this mission, the FHWA will continue:
     With ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its 
surface transportation programs;
     To implement legislation in the least burdensome and 
restrictive way possible; and
     To pursue regulatory reform in areas where project 
development can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative requirements 
can be consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be reduced or 
simplified, and the decisionmaking authority of our State and local 
partners can be increased.
    FHWA's top regulatory priority for the fiscal year is to address 
the rulemaking actions outlined in the DOT Plan for Implementation of 
Executive Order 13563. In particular, FHWA will undertake two 
rulemakings that propose changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices (MUTCD). The first of these rulemakings (RIN 2125-AF41, 
Engineering Judgment) would clarify the use of engineering judgment and 
studies in the application of traffic control devices. A separate 
rulemaking (RIN 2125-AF43, Compliance Dates Revision) would revise the 
compliance dates for certain requirements in the MUTCD. Consistent with 
the principles outlined in Executive Order 13563, the FHWA anticipates 
these actions would provide clarity and needed flexibility, as well as 
reduce burdens on State and local governments. We believe our approach 
in both rulemakings is consistent with the requirements of Executive 
Order 13563, including its emphasis on consideration of benefits and 
costs (sections 1(a) and 1(b)), its requirement of an open exchange of 
information with stakeholders (section 2(a)), and, in particular, its 
call for retrospective analysis of existing rules, including 
streamlining and modification

[[Page 7801]]

to make such rules less burdensome (section 6). These rulemakings are 
also consistent with a Presidential Memorandum regarding Administrative 
Flexibility, which calls for reducing burdens and promoting flexibility 
for State and local governments.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

    The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving 
commercial trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a 
cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance 
this safety mission. FMCSA develops new and more effective safety 
regulations based on three core priorities: Raising the bar for entry, 
maintaining high standards, and removing high-risk behavior. In 
addition to Agency-directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations 
mandated by Congress, such as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). 
FMCSA regulations establish standards for motor carriers, drivers, 
vehicles, and State agencies receiving certain motor carrier safety 
grants and issuing commercial drivers' licenses.
    FMCSA's regulatory plan for FY 2012 includes completion of a number 
of rulemakings that are high priorities for the Agency because they 
would have a positive impact on safety. Among the rulemakings included 
in the plan are: (1) Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-
AB11) and (2) National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (RIN 
2126-AA97).
    Together, these priority rules could help to substantially improve 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our Nation's highways by 
improving FMCSA's ability to provide safety oversight of motor carriers 
and drivers.
    In FY 2012, FMCSA will continue its work on the Comprehensive 
Safety Analysis (CSA). The CSA initiative will improve the way FMCSA 
identifies and conducts carrier compliance and enforcement operations 
over the coming years. CSA's goal is to improve large truck and bus 
safety by assessing a wider range of safety performance data from a 
larger segment of the motor carrier industry through an array of 
progressive compliance interventions. FMCSA anticipates that the 
impacts of CSA and its associated rulemaking to put into place a new 
safety fitness standard will enable the Agency to prohibit ``unfit'' 
carriers from operating on the Nation's highways (the Carrier Safety 
Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11)) and will contribute further to 
the Agency's overall goal of decreasing CMV-related fatalities and 
injuries.
    Also in FY 2012, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule on the National 
Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (RIN 2126-AA97) to establish 
training and testing requirements for healthcare professionals who 
issue medical certificates to CMV drivers.
    In order to manage its rulemaking agenda, FMCSA continues to 
involve senior Agency leaders at the earliest stages of its rulemakings 
and continues to refine its regulatory development process. The Agency 
also holds senior executives accountable for meeting deadlines for 
completing rulemakings.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) relating to motor vehicles include 
reducing the number of, and mitigating the effects of, motor vehicle 
crashes and related fatalities and injuries; providing safety 
performance information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, 
child restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency. 
NHTSA pursues policies that encourage the development of nonregulatory 
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues 
new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and 
regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives 
reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive 
analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the 
proposed regulatory action. Finally, it considers alternatives 
consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles.
    NHTSA continues to focus on the high-priority vehicle safety issue 
of motorcoaches and their occupants, and will publish several notices 
in fiscal year 2012 to that end. NHTSA will issue a final rule to 
require the installation of lap/shoulder belts in newly manufactured 
motorcoaches in accordance with NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan and 
DOT's 2009 departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan. NHTSA is also 
considering proposing new Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
(FMVSS) for motorcoach rollover structural integrity requirements, as 
well as requirements for electronic stability control systems for 
motorcoaches and truck tractors. Together, these three rulemaking 
actions will address 12 recommendations issued by the National 
Transportation Safety Board related to motorcoach safety.
    In fiscal year 2012, NHTSA will continue its efforts to reduce 
domestic dependency on foreign oil in accordance with the Energy 
Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 by publishing, in 
conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a joint 
final rule setting corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for 
light trucks and passenger cars for model years 2017 and beyond. To 
further enhance the safety of passenger vehicles and pedestrians, NHTSA 
is considering proposing, in response to the Pedestrian Safety 
Enhancement Act of 2010, a FMVSS to provide a means of alerting blind 
and other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation.
    In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safe performance 
of motor vehicles, the Agency is engaged in a variety of programs to 
improve driver and occupant behavior. These programs emphasize the 
human aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role 
of the States in this common pursuit. NHTSA has identified two high-
priority areas: Safety belt use and impaired driving. To address these 
issue areas, the Agency is focusing especially on three strategies--
conducting highly visible, well-publicized enforcement; supporting 
prosecutors who handle impaired driving cases and expanding the use of 
DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders accountable for receiving and 
completing treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency; and adopting 
alcohol screening and brief intervention by medical and health care 
professionals. Other behavioral efforts encourage child safety-seat 
use; combat excessive speed and aggressive driving; improve motorcycle, 
bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and provide consumer information to the 
public.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

    FRA's current regulatory program contains numerous mandates 
resulting from the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), as 
well as actions supporting the Department's High-Speed Rail Strategic 
Plan. RSIA08 alone has resulted in at least 20 rulemaking actions, 
which are competing for limited resources to meet statutory deadlines. 
FRA has prioritized these rulemakings according to the greatest effect 
on safety, as well as expressed congressional interest, and will work 
to complete as many rulemakings as possible prior to their statutory 
deadlines. Revised timelines for completion of unfinished

[[Page 7802]]

regulations will be forwarded to Congress for consideration.
    Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA is 
working to complete many of the RSIA08 actions that include developing 
requirements for train conductor certification, roadway worker 
protection, track safety, alcohol and drug testing of maintenance-of-
way personnel, and training for railroad employees. Other RSAC-
supported actions that advance high-speed passenger rail include 
proposed revisions to the Track Safety Standards dealing with vehicle-
track interaction. FRA is also initiating a rulemaking related to the 
development of railroad risk reduction and system safety programs, 
which will be a multi-year effort due to the underlying statutory 
requirements that must be undertaken prior to the issuance of any final 
rule. Finally, FRA will be engaging in two rulemaking proceedings to 
address various issues related to the implementation of positive train 
control systems. FRA expects these regulatory actions to provide 
substantial benefits to the industry while ensuring the safe and 
effective implementation of the technology.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

    FTA helps communities support public transportation by making 
grants of Federal funding for transit vehicles, construction of transit 
facilities, and planning and operation of transit and other transit-
related purposes. FTA regulatory activity implements the laws that 
apply to recipients' uses of Federal funding and the terms and 
conditions of FTA grant awards. FTA policy regarding regulations is to:
     Provide maximum benefit to the mobility of the Nation's 
citizens and the connectivity of transportation infrastructure;
     Provide maximum local discretion;
     Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal 
resources;
     Protect taxpayer investments in public transportation;
     Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant 
management process.
    As the needs for public transportation have changed over the years, 
the Federal transit programs have grown in number and complexity. FTA's 
regulatory priorities for the coming year will reflect the mandates of 
the Agency's authorization statute, including, most notably, the Major 
Capital Investments (RIN 2132-AB02) ``New Starts'' program. The New 
Starts program is the main source of discretionary Federal funding for 
construction of rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, and other forms 
of transit infrastructure. FTA also anticipates amending its 
regulations governing recipients' management of major capital projects 
and its Bus Testing rule.

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

    The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and 
programs to promote and strengthen the U.S. merchant marine to meet the 
economic and security needs of the Nation. To that end, MARAD's efforts 
are focused upon ensuring a strong American presence in the domestic 
and international trades and to expanding maritime opportunities for 
American businesses and workers.
    MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the Agency's 
responsibility for ensuring the availability of a U.S. merchant marine 
that can provide water transportation services for American shippers 
and consumers and, in times of war or national emergency, for the U.S. 
armed forces. Major program areas include the following: Maritime 
Security, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, National Defense 
Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force, Maritime Guaranteed Loan 
Financing, United States Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and 
Training Support, and Deepwater Port Licensing. Additionally, MARAD 
will continue its monitoring and enforcement of U.S. cargo preference 
laws and implementation of MARAD's newest program, the ``America's 
Marine Highways Program.'' To date, the Department has identified 
marine corridors, and grants have been awarded under the America's 
Marine Highways Program.
    MARAD's primary regulatory activities in fiscal year 2012 will be 
to update existing cargo preference-related regulations, to continue 
the update of existing regulations as part of the Department's 
Retrospective Regulatory Review effort, and to propose new regulations 
where appropriate.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 
has responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the 
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA 
administers regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials 
transportation law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate 
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory 
programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
    PHMSA will continue to work toward the reduction of deaths and 
injuries associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by 
all transportation modes, including pipeline. We will concentrate on 
the prevention of high-risk incidents identified through the findings 
of the National Transportation Safety Board and PHMSA's evaluation of 
transportation incident data. PHMSA will use all available Agency tools 
to assess data; evaluate alternative safety strategies, including 
regulatory strategies as necessary and appropriate; target enforcement 
efforts; and enhance outreach, public education, and training to 
promote safety outcomes.
    PHMSA will be considering whether changes are needed to the 
regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. In particular, 
PHMSA is considering whether it should extend regulation to certain 
pipelines currently exempt from regulation; whether other areas along a 
pipeline should either be identified for extra protection or be 
included as additional high-consequence areas (HCAs) for integrity 
management (IM) protection; whether to establish and/or adopt standards 
and procedures for minimum lead detection requirements for all 
pipelines; whether to require the installation of emergency flow 
restricting devices (EFRDs) in certain areas; whether revised valve 
spacing requirements are needed on new construction or existing 
pipelines; whether repair timeframes should be specified for pipeline 
segments in areas outside the HCAs that are assessed as part of the IM; 
and whether to establish and/or adopt standards and procedures for 
improving the methods of preventing, detecting, assessing, and 
remediating stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in hazardous liquid 
pipeline systems.
    Additionally, PHMSA will consider whether or not to revise the 
requirements in the pipeline safety regulations addressing integrity 
management principles for gas transmission pipelines. Specifically, 
PHMSA will be reviewing the definition of an HCA (including the concept 
of a potential impact radius), the repair criteria for both HCA and 
non-HCA areas, requiring the use of automatic and remote-controlled 
shutoff valves, valve spacing, and whether applying the integrity 
management program requirements to additional areas would mitigate the 
need for class location requirements.

[[Page 7803]]

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)

    The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) seeks 
to identify and facilitate solutions to the challenges and 
opportunities facing America's transportation system through:
     Coordination, facilitation, and review of the Department's 
research and development programs and activities;
     Providing multi-modal expertise in transportation and 
logistics research, analysis, strategic planning, systems engineering 
and training;
     Advancement, and research and development, of innovative 
technologies, including intelligent transportation systems;
     Comprehensive transportation statistics research, 
analysis, and reporting;
     Managing education and training in transportation and 
national transportation-related fields; and
     Managing the activities of the John A. Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center.
    Through its Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of Airline 
Information, RITA collects, compiles, analyzes, and makes accessible 
information on the Nation's air transportation system. RITA collects 
airline financial, traffic, and operating statistical data, including 
on-time flight performance data that highlight long tarmac times and 
chronically late flights. This information gives the Government 
consistent and comprehensive economic and market data on airline 
operations that are used in supporting policy initiatives and 
administering the Department's mandated aviation responsibilities, 
including negotiating international bilateral aviation agreements, 
awarding international route authorities, performing airline and 
industry status evaluations, supporting air service to small 
communities, setting Alaskan Bush Mail rates, and meeting international 
treaty obligations.
    Through its Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office 
(ITS/JPO), RITA conducts research and demonstrations and, as 
appropriate, may develop new regulations, in coordination with OST and 
other DOT operating administrations, to enable deployment of ITS 
research and technology results. This office collects and disseminates 
benefits and costs information resulting from ITS-related research 
along with direct measurement of the deployment of ITS nationwide. 
These efforts support market assessments for emerging market sectors 
that would be cost-prohibitive for industry to absorb alone. Such 
information is widely consumed by the community of stakeholders to 
determine their deployment needs.
    The ITS Architecture and Standards Programs develop and maintain a 
National ITS Architecture; develop open, non-proprietary interface 
standards to facilitate rapid and economical adoption of nationally 
interoperable ITS technologies; and cooperate to harmonize ITS 
standards internationally. These standards are incorporated into DOT 
operating administration regulatory activities when appropriate.
    Through its Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, RITA 
provides a comprehensive range of engineering expertise, and 
qualitative and quantitative assessment services, focused on applying, 
maintaining, and increasing the technical body of knowledge to support 
DOT operating administration regulatory activities.
    Through its Transportation Safety Institute, RITA designs, 
develops, conducts, and evaluates training and technical assistance 
programs in transportation safety and security to support DOT operating 
administration regulatory implementation and enforcement activities.
    RITA's regulatory priorities are to assist OST and all DOT 
operating administrations in updating existing regulations by applying 
research, technology, and analytical results; to provide reliable 
information to transportation system decisionmakers; and to provide 
safety regulation implementation and enforcement training.

             Quantifiable Costs and Benefits of Rulemakings on the 2011 to 2012 DOT Regulatory Plan
            [This chart does not account for non-quantifiable benefits, which are often substantial]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Quantifiable Costs     Quantifiable Benefits
     Agency/RIN No.             Title               Stage           Discounted  2007 $      Discounted  2007 $
                                                                        (Millions)              (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OST:
    2105-AD96..........  Accessibility of    FR (TBD)..........  TBD....................  TBD
                          Carrier Websites
                          and Ticket Kiosks.
    2105-AE11..........  Enhancing Airline   SNPRM 08/12.......  TBD....................  TBD
                          Passenger
                          Protections III.
    2105-AE12..........  Air Carrier Access  SNPRM 06/12.......  TBD....................  TBD
                          Act (ACAA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total for OST..........................................  0......................  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA:
    2120-AJ00..........  Part 121, subparts  FR (TBD)..........  222.9..................  199.1
                          N and O.
    2120-AJ53..........  Helicopter Safety   FR 07/12..........  225....................  275
                          Initiatives and
                          Misc Amendments.
    2120-AJ86..........  SMS for part 121..  FR 07/12..........  375.5..................  500.8
    2120-AJ89..........  NY Congestion       NPRM 05/12........  TBD....................  TBD
                          Management.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total for FAA..........................................  823.4..................  974.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA:
    2126-AA97..........  National Registry   FR 02/12..........  575....................  1,199
                          of Certified
                          Medical Examiners.
    2126-AB11..........  Carrier Safety      NPRM 04/12........  19.....................  324
                          Fitness
                          Determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total for FMCSA........................................  594....................  1,523
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7804]]

 
NHTSA:
    2127-AK56..........  Seat Belts on       FR 07/12..........  26.8-27.9..............  17.5-96.9
                          Motorcoaches.
    2127-AK79..........  CAFE 2017 and       FR (TBD)..........  TBD....................  TBD
                          Beyond.
    2127-AK93..........  Sound for Hybrid    NPRM 07/12........  TBD....................  TBD
                          and Electric
                          Vehicles.
    2127-AK96..........  Motorcoach          NPRM 04/12........  TBD....................  TBD
                          Rollover
                          Structural
                          Integrity.
    2127-AK97..........  Electronic          NPRM 01/12........  TBD....................  TBD
                          Stability Control
                          Systems for Heavy
                          Vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total for NHTSA........................................  26.8-27.9..............  17.5-96.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2132-AB02..........  Major Capital       NPRM 01/12........  TBD....................  TBD
                          Investment
                          Projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total for FTA..........................................  0......................  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARAD:
    2133-AB74..........  Cargo Preference..  05/12.............  TBD....................  TBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total for MARAD........................................  0......................  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total for DOT..........................................  1,444.2-1,445.3........  2,515.4-2,594.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Notes: Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over 
varying periods. Although the forecast periods will be the same for 
any given rulemaking, comparisons between proceedings should be made 
cautiously.

    Costs and benefits are generally discounted at a 7 percent discount 
rate over the period analyzed.
    The Department of Transportation generally assumes that there are 
economic benefits to avoiding a fatality of $6.2 million. That economic 
value is included as part of the benefits estimates shown in the chart. 
As noted above, we have not included the non-quantifiable benefits.

DOT--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OST)

Proposed Rule Stage

103. + Accessibility of Carrier Web Sites and Ticket Kiosks

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702; 49 U.S.C. 47105; 49 U.S.C. 41712
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 382.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking was divided into two successive Air 
Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rulemakings. This one, as well as the second 
rulemaking (2105-AE12), address issues raised in another rulemaking RIN 
2105-AD92. This rulemaking would consider: (1) The cost and technical 
issues involved in requiring carrier Web site accessibility and (2) 
whether automated kiosks operated by carriers at airports and elsewhere 
should be required to be accessible. After the public comment periods, 
we intend to consolidate the final decisions in this rulemaking and RIN 
2105-AE12 into one document.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking proposes to provide greater 
accommodations for individuals with disabilities in accessing automated 
kiosks at U.S. airports and Web sites operated by U.S. and foreign air 
carriers and their ticket agents. Automated kiosks are widely used by 
U.S. and foreign air carriers at airports to provide customer services 
(e.g., boarding pass and bag tag printing). Also, today's passengers 
increasingly rely on air travel Web sites for information about airline 
services, making reservations, and obtaining discounted airfares. 
Currently, neither airlines nor airports are required to make airport 
kiosks accessible to passengers with disabilities. Also, not all air 
travel information and services available to the public on Web sites 
are accessible to people with disabilities. Only DOT can protect air 
travelers with disabilities as states are preempted from regulating in 
these areas and no private right of action exists for airline consumers 
to enforce the Air Carrier Access Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is 
the Air Carrier Access Act, which prohibits discrimination in airline 
service on the basis of disability, and section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires accessibility in airport 
terminal facilities that receive Federal financial assistance.
    Alternatives: Since May 2008, the Department has attempted to 
address the problem of inaccessible Web sites by requiring U.S. and 
foreign air carriers to make discounted, Web-based fares and amenities 
available to passengers who self-identify as being unable to use an 
airline's inaccessible Web site due to their disability. The Department 
has also tried to address the problem of inaccessible kiosks by 
requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to make equivalent service 
available to passengers with a disability who cannot readily use a 
carrier's automated kiosk due to their disability. Disability advocacy 
groups have repeatedly expressed opposition to these interim solutions 
as they do not enable them to independently access and use airlines' 
Web sites or kiosks.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates show that the 
present value of net benefits of the requirement to ensure the 
accessibility of automated airport kiosks to be $70.4 million over the 
10-year period from 2013 through 2022, using a 7 percent discount rate. 
With respect to the proposed requirements to ensure air travel Web site 
accessibility, our preliminary regulatory evaluation

[[Page 7805]]

estimates the expected present value of net benefits at $48.5 million 
over the period from 2013 through 2022, using the 7 percent discount 
rate.
    Risks: N/A
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNPRM...............................   09/26/11  76 FR 59307
SNPRM Comment Period End............   11/25/11  .......................
Extension of Comment Period and        11/21/11  76 FR 71914
 Clarification of Proposed Rule.
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   01/09/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel 
for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, Office of 
the Secretary, Room W94-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590, Phone: 202 366-4723, TDD Phone: 202 755-7687, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2105-AE12.
    RIN: 2105-AD96

DOT--OST

104.  + Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41712; 49 U.S.C. 40101; 49 U.S.C. 41702
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 244; 14 CFR 250; 14 CFR 253; 14 CFR 259; 14 
CFR 399.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would address the following issues: (1) 
Whether the Department should require a marketing carrier to provide 
assistance to its code-share partner when a flight operated by the 
code-share partner experiences a lengthy tarmac delay; (2) whether the 
Department should enhance disclosure requirements on code-share 
operations, including requiring on-time performance data, reporting of 
certain data code-share operations, and codifying the statutory 
amendment of 49 U.S.C. 41712(c) regarding Web site schedule disclosure 
of code-share operations; (3) whether the Department should expand the 
on-time performance ``reporting carrier'' pool to include smaller 
carriers; (4) whether the Department should require travel agents to 
adopt minimum customer service standards in relation to the sale of air 
transportation; (5) whether the Department should require ticket agents 
to disclose the carriers whose tickets they sell or do not sell and 
information regarding any incentive payments they receive in connection 
with the sale of air transportation; (6) whether the Department should 
require ticket agents to disclose any preferential display of 
individual fares or carriers in the ticket agent's Internet displays; 
(7) whether the Department should require additional or special 
disclosures regarding certain substantial fees; e.g., oversize or 
overweight baggage fees; (8) whether the Department should prohibit 
post-purchase price increase for all services and products not 
purchased with the ticket or whether it is sufficient to prohibit post-
purchase prices increases for baggage charges that traditionally have 
been included in the ticket price; and (9) whether the Department 
should require that ancillary fees be displayed through all sale 
channels.
    Statement of Need: On April 25, 2011, the Department of 
Transportation published in the Federal Register a final rule on 
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (76 FR 23110). Among other 
requirements, the rule contains several requirements for U.S. and 
foreign air carriers, ticket agents, and other sellers of air 
transportation to disclose to consumers the cost of certain ancillary 
services. The rule requires disclosure through various methods. One 
issue the rulemaking requested comment on was whether the Department 
should require information regarding the cost of airline ancillary 
services to be displayed through Global Distribution Systems in order 
to enhance transparency of such fees to consumers. Because the 
Department lacked critical information on the issue, the Department 
deferred the issue to this rulemaking. This rulemaking will address 
that issue as well as several other airline consumer protection 
proposals.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has authority and 
responsibility under 49 U.S.C. section 41712, in concert with 49 U.S.C. 
40101 and 49 U.S.C. section 41702, to protect consumers from unfair and 
deceptive practices and to ensure safe and adequate service in air 
transportation.
    Alternatives: One alternative would be to take no regulatory 
action. Also, various regulatory alternatives will be developed and the 
public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments when the 
Department publishes the proposed rule in the Federal Register.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD
    Risks: The risk of not taking regulatory action would be the 
continuation of a system where passengers cannot determine the true 
cost of their air travel.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental NPRM...................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Blane A. Workie, Attorney, Department of 
Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-9342, TDD Phone: 202 755-7687, 
Fax: 202 366-7152, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2105-AD72, Related to 2105-AD92.
    RIN: 2105-AE11

DOT--OST

105.  + Carrier-Supplied Medical Oxygen, Accessible In-Flight 
Entertainment Systems, Service Animals, and Accessible Labatories on 
Single Aisle Aircraft

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702; 49 U.S.C. 41712; 49 U.S.C. 47105
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 382.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking is the one of two successive Air Carrier 
Access Act (ACAA) rulemakings that address issues raised in another 
rulemaking: RIN 2105-AD92. The second rulemaking is RIN 2105-AD96. This 
rulemaking action would consider (1) whether there are safety-related 
reasons for excluding service animals other than dogs that may be 
specific to foreign carriers; (2) whether the cost of requiring 
carriers to supply free in-flight medical oxygen would create an undue 
burden; and (3) whether providing high-contrast captioning on in-flight 
entertainment displays is technically and economically feasible. It 
would also address accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft and a 
rulemaking petition

[[Page 7806]]

from the Psychiatric Service Dog Society to eliminate provisions 
allowing carriers to require documentation and 48 hours advance notice 
for users of psychiatric service animals, and miscellaneous service 
animal issues. After the public comment periods, we intend to 
consolidate the final decisions in this rulemaking and RIN 2105-AD96 
into one document.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking action would examine whether the 
Department should require carriers to provide in-flight medical oxygen, 
captioning on in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems, and accessible 
lavatories on single-aisle aircraft to provide individuals with 
disabilities greater access to air travel. Currently, few airlines make 
in-flight medical oxygen available to passengers and as a result 
individuals who are dependent on medical oxygen but cannot use portable 
oxygen concentrators are having difficulty traveling by air. Also, 
passengers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing have strongly advocated for 
captioning of IFE systems, arguing that the in-flight entertainment 
that is available to other passengers should also be available to them. 
Lavatories on single-aisle aircraft have also become a matter of 
interest to the Department as more and more single-aisle aircraft are 
used for longer flights and the absence of accessible lavatories makes 
travel difficult for passengers with disabilities.
    This rulemaking action will also address whether to amend the 
existing regulation, which allows airlines to require users of 
psychiatric and emotional support service animals to provide 
documentation and advance notice of their planned travel with a service 
animal. An advocacy group representing users of psychiatric service 
dogs has filed a petition for rulemaking stating that the notice and 
medical documentation requirements stigmatize and discriminate against 
people with mental disabilities, and asking that it be repealed.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This legal basis for the proposed rule is 
the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), which prohibits discrimination in 
airline service on the basis of disability.
    Alternatives: Regulatory alternatives will be developed and the 
public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments when the 
Department publishes the proposed rule in the Federal Register.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimates of costs and benefits are 
under development.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental NPRM...................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel 
for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, Office of 
the Secretary, Room W94-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590, Phone: 202 366-4723, TDD Phone: 202 755-7687, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 2105-AD96.
    RIN: 2105-AE12

DOT--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)

Proposed Rule Stage

106. + Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft 
Dispatchers

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 
40119; 49 U.S.C. 44101; 49 U.S.C. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 44702; 49 U.S.C. 
44705; 49 U.S.C. 44709 to 44711; 49 U.S.C. 44713; 49 U.S.C. 44716; 49 
U.S.C. 44717; 49 U.S.C. 44722; 49 U.S.C. 44901; 49 U.S.C. 44903; 49 
U.S.C. 44904; 49 U.S.C. 44912; 49 U.S.C. 46105
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 119; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135; 14 CFR 142; 14 
CFR 65.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the regulations for 
crewmember and dispatcher training programs in domestic, flag, and 
supplemental operations. The rulemaking would enhance traditional 
training programs by requiring the use of flight simulation training 
devices for flight crewmembers and including additional training 
requirements in areas that are critical to safety. The rulemaking would 
also reorganize and revise the qualification and training requirements. 
The changes are intended to contribute to reducing aviation accidents.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking is part of the FAA's efforts to 
reduce fatal accidents in which human error was a major contributing 
cause. The changes would reduce human error and improve performance 
among flight crewmembers, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers. 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigations identified 
several areas of inadequate training that were the probable cause of an 
accident. This rulemaking contains changes to address the causes and 
factors identified by the NTSB.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA's authority to issue rules on 
aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. This 
rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 
44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations 
and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures 
necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
    Alternatives: During the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
phase, the FAA did not find any significant alternatives in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. section 603(d). The FAA will again review alternatives at 
the final rule phase.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The FAA is developing the costs and 
benefits of this rulemaking
    Risks: The FAA will review specific risks associated with this 
rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/12/09  74 FR 1280
Proposed Rule; Notice of Public        03/12/09  74 FR 10689
 Meeting.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   04/20/09  74 FR 17910
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/12/09  .......................
Extended NPRM Comment Period End....   08/10/09  .......................
Supplemental NPRM...................   05/20/11  76 FR 29336
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   07/19/11  .......................
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period       06/23/11  76 FR 36888
 Extended.
Extended Supplemental NPRM Comment     09/19/11  .......................
 Period End.
Analyzing Comments..................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: For flight crewmember information contact 
James K. Sheppard, for flight attendant information contact Nancy Lauck

[[Page 7807]]

Claussen, and for aircraft dispatcher information contact Leo Hollis, 
Air Carrier Training Branch (AFS-210), Flight Standards Service, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202 267 8166.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Nancy L. Claussen, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 202 267-8166, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AJ00

DOT--FAA

107. + New York Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport, John 
F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International 
Airport

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40103; 49 U.S.C. 
40106; 49 U.S.C. 40109; 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 44502; 49 U.S.C. 
44514; 49 U.S.C. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 44719; 49 U.S.C. 46301
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 93.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would replace the current temporary 
orders limiting scheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport, John F. 
Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport 
with a more permanent rule to address the issues of congestion and 
delay at the New York area[acute]s three major commercial airports, 
while also promoting fair access and competition. The rulemaking would 
help ensure that congestion and delays are managed by limiting 
scheduled and unscheduled operations. The rulemaking would also 
establish a secondary market for U.S. and foreign air carriers to buy, 
sell, trade, and lease slots amongst each other at each of the three 
airports. This would allow carriers serving or seeking to serve the New 
York area airports to exchange slots as their business models and 
strategic goals require.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would replace the current 
temporary orders limiting scheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport, 
John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International 
Airport with a more permanent rule to address the issues of congestion 
and delay at the New York area's three major commercial airports, while 
also promoting fair access and competition. The rulemaking would help 
ensure that congestion and delays are managed by limiting scheduled and 
unscheduled operations. The rulemaking would also establish a secondary 
market for U.S. and foreign air carriers to buy, sell, trade, and lease 
slots amongst each other at each of the three airports. This would 
allow carriers serving or seeking to serve the New York area airports 
to exchange slots as their business models and strategic goals require.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is promulgated under the 
authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, sections 40101, 
40103, 40105, and 41712. The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is 
the head of the DOT and has broad oversight of significant FAA 
decisions. See 49 U.S.C. 102 and 106. In addition, under 49 U.S.C. 
41712, the Secretary has the authority to investigate and prohibit 
unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition in air 
transportation or the sale of air transportation.
    The FAA has broad authority under 49 U.S.C. 40103 to regulate the 
use of the navigable airspace of the United States. This section 
authorizes the FAA to develop plans and policy for the use of navigable 
airspace and to assign the use the FAA deems necessary for safe and 
efficient utilization. It further directs the FAA to prescribe air 
traffic rules and regulations governing the efficient utilization of 
navigable airspace. Not only is the FAA required to ensure the 
efficient use of navigable airspace, but it must do so in a manner that 
does not effectively shut out potential operators at the airport and in 
a manner that acknowledges competitive market forces.
    These authorities empower the DOT to ensure the efficient 
utilization of airspace by limiting the number of scheduled and 
unscheduled aircraft operations at JFK, EWR, and LGA, while balancing 
between promoting competition and recognizing historical investments in 
the airport and the need to provide continuity. They also authorize the 
DOT to investigate the transfer of slots and to limit or prohibit anti-
competitive transfers.
    Alternatives: The FAA considered two alternatives. The first 
alternative was to simply extend the existing orders. This alternative 
was rejected because the FAA wanted to increase competition by making 
slots available to more operators. The FAA believes these operators are 
likely to be small entities. The second alternative was to remove the 
existing orders. This alternative results in unacceptable delay costs 
from the increase in operations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD
    Risks: The FAA will review specific risks associated with this 
rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Molly W. Smith, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 202 267-3344, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AJ89

DOT--FAA

Final Rule Stage

108. + Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Operations; Safety 
Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 1155; 49 U.S.C. 40101 
to 40103; 49 U.S.C. 40120; 49 U.S.C. 41706; 49 U.S.C. 41721; 49 U.S.C. 
44101; 49 U.S.C. 44106; 49 U.S.C. 44111; 49 U.S.C. 46306; 49 U.S.C. 
46315; 49 U.S.C. 46316; 49 U.S.C. 46504; 49 U.S.C. 46506; 49 U.S.C. 
46507; 49 U.S.C. 47122; 49 U.S.C. 47508; 49 U.S.C. 47528 to 47531
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 1; 14 CFR 135; 14 CFR 91.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would change equipment and operating 
requirements for commercial helicopter operations, including many 
specifically for helicopter air ambulance operations. This rulemaking 
is necessary to increase crew, passenger, and patient safety. The 
intended effect is to implement National Transportation Safety Board, 
Aviation Rulemaking Committee, and internal FAA recommendations.
    Statement of Need: Since 2002, there has been an increase in fatal 
helicopter air ambulance accidents. The FAA has undertaken initiatives 
to address common factors that contribute to helicopter air ambulance 
accidents,

[[Page 7808]]

including issuing notices, handbook bulletins, operations 
specifications, and advisory circulars (ACs). This rule would codify 
many of those initiatives, as well as several NTSB and part 125/135 
Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommendations. In addition, the House 
of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation in the 111th 
Congress and in earlier sessions that would address several of the 
issues raised in this rulemaking.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is promulgated under the 
authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(4), which requires the 
Administrator to promulgate regulations in the interest of safety for 
the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other employees 
of air carriers, and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 
Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other 
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce 
and national security.
    Alternatives: Alternative One: The alternative would change the 
compliance date from 3 years to 4 years after the effective rule date 
to install all required pieces of equipment. This would help small 
business owners cope with the burden of the expenses because they would 
be able to integrate these pieces of equipment over a longer period of 
time. This alternative is not preferred because it would delay safety 
enhancements.
    Alternative Two: The alternative would exclude the HTAWS unit from 
this proposal. Although this alternative would reduce annualized costs 
to small air ambulance operators by approximately 12 percent and the 
ratio of annualized cost to annual revenue would decrease from a range 
of between 1.76 percent and 1.88 percent to a range of between 1.55 
percent and 1.65 percent, the annualized cost would still be 
significant for all 35 small air ambulance operators. The alternative 
not only does not eliminate the problem for a substantial number of 
small entities, but also would reduce safety. The HTAWS is an 
outstanding tool for situational awareness in all aspects of flying, 
including day, night, and instrument meteorological conditions. 
Therefore the FAA believes that this equipment is a significant 
enhancement for safety.
    Alternative Three: The alternative would increase the requirement 
of certificate holders from 10 to 15 helicopters or more that are 
engaged in helicopter air ambulance operations to have an Operations 
Control Center. The FAA believes that operators with 10 or more 
helicopters engaged in air ambulance operations would cover 66 percent 
of the total population of the air ambulance fleet in the U.S. The FAA 
believes that operators with 15 or more helicopters would decrease the 
coverage of the population to 50 percent. Furthermore, complexity 
issues arise and considerably increase with operators of more than 10 
helicopters.
    All alternatives above are not considered to be acceptable by the 
FAA in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The FAA is currently developing 
costs and benefits.
    Risks: Helicopter air ambulance operations have several 
characteristics that make them unique, including that they are not 
limited to airport locations for picking up and dropping off patients, 
but may pick up a person at a roadside accident scene and transport him 
or her directly to a hospital. Helicopter air ambulance operations are 
also often time-sensitive. A helicopter air ambulance flight may be 
crucial to getting a donor organ or critically ill or injured patient 
to a medical facility as efficiently as possible. Additionally, 
patients generally are not able to choose the helicopter air ambulance 
company that provides them with transportation. Despite the fact that 
there are unique aspects to helicopter air ambulance operations, they 
remain, at their core, air transportation. Accordingly, the FAA has the 
responsibility for ensuring the safety of these operations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/12/10  75 FR 62640
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/10/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Alberta Brown, Air Transportation Division, 
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 202 267-8321.
    RIN: 2120-AJ53

DOT--FAA

109. + Safety Management Systems for Certificate Holders (Section 610 
Review)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 
40119; 49 U.S.C. 41706; 49 U.S.C. 44101; 49 U.S.C. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 
44702; 49 U.S.C. 44705; 49 U.S.C. 44709 to 44711; 49 U.S.C. 44713; 49 
U.S.C. 44716; 49 U.S.C. 44717; 49 U.S.C. 44722; 49 U.S.C. 46105
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 121.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, October 29, 2010.
    Final, Statutory, July 30, 2012, Final Rule.
    Congress passed Public Law 111-216 that instructs FAA to conduct a 
rulemaking to require all part 121 air carriers to implement a Safety 
Management System (SMS). This act further states that FAA shall 
consider at a minimum each of the following as part of the SMS 
rulemaking: (1) An Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP); (2) a Flight 
Operations Quality Assurance Program (FOQA); (3) a Line Operations 
Safety Audit (LOSA); and (4) an Advance Qualifications Program.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would require each certificate holder 
operating under 14 CFR part 121 to develop and implement a Safety 
Management System (SMS) to improve the safety of its aviation related 
activities. A SMS is a comprehensive, process-oriented approach to 
managing safety throughout an organization. An SMS includes an 
organization-wide safety policy; formal methods for identifying 
hazards, controlling, and continually assessing risk and safety 
performance; and promotion of a safety culture. SMS stresses not only 
compliance with technical standards but increased emphasis on the 
overall safety performance of the organization.
    Statement of Need: Passage of the Airline Safety and FAA Extension 
Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216), section 215 ``Safety Management System'' 
directs the Administrator to conduct a rulemaking to require all part 
121 air carriers to implement a safety management system (SMS). The Act 
requires an NPRM within 90 days and a final rule not later than 24 
months from enactment of Public Law 111-216.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 
Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216), section 215, 
signed by President on August 1, 2010.
    Alternatives: The Rulemaking Team considered including parts 135 
(air carriers) and 145 (repair stations) to the rule but did not 
because of time restraints.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits of this final 
rule are still in development. An initial cost estimate for SMS 
implementation over 3 years is $270,000 (small carrier), $373,950

[[Page 7809]]

(medium carrier), and $1,135,500 (large carrier) with total cost for 90 
part 121 carriers of $52,276,200. However, given the flexibility of 
SMS, and expected safety improvements, benefits are expected to exceed 
costs.
    Risks: Commercial air carrier accident rate in the U.S. has 
remained relatively constant over the past 10 years. However, the 
recent trend of hazards include many that could have been mitigated or 
eliminated had a structured, organization-wide approach to managing air 
carriers' operations been in place.
    SMS is a comprehensive, process-oriented approach to managing 
safety throughout an organization, and stresses not only compliance 
with technical standards but increased emphasis on the overall safety 
performance of the organization.
    The potential reduction of risks would be averted causalities, 
aircraft damage, and accident investigation costs by identifying safety 
issues and spotting trends before they result in a near-miss, incident, 
or accident.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/05/10  75 FR 68224
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   01/31/11  76 FR 5296
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/03/11  .......................
Extended NPRM Comment Period End....   03/07/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Scott VanBuren, Department of Transportation, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 202 494-8417, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 2120-AJ15.
    RIN: 2120-AJ86

DOT--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

110. + Carrier Safety Fitness Determination

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Sec 4009 of TEA-21
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 385.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would revise 49 CFR part 385, Safety 
Fitness Procedures, in accordance with the Agency's major new 
initiative, Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA). CSA is a new 
operational model FMCSA plans to implement that is designed to help the 
Agency carry out its compliance and enforcement programs more 
efficiently and effectively. Currently, the safety fitness rating of a 
motor carrier is determined based on the results of a very labor 
intensive compliance review conducted at the carrier's place of 
business. Aside from roadside inspections and new audits, the 
compliance review is the Agency's primary intervention. Under CSA, 
FMCSA would propose to implement a broader array of progressive 
interventions, some of which allow FMCSA to make contact with more 
carriers. Through this rulemaking FMCSA would establish safety fitness 
determinations based on safety data from crashes, inspections, and 
violation history rather than just the standard compliance review. This 
will enable the Agency to assess the safety performance of a greater 
segment of the motor carrier industry with the goal of further reducing 
large truck and bus crashes and fatalities.
    Statement of Need: Because of the time and expense associated with 
the on-site compliance review, only a small fraction of carriers 
(approximately 12,000) receive a safety fitness determination each 
year. Since the current safety fitness determination process is based 
exclusively on the results of an on-site compliance review, the great 
majority of carriers subject to FMCSA jurisdiction do not receive a 
timely determination of their safety fitness.
    The proposed methodology for determining motor carrier safety 
fitness should correct the deficiencies of the current process. In 
correcting these deficiencies, FMCSA has made a concerted effort to 
develop a ``transparent'' method for the Safety Fitness Determination 
(SFD) that would allow each motor carrier to understand fully how FMCSA 
established that carrier's specific SFD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is based primarily on the 
authority of 49 U.S.C. 31144, which directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to ``determine whether an owner or operator is fit to 
operate a commercial motor vehicle'' and to ``maintain by regulation a 
procedure for determining the safety fitness of an owner or operator.'' 
This statute was first enacted as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 
of 1984, section 215, Public Law 98-554, 98 Stat. 2844 (Oct. 30, 1984).
    The proposed rule also relies on the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31133, 
which gives the Secretary ``broad administrative powers to assist in 
the implementation'' of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 
now found in chapter 311 of title 49, U.S.C. These powers include, 
among others, authority to conduct inspections and investigations, 
compile statistics, require production of records and property, 
prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to perform other 
acts considered appropriate. These powers are used to obtain the data 
used by the Safety Management System and by the proposed new 
methodology for safety fitness determinations.
    Under 49 CFR 1.73(g), the Secretary has delegated the authority to 
carry out the functions in subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, 
title 49, U.S.C., to the FMCSA Administrator. Sections 31133 and 31144 
are part of subchapter III of chapter 311.
    Alternatives: The Agency has been considering only two 
alternatives: The no-action alternative and the proposal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency has estimated the crash-
reduction benefit from the change to the proposed safety fitness 
determination process to be about $441 million annually. The total cost 
is estimated at $13 million annually. Net benefits are about $428 
million annually.
    Risks: A risk of incorrectly identifying a compliant carrier as 
non-compliant--and consequently subjecting the carrier to unnecessary 
expenses--has been analyzed and has been found to be negligible under 
the process being proposed.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: David Miller, Regulatory Development Division, 
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,

[[Page 7810]]

Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-5370, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2126-AB11

DOT--FMCSA

Final Rule Stage

111. + National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 109-59 (2005), sec 4116
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 390; 49 CFR 391.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 10, 2006.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would establish training, testing, and 
certification standards for medical examiners responsible for 
certifying that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers meet 
established physical qualifications standards; provide a database (or 
National Registry) of medical examiners that meet the prescribed 
standards for use by motor carriers, drivers, and Federal and State 
enforcement personnel in determining whether a medical examiner is 
qualified to conduct examinations of interstate truck and bus drivers; 
and require medical examiners to transmit electronically to FMCSA the 
name of the driver and a numerical identifier for each driver that is 
examined. The rulemaking would also establish the process by which 
medical examiners that fail to meet or maintain the minimum standards 
would be removed from the National Registry. This action is in response 
to section 4116 of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
    Statement of Need: In enacting the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
(Pub. L. 109-59, Aug. 10, 2005), Congress recognized the need to 
improve the quality of the medical certification of drivers. SAFETEA-LU 
addresses the requirement for medical examiners to receive training in 
physical examination standards and be listed on a national registry of 
medical examiners as one step toward improving the quality of the 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver physical examination process and 
the medical fitness of CMV drivers to operate CMVs. The safety impact 
will result from ensuring that medical examiners have completed 
training and testing to demonstrate that they fully understand FMCSA's 
physical qualifications standards and are capable of applying those 
standards consistently, thereby decreasing the likelihood that a 
medically unqualified driver may obtain a medical certificate.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The fundamental legal basis for the 
National Registry program comes from 49 U.S.C. 31149(d), which requires 
FMCSA to establish and maintain a current national registry of medical 
examiners that are qualified to perform examinations of CMV drivers and 
to issue medical certificates. FMCSA is required to remove from the 
registry any medical examiner who fails to meet or maintain 
qualifications established by FMCSA. In addition, in developing its 
regulations, FMCSA must consider both the effect of driver health on 
the safety of CMV operations and the effect of such operations on 
driver health, 49 U.S.C. 31136(a).
    Alternatives: The rulemaking is statutorily mandated. Thus, the 
Agency must establish the National Registry.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimated 10-year costs 
(discounted at 7 percent) at $700,783 million, total benefits at 
$1,144,961 million, and net benefits over 10 years at $444,177 million.
    Risks: FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be 
associated with this activity.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/01/08  73 FR 73129
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/30/09  .......................
Final Rule..........................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Office of Medical 
Programs, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202 366-4001, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2126-AA97

DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

112. + Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
Standards MYS 2017 and Beyond

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; Delegation of Authority at 49 CFR 
1.50
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 533.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 1, 2015.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would establish Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks and passenger cars for model 
years 2017 and beyond. This rulemaking would respond to requirements of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007. The statute requires that CAFE 
standards be prescribed separately for passenger automobiles and non-
passenger automobiles to achieve a combined fleet fuel economy of at 
least 35 mpg by model year 2020. For model years 2021 and beyond, the 
statute requires that the average fuel economy required to be attained 
by each fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles be the maximum 
feasible for each model year. The law requires the standards be set at 
least 18 months prior to the start of the model year. On May 21, 2010, 
President Obama issued a memorandum directing NHTSA and EPA to conduct 
a joint rulemaking (NHTSA regulating fuel economy and EPA regulating 
greenhouse gas emissions), and to issue a Notice of Intent to Issue a 
Proposed Rule (NOI) by September 30, 2010.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would respond to requirements of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007. The statute requires that 
corporate average fuel economy standards be prescribed separately for 
passenger automobiles and non-passenger automobiles to achieve a 
combined fleet fuel economy of at least 35 mpg by model year 2020. For 
model years 2021 and beyond, the statute requires that the average fuel 
economy required to be attained by each fleet of passenger and non-
passenger automobiles be the maximum feasible for each model year. The 
law requires the standards be set at least 18 months prior to the start 
of the model year, and for model year 2017, standards must be set by 
April 1, 2015. On May 21, 2010,

[[Page 7811]]

President Obama issued a memorandum directing NHTSA and EPA to conduct 
joint rulemaking, with NHTSA regulating fuel economy and EPA regulating 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 32910(d) of title 49 of the United 
States Code provides that the Administrator may prescribe regulations 
necessary to carry out his duties under chapter 329, Automobile Fuel 
Economy.
    Alternatives: The Agency is not pursuing any alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits of the 
potential changes addressed in this action have not yet been assessed.
    Risks: Depending upon how manufacturers use weight reduction to 
meet the fuel economy standards, there is a potential impact on motor 
vehicle safety. The 2010 NHTSA analysis shows that a 100-pound 
reduction in weight, while keeping footprint constant, decreases the 
fatality rate for light trucks over 3,870 pounds but increases the 
fatality rate for light trucks less than 3,870 pounds and for all 
passenger cars. An interagency team from DOT, EPA, and DOE are further 
examining this issue.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent (NOI)..............   10/13/10  75 FR 62739
NOI Comment Period End..............   10/31/10  .......................
Supplemental NOI....................   12/08/10  75 FR 76337
NPRM................................   12/01/11  76 FR 74854
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/30/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: James Tamm, Fuel Economy Division Chief, Department 
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 493-0515, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Duplicate of 2060-AQ54.
    RIN: 2127-AK79

DOT--NHTSA

113.  + Sound for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 
49 U.S.C. 30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; Delegation of Authority at 49 CFR 1.50
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 5, 2012, Initiate rulemaking.
    Final, Statutory, January 3, 2014.
    Legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation to initiate 
rulemaking by July 2012 and issue a final rule not later than January 
2014.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would respond to The Pedestrian Safety 
Enhancement Act of 2010, which directs the Secretary of Transportation 
to study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides 
for a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle 
operation. NHTSA is conducting research in this area and has not yet 
developed an estimate for the potential costs and benefits associated 
with this rulemaking action.
    Statement of Need: The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010, 
signed into law on January 4, 2011, directs the Secretary to study and 
establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides for a means of 
alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation. Prior 
to that, in June 2008, NHTSA held a public meeting to provide a forum 
for interested parties to discuss the issue of quieter cars and 
established a docket (Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0108) to collect 
information on the issue. Subsequently, the Agency developed and 
initiated a research plan to identify the critical safety scenarios in 
which quieter vehicles may pose a hazard to blind and other 
pedestrians; identify and evaluate various countermeasures to address 
the safety problem; and support the development of a specification for 
an artificial vehicle sound.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 30111, title 49 of the U.S.C. 
states that the Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety 
standards.
    Alternatives: The Agency is not pursuing any alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits of the 
potential changes addressed in this action have not yet been assessed.
    Risks: The Agency believes that there are no significant risks 
associated with this rulemaking and that only beneficial outcomes will 
occur.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Marisol Medri, Safety Engineer, Department of 
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-6987, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AK93

DOT--NHTSA

114.  + Motorcoach Rollover Structural Integrity

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 
49 U.S.C. 30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; Delegation of Authority at 49 CFR 1.50
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would promulgate a new FMVSS for rollover 
structural integrity requirements for motorcoaches. In August 2007, 
NHTSA published a motorcoach safety plan identifying four specific 
priority items: Seat belts on motorcoaches, rollover structural 
integrity, emergency evacuation, and fire safety. The DOT published a 
comprehensive motorcoach safety action plan in November 2009 that 
reiterated NHTSA's motorcoach safety priorities. This rulemaking also 
addresses six recommendations issued by the NTSB on motorcoach roof 
strength and structural integrity.
    Statement of Need: Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, 
there were 54 fatal motorcoach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities. 
During this period, on average, 16 fatalities have occurred annually to 
occupants of motorcoaches in crash and rollover events, with about 2 of 
these fatalities being drivers and 14 being passengers. However, while 
motorcoach transportation overall is safe, when serious crashes of this 
vehicle type do occur, they can cause a significant number of fatal or 
serious injuries

[[Page 7812]]

during a single event, particularly when occupants are ejected. This 
action is consistent with our detailed plans for improving motorcoach 
passenger protection, laid out in NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety 
2007 and the Department of Transportation 2009 Motorcoach Action Plan 
(Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793), as well as the Agency's Vehicle Safety 
and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011 to 2013 
(Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108), and is responsive to six recommendations 
issued by the National Transportation Safety Board.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 30111, title 49 of the U.S.C. 
states that the Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety 
standards.
    Alternatives: The Agency is not pursuing any alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits of the 
potential changes addressed in this action have not yet been assessed.
    Risks: The Agency believes that there are no significant risks 
associated with this rulemaking and that only beneficial outcomes will 
occur.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Shashi Kuppa, Chief, Special Vehicles and Systems 
Division, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202 366-3827, Fax: 202 493-7002, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AK96

DOT--NHTSA

115.  + Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 
49 U.S.C. 30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; Delegation of Authority at 49 CFR 1.50
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would promulgate a new Federal standard 
that would require stability control systems on truck tractors and 
motorcoaches that address both rollover and loss of control crashes, 
after an extensive research program to evaluate the available 
technologies, an evaluation of the costs and benefits, and a review of 
manufacturer's product plans. Rollover and loss of control crashes 
involving heavy vehicles is a serious safety issue that is responsible 
for 304 fatalities and 2,738 injuries annually. They are also a major 
cause of traffic tie-ups, resulting in millions of dollars of lost 
productivity and excess energy consumption each year. Suppliers and 
truck and motorcoach manufacturers have developed stability control 
technology for heavy vehicles to mitigate these types of crashes. Our 
preliminary estimate produces an effectiveness range of 37 to 56 
percent against single-vehicle tractor-trailer rollover crashes and 3 
to 14 percent against loss of control crashes that result from skidding 
on the road surface. With these effectiveness estimates, annually, we 
estimate 29 to 66 lives would be saved, 517 to 979 MAIS 1 to 5 injuries 
would be reduced, and 810 to 1,693 crashes that involved property 
damage only would be eliminated. Additionally, it would save $10 to $26 
million in property damage and travel delays. Based on the technology 
unit costs and affected vehicles, we estimate technology costs would be 
$55 to $107 million, annually. However, the costs savings from reducing 
travel delay and property damage would produce net benefits of $128 to 
$372 million.
    Statement of Need: Rollover and loss of control crashes involving 
heavy vehicles is a serious safety issue that is responsible for 304 
fatalities and 2,738 injuries annually. They are also a major cause of 
traffic tie-ups, resulting in millions of dollars of lost productivity 
and excess energy consumption each year. This action is consistent with 
our detailed plans for improving motorcoach passenger protection, laid 
out in NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety 2007 and the Department of 
Transportation 2009 Motorcoach Action Plan (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-
28793), as well as the Agency's Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy 
Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011 to 2013 (Docket No. NHTSA-
2009-0108), and is responsive to two recommendations issued by the 
National Transportation Safety Board.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 30111, title 49 of the U.S.C. 
states that the Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety 
standards.
    Alternatives: The Agency is not pursuing any alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits of the 
potential changes addressed in this action have not yet been assessed.
    Risks: The Agency believes that there are no significant risks 
associated with this rulemaking and that only beneficial outcomes will 
occur.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: George Soodoo, Chief, Vehicle Safety Dynamics 
Division (NVS-122), Department of Transportation, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-2720, Fax: 202 366-4329, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AK97

DOT--NHTSA

Final Rule Stage

116. + Require Installation of Seat Belts on Motorcoaches, FMVSS No. 
208

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 
49 U.S.C. 30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; Delegation of Authority at 49 CFR 1.50
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.208; 49 CFR 571.3.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would require the installation of lap/
shoulder belts in newly manufactured motorcoaches. Specifically, this 
rulemaking would establish a new definition for motorcoaches in 49 CFR 
part 571.3. It would also amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 208 ``Occupant Crash Protection'' to require the installation of 
lap/shoulder belts at all driver and passenger seating positions. It 
would also require the installation of lap/shoulder belts at driver 
seating positions of large school buses in FMVSS no. 208. This 
rulemaking responds, in part, to recommendations made by the National 
Transportation Safety Board for improving bus safety.
    Statement of Need: Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, 
there

[[Page 7813]]

were 54 fatal motorcoach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities. During 
this period, on average, 16 fatalities have occurred annually to 
occupants of motorcoaches in crash and rollover events, with about 2 of 
these fatalities being drivers and 14 being passengers. However, while 
motorcoach transportation overall is safe, when serious crashes of this 
vehicle type do occur, they can cause a significant number of fatal or 
serious injuries during a single event, particularly when occupants are 
ejected.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 30111, title 49 of the U.S.C., 
states that the Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety 
standards.
    Alternatives: In addition to the proposed installation of lap/
shoulder belts in all passenger seating positions on motorcoaches, the 
Agency is also pursuing improvements to motorcoach rollover structural 
integrity, fire safety, electronic stability control, and emergency 
egress to improve occupant protection. Our detailed plans for improving 
motorcoach passenger protection can be found in NHTSA's Approach to 
Motorcoach Safety 2007 and the Department of Transportation 2009 
Motorcoach Action Plan (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793), as well as the 
Agency's Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research 
Priority Plan 2011 to 2013 (Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108).
    The Agency also alternatively evaluated proposing the installation 
of lap belts in all passenger seating positions on motorcoaches and is 
seeking comments on the issue of retrofitting older motorcoaches with 
seat belts.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated total costs are 
expected to be $25.8 million for the 2,000 new motorcoaches produced 
each year, plus added fuel costs. The Agency estimates the proposal has 
the potential to save 1 to 8 fatalities and 144 to 794 non-fatal 
injuries annually assuming a range of seat belt use between 15 and 83 
percent. The cost per equivalent life saved at a 7 percent discount 
rate is estimated to range from $1.8 to $9.9 million, based on an 
assumed seat belt use rate between 83 percent and 15 percent, 
respectively.
    Risks: The Agency believes there are no substantial risks to this 
rulemaking, and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as the 
industry moves to reduce injuries of motorcoach occupants.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/18/10  75 FR 50958
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/18/10  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: David Sutula, Safety Standards Engineer, Department 
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-3273, Fax: 
202 366-4329, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AK56

DOT--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)

Proposed Rule Stage

117. + Major Capital Investment Projects (RRR)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5309
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 611.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 7, 2006.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would make changes to the regulations 
that govern the New Starts discretionary funding program authorized by 
49 U.S.C. 5309. FTA[acute]s initial rulemaking on this subject (RIN 
2132-AA81), initiated to meet the statutory deadline, was terminated as 
the result of subsequent congressional action prohibiting FTA from 
issuing a rule.
    Statement of Need: Section 3011 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
made a number of changes to 49 U.S.C. 5309, which authorizes the 
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) fixed guideway capital 
investment grant program known as ``New Starts.'' SAFETEA-LU also 
created a new category of major capital investments that have a total 
project cost of less than $250 million, and that are seeking less than 
$75 million in section 5309 major capital investment funds. This 
rulemaking proposes to implement those changes and a number of other 
changes that FTA believes will improve the process for evaluating major 
capital investment projects.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 5309, title 49 of the United States 
Code, requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations for the 
evaluation and selection of major capital investment projects that have 
a total project cost of less than $250 million, and that are seeking 
less than $75 million in section 5309 major capital investment funds.
    Alternatives: This rulemaking is mandated by section 3011 of 
SAFETEA-LU, so there is not an alternative to pursuing rulemaking. 
Within the rulemaking process, FTA has already issued and has received 
comments on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will inform 
the various options FTA might pursue in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The single largest change in the New 
Starts program is the creation in SAFETEA-LU of the ``Small Starts'' 
program. Over the first 10 years of the Small Starts program, the 
cumulative impact of transfer from New Starts to Small Starts will 
likely be $1.9 Billion, with a Net Present Value of $1.311 Billion 
using a discount rate of 7 percent. This effect is difficult to 
characterize in terms of cost or benefit, as it simply represents a 
``transfer of a transfer'' from one governmental entity to another.
    Risks: The proposed rulemaking provides a framework for a 
discretionary grant program; it does not propose to regulate other than 
for applicants for Federal funds. As such, the rulemaking poses no 
risks for the regulated community, other than for the risks inherent in 
pursuing Federal funds that might not be awarded if a project fails to 
satisfy the eligibility and evaluation criteria in the proposed 
regulatory structure.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   06/03/10  75 FR 31383
ANPRM Comment Period End............   08/02/10  .......................
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Christopher VanWyk, Attorney Advisor, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Transit

[[Page 7814]]

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202 366-1733, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2132-AB02

DOT--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION (MARAD)

Proposed Rule Stage

118. + Regulations To Be Followed by All Departments, Agencies, and 
Shippers Having Responsibility to Provide a Preference for U.S.-Flag 
Vessels in the Shipment of Cargoes on Ocean Vessels

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 CFR 1.66; 46 app U.S.C. 1101; 46 app U.S.C. 
1241; 46 U.S.C. 2302 (e)(1); Pub. L. 91-469
    CFR Citation: 46 CFR 381.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would revise and clarify the Cargo 
Preference rules that have not been revised substantially since 1971. 
Revisions would include an updated purpose and definitions section 
along with the removal of obsolete provisions. This rulemaking also 
would establish a new part 383 of the Cargo Preference regulations. 
This rulemaking would cover Public Law 110-417, section 3511, National 
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009 changes to the cargo preference 
rules, which have not been substantially revised since 1971. The 
rulemaking also would include compromise, assessment, mitigation, 
settlement, and collection of civil penalties. Originally the agency 
had two separate rulemakings in process under RIN 2133-AB74 and 2133-
AB75. RIN 2133-AB74 would have revised existing regulations and RIN 
2133-AB75 would have established a new part 383: Guidance and Civil 
Penalties and implement Public Law 110-417, section 3511, National 
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009. MARAD has decided it would be 
more efficient to merge both efforts under one; RIN 2133-AB75 has been 
merged with this action.
    Statement of Need: On September 4, 2009, the USDA, MARAD, and USAID 
entered into a MOU regarding the proper implementation of the Cargo 
Preference Act. The MOU establishes procedures and standards by which 
owners and operators of oceangoing cargo ships may seek to designate 
each of their vessels as either a dry bulk carrier or a dry cargo 
liner, according to specified service-based criteria. With the help of 
OMB, these agencies are in the process of negotiating updates to the 
comprehensive cargo preference rule, which has not been significantly 
changed since 1971.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Cargo Preference Act requires that 
Federal agencies take necessary and practicable steps to ensure that 
privately owned U.S.-flag vessels transport at least 50 percent of the 
gross tonnage of cargo sponsored under Federal programs to the extent 
such vessels are available at fair and reasonable rates for commercial 
vessels of the U.S., in a manner that will ensure a fair and reasonable 
participation of commercial vessels of the U.S. in those cargoes by 
geographic areas. 46 U.S.C. 55305(b). An additional 25 percent of gross 
tonnage of certain food assistance programs is to be transported in 
accordance with the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 55314.
    Alternatives: TBD.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
    Risks: TBD.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Christine Gurland, Department of Transportation, 
Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590, Phone: 202 366-5157, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2133-AB75.
    RIN: 2133-AB74

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
     To promote prosperous and stable American and world 
economies, including promoting domestic economic growth and maintaining 
our Nation's leadership in global economic issues, supervising national 
banks and thrift institutions, and helping to bring residents of 
distressed communities into the economic mainstream.
     To manage the Government's finances by protecting the 
revenue and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the Internal 
Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue functions, financing the 
Federal Government and managing its fiscal operations, and producing 
our Nation's coins and currency.
     To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems 
from those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or to 
compromise U.S. national security interests, while keeping them free 
and open to legitimate users.
    Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department 
and its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement 
the laws as enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It is 
the policy of the Department to comply with applicable requirements to 
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public 
comments before adopting a final rule. Also, in particular cases, the 
Department invites interested parties to submit views on rulemaking 
projects while a proposed rule is being developed.
    In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the President 
signed the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 into law on October 26, 2001. Since 
then, the Department has accorded the highest priority to developing 
and issuing regulations to implement the provisions in this historic 
legislation that target money laundering and terrorist financing. These 
efforts, which will continue during the coming year, are reflected in 
the regulatory priorities of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 
(FinCEN).
    To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department 
to adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and to develop regulations that 
maximize aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the 
economic and paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses 
subject to those regulations.

Office of Financial Stability

    On October 3, 2008, the President signed the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) (Pub. L. 110-334). Section 101(a) of 
EESA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a Troubled 
Asset Relief Program (TARP) to ``purchase, and to make and fund 
commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial 
institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the 
Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and policies and procedures 
developed and published by the Secretary.''
    EESA provides authority to issue regulations and guidance to 
implement the program. Regulations and guidance

[[Page 7815]]

required by EESA include conflicts of interest, executive compensation, 
and tax guidance. The Secretary is also charged with establishing a 
program that will guarantee principal of, and interest on, troubled 
assets originated or issued prior to March 14, 2008.
    The Department has issued guidance and regulations and will 
continue to provide program information through the next year. 
Regulatory actions taken to date include:
    Executive compensation. In October 2008, the Department issued an 
interim final rule that set forth executive compensation guidelines for 
the TARP Capital Purchase Program (73 FR 62205). Related tax guidance 
on executive compensation was announced in IRS Notice 2008-94. In 
addition, among other EESA tax guidance, the IRS issued interim 
guidance regarding loss corporation and ownership changes in Notice 
2008-100, providing that any shares of stock owned by the Department of 
the Treasury under the Capital Purchase Program will not be considered 
to cause Treasury's ownership in such corporation to increase. On June 
15, 2009, the Department issued a revised interim final rule that sets 
forth executive compensation guidelines for all TARP program 
participants (74 FR 28394), implementing amendments to the executive 
compensation provisions of EESA made by the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L.111-5). Public comments on the revised 
interim final rule regarding executive compensation were due by August 
14, 2009, and will be considered as part of the process of issuing a 
final rule on this subject.
    Conflicts of interest. On January 21, 2009, the Department issued 
an interim final rule providing guidance on conflicts of interest 
pursuant to section 108 of EESA (74 FR 3431). Comments on the interim 
final rule, which were due by March 23, 2009, will be considered as 
part of the process of issuing a final rule. A final rule was published 
on October 3, 2011.
    The Department will continue implementing the EESA authorities to 
restore capital flows to the consumers and businesses that form the 
core of the Nation's economy.

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office

    The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) was signed into law 
on November 26, 2002. The law, which was enacted as a consequence of 
the events of September 11, 2001, established a temporary Federal 
reinsurance program under which the Federal Government shares the risk 
of losses associated with certain types of terrorist acts with 
commercial property and casualty insurers. The Act, originally 
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, was extended to December 31, 
2007, by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (TRIEA). 
The Act has since been extended to December 31, 2014, by the Terrorism 
Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (TRIPRA).
    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions is 
responsible for developing and promulgating regulations implementing 
TRIA, as extended and amended by TRIEA and TRIPRA. The Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Program Office, which is part of the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Financial Institutions, is responsible for operational 
implementation of TRIA. The purposes of this legislation are to address 
market disruptions, ensure the continued widespread availability and 
affordability of commercial property and casualty insurance for 
terrorism risk, and to allow for a transition period for the private 
markets to stabilize and build capacity while preserving State 
insurance regulation and consumer protections.
    Over the past year, the Office of the Assistant Secretary has 
issued proposed rules implementing changes authorized by TRIA as 
revised by TRIPRA. The following regulations should be published by 
December 31, 2011:
    Final Netting. This final rule would establish procedures by which, 
after the Secretary has determined that claims for the Federal share of 
insured losses arising from a particular Program Year shall be 
considered final, a final netting of payments to or from insurers will 
be accomplished.
    Affiliates. This proposed rule would make changes to the definition 
of ``affiliate'' to conform to the language in the statute.
    Civil Penalty. This proposed rule would establish procedures by 
which the Secretary may assess civil penalties against any insurer that 
the Secretary determines, on the record after an opportunity for a 
hearing, has violated provisions of the Act.
    Treasury will continue the ongoing work of implementing TRIA and 
carrying out revised operations as a result of the TRIPRA-related 
regulation changes.

Customs Revenue Functions

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) provides that the 
Secretary of the Treasury retains sole legal authority over the customs 
revenue functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the 
Treasury to delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue 
functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department 
Order No. 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security authority to prescribe regulations 
pertaining to the customs revenue functions subject to certain 
exceptions. This Order further provided that the Secretary of the 
Treasury retained the sole authority to approve such regulations.
    During the past fiscal year, among the customs-revenue function 
regulations issued was an interim rule (76 FR 692) on January 6, 2011, 
which implemented the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-
related provisions of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act. CBP plans to finalize this rulemaking in the first 
half of FY 2012.
    On March 17, 2011, CBP also issued a final rule (76 FR 14575) that 
adopted, with some changes, the interim amendments to the CBP 
regulations relating to the country of origin of textile and apparel 
products. These amendments were necessitated, in part, by the 
expiration of the Agreement on Textile and Clothing and the resulting 
elimination of quotas on the entry of textile and apparel products from 
World Trade Organizations (WTO) members. The primary regulatory change 
consisted of the elimination of the requirement that a textile 
declaration be submitted for every importation of textile and apparel 
products.
    This past fiscal year, consistent with the practice of continuing 
to move forward with Customs Modernization provisions of the North 
American Free Trade Implementation Act to improve its regulatory 
procedures and consistent with the goals of Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563, Treasury and CBP finalized on August 17, 2011 (76 FR 50883), the 
March 2010 proposal and pertaining to how CBP issues courtesy notices 
of liquidation to importers of record whose entry summaries are filed 
in the Automated Broker Interface (ABI). In an effort to streamline the 
notification process and reduce CBP's printing and mailing costs, the 
final rule provides that all ABI filers (importers of record and 
brokers who file as the agent of an importer of record) will receive 
electronic courtesy notices beginning September 30, 2011. Importers of 
record whose entries are not filed through the ABI will continue to 
receive paper courtesy notices of liquidation. In addition, every 
importer of record with an Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 
Account can now monitor the liquidation of its entries by using the

[[Page 7816]]

reporting tool in the ACE Secure Data Portal Account.
    On August 19, 2011, Treasury and CBP published a proposal (76 FR 
51914) to amend the CBP regulations to extend the time period after the 
date of entry for an applicant to file the certification documentation 
required for duty-free treatment of certain visual and auditory 
material of an educational, scientific, or cultural character under 
chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
    On September 2, 2011, Treasury and CBP adopted as a final rule (76 
FR 54691) only the portion of its July 25, 2008, proposal for amending 
the country of origin rules codified in part 102 of the CBP regulations 
applicable to five specific product areas; namely, pipe fittings and 
flanges, greeting cards, glass optical fiber, rice preparations, and 
certain textile and apparel products, but, in the light of the public 
comments received, it did not adopt the proposal to establish uniform 
rules governing CBP determinations of the country of origin of imported 
merchandise.
    During fiscal year 2012, CBP and Treasury plan to give priority to 
the following regulatory matters involving the customs revenue 
functions:
    Trade Act of 2002's preferential trade benefit provisions. Treasury 
and CBP plan to make permanent several interim regulations that 
implement the trade benefit provisions of the Trade Act of 2002.
    Free Trade Agreements. Treasury and CBP also plan to issue interim 
regulations this fiscal year to implement the preferential trade 
benefit provisions of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act. Treasury and CBP also expect to issue interim 
regulations implementing the preferential trade benefit provisions of 
the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and 
the United States-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
    Customs and Border Protection's Bond Program. Treasury and CBP plan 
to publish a final rule amending the regulations to reflect the 
centralization of the continuous bond program at CBP's Revenue 
Division. The changes proposed would support CBP's bond program by 
ensuring an efficient and uniform approach to the approval, 
maintenance, and periodic review of continuous bonds, as well as 
accommodating the use of information technology and modern business 
practices.
    Use of Sampling Methods and Offsetting of Overpayments and Over-
Declarations in CBP Audits. Treasury and CBP plan to publish a final 
rule amending the regulations to add provisions for using sampling 
methods in CBP audits and for the offsetting of overpayments and over-
declarations when an audit involves a calculation of lost duties, 
taxes, or fees or monetary penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592.

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

    As chief administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for developing and 
implementing regulations that are the core of the Department's anti-
money laundering and counter-terrorism financing efforts. FinCEN's 
responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, that 
role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. national 
security by making the financial system increasingly resistant to abuse 
by money launderers, terrorists and their financial supporters, and 
other perpetrators of crime.
    The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the 
BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file 
reports and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of 
usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in the conduct of 
intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against 
international terrorism. The BSA also authorizes requiring designated 
financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and 
compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has 
established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the 
financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including 
terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity. 
These objectives and priorities include: (1) Issuing, interpreting, and 
enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) 
supporting, working with, and as appropriate, overseeing compliance 
examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) 
managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data 
related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a Governmentwide access service to 
that same data and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) 
conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, 
regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) 
coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and anti-money 
laundering initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
    During fiscal year 2011, FinCEN issued the following regulatory 
actions:
    Reorganization of BSA Rules. On October 26, 2010, FinCEN issued a 
final rule re-designating and reorganizing the BSA regulations in a new 
chapter, chapter X, within the Code of Federal Regulations. The 
regulations are now organized in a more consistent and intuitive 
structure that more easily allows financial institutions to identify 
their specific regulatory requirements under the BSA. In reorganizing 
the regulations, FinCEN has made BSA rules more accessible, easier to 
research, and easier to understand. The change promotes the goals of 
the BSA to protect the financial system from criminal abuse by 
facilitating compliance by regulated financial institutions.
    Confidentiality of Suspicious Activity Reports. On November 23, 
2010, FinCEN issued a final rule clarifying the non-disclosure 
provisions with respect to the regulations pertaining to the 
confidentiality of suspicious activity reports (SARs). In conjunction 
with this notice, FinCEN finalized two pieces of guidance (SAR Sharing 
with Affiliates for depository institutions and SAR Sharing with 
Affiliates for securities and futures industry entities), which permit 
certain financial institutions to share SARs with their U.S. affiliates 
that are also subject to SAR reporting requirements. The regulations 
and the guidance pieces promote the protection of SAR information while 
seeking to ensure that all appropriate parties have access to SARs. 
Allowing information sharing among affiliates also will help financial 
institutions protect themselves from abuses of financial crime, support 
overarching industry efforts to strengthen enterprise-wide risk 
management, and promote the reporting of even more useful information 
to FinCEN and law enforcement investigators.
    Non-Bank Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators. On December 
9, 2010, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to 
solicit public comment on the application of anti-money laundering 
(AML) program and SAR regulations to a specific sub-set of loan and 
finance companies; i.e., non-bank residential mortgage lenders and 
originators. The proposed regulations would close a regulatory gap that 
allows other originators, such as mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders 
not affiliated with banks, to avoid having AML and SAR obligations. 
Based on its ongoing work supporting criminal investigators and 
prosecutors in combating mortgage fraud, FinCEN believes that this 
regulatory measure will help mitigate some of the

[[Page 7817]]

vulnerabilities that criminals have exploited. This NPRM was informed 
by comments received following an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
issued in July 2009. FinCEN has a final rule to implement the proposed 
regulations in clearance and hopes to issue it prior to the end of FY 
2011.
    Imposition of Special Measure Against Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL as 
a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern. On 
February 10, 2011, FinCEN issued a finding that the Lebanese Canadian 
Bank SAL is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern 
under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act for the bank's role in 
facilitating the money laundering activities of an international 
narcotics trafficking and money laundering network. Concurrently, 
FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to impose the fifth 
special measure against the bank. The fifth special measure prohibits 
or conditions the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-
through accounts for the designated institution by U.S. financial 
institutions. These actions are intended to protect the U.S. financial 
system from the illicit proceeds flowing through the bank and to 
deprive this international narcotics trafficking and money laundering 
network of its preferred access point into the formal financial system.
    FBAR Requirements. On February 24, 2011, working with the 
Department of Treasury, Office of Tax Policy, and the Internal Revenue 
Service, FinCEN, issued a final rule that amended the BSA implementing 
regulations regarding the filing of Reports of Foreign Bank and 
Financial Accounts (FBARs). The FBAR form is used to report a financial 
interest in, or signature or other authority over, one or more 
financial accounts in foreign countries. With slight modifications, the 
final rule adopted the proposed changes contained in the February 26, 
2010, NPRM. FBARs are used in conjunction with SARs, CTRs, and other 
BSA reports to provide law enforcement and regulatory investigators 
with valuable information to fight fraud, money laundering, tax 
evasion, and other financial crime.
    Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 
2010 Reporting Requirements Under Section 104(e). As a result of a 
congressional mandate to prescribe regulations under the Comprehensive 
Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), on 
May 2, 2011, FinCEN issued an NPRM to impose a reporting requirement 
that would be invoked, as necessary, to elicit information valuable in 
the implementation of CISADA and would work in tandem with other 
financial provisions of CISADA to isolate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary 
Guard Corps and financial institutions designated by the U.S. 
Government in connection with Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction (WMD) or WMD delivery systems or in connection with its 
support for international terrorism. FinCEN published a final rule to 
implement the proposed regulations on October 11, 2011.
    Money Services Businesses--Definitions and Other Regulations. On 
July 21, 2011, FinCEN issued a final rule revising the definitions for 
money services businesses (MSBs) to delineate more clearly the scope of 
entities regulated as MSBs, incorporating previously issued 
administrative rulings and guidance with regard to MSBs, and ensuring 
that certain foreign-located persons engaging in MSB activities within 
the United States are subject to BSA rules. The rule enables entities 
to determine in a more predictable and straightforward way whether they 
are operating as MSBs subject to BSA regulations. In clarifying that 
foreign entities conducting MSB activities in the United State are 
required to register, FinCEN recognizes that the Internet and other 
technological advances make it increasingly possible for persons to 
offer MSB services in the United States from foreign locations and 
seeks to ensure that the BSA rules apply to all persons engaging in MSB 
activities within the United States, regardless of their physical 
location.
    Withdrawal of the Finding of Primary Money Laundering Concern and 
the Final Rule Against VEF Banka. On July 26, 2011, FinCEN withdrew its 
April 2005 final rule and finding under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act. FinCEN withdrew its finding that VEF Banka was a financial 
institution of primary money laundering concern. FinCEN also withdrew 
the final rule against VEF Banka that imposed a special measure 
prohibiting U.S. financial institutions from, directly or indirectly, 
opening or maintaining correspondent accounts in the United States for 
VEF Banks.
    Prepaid Access--Regulatory Framework for Activity Previously 
Referred to as Stored Value. On July 29, 2011, FinCEN issued a final 
rule establishing a more comprehensive regulatory framework for non-
bank prepaid access. The rule puts in place suspicious activity 
reporting, and customer and transactional information collection 
requirements on providers and sellers of certain types of prepaid 
access similar to other categories of MSBs. It addresses regulatory 
gaps that have resulted from the proliferation of prepaid access 
innovations over the last 12 years and their increasing use as an 
accepted payment method. The regulations also provide a balance to 
provide law enforcement with the information needed to attack money 
laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit transactions through 
the financial system, without hindering innovation and the many 
legitimate uses and societal benefits prepaid access offers.
    Renewal of Existing Rules. FinCEN renewed without change a number 
of information collections associated with the following existing 
requirements: Additional records to be made and retained by banks (31 
CFR 1020.410 and 1010.430); records to be made and retained by 
financial institutions (31 CFR 1010.410 and 1010.430); purchases of 
bank checks and drafts, cashier's checks, money orders and traveler's 
checks (31 CFR 1010.415 and 1010.430); reports of certain domestic coin 
and currency transactions (31 CFR 1010.370 and 1010.410(d)); reports of 
transactions with foreign financial agencies (31 CFR 1010.360); 
additional records to be made and retained by casinos (31 CFR 1021.410 
and 1010.430); additional records to be made and retained by brokers or 
dealers in securities (31 CFR 1023.410 and 1010.430); additional 
records to be made and retained by currency dealers or exchangers (31 
CFR 1022.410 and 1010.430); special rules for casinos (31 CFR 1021.210, 
1021.410(b) and 1010.430); and correspondent accounts for foreign shell 
banks and recordkeeping and termination of correspondent accounts (31 
CFR 1010.630 and 1010.670).
    Administrative Rulings and Written Guidance. FinCEN published 6 
administrative rulings and written guidance pieces, and provided 39 
responses to written inquiries/correspondence (as of August 2011) 
interpreting the BSA and providing clarity to regulated industries. 
FinCEN anticipates issuing an additional 10 pieces by the end of FY 
2011.
    FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2012 include 
finalizing any initiatives mentioned above that are not finalized by 
fiscal year end, as well as the following projects:
    Amendment to the BSA Regulations--Definition of Monetary 
Instrument. On October 17, 2011, FinCEN published an NPRM to address 
the mandate in the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and 
Disclosure Act of 2009, which authorizes regulations

[[Page 7818]]

regarding international transport of prepaid access devices because of 
the potential to substitute prepaid access for cash and other monetary 
instruments as a means to smuggle the proceeds of illegal activity into 
and out of the United States.
    Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for Housing 
Government-Sponsored Enterprises. FinCEN plans to issue an NPRM that 
would define certain housing government-sponsored enterprises as 
financial institutions for the purpose of requiring them to establish 
anti-money laundering programs and report suspicious activity to FinCEN 
pursuant to the BSA.
    Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for Investment 
Advisers. FinCEN is researching and developing an NPRM that would 
prescribe minimum standards for anti-money laundering programs to be 
established by certain investment advisers and to require such 
investment advisers to report suspicious activity to FinCEN.
    Customer Due Diligence Requirements. FinCEN is developing an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public comment on a 
wide range of questions pertaining to the development of a customer due 
diligence (CDD) regulation that would clarify, consolidate, and 
strengthen existing CDD obligations for financial institutions and also 
incorporate the collection of beneficial ownership information into the 
CDD framework.
    Anti-Money Laundering Program for State-Chartered Credit Unions and 
Other Depository Institutions without a Federal Functional Regulator. 
Pursuant to section 352 of the USA PATRIOT Act, certain financial 
institutions are required to establish AML programs. Continued from 
prior fiscal years, FinCEN is researching and developing rulemaking to 
require State-chartered credit unions and other depository institutions 
without a Federal functional regulator to implement AML programs.
    Cross Border Electronic Transmittal of Funds. On September 27, 
2010, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 
conjunction with the feasibility study prepared pursuant to the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 concerning the 
issue of obtaining information about certain cross-border funds 
transfers and transmittals of funds. As FinCEN continues to develop the 
system to receive, store, and use this data, FinCEN may publish another 
NPRM prior to issuing a final rule.
    Other Requirements. FinCEN also will continue to issue proposed and 
final rules pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as 
appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects to propose various technical and 
other regulatory amendments in conjunction with its ongoing, 
comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance regulatory 
efficiency.

Internal Revenue Service

    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of Tax 
Policy, promulgates regulations that interpret and implement the 
Internal Revenue Code and related tax statutes. The purpose of these 
regulations is to carry out the tax policy determined by Congress in a 
fair, impartial, and reasonable manner, taking into account the intent 
of Congress, the realities of relevant transactions, the need for the 
Government to administer the rules and monitor compliance, and the 
overall integrity of the Federal tax system. The goal is to make the 
regulations practical and as clear and simple as possible.
    Most IRS regulations interpret tax statutes to resolve ambiguities 
or fill gaps in the tax statutes. This includes interpreting particular 
words, applying rules to broad classes of circumstances, and resolving 
apparent and potential conflicts between various statutory provisions.
    During fiscal year 2012, the IRS will accord priority to the 
following regulatory projects:
    Deduction and Capitalization of Costs for Tangible Assets. Section 
162 of the Internal Revenue Code allows a current deduction for 
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any 
trade or business. Under section 263(a) of the Code, no immediate 
deduction is allowed for amounts paid out for new buildings or for 
permanent improvements or betterments made to increase the value of any 
property or estate. Those expenditures are capital expenditures that 
generally may be recovered only in future taxable years, as the 
property is used in the taxpayer's trade or business. It often is not 
clear whether an amount paid to acquire, produce, or improve property 
is a deductible expense or a capital expenditure. Although existing 
regulations provide that a deductible repair expense is an expenditure 
that does not materially add to the value of the property or 
appreciably prolong its life, the IRS and Treasury believe that 
additional clarification is needed to reduce uncertainty and 
controversy in this area. In August 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued 
proposed regulations in this area and received numerous comments. In 
March 2008, the IRS and Treasury withdrew the 2006 proposed regulations 
and issued new proposed regulations, which have generated relatively 
few comments. The IRS and Treasury intend to finalize those 
regulations.
    Arbitrage Investment Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds. The 
arbitrage investment restrictions on tax-exempt bonds under section 148 
generally limit issuers from investing bond proceeds in higher-yielding 
investments. Treasury and the IRS plan to issue proposed regulations to 
address selected current issues involving the arbitrage restrictions, 
including guidance on the issue price definition used in the 
computation of bond yield, working capital financings, grants, 
investment valuation, modifications and terminations of qualified 
hedging transactions, and selected other issues.
    Guidance on the Tax Treatment of Distressed Debt. A number of tax 
issues relating to the amount, character, and timing of income, 
expense, gain, or loss on distressed debt remain unresolved. In 
addition, the tax treatment of distressed debt, including distressed 
debt that has been modified, may affect the qualification of certain 
entities for tax purposes or result in additional taxes on the 
investors in such entities, such as regulated investment companies, 
real estate investment trusts (REITs), and real estate mortgage 
investment conduits. During fiscal year 2011, Treasury and the IRS have 
addressed some of these issues through published guidance, including 
(1) a revenue procedure providing relief for certain modifications of 
distressed mortgage loans held by a REIT and (2) final regulations 
clarifying that the deterioration in the financial condition of the 
issuer of a modified debt instrument is not taken into account to 
determine whether the instrument is debt or equity. Treasury and the 
IRS plan to address more of these issues in published guidance.
    Elective Deferral of Certain Business Discharge of Indebtedness 
Income. In the recent economic downturn, many business taxpayers 
realized income as a result of modifying the terms of their outstanding 
indebtedness or refinancing on terms subjecting them to less risk of 
default. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes a 
special relief provision allowing for the elective deferral of certain 
discharge of indebtedness income realized in 2009 and 2010. The 
provision, section 108(i) of the Code, is complicated and many of the 
details will have to be supplied through regulatory guidance. On August 
9, 2009, Treasury and the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2009-37 that 
prescribes the procedure for making the

[[Page 7819]]

election. On August 13, 2010, Treasury and the IRS published temporary 
and proposed regulations (TD 9497 and TD 9498) in the Federal Register. 
These regulations provide additional guidance on such issues as the 
types of indebtedness eligible for the relief, acceleration of deferred 
amounts, the operation of the provision in the context of flow-through 
entities, the treatment of the discharge for the purpose of computing 
earnings and profits, and the operation of a provision of the statute 
deferring original issue discount deductions with respect to related 
refinancings. Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize those 
regulations.
    Regulation of Tax Return Preparers. In June 2009, the IRS launched 
a comprehensive review of the tax return preparer program with the 
intent to propose a set of recommendations to ensure uniform and high 
ethical standards of conduct for all tax return preparers and to 
increase taxpayer compliance. The IRS published findings and 
recommendations in Publication 4832, Return Preparer Review. In the 
report, the IRS recommended increased oversight of the tax return 
preparer industry, including but not limited to, mandatory preparer tax 
identification number (PTIN) registration and usage, competency 
testing, continuing education requirements, and ethical standards for 
all tax return preparers. As part of a multi-step effort to increase 
oversight of Federal tax return preparers, Treasury and the IRS 
published in 2010 final regulations: 1) Authorizing the IRS to require 
tax return preparers who prepare all or substantially all of a tax 
return for compensation after December 31, 2010, to use PTINs as the 
preparer's identifying number on all tax returns and refund claims that 
they prepare and 2) setting the user fee for obtaining a PTIN at $50 
plus a third-party vendor's fee. On June 3, 2011, Treasury and IRS 
published final regulations amending Circular 230, which established 
registered tax return preparers as a new category of tax practitioner 
and extended the ethical rules for tax practitioners to any individual 
who is a tax return preparer. Treasury and the IRS intend to publish 
additional guidance in 2011 and 2012 to specifically support the tax 
return preparer program and operations, including regulations that 
establish user fees for the return preparer competency examination and 
regulations that provide additional rules with respect to the PTIN. 
Treasury and the IRS also intend to publish regulations under Circular 
230, which will include amendments to the opinion requirements.
    Penalties. Congress amended several penalty provisions in the 
Internal Revenue Code in the past several years and Treasury and the 
IRS intend to publish a number of guidance projects in 2011 addressing 
these new or amended penalty provisions. Specifically, Treasury and the 
IRS intend to publish in 2011 proposed regulations under sections 6662, 
6662A, and 6664, to provide further guidance on the circumstances under 
which a taxpayer could be subject to the accuracy-related penalty on 
underpayments or reportable transaction understatements and the 
reasonable cause exception, including clarifying that a taxpayer may 
not rely upon written advice to establish a reasonable cause and good 
faith defense if the advice states that it cannot be used for the 
purpose of avoiding penalties. Treasury and the IRS also intend to 
publish: (1) Proposed regulations under section 6676 regarding the 
penalty related to an erroneous claim for refund or credit; (2) final 
regulations under section 6707A addressing whether the penalty for 
failure to disclose reportable transactions applies, before the 
temporary regulations expire in September 2011; and (3) temporary and 
proposed regulations under section 6707A addressing statutory changes 
to the method of computing the section 6707A penalty, which occurred 
after existing temporary regulations were published.
    Basis Reporting. Section 403 of the Energy Improvement and 
Extension Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-343), enacted on October 3, 2008, 
added sections 6045(g), 6045h, 6045A, and 6045B to the Internal Revenue 
Code. Section 6045(g) provides that every broker required to file a 
return with the Service under section 6045(a) showing the gross 
proceeds from the sale of a covered security must include in the return 
the customer's adjusted basis in the security and whether any gain or 
loss with respect to the security is long-term or short-term. Section 
6045(h) extends the basis reporting requirement in section 6045(g) and 
the gross proceeds reporting requirement in section 6045(a) to options 
that are granted or acquired on or after January 1, 2013. Section 6045A 
provides that a broker and any other specified person (transferor) that 
transfers custody of a covered security to a receiving broker must 
furnish to the receiving broker a written statement that allows the 
receiving broker to satisfy the basis reporting requirements of section 
6045(g). The transferor must furnish the statement to the receiving 
broker within 15 days after the date of the transfer or at a later time 
provided by the Secretary. Section 6045B requires issuers of specified 
securities to make a return relating to organizational actions that 
affect the basis of the security. Final regulations implementing these 
provisions for sales of stock were published on October 18, 2010. 
Treasury and the IRS plan to issue proposed regulations implementing 
these provisions for options and sales or exchanges of debt 
instruments.
    Information Reporting for Foreign Accounts of U.S. Persons. In 
March 2010, chapter 4 (sections 1471 to 1474) was added to subtitle A 
of the Internal Revenue Code as part of the Hiring Incentives to 
Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act) (Pub. L. 111-147). Chapter 4 was 
enacted to address concerns with offshore tax evasion and generally 
requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to enter into an 
agreement (FFI Agreement) with the IRS to report information regarding 
certain financial accounts of U.S. persons and foreign entities with 
significant U.S. ownership. An FFI that does not enter into an FFI 
Agreement generally will be subject to a withholding tax on the gross 
amount of certain payments from U.S. sources, as well as the proceeds 
from disposing of certain U.S. investments. Treasury and the IRS 
published Notice 2010-60, Notice 2011-34, and Notice 2011-53, which 
provides preliminary guidance and requests comments on the most 
important and time-sensitive issues under chapter 4. Treasury and the 
IRS expect to follow up on these notices with regulations and a model 
FFI Agreement in this fiscal year. These regulations will address 
numerous issues, notably the definition of FFI, the due diligence 
required of withholding agents and FFIs in identifying U.S. 
accountholders, and the requirements for reporting U.S. accounts.
    Withholding on Certain Dividend Equivalent Payments Under Notional 
Principal Contracts. The HIRE act also added section 871(l) to the Code 
(now sec. 871(m)), which designates certain substitute dividend 
payments in security lending and sale-repurchase transactions and 
dividend-referenced payments made under certain notional principal 
contracts as U.S.-source dividends for Federal tax purposes. In 
response to this legislation, on May 20, 2010, the IRS issued Notice 
2010-46, addressing the requirements for determining the proper 
withholding in connection with substitute dividends paid in foreign-to-
foreign security lending and sale-repurchase transactions. The IRS and 
Treasury intend to issue regulations to implement

[[Page 7820]]

the provisions of this Notice, as well as regulations addressing cases 
where dividend equivalents should be found to arise in connection with 
notional principal contracts and other financial derivatives.
    New International Tax Provisions of the Education, Jobs, and 
Medicaid Assistance Act. On August 10, 2010, the Education, Jobs, and 
Medicaid Assistance Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-226) was signed into law. 
The new law includes a significant package of international tax 
provisions, including limitations on the availability of foreign tax 
credits in certain cases where U.S. tax law and foreign tax law provide 
different rules for recognizing income and gain, and in cases where 
income items treated as foreign source under certain tax treaties would 
otherwise be sourced in the United States. The legislation also limits 
the ability of multinationals to reduce their U.S. tax burdens by using 
a provision intended to prevent corporations from avoiding U.S. income 
tax on repatriated corporate earnings. Other new provisions under this 
legislation limit the ability of multinational corporations to use 
acquisitions of related party stock to avoid U.S. tax on what would 
otherwise be taxable distributions of dividends. The statute also 
includes a new provision intended to tighten the rules under which 
interest expense is allocated between U.S.- and foreign-source incomes 
within multinational groups of related corporations when a foreign 
corporation has significant amounts of U.S.-source income that is 
effectively connected with a U.S. business. Treasury and the IRS expect 
to issue guidance on most of these provisions.
    Guidance on Tax-Related Health Care Provisions. On March 23, 2010, 
the President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 
2010 (Pub. L. 111-148) and on March 30, 2010, the President signed the 
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) 
(referred to collectively as the Affordable Care Act (ACA)). The ACA's 
comprehensive reform of the health insurance system affects 
individuals, families, employers, health care providers, and health 
insurance providers. The ACA provides authority for Treasury and the 
IRS to issue regulations and other guidance to implement tax provisions 
in the ACA, some of which are effective immediately and some of which 
will become effective over the next several years. Since enactment of 
the ACA, Treasury and the IRS, together with the Department of Health 
and Human Services and the Department of Labor, have issued a series of 
temporary and proposed regulations implementing various provisions of 
the ACA related to individual and group market reforms. In the past 
year, Treasury and IRS also have issued temporary and proposed 
regulations addressing the fee on branded prescription drug sales under 
section 9008 of the ACA and proposed regulations on the premium 
assistance tax credit under section 36B of the Code. In addition, 
Treasury and the IRS have issued guidance on specific ACA provisions, 
including guidance on the treatment of certain nonprofit health 
insurers (section 833 of the Code), the credit for small employers that 
provide health insurance coverage (section 45R of the Code), the 
adoption credit (section 36C of the Code), information reporting to 
employees of the cost of employer sponsored health coverage (section 
6051(a)(14) of the Code), and additional requirements for tax-exempt 
hospitals (section 501(r) of the Code). Providing additional guidance 
to implement tax provisions of the ACA is a priority for Treasury and 
the IRS.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Including Former Office of 
Thrift Supervision)

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) was created by 
Congress to charter national banks, to oversee a nationwide system of 
banking institutions, and to assure that national banks are safe and 
sound, competitive and profitable, and capable of serving in the best 
possible manner the banking needs of their customers.
    Pursuant to title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act, all functions of the Office of Thrift 
Supervision (OTS) relating to Federal savings associations, including 
rulemaking authority, were transferred to the OCC on July 21, 2011.
    The OCC seeks to assure a banking system in which national banks 
and Federal savings associations soundly manage their risks, maintain 
the ability to compete effectively with other providers of financial 
services, meet the needs of their communities for credit and financial 
services, comply with laws and regulations, and provide fair access to 
financial services and fair treatment of their customers.
    Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2011 include:
    Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements: Section 956 of the Dodd-
Frank Act requires the banking agencies, the National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 
and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), to jointly prescribe 
regulations or guidance prohibiting any types of incentive-based 
payment arrangement, or any feature of any such arrangement, that the 
regulators determine encourages inappropriate risks by covered 
financial institutions by providing an executive officer, employee, 
director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees or 
benefits, or that could lead to material financial loss to the covered 
financial institution. The Act also requires such agencies to jointly 
prescribe regulations or guidance requiring each covered financial 
institution to disclose to its regulator the structure of all 
incentive-based compensation arrangements offered by such institution 
sufficient to determine whether the compensation structure provides any 
officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive 
compensation or could lead to material financial loss to the 
institution. The agencies issued an NPRM on April 14, 2011. 76 FR 
21170. Work on a final rule is underway.
    Retail Foreign Exchange Transactions: The OCC adopted a final rule 
authorizing national banks, Federal branches and agencies of foreign 
banks, and their operating subsidiaries to engage in off-exchange 
transactions in foreign currency with retail customers. It describes 
various requirements with which national banks, Federal branches and 
agencies of foreign banks, and their operating subsidiaries must comply 
to conduct such transactions. It is necessary pursuant to amendments by 
the Dodd-Frank Act to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) that provide 
that a United States financial institution for which there is a Federal 
regulatory agency shall not enter into, or offer to enter into, a 
transaction described in section 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the CEA with a 
retail customer except pursuant to a rule or regulation of a Federal 
regulatory agency allowing the transaction under such terms and 
conditions as the Federal regulatory agency shall prescribe a retail 
forex rule. This final rule was issued on July 14, 2011. 76 FR 41375. 
Work on an interim final rule to cover savings associations is 
underway.
    Credit Risk Retention. The banking agencies, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development proposed rules to implement the credit 
risk retention requirements of section 15G of the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 (15. U.S.C. section 78o-11), as added by section 941 of the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Section 15G 
generally requires the securitizer of asset-backed securities to retain 
not less than 5 percent of the

[[Page 7821]]

credit risk of the assets collateralizing the asset-backed securities. 
Section 15G includes a variety of exemptions from these requirements, 
including an exemption for asset-backed securities that are 
collateralized exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as 
``qualified residential mortgages,'' as such term is defined by the 
Agencies by rule. This NPRM was published on April 29, 2011. 76 FR 
24090. Work on a final rule is underway.
    Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities. The 
banking agencies, Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing 
Finance Agency issued a proposed rule to establish minimum margin and 
capital requirements for registered swap dealers, major swap 
participants, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based 
swap participants for which one of the Agencies is the prudential 
regulator. This proposed rule implements sections 731 and 764 of the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which 
require the Agencies to adopt rules jointly to establish capital 
requirements and initial and variation margin requirements for such 
entities on all non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps 
in order to offset the greater risk to such entities and the financial 
system arising from the use of swaps and security-based swaps that are 
not cleared. This NPRM was published on May 11, 2011. 76 FR 27564. Work 
on a final rule is underway.
    OTS Integration; Dodd-Frank Implementation. The OCC adopted 
amendments to its regulations governing organization and functions, 
availability and release of information, post-employment restrictions 
for senior examiners, and assessment of fees to incorporate the 
transfer of certain functions of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) 
to the OCC pursuant to title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act. The OCC also amended its rules pertaining 
to preemption and visitorial powers to implement various sections of 
the Act; change in control of credit card banks and trust banks to 
implement section 603 of the Act; and deposit-taking by uninsured 
Federal branches to implement section 335 of the Act. This final rule 
was effective and published on July 21, 2011. 76 FR 43549.
    Republication of Regulations in Connection with OTS Integration 
Pursuant to Dodd-Frank. Pursuant to title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, all functions of the Office 
of Thrift Supervision relating to Federal savings associations and 
rulemaking authority of the OTS relating to all savings associations 
were transferred to the OCC on July 21, 2011 (transfer date). In order 
to facilitate the OCC's enforcement and administration of former OTS 
rules and to make appropriate changes to these rules to reflect OCC 
supervision of Federal savings associations as of the transfer date, 
the OCC republished, with nomenclature and other technical changes, 
those OTS regulations currently found at 12 CFR chapter V for which the 
OCC has authority to promulgate and will enforce as of the transfer 
date. The republished regulations are recodified with the OCC's 
regulations in chapter I at 12 CFR 100 et seq., effective on the 
transfer date. The republished regulations will supersede the OTS 
regulations in chapter V for purposes of OCC supervision and regulation 
of Federal savings associations, and for certain rules for purposes of 
the FDIC's supervision of State savings associations. This interim 
final rule was published on August 9, 2011. 76 FR 48950.
    Prohibition and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain 
Interests In, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity 
Funds. The banking agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, issued a proposed rule 
that would implement section 619 of Dodd-Frank, which contains certain 
prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of banking entities and 
nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Board to 
engage in proprietary trading and have certain investments in, or 
relationships with, hedge funds or private equity funds. Section 619 is 
commonly referred to as the ``Volcker Rule.''
    Community Reinvestment Act Regulations (12 CFR part 25). The 
banking agencies issued final regulations to revise provisions of their 
rules implementing the Community Reinvestment Act. The agencies 
proposed revising the term ``community development'' to include loans, 
investments, and services by financial institutions that support, 
enable, or facilitate projects or activities that meet the criteria 
described in section 2301(c)(3) of the Housing and Economic Recovery 
Act of 2008 (HERA) and are conducted in designated target areas 
identified in plans approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), 
established by HERA. This final rule was published on December 20, 2010 
(75 FR 79278).
    Community Reinvestment Act Regulations (12 CFR part 25). On August 
14, 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) was enacted into 
law (Pub. L. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078). Section 1031 of the HEOA revised 
the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to require the banking agencies, 
when evaluating a bank's record of meeting community credit needs, to 
consider, as a factor, low-cost education loans provided by the bank to 
low-income borrowers. The banking agencies issued a final rule to 
implement section 1031 of the HEOA. In addition, the rule incorporates 
into the banking agencies' rules statutory language that allows them to 
consider as a factor when evaluating a bank's record of meeting 
community credit needs capital investment, loan participation, and 
other ventures undertaken by nonminority- and nonwomen-owned financial 
institutions in cooperation with minority- and women-owned financial 
institutions and low-income credit unions. A final rule was published 
on October 10, 2010 (75 FR 61035).
    Standards Governing the Release of a Suspicious Activity Report (12 
CFR part 4). Confidentiality of Suspicious Activity Reports (12 CFR 
part 21). The OCC and OTS separately issued final regulations governing 
the release of non-public OCC or OTS information set forth in 12 CFR 
part 4, subpart C, and section 510.5. These final rules clarify that 
the decision to release a suspicious activity report (SAR) will be 
governed by the standards set forth in amendments to the SAR 
regulations, that are part of separate, but simultaneously issued, 
final rulemakings discussed below. These final rules were published on 
December 3, 2010. 75 FR 75574, 75583. The OCC's and OTS's final 
regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act governing the 
confidentiality of a suspicious activity report (SAR): Clarify the 
scope of the statutory prohibition on the disclosure by an institution 
of a SAR; address the statutory prohibition on the disclosure by the 
government of a SAR as that prohibition applies to the OCC's or OTS's 
standards governing the disclosure of SARs; clarify that the exclusive 
standard applicable to the disclosure of a SAR, or any information that 
would reveal the existence of a SAR, by the OCC or OTS, is to fulfill 
official duties consistent with the purposes of the BSA; and modify the 
safe harbor provision in its rules to include changes made by the USA 
PATRIOT Act. These final rules are based upon a similar rule prepared 
by the Financial Crimes Enforcement

[[Page 7822]]

Network (FinCEN). These final rules were issued on December 3, 2010. 75 
FR 75576, 75586.
    Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Revising Transitional Floors for 
Advanced Approaches Rule (12 CFR part 3). The Federal banking agencies 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and final rule to revise the 
transitional floors in the advanced approaches risk-based capital rule 
to preclude a decline in a banking organization's risk-based capital 
requirements during the transition period. Under the revisions, the 
capital floors used by a banking organization subject to the advanced 
approaches during its first, second, and third transitional floor 
periods are 100 percent of the bank's tier 1 and total risk-based 
capital requirements computed under the agencies' general risk-based 
capital rules. The NPRM was published on December 30, 2010. 75 FR 
82317. The final rule was issued on June 28, 2011. 76 FR 37620. OTS 
issued a parallel proposal on March 8, 2011, but did not issue a final 
rule. 76 FR 12611.
    Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2012 include, in addition to 
those listed above that have not yet been finalized, the following:
    Strengthening Tier 1 Capital Other Capital Enhancements, 
Standardized Approach (Basel III). (12 CFR part 3). The banking 
agencies currently are working jointly on rules to implement provisions 
in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-
Frank) and to update capital standards to maintain and improve 
consistency in agency rules. These rules include revisions to implement 
the International Convergence of Capital Management and Capital 
Standards: A Revised Framework (Basel II Framework). The Federal 
banking agencies plan to amend their current capital rules, including 
revisions to the definition of Tier 1 capital and the leverage capital 
ratio. This rule would implement a comprehensive set of revisions 
issued by the Basel Committee in December 2010 to amend the Basel II 
Capital Framework. Key components of the rule include: Revisions to the 
definition of Tier 1, the addition of a capital conservation buffer, 
the addition of a countercyclical buffer, revisions to counterparty 
credit risk requirements (includes central counterparties), a new 
international leverage ratio, and new liquidity ratio requirements. In 
addition, this rule includes the rule entitled Alternatives to the Use 
of Credit Ratings in the Risk-Based Capital Guidelines of the Federal 
Banking Agencies (12 CFR part 3). Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act 
directs all Federal agencies to review, no later than 1 year after 
enactment, any regulation that requires the use of an assessment of 
credit-worthiness of a security or money market instrument and any 
references to or requirements in regulations regarding credit ratings. 
The agencies are also required to remove references or requirements of 
reliance on credit ratings and to substitute an alternative standard of 
credit-worthiness. The agencies issued an ANPRM describing the areas in 
their risk-based capital standards where the agencies rely on credit 
ratings, as well as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's recent 
amendments to the Basel Accord, which could affect those standards and 
requested comment on potential alternatives to the use of credit 
ratings. The ANPRM was published on August 25, 2010 (75 FR 52283).
    Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk: The banking agencies 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise their market risk 
capital rules to modify their scope to better capture positions for 
which the market risk capital rules are appropriate; reduce 
procyclicality in market risk capital requirements, enhance the rules' 
sensitivity to risks that are not adequately captured under current 
regulatory measurement methodologies; and increase transparency through 
enhanced disclosures. This NPRM was published on January 11, 2011. 76 
FR 1890. Work on a final rule is underway.
    Alternatives to the Use of External Credit Ratings in the 
Regulations of the OCC (12 CFR parts 1, 16, and 28). Section 939A of 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directs 
all Federal agencies to review, no later than 1 year after enactment, 
any regulation that requires the use of an assessment of credit-
worthiness of a security or money market instrument and any references 
to or requirements in regulations regarding credit ratings. The 
agencies are also required to remove references or requirements of 
reliance on credit ratings and to substitute an alternative standard of 
credit-worthiness. Through an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM), the OCC sought to gather information as it begins to review 
its regulations pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. It described the areas 
where the OCC's regulations, other than those that establish regulatory 
capital requirements, currently rely on credit ratings; sets forth the 
considerations underlying such reliance; and requests comment on 
potential alternatives to the use of credit ratings. Work on an NPRM is 
underway. The ANPRM was published on August 13, 2010 (75 FR 49423). OTS 
published a parallel ANPRM on October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63107).
    Recordkeeping Requirements for Securities Activities: The Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act requires the banking agencies to adopt recordkeeping 
requirements sufficient to facilitate and demonstrate compliance with 
the exceptions to the definitions of ``broker'' or ``dealer'' for banks 
in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Work on an NPRM is underway.
    Integration of Savings Association Supervision. Pursuant to the 
transfer of OTS functions relating to Federal savings associations to 
the OCC, the OCC plans to issue one or more rulemakings resulting from 
our review of OCC rules applicable to banks and/or savings associations 
that will consolidate our rules and establish, to the extent 
practicable, consistent regulations for national banks and federal 
savings associations.
    Lending Limits for Derivative Transactions. Section 610 of the 
Dodd-Frank Act amends the lending limit, 12 U.S.C. section 84, to apply 
it to any credit exposure to a person arising from a derivative 
transaction and certain other transactions between the bank and the 
person. The amendment is effective 1 year after the transfer date, July 
21, 2012. The OCC plans to issue a rule that will amend our lending 
limit regulation set forth at 12 CFR part 32 to conform to this new 
requirement.
    Annual Stress Test (12 CFR part 46). This regulation will implement 
12 U.S.C. 5365(i) that requires annual stress testing to be conducted 
by financial companies with total consolidated assets of more than $10 
billion and establishes a definition of stress test, methodologies for 
conducting stress tests, and reporting and disclosure requirements.
    Collective Investment Funds. This notice of proposed rulemaking 
will update the regulation of short-term investment funds (STIFs), a 
type of collective investment fund permissible under OCC regulations, 
through the addition of STIF eligibility requirements to ensure the 
safety of STIFs and to mitigate financial systemic risks.

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues 
regulations to enforce Federal laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, 
firearms, and ammunition taxes and relating to commerce involving 
alcohol beverages and industrial alcohol. TTB's mission and regulations 
are designed to:
    (1) Regulate with regard to the issuance of permits and 
authorizations

[[Page 7823]]

to operate in the alcohol and tobacco industries;
    (2) Assure the collection of all alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and 
ammunition taxes, and obtain a high level of voluntary compliance with 
all laws governing those industries; and
    (3) Suppress commercial bribery, consumer deception, and other 
prohibited practices in the alcohol beverage industry.
    The Federal Alcohol Administration Act and the Internal Revenue 
Code authorize regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 
and malt beverages, which should, among other things, ensure that 
labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the 
identity and quality of the product. In July 2007, in response to a 
petition for rulemaking from a consumer advocacy group and comments 
received in response to a 2005 advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 
TTB published a proposed rule concerning the inclusion of a statement 
of calories, carbohydrates, fat, and protein per serving in a serving 
facts panel on wine, beer, and distilled spirits labels. The proposed 
rule also invited public comments on the extension of alcohol content 
labeling requirements to all alcohol beverages, which currently apply 
only to some alcohol beverages. TTB is continuing to evaluate the cost 
burden to industry and benefits to consumers.
    In addition to the regulatory action described above, in FY 2012, 
TTB plans to give priority to the following regulatory matters:
    As described in greater detail below, in FY 2012 TTB plans to 
continue its Regulations Modernization Project concerning its Specially 
Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol regulations, Labeling 
Requirement regulations, Export regulations, and Beer regulations.
    Revision to Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol 
Regulations: TTB plans to propose changes to regulations for specially 
denatured alcohol (SDA) and completely denatured alcohol (CDA) that 
would result in cost savings for both TTB and regulated industry 
members. Under the authority of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, TTB 
regulates denatured alcohol that is unfit for beverage use, and which 
may be removed from a regulated distilled spirits plant without payment 
of tax. SDA and CDA are widely used in the American fuel, medical, and 
manufacturing sectors. The industrial alcohol industry far exceeds the 
beverage alcohol industry in size and scope, and it is a rapidly 
growing industry in the United States. Some concerns have been raised 
that the current regulations may create significant roadblocks for 
industry members in getting products to the marketplace quickly and 
efficiently. TTB is proposing to reclassify certain SDA formulas as CDA 
and to issue new general-use formulas for articles made with SDA so 
that industry members would less frequently need to seek formula 
approval from TTB and fewer TTB resources would need to be devoted to 
formula review. TTB estimates that these proposed changes would result 
in an 80 percent reduction in the formula approval submissions 
currently required from industry members and would reduce total annual 
paperwork burden hours on affected industry members from 2,415 to 517 
hours. The reduction in formula submissions will enable TTB to redirect 
its resources to address backlogs that exist in other areas of TTB's 
mission activities, such as analyzing compliance samples for 
industrial/fuel alcohol to protect the revenue and working with 
industry to test and approve new and more environmentally friendly 
denaturants. Other proposed changes would remove unnecessary regulatory 
burdens and update the regulations to align them with current industry 
practice.
    CHIPRA Final Rule: TTB will make final a temporary rule to amend 
regulations promulgated under the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA). The Act provides enforcement 
mechanisms to assist in preventing the diversion of tobacco materials 
to illegal manufacturers, and the regulations implement these 
enforcement mechanisms. A 3-year temporary rule was published in June 
of 2009 to continue the implementation of these CHIPRA provisions, a 
final rule must be published by June 2012 to meet the requirements of 
26 U.S.C. 7805 regarding the expiration of temporary rules.
    Revisions to the Labeling Requirements (parts 4 (Wine), 5 
(Distilled Spirits), and 7 (Malt Beverages)): The Federal Alcohol 
Administration Act requires that alcohol beverages introduced in 
interstate or foreign commerce have a label issued and approved under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In connection 
with E.O. 13563, TTB has near-term plans to revise the regulations 
concerning the approval of labels for distilled spirits, wine, and malt 
beverages to reduce the cost to TTB of reviewing and approving an ever 
increasing number of applications for label approval (well over 130,000 
per year). Currently, the review and approval process requires a staff 
of at least 13 people for the pre-approval of labels in addition to 
management review. These regulatory changes, to be developed with 
industry input, also are intended to accelerate the approval process, 
which shall result in the regulated industries being able to bring 
products to market faster.
    Selected Revisions of Export Regulations (part 28): TTB has 
identified selected sections of its export regulations (part 28) that 
should be amended to assist industry members in complying with the 
regulations. Current regulations require industry members to obtain 
documents and follow procedures that are outdated and not entirely 
consistent with current industry practices regarding exportation. Under 
its regulatory authority, TTB routinely provides exceptions to these 
regulatory provisions. Revising these regulations will provide industry 
members with clear and up-to-date procedures for removal of alcohol for 
exportation without having to pay excise taxes (under the Internal 
Revenue Code, beverage alcohol may be removed from the premises of a 
distilled spirits plant for exportation without payment of tax), thus 
increasing their willingness and ability to export their products.
    Revisions to the Alcohol Fuel Plant Regulations: TTB's alcohol fuel 
plant regulations (within part 19) need to be revised to reflect the 
current state of the alcohol fuel industry. Alcohol produced at a TTB-
approved alcohol fuel plant may be removed from the plant without 
payment of tax if properly denatured and used only for fuel. Primarily 
focused on the development of smaller capacity plants, the alcohol fuel 
plant regulations were initially drafted to promote growth in the 
industry and to provide minimal permitting, recordkeeping, reporting, 
and bonding requirements. In the United States, there are currently 
over 1,400 permitted ethanol fuel plants that produced over 9 billion 
gallons of ethanol for fuel use in 2010. Fewer than 200 of the largest 
fuel ethanol plants produce 8 billion gallons of fuel ethanol. The 
significant growth of the industry, especially the largest capacity 
plants, since the previous issuance of the applicable regulations has 
resulted in potential risks to the revenue not currently addressed in 
the regulations. If just 1 percent of this alcohol were diverted for 
beverage use, the tax loss would approximate $2.4 billion. Current 
reporting requirements for certain plants are not sufficient to provide 
adequate information to TTB to monitor industry compliance and to 
identify removals of

[[Page 7824]]

alcohol that should be subject to tax; alcohol removed for beverage 
purposes or without proper denaturation may go unnoticed. TTB is also 
considering other changes, such as the addition of provisions regarding 
the disposition of by-products of the production process, which would 
update the regulations to reflect current industry practice.
    Revision of the Part 17 Regulations, ``Drawback on Taxpaid 
Distilled Spirits Used in Manufacturing Nonbeverage Products,'' To 
Allow Self-Certification of Nonbeverage Product Formulas: TTB is 
considering revisions to the part 17 regulations governing nonbeverage 
products made with taxpaid distilled spirits. These nonbeverage 
products include foods, medicines, and flavors. The revisions would 
practically eliminate the need for TTB to formally approve nonbeverage 
product formulas by proposing to allow for self-certification of such 
formulas. The changes would result in significant cost savings for an 
important industry which currently must obtain formula approval from 
TTB, and some savings for TTB, which must review and take action to 
approve or disapprove each formula. Estimating the specific savings to 
TTB is premature as this rulemaking project is in the early stages of 
internal deliberation.
    Revisions to the Beer Regulations (part 25): Under the Internal 
Revenue Code, TTB regulates activities at breweries. The regulations of 
title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 25, address the 
qualification of breweries, bonds and taxation, removals without 
payment of tax, and records and reporting. The brewery regulations were 
last revised in 1986 and need to be updated to reflect changes to the 
industry, including the increased number of small (``craft'') brewers. 
TTB plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting 
comments regarding potential ways to decrease the regulatory burden on 
industry members (e.g., streamlining and/or reducing the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for the industry, which includes many small 
businesses) and increase efficiency for both the industry and TTB. TTB 
intends to develop and propose specific regulatory changes after 
consideration of comments received.
    Revisions to Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting Requirements: TTB 
will propose to revise regulations in part 19 and replace the current 
four report forms used by distilled spirits plants to report their 
operations on a monthly basis with two new report forms that would be 
submitted on a monthly basis (plants that qualify to file taxes on a 
quarterly basis would submit the new reports on a quarterly basis). 
This project, which was included in the President's FY 2012 budget for 
TTB as a cost saving item, would address numerous concerns and desires 
for improved reporting by the distilled spirits industry and result in 
cost savings to the industry and TTB by significantly reducing the 
number of monthly plant operations reports that must be completed and 
filed by industry members and processed by TTB. TTB preliminarily 
estimates that this project would result in an annual savings of 
approximately 23,218 paperwork burden hours (or 11.6 staff years) for 
industry members and 629 processing hours (or 0.3 staff years) and 
$12,442 per year for TTB in contractor time. In addition, TTB estimates 
that this project would save staff time (approximately 3 staff years) 
costing $300, as a result of more efficient and effective processing of 
reports and the use of report data to reconcile industry member tax 
accounts.

Bureau of the Public Debt

    The Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) has responsibility for 
borrowing the money needed to operate the Federal Government and 
accounting for the resulting debt, regulating the primary and secondary 
Treasury securities markets, and ensuring that reliable systems and 
processes are in place for buying and transferring Treasury securities.
    BPD administers regulations: (1) Governing transactions in 
Government securities by Government securities brokers and dealers 
under the Government Securities Act of 1986 (GSA), as amended; (2) 
Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including rules governing 
the sale and issue of savings bonds, marketable Treasury securities, 
and State and local government securities; (3) Setting out the terms 
and conditions by which Treasury may buy back and redeem outstanding, 
unmatured marketable Treasury securities through debt buyback 
operations; (4) Governing securities held in Treasury's retail systems; 
and (5) Governing the acceptability and valuation of collateral pledged 
to secure deposits of public monies and other financial interests of 
the Federal Government.
    During fiscal year 2012, BPD will accord priority to the following 
regulatory projects:
    Over-the-Counter Savings Bonds. In December 2011, BPD anticipates 
issuing a rule ending the sale of definitive (paper) savings bonds.
    Savings Bond Paying Agent Regulations. BPD plans to issue a final 
rule amending the savings bond paying agent regulations (31 CFR parts 
321, 330) to provide for the conversion from use of the EZ Clear system 
to Check 21 in processing savings bonds redeemed at financial 
institutions.
    Eliminating Credit Rating References. In compliance with the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, BPD, on behalf of 
Treasury (Financial Markets), plans to amend the Government Securities 
Act regulations (17 CFR chapter IV) to eliminate references to credit 
ratings from Treasury's liquid capital rule.

Financial Management Service

    The Financial Management Service (FMS) issues regulations to 
improve the quality of Government financial management and to 
administer its payments, collections, debt collection, and 
Governmentwide accounting programs. For fiscal year 2012, FMS's 
regulatory plan includes the following priorities:
    Debt Collection Authorities Under the Debt Collection Improvement 
Act. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 authorizes Federal 
agencies to publish or otherwise publicly disseminate information 
regarding the identity of persons owing delinquent nontax debts to the 
United States for the purpose of collecting the debts, provided certain 
criteria are met. FMS is proposing to amend its regulation to establish 
the procedures Federal agencies must follow before publishing 
information about delinquent debtors and the standards for determining 
when use of this debt collection remedy is appropriate.
    Federal Government Participation in the Automated Clearing House. 
FMS recently amended its regulation governing the use of the Automated 
Clearing House (ACH) system by Federal agencies. The amendments adopt, 
with some exceptions, the 2009 ACH Rules published by NACHA--The 
Electronic Payments Association (NACHA), as the rules governing the use 
of the ACH Network by Federal agencies. FMS issued this rule to address 
changes that NACHA made to the ACH Rules since the publication of 
NACHA's 2007 ACH Rules book. These changes include new requirements to 
identify all international payment transactions using a new Standard 
Entry Class Code and to include certain information in the ACH record 
sufficient to allow the receiving financial institution to identity the 
parties to the transaction and to allow transactions to be screened for 
compliance with for Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 
requirements.

[[Page 7825]]

    In addition, the amendments require financial institutions to 
provide limited account-related customer information related to the 
reclamation of post-death benefit payments as permitted under the 
Payment Transactions Integrity Act of 2008. The amendments also allow 
Federal payments to be delivered to pooled or master accounts 
established by nursing facilities for residents of those facilities or 
held by religious orders whose members have taken vows of poverty.
    Indorsement and Payment of Checks Drawn on the United States 
Treasury. By amending our regulation governing the indorsement and 
payment of checks drawn on the United States Treasury, Treasury has the 
authority to direct Federal Reserve Banks to debit a financial 
institution's reserve account at the financial institution's servicing 
Federal Reserve Bank for all check reclamations that the financial 
institution has not protested. Financial institutions continue to have 
the right to file a protest with FMS if they believe a proposed 
reclamation is in error.

Domestic Finance--Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary (OFAS)

    The Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary develops policy for 
and oversees the operations of the financial infrastructure of the 
Federal Government, including payments, collections, cash management, 
financing, central accounting, and delinquent debt collection.
    Anti-Garnishment. On February 23, 2011, the Treasury published an 
interim final rule and request for public comment with the Office of 
Personnel Management, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Social 
Security Administration, and Veterans Affairs. Treasury plans to 
promulgate a final rule, with the Federal benefit agencies, in the next 
several months to give force and effect to various benefit agency 
statutes that exempt Federal benefits from garnishment. Typically, upon 
receipt of a garnishment order from a State court, financial 
institutions will freeze an account as they perform due diligence in 
complying with the order. The joint final rule will address this 
practice of account freezes to ensure that benefit recipients have 
access to a certain amount of lifeline funds while garnishment orders 
or other legal processes are resolved or adjudicated. The rule will 
provide financial institutions with specific administrative 
instructions to carry out upon receipt of a garnishment order. The 
final rule will apply to financial institutions, but is not expected to 
have specific provisions for consumers, debt collectors, or banking 
regulators. However, the banking regulators would enforce the policy in 
cases of non-compliance by means of their general authorities.

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

    The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (Fund) was 
established by the Community Development Banking and Financial 
Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). The primary purpose 
of the CDFI Fund is to promote economic revitalization and community 
development through the following programs: The Community Development 
Financial Institutions (CDFI) Program, the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) 
Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the 
New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program. In addition, the CDFI Fund 
administers the Financial Education and Counseling Pilot Program (FEC), 
the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), and the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program 
(BGP).
    In fiscal year (FY) 2012, the CDFI Fund will publish Interim 
regulations implementing the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program (BGP). The BGP 
was established through the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and 
authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (through the CDFI Fund) to 
guarantee the full amount of notes or bonds, including the principal, 
interest, and call premiums, issued to finance or refinance loans to 
certified CDFIs for eligible community or economic development purposes 
for a period not to exceed 30 years. The bonds or notes will support 
CDFI lending and investment by providing a source of long-term, patient 
capital to CDFIs. In accordance with Federal credit policy, the Federal 
Financing Bank (FFB), a body corporate and instrumentality of the 
United States Government under the general supervision and direction of 
the Secretary of the Treasury, will finance obligations that are 100 
percent guaranteed by the United States, such as the bonds or notes to 
be issued by Qualified Issuers under the BGP.
    In FY 2012, subject to funding availability, the Fund will provide 
awards through the following programs:
    Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Program. 
Through the CDFI Program, the CDFI Fund will provide technical 
assistance grants and financial assistance awards to financial 
institutions serving distressed communities.
    Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program. Through the NACA 
Program, the CDFI Fund will provide technical assistance grants and 
financial assistance awards to promote the development of CDFIs that 
serve Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities.
    Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program. Through the BEA Program, the 
CDFI Fund will provide financial incentives to encourage insured 
depository institutions to engage in eligible development activities 
and to make equity investments in CDFIs.
    New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program. Through the NMTC Program, 
the CDFI Fund will provide allocations of tax credits to qualified 
community development entities (CDEs). The CDEs in turn provide tax 
credits to private sector investors in exchange for their investment 
dollars; investment proceeds received by the CDEs are to be used to 
make loans and equity investments in low-income communities. The CDFI 
Fund administers the NMTC Program in coordination with the Office of 
Tax Policy and the Internal Revenue Service.
    CDFI Bond Guarantee Program (BGP). Through the BGP, the CDFI Fund 
will select Qualified Issuers of federally guaranteed bonds, the bond 
proceeds will be used to make or refinance loans to certified CDFIs. 
The bonds must be a minimum of $100 million and may have terms of up to 
30 years. The CDFI Fund is authorized to award up to $1 billion in 
guarantees per fiscal year through FY 2014.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in ``The Regulatory 
Plan.'' However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. Treasury's final plan can be found 
at: www.treasury.gov/open.

[[Page 7826]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        RIN                                 Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1545-BF40.........................................  Definitions and
                                                     Special Rules
                                                     Regarding Accuracy-
                                                     Related Penalties
                                                     on Underpayments
                                                     and Reportable
                                                     Transaction
                                                     Understatements and
                                                     the Reasonable
                                                     Cause Exception.
1513-AB07.........................................  Labeling and
                                                     Advertising of
                                                     Wines, Distilled
                                                     Spirits, and Malt
                                                     Beverages.
1513-AB39.........................................  Revision of American
                                                     Viticultural Area
                                                     Regulations.
1513-AA23.........................................  Revision of
                                                     Distilled Spirits
                                                     Plant Regulations.
1513-AB59.........................................  Proposed Revisions
                                                     to SDA and CDA
                                                     Formulas
                                                     Regulations.
1513-AB72.........................................  Implementation of
                                                     Statutory
                                                     Amendments
                                                     Requiring the
                                                     Qualification of
                                                     Manufacturers and
                                                     Importers of
                                                     Processed Tobacco
                                                     and Other
                                                     Amendments.
1513-AA00.........................................  Exportation of
                                                     Alcohol.
1513-AB62.........................................  Proposed Revisions
                                                     to Distilled
                                                     Spirits for Fuel
                                                     Use and Alcohol
                                                     Fuel Plant
                                                     Regulations.
1513-AB35.........................................  Self-Certification
                                                     of Nonbeverage
                                                     Product Formulas.
1513-AB35.........................................  Self-Certification
                                                     of Nonbeverage
                                                     Product Formulas.
1513-AB05.........................................  Proposed Revisions
                                                     to Beer
                                                     Regulations.
1513-AB89.........................................  Revisions to
                                                     Distilled Spirits
                                                     Plant Operations
                                                     Reports and
                                                     Regulations.
1515-AD67.........................................  Courtesy Notice of
                                                     Liquidation.
1505-AC05.........................................  TARP Conflicts of
                                                     Interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4810-25-P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit 
programs that recognize the important public obligations to those who 
served this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely 
confined to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress 
relating to programs for veterans and their beneficiaries. VA's major 
regulatory objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, 
and efficiency.
    Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three 
VA components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans 
Health Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The 
primary mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide 
high-quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and 
their beneficiaries. The primary mission of the Veterans Health 
Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis 
to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing 
homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The 
primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury 
eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their 
dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries 
as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful 
Nation to honor the memory and service of those who served in the Armed 
Forces.

VA Regulatory Priorities

    VA's regulatory priorities include a special project to undertake a 
comprehensive review and improvement of its existing regulations. The 
first portion of this project is devoted to reviewing, reorganizing, 
and rewriting the VA's compensation and pension regulations found in 38 
CFR part 3. The goal of the Regulation Rewrite Project is to improve 
the clarity and logical consistency of these regulations in order to 
better inform veterans and their family members of their entitlements.
    A second VA regulatory priority includes a new caregiver benefits 
program provided by VA. This rule implements title I of the Caregivers 
and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, which was signed into 
law on May 5, 2010. The purpose of the new caregiver benefits program 
is to provide certain medical, travel, training, and financial benefits 
to caregivers of certain veterans and servicemembers who were seriously 
injured in the line of duty on or after September 11, 2001.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found 
at: http://www.va.gov/ORPM/docs/RegMgmt_VA_EO13563_RegRevPlan20110810.docx.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Significantly reduce burdens
          RIN                  Title             on small businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2900-AO13*.............  VA Compensation    No.
                          and Pension
                          Regulation
                          Rewrite Project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Consolidating Proposed Rules: 2900-AL67, AL70, AL71, AL72, AL74, AL76,
  AL82, AL83, AL84, AL87, AL88, AL89, AL94, AL95, AM01, AM04, AM05,
  AM06, AM07, AM16.



[[Page 7827]]

VA

Proposed Rule Stage

119.  VA Compensation and Pension Regulation Rewrite Project

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 3; 38 CFR 5.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Since 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs (V) has 
published 20 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking to reorganize and rewrite 
its compensation and pension regulations in a logical, claimant-
focused, and user-friendly format. The intended effect of the proposed 
revisions was to assist claimants, beneficiaries, and VA personnel in 
locating and understanding these regulations. Several veterans service 
organizations have requested that VA republish all these regulations 
together to allow the public another opportunity to comment. This 
proposed rule would provide that opportunity.
    Statement of Need: Many current VA regulations on compensation and 
pension benefits are disorganized and confusing. This rulemaking will 
make these regulations much easier to find, read, understand, and 
apply.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 CFR 501(a).
    Alternatives: The only alternative would be for VA to amend the 
regulations in part 3 on a piecemeal basis.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The cost of publishing the new 
regulations in the Federal Register as a proposed and then as a final 
rule, plus the cost of publishing the regulations in the Code of 
Federal Regulations, is anticipated to be $281,316. There will be 
administrative costs to update VA publications with the new regulation 
citations, and the cost of a short training program for VA adjudication 
employees regarding the new regulations. These costs should be more 
than offset by improved efficiency resulting from the use of part 5 and 
by the benefits inherent in providing both VA employees and veterans 
with regulations they can more readily understand.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: William F. Russo, Office of Regulation Policy and 
Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-4902, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2900-AL67, Related to 2900-AL70, Related to 
2900-AL71, Related to 2900-AL72, Related to 2900-AL74, Related to 2900-
AL76, Related to 2900-AL82, Related to 2900-AL83, Related to 2900-AL84, 
Related to 2900-AL87, Related to 2900-AL88, Related to 2900-AL89, 
Related to 2900-AL94, Related to 2900-AL95, Related to 2900-AM01, 
Related to 2900-AM04, Related to 2900-AM05, Related to 2900-AM06, 
Related to 2900-AM07, Related to 2900-AM16.
    RIN: 2900-AO13

VA

Final Rule Stage

120. Caregivers Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 1720G
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.38; 38 CFR 71.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This document promulgates Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) interim final regulations concerning a new caregivers benefits 
program provided by VA. This rule implements title I of the Caregivers 
and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Public Law 111-163, 
which was signed into law on May 5, 2010. The purpose of the caregivers 
benefits program is to provide certain medical, travel, training, and 
financial benefits to caregivers of veterans and certain servicemembers 
who were seriously injured in the line of duty on or after September 
11, 2001.
    Statement of Need: This document adopts as final Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) interim final regulations concerning Caregiver 
benefits provided by VA. The rule implements title I of the Caregivers 
and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Caregivers Act), 
which was signed into law on May 5, 2010. The purpose of the Caregiver 
benefits program is to provide certain medical, travel, training, and 
financial benefits to Caregivers of certain Veterans and Servicemembers 
who were seriously injured during service on or after September 11, 
2001.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 111(e) and 1720G.
    Alternatives: There is no alternative; VA is required to implement 
the Caregivers Act.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs are described in detail in 
the Impact Analysis. The estimated costs associated with this 
regulation are $69,044,469.40 for FY 2011 and $777,060,923.18 over a 5-
year period. These include costs associated with the implementation and 
development of the Caregiver Support Program. The benefit is that by 
enabling and encouraging family members to serve as Caregivers, we hope 
to prevent the need to place these Veterans and Servicemembers in 
higher complexity treatment settings, and instead ensure that those who 
wish to, may continue to live in their homes with their families and 
loved ones.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   05/05/11  76 FR 26148
Interim Final Rule Effective........   05/05/11  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      07/05/11  .......................
 End.
Final Action........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Ethan Kalett, Director, VHA Regulations, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 675Q, Washington, DC 
20420, Phone: 202 461-7633, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AN94

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) is an Independent Federal agency established by section 
502 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792). The Access Board is 
responsible for developing accessibility guidelines and standards under 
various laws to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access 
to and use of buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles, and 
information and communication technology. Other Federal agencies adopt 
the accessibility guidelines and

[[Page 7828]]

standards issued by the Access Board as mandatory requirements for 
entities under their jurisdiction.
    The item in this regulatory plan is entitled ``Accessibility 
Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment.'' Section 4203 of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 
570) amended title V of the Rehabilitation Act, which establishes 
rights and protections for individuals with disabilities, by adding 
section 510. Section 510 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794f) 
requires the Access Board, in consultation with the Commissioner of the 
Food and Drug Administration, to issue standards that contain minimum 
technical criteria to ensure that medical diagnostic equipment, used in 
or in conjunction with medical settings such as physicians' offices, 
clinics, emergency rooms, and hospitals, are accessible to and usable 
by individuals with disabilities. The statute provides that the 
standards must allow for independent access to and use of the equipment 
by individuals with disabilities to the maximum extent possible. The 
statute lists examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales, 
mammography equipment, and other imaging equipment as examples of 
equipment to which the standards will apply. However, this list is not 
exclusive and the statute covers any equipment commonly used by health 
professionals for diagnostic purposes. The statute does not cover 
medical devices used for monitoring or treating medical conditions such 
as glucometers and infusion pumps.
    Section 510 of the Rehabilitation Act requires the standards to be 
issued not later than 24 months after the enactment of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act was enacted on March 23, 2010. Accordingly, the 
statutory deadline for issuing the standards is March 23, 2012.
    The Access Board has considered alternatives proposed by 
stakeholders at public hearings and identified in research. In 
addition, the Access Board has consulted closely with the Department of 
Justice and the Food and Drug Administration in the development of 
these draft standards. The Access Board has also considered approaches 
contained in the Association for the Advancement of Medical 
Instrumentation's ANSI/AAMI HE 75:2009, ``Human factors engineering--
Design of medical devices'' in developing the proposed standards. ANSI/
AAMI HE 75 is a recommended practice that provides guidance on human 
factors design principles for medical devices. Chapter 16 of ANSI/AAMI 
HE 75 provides guidance on accessibility for patients and health care 
professionals with disabilities. Chapter 16 of ANSI/AAMI HE 75 is 
available at: http://www.aami.org/he75/. The proposed standards do not 
reference the guidance in chapter 16 of ANSI/AAMI HE 75 because the 
guidance is not mandatory. The Access Board seeks to promote 
harmonization of its standards and guidelines with voluntary consensus 
standards and plans to participate in future revisions to ANSI/AAMI HE 
75.
    The Access Board is seeking input from the public on costs and 
benefits associated with these standards. Section 510 of the 
Rehabilitation Act does not address who is required to comply with the 
standards. Compliance with the standards is not mandatory unless other 
agencies adopt the standards as mandatory requirements for entities 
under their jurisdiction. In July 2010, the Department of Justice 
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) announcing that 
it was considering amending its Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 
regulations to ensure that equipment and furniture are accessible to 
individuals with disabilities. See 75 FR 43452 (July 26, 2010). The 
ANPRM noted that the ADA has always required the provision of 
accessible equipment and furniture, and that the Department has entered 
into settlement agreements with medical care providers requiring them 
to provide accessible medical equipment. The ANPRM stated that when the 
Access Board has issued accessibility standards for medical diagnostic 
equipment, the Department would consider adopting the standards in its 
ADA regulations. The ANPRM also stated that if the Department adopts 
the Access Board's accessibility standards for medical diagnostic 
equipment, it would develop scoping requirements that specify the 
minimum number of accessible types of equipment required for different 
medical settings.
    The rule is intended to reduce health and safety risks to 
individuals with disabilities by making medical diagnostic equipment 
accessible.

ATBCB

Proposed Rule Stage

121. Accessibility Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794(f)
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 1197 (New).
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, March 22, 2012, 29 U.S.C. 794(f).
    Abstract: This regulation will establish minimum technical criteria 
to ensure that medical equipment used for diagnostic purposes by health 
professionals in (or in conjunction with) physician's offices, clinics, 
emergency rooms, hospitals, and other medical settings is accessible to 
and usable by individuals with disabilities.
    Statement of Need: The Access Board is required to issue 
accessibility standards for medical diagnostic equipment by section 510 
of the Rehabilitation Act. The standards will reduce health and safety 
risks to individuals with disabilities by making medical diagnostic 
equipment accessible.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4203 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 570) amended title V of 
the Rehabilitation Act, which establishes rights and protections for 
individuals with disabilities by adding section 510. Section 510 of the 
Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794f) requires the Access Board, in 
consultation with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, 
to issue standards that contain minimum technical criteria to ensure 
that medical diagnostic equipment used in or in conjunction with 
medical settings such as physicians' offices, clinics, emergency rooms, 
and hospitals are accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities. The statute provides that the standards must allow for 
independent access to and use of the equipment by individuals with 
disabilities to the maximum extent possible. The statute lists 
examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales, mammography 
equipment, and other imaging equipment as examples of equipment to 
which the standards will apply. However, this list is not exclusive and 
the statute covers any equipment commonly used by health professionals 
for diagnostic purposes. The statute does not cover medical devices 
used for monitoring or treating medical conditions such as glucometers 
and infusion pumps.
    Alternatives: The Access Board has considered alternatives proposed 
by stakeholders at public hearings and identified in research. In 
addition, the Access Board has consulted closely with the Department of 
Justice and the Food and Drug Administration in the development of 
these draft standards. The Access Board has also considered approaches 
contained in the Association for the Advancement of Medical 
Instrumentation's ANSI/AAMI HE 75:2009, ``Human factors engineering--

[[Page 7829]]

Design of medical devices'' in developing the proposed standards. ANSI/
AAMI HE 75 is a recommended practice that provides guidance on human 
factors design principles for medical devices. Chapter 16 of ANSI/AAMI 
HE 75 provides guidance on accessibility for patients and health care 
professionals with disabilities. Chapter 16 of ANSI/AAMI HE 75 is 
available at: http://www.aami.org/he75/. The proposed standards do not 
reference the guidance in chapter 16 of ANSI/AAMI HE 75 because the 
guidance is not mandatory. The Access Board seeks to promote 
harmonization of its standards and guidelines with voluntary consensus 
standards and plans to participate in future revisions to ANSI/AAMI HE 
75.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Access Board is seeking input 
from the public on costs and benefits associated with these standards. 
Section 510 of the Rehabilitation Act does not address who is required 
to comply with the standards. Compliance with the standards is not 
mandatory unless other agencies adopt the standards as mandatory 
requirements for entities under their jurisdiction. In July 2010, the 
Department of Justice issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) announcing that it was considering amending its ADA regulations 
to ensure that equipment and furniture are accessible to individuals 
with disabilities. See 75 FR 43452 (Jul. 26, 2010). The ANPRM noted 
that the ADA has always required the provision of accessible equipment 
and furniture, and that the Department has entered into settlement 
agreements with medical care providers requiring them to provide 
accessible medical equipment. The ANPRM stated that when the Access 
Board has issued accessibility standards for medical diagnostic 
equipment, the Department would consider adopting the standards in its 
ADA regulations. The ANPRM also stated that, if the Department adopts 
the Access Board's accessibility standards for medical diagnostic 
equipment, it would develop scoping requirements that specify the 
minimum number of accessible types of equipment required for different 
medical settings.
    Risks: The rule is intended to reduce health and safety risks to 
individuals with disabilities by making medical diagnostic equipment 
accessible.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Public Information Meeting   06/22/10  75 FR 35439
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.access-board.gov/medical-equipment.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: James Raggio, General Counsel, Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 
1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111, Phone: 202 272-0040, TDD Phone: 202 
272-0062, Fax: 202 272-0081, Email: board.gov">raggio@access-board.gov.
    RIN: 3014-AA40

BILLING CODE 8150-01-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Priorities

Overview
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created on 
December 2, 1970, when Americans across the Nation took up a call for 
cleaner air, safer water, and unpolluted land. For the past 4 decades, 
EPA has confronted health and environmental challenges, fostered 
innovations, and cleaned up pollution in the places where people live, 
work, play, and learn.
    The EPA remains strongly committed to protecting health and the 
environment through:
     Taking action on climate change;
     Improving air quality;
     Assuring the safety of chemicals;
     Cleaning up our communities;
     Protecting America's waters;
     Expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working 
for environmental justice; and
     Building strong State and tribal partnerships.
    EPA and its Federal, State, local, and community partners have made 
enormous progress in protecting the Nation's health and environment. 
From reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants 
to doubling the fuel economy of our cars and trucks, the Agency is 
working to save tens of thousands of lives each year. Further, EPA has 
removed over a billion tons of pollution from the air and produced 
hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits for the American people. 
For example:
     The number of Americans receiving water that meets health 
standards has gone from 79 percent in 1993 to 92 percent in 2008.
     EPA has also helped realize a 60 percent reduction in the 
dangerous air pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, lead poisoning, 
and more since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. Innovations 
like smokestack scrubbers and catalytic converters in automobiles have 
helped this process.
     Today, new cars are 98 percent cleaner in terms of smog-
forming pollutants than they were in 1970.
     Meanwhile, American families and businesses have gone from 
recycling about 10 percent of trash in 1980 to more than 33 percent in 
2008. Eighty-three million tons of trash are recycled annually--the 
equivalent of cutting greenhouse gas emissions from more than 33 
million automobiles.

Highlights of EPA's Regulatory Plan

    EPA's 40 years of environmental and health protection demonstrate 
our Nation's ability to create jobs while we clean our air, water, and 
land. Clean air, clean water, and healthy workers are all essential to 
American businesses. Moreover, innovations in clean technology are 
creating new jobs right now. Addressing climate change calls for 
coordinated national and global efforts to research alternative fuels 
and other emission reduction technologies and requires strong 
partnerships across economic sectors and around the world. Similarly, 
energy consumption and higher costs underscore the need to promote 
alternative energy sources and invest in new technologies.
Seven Guiding Priorities
    The EPA's success depends on supporting innovation and creativity 
in both what we do and how we do it. To guide the Agency's efforts, 
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has established seven guiding priorities. 
These priorities are enumerated in the list that follows, along with 
recent progress and future objectives for each.
1. Taking Action on Climate Change
    While the EPA stands ready to help Congress craft strong, science-
based climate legislation that addresses the spectrum of issues, the 
Agency will deploy existing regulatory tools as they are available and 
warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will continue to

[[Page 7830]]

develop greenhouse gas standards for both mobile and stationary 
sources.
    Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Automobiles and Trucks. Last 
year, EPA issued joint regulations with the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration that will improve fuel economy and reduce GHG 
emissions from light-duty vehicles for the 2012 to 2016 model years and 
from heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Building on that success, the two 
agencies are now developing a rule that will require further 
improvements in light-duty vehicles for the model years 2017 to 2025.
    Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Power Plants. In 2012, EPA 
will also continue to develop common-sense solutions for reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources like power 
plants.
2. Improving Air Quality
    Since passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, nationwide 
air quality has improved significantly for the six criteria air 
pollutants for which there are national ambient air quality standards. 
Long-term exposure to air pollution can cause cancer and damage to the 
immune, neurological, reproductive, cardiovascular, and respiratory 
systems.
    Reviewing and Implementing Air Quality Standards. Despite progress, 
millions of Americans still live in areas that exceed one or more of 
the national standards. Ground-level ozone and particle pollution still 
present challenges in many areas of the country. This year's regulatory 
plan describes efforts to review the primary National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulates.
    Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards. EPA plans to propose new vehicle 
emission and fuel standards to further reduce NOX, PM, and 
air toxics. These standards will address the Energy Independence and 
Security Act (EISA) ``anti-backsliding'' provision, which requires the 
Agency to assess the air quality impacts of renewable fuel mandates and 
take steps to mitigate them. These standards will also help states to 
achieve air quality standards.
    Cleaner Air From Improved Technology. EPA continues to address 
toxic air pollution under authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990. The centerpiece of this effort is the ``Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology'' (MACT) program, which requires that all major 
sources of a given type use emission controls that better reflect the 
current state of the art.
3. Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
    One of EPA's highest priorities is to make significant and long-
overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals. Using sound 
science as a compass, EPA protects individuals, families, and the 
environment from potential risks of pesticides and other chemicals.
    Enhancing EPA's Current Chemicals Management Program Under the 
Toxic Substances Control Act. EPA continues to target priority 
chemicals for action and to identify both concerns that the chemicals 
may present and actions the Agency will take to address those concerns. 
EPA is undertaking a range of actions to address potential risks, 
including establishing for the first time criteria for the use of 
TSCA's section 5(b)(4) authority and proposing actions under TSCA to 
gather additional information on nanoscale chemical materials.
    Enhancing Agricultural Worker Protection and Strengthening 
Pesticide Applicator Safety. EPA is developing a proposal to strengthen 
the existing agricultural worker protection regulation, which is 
designed to protect agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers by 
improving pesticide safety training for workers and protections from 
exposure during work activities. This proposal will also address key 
environmental justice concerns for a population that is 
disproportionately affected by pesticide exposure. In addition, EPA 
expects to propose changes to the existing regulations for certifying 
the competency of pesticide applicators to apply pesticides safely. 
Both of these rules also aim to protect child and adolescent 
agricultural workers.
4. Cleaning Up Communities
    EPA supports urban, suburban, and rural community goals of 
improving environmental, human health, and quality-of-life outcomes 
through partnerships that also promote economic opportunities, energy 
efficiency, and revitalized neighborhoods. Sustainable communities 
balance their economic and natural assets so that the diverse needs of 
local residents can be met now and in the future with limited 
environmental impacts. EPA accomplishes these outcomes by working with 
communities, other Federal agencies, States, and national experts to 
develop and encourage development strategies that have better outcomes 
for air quality, water quality, and land preservation and 
revitalization.
5. Protecting America's Waters
    We have made considerable progress in cleaning up many of America's 
waters, but water quality and enforcement programs face on-going 
challenges. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative 
strategies.
    Clean Water Protection. After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 
SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of ``waters of the U.S.'' protected under 
all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and 
uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for ``waters of the United 
States.'' As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of 
all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current 
regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.'' U.S. EPA and 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for 
determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act.
    Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA proposed a regulation 
that would collect information about concentrated animal feeding 
operations (CAFOs). CAFOs are a significant source of nutrient 
pollution and pathogens in U.S. watersheds. The information that would 
be collected under the proposed rule would allow EPA to increase water 
quality protection through better implementation of the NPDES 
permitting program for CAFOs. The proposed regulation would apply to 
all permitted and unpermitted CAFOs. EPA co-proposed a regulation that 
would only collect information from CAFOs in targeted areas, if EPA 
determined such collection was necessary based on specified factors, 
such as water quality concerns.
    Streamlining. EPA intends to review the regulations that apply to 
the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permits, which are the wastewater permits that facility operators must 
obtain before they discharge pollutants to any water of the United 
States. EPA plans to update specific elements of the existing NPDES in 
order to better harmonize regulations and application forms, improve 
permit documentation and transparency, and provide clarifications to 
the existing regulations.
6. Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for 
Environmental Justice
    Environmental Justice in Rulemaking. EPA released ``Plan EJ 2014'' 
in September 2011. This Plan, which marks the 20th anniversary of the

[[Page 7831]]

signing of Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice, is EPA's 
overarching strategy for advancing environmental justice. It seeks to 
protect the environment and health in overburdened communities, empower 
communities to take action to improve their health and environment, and 
establish partnerships with local, State, tribal, and Federal 
governments, and organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable 
communities. The Plan is an important and positive step toward meeting 
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's priority to work for environmental 
justice and protect the health and safety of communities that have been 
disproportionately impacted by pollution.
    Children's Health. EPA continues to lead efforts to protect 
children from environmental health risks, in accordance with Executive 
Order 13045. To accomplish this, EPA intends to use a variety of 
approaches, including regulation, enforcement, research, outreach, 
community-based programs, and partnerships to protect pregnant women, 
infants, children, and adolescents from environmental and human health 
hazards.
7. Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
    EPA's success depends more than ever on working with increasingly 
capable and environmentally conscious partners. While the Agency works 
with the States and tribes on the day-to-day mission of environmental 
protection, declining tax revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring 
State agencies and tribal governments to do more with fewer resources. 
EPA is supportive of State and tribal capacity to ensure that programs 
are consistently delivered nationwide. This provides EPA and its 
intergovernmental partners with an opportunity to further strengthen 
their working relationship and, thereby, more effectively pursue their 
shared goal of protecting the Nation's environment and public health.
    Recognizing the Right of Tribes as Sovereign Nations. In FY 2009, 
EPA Administrator Jackson reaffirmed the Agency's Indian Policy, which 
recognizes that the United States has a unique legal relationship with 
tribal governments based on treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and 
court decisions. EPA recognizes the right of tribes as sovereign 
governments to self-determination and acknowledges the Federal 
Government's trust responsibility to tribes.
* * * * *
    The priorities described above will guide EPA's work in the years 
ahead. They are built around the challenges and opportunities inherent 
in our mission to protect health and the environment for all Americans. 
This mission is carried out by respecting EPA's core values of science, 
transparency, and the rule of law. Within these parameters, EPA 
carefully considers the impacts its regulatory actions will have on 
society.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Just as today's economy is vastly different from that of 40 years 
before, EPA's regulatory program is evolving to recognize the progress 
that has already been made in environmental protection and to 
incorporate new technologies and approaches that allow us to accomplish 
our mission more efficiently and effectively. A central goal, 
consistent with January's Executive Order 13563, is to identify methods 
for reducing unjustified burdens and costs. In August, EPA released a 
plan for periodically reviewing EPA's existing regulations. The Agency 
intends to apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to both 
retrospective reviews of existing regulations and the development of 
new regulations. As called for by Executive Order 13563, EPA intends to 
seek ways ``to determine whether * * * regulations should be modified, 
streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the Agency's 
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the 
regulatory objectives.''
    The EPA's Final Plan for Retrospective Reviews of Existing 
Regulations (Retrospective Review Plan) describes a large number of 
burden-reducing, cost-saving reforms, including 35 priority 
initiatives. Some of these have recently been completed; others are in 
process; still others are in their earliest stages. The potential 
economic savings are significant. For example, a recently proposed rule 
may eliminate redundant air pollution control requirements now imposed 
on gas stations; that rule would save $87 million annually. Taken as a 
whole, recent reforms, already finalized or formally proposed, are 
anticipated to save up to $1.5 billion over the next 5 years. Other 
reforms described in the Retrospective Review Plan, including efforts 
to streamline requirements and to move to electronic reporting, could 
save more.
    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulation Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in EPA's final Retrospective 
Review Plan. Some of the entries on this list may be completed actions, 
which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more information 
can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of 
the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for 
the Agency. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The 
final Agency plan can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2060-AQ86.........................................  Control of Air
                                                     Pollution From
                                                     Motor Vehicles:
                                                     Tier 3 Motor
                                                     Vehicle Emission
                                                     and Fuel Standards.
2060-AQ54.........................................  Joint Rulemaking To
                                                     Establish 2017 and
                                                     Later Model Year
                                                     Light Duty Vehicle
                                                     GHG Emissions and
                                                     CAFE Standards.
2060-AQ41.........................................  Risk and Technology
                                                     Review for National
                                                     Emission Standards
                                                     for Hazardous Air
                                                     Pollutants From the
                                                     Pulp and Paper
                                                     Industry.
2060-AO60.........................................  New Source
                                                     Performance
                                                     Standards (NSPS)
                                                     Review Under CAA
                                                     Section
                                                     111(b)(1)(B).
2060-AR00.........................................  Uniform Standards
                                                     for Equipment Leaks
                                                     and Ancillary
                                                     Systems, Closed
                                                     Vent Systems and
                                                     Control Devices,
                                                     Storage Vessels and
                                                     Transfer
                                                     Operations, and
                                                     Wastewater
                                                     Operations.
2070-AJ20.........................................  Pesticides;
                                                     Certification of
                                                     Pesticide
                                                     Applicators.
2070-AJ63.........................................  TSCA Reporting
                                                     Requirements; Minor
                                                     Revisions.
2040-AF25.........................................  National Pollutant
                                                     Discharge
                                                     Elimination System
                                                     (NPDES) Application
                                                     and Program Updates
                                                     Rule.
2050-AG50.........................................  Oil Pollution
                                                     Prevention: Spill
                                                     Prevention,
                                                     Control, and
                                                     Countermeasure Rule
                                                     Requirements--Amend
                                                     ments for Milk
                                                     Containers.
2060-AP64.........................................  Clean Alternative
                                                     Fuel Vehicle and
                                                     Engine Conversions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7832]]

Rules Expected To Affect Small Entities

    By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to 
improve its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens 
to small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses' 
participation in its voluntary programs. Actions that may affect small 
entities can be tracked on EPA's Regulatory Development and 
Retrospective Review Tracker (http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/) at any 
time. This Plan includes a number of rules that may be of particular 
interest to small entities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2060-AR13.........................................  National Emission
                                                     Standards for
                                                     Hazardous Air
                                                     Pollutants for
                                                     Major Sources:
                                                     Industrial,
                                                     Commercial, and
                                                     Institutional
                                                     Boilers and Process
                                                     Heaters; Proposed
                                                     Reconsideration.
2060-AP52.........................................  National Emission
                                                     Standards for
                                                     Hazardous Air
                                                     Pollutants From
                                                     Coal- and Oil-fired
                                                     Electric Utility
                                                     Steam Generating
                                                     Units and Standards
                                                     of Performance for
                                                     Electric Utility
                                                     Steam Generating
                                                     Units.
2060-AQ86.........................................  Control of Air
                                                     Pollution From
                                                     Motor Vehicles:
                                                     Tier 3 Motor
                                                     Vehicle Emission
                                                     and Fuel Standards.
2070-AJ56.........................................  Lead; Renovation,
                                                     Repair, and
                                                     Painting Program
                                                     for Public and
                                                     Commercial
                                                     Buildings.
2070-AJ44.........................................  Formaldehyde
                                                     Emissions From
                                                     Pressed Wood
                                                     Products.
2050-AG61.........................................  Financial
                                                     Responsibility
                                                     Requirements Under
                                                     CERCLA Section
                                                     108(b) for Classes
                                                     of Facilities in
                                                     the Hard Rock
                                                     Mining Industry.
2040-AF13.........................................  Stormwater
                                                     Regulations
                                                     Revision To Address
                                                     Discharges from
                                                     Developed Sites.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


EPA

Proposed Rule Stage

122. Risk and Technology Review for National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper Industry

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 112
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.440 to 63.459.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, December 15, 2011, Consent decree 
deadline completed.
    Final, Judicial, July 31, 2012, Consent decree deadline.
    Abstract: Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA 
to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and to determine if 
additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks, to be 
completed 8 years after promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA 
requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards as necessary, 
taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies, to be done at least every 8 years. The National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Pulp and Paper 
Industry (subpart S) was promulgated in 1998 and also has not been 
reviewed. This action will propose those amendments.
    Statement of Need: The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) in the Pulp and Paper Category was promulgated 
April 15, 1998 and codified as subpart S in 40 CFR parts 63.440 to 
63.459. Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to 
conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, and to determine if 
additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks, to be 
completed 8 years after promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA 
requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards as necessary, 
taking into account developments in practices, processes and control 
technologies, to be done at least every 8 years.
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPA has signed a consent agreement that 
directs it to propose a Risk and Technology Review rule (RTR) to 
address the requirements of Sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6) by December 
15, 2011 and promulgate a final RTR rule for this category by July 31, 
2012.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/27/11  76 FR 81328
Final Action........................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544.
    Agency Contact: Bill Schrock, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-5432, Fax: 919 541-3470, Email: [email protected].
    Robin Dunkins, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-5335, Fax: 
919 541-3470.
    RIN: 2060-AQ41

EPA

123. Joint Rulemaking To Establish 2017 and Later Model Year Light Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 to 7671q
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 86 and 600
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of 
the Department of Transportation, have proposed a joint rulemaking on 
GHG and CAFE standards for model years 2017 to 2025 light-duty 
vehicles. This action represents a continuation of a coordinated 
National Program under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and 
Security Act (EISA), to improve fuel efficiency and to reduce 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of light-duty vehicles. On July 29, 
2011, President Obama announced a historic agreement with 13 automakers 
and the State of California to pursue 2017 to 2025 standards. This 
announcement was accompanied by a joint Supplemental Notice of Intent, 
issued by EPA and NHTSA, which outlined the standards and other key 
program elements the agencies intend to propose in the upcoming 
rulemaking. EPA and NHTSA intend to propose that automobile 
manufacturers meet a model year 2025 CO2 standard of 163 
grams/mile, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if the 
standard were achieved with fuel economy technologies alone. This 
latest notice followed a September 30, 2010, joint Notice of Intent 
that provided an initial assessment of potential levels of stringency 
for 2017 to

[[Page 7833]]

2025 standards, an Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report published 
jointly by EPA, NHTSA, and the California Resources Board in September 
2010, and a November 30, 2010, Supplemental Notice summarizing key 
stakeholder comments.
    Statement of Need: EPA has found that emissions of greenhouse gases 
(GHGs) from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to pollution that 
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. 
Light-duty vehicles emit four GHGs--carbon dioxide (CO2), 
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NOX), and 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)--and are responsible for nearly 60 percent of 
all mobile-source GHGs. On May 21, 2010, the President called on the 
EPA and NHTSA, in close coordination with California, to begin the next 
phase of the National Clean Car Program and propose new standards for 
model years 2017 to 2025, in response to the urgent and closely 
intertwined challenges faced by our Nation of dependence on oil, energy 
security, and global climate change. This rulemaking would provide 
significant additional reductions in GHGs from future light-duty 
vehicles and fuel efficiency improvements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1) states 
that ``The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time 
to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, 
standards applicable to the emissions of any air pollutant from any 
class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, 
which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution, which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' 
Section 202(a) covers light-duty vehicles. In April 2007, the Supreme 
Court found in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases fit well 
within the Act's capacious definition of ``air pollutant'' and that EPA 
has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new 
motor vehicles. Lastly, in December 2009, EPA published two findings 
(74 FR 66496) that emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle engines contribute to air pollution, and that the air pollution 
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
    Alternatives: The rulemaking proposal includes an evaluation of 
regulatory alternatives that can be considered in addition to the 
Agency's primary proposal. In addition, the proposal includes tools 
such as averaging, banking, and trading of emissions credits and other 
flexibilities for alternative approaches for compliance with the 
proposed program.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The standards under consideration 
are projected to reduce GHGs by approximately 2 billion metric tons and 
save 4 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of MY 2017 to 2025 
vehicles. These standards would have significant benefits to American 
consumers by reducing the costs they would pay to fuel these more 
efficient vehicles.
    Risks: The failure to set new GHG standards for light-duty vehicles 
would increase the risk of unacceptable climate change impacts.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent....................   10/13/10  75 FR 62739
Supplemental Notice of Intent.......   12/08/10  75 FR 76337
2nd Supplemental Notice of Intent...   08/09/11  76 FR 48758
NPRM................................   12/01/11  76 FR 74854
Final Action........................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0799.
    Sectors Affected: 811198 All Other Automotive Repair and 
Maintenance; 336111 Automobile Manufacturing; 423110 Automobile and 
Other Motor Vehicle Merchant Wholesalers; 811112 Automotive Exhaust 
System Repair; 811111 General Automotive Repair; 441120 Used Car 
Dealers.
    Agency Contact: Robin Moran, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, NVFEL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4781, Fax: 
734 214-4816, Email: [email protected].
    Chris Lieske, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
NVFEL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4584, Fax: 734 214-4816, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AQ54

EPA

124. Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review And NSPS

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act secs 111 and 112
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 and 63.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, December 10, 2011, Settlement 
Agreement. Final, Judicial, November 10, 2012, Settlement Agreement.
    Abstract: This action is the Petroleum Refining Sector Rulemaking, 
which will address our obligation to perform Risk and Technology 
Reviews (RTR) for Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 and 2 source categories and 
will address issues related to the reconsideration of Petroleum 
Refinery New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Ja.
    EPA entered into a settlement agreement with multiple litigants on 
December 23, 2010. The settlement agreement requires EPA to propose 
standards of performance for GHGs for affected facilities at refineries 
that are subject to NSPS subparts J and Ja (Petroleum Refineries, 
including flares, process heaters, fluid catalytic cracking units, 
fluid cokers, delayed cokers, and sulfur recovery plants), subpart Db 
(Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units [Boilers]), 
subpart Dc (Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating 
Units), subpart GGG (Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries; 
e.g., leaking equipment components such as pumps, valves, flanges), and 
subpart QQQ (VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems; 
e.g., drain systems and oil water separators) and to propose emissions 
guidelines for GHGs from existing affected facilities at refineries in 
the source categories covered by those NSPS subparts. The settlement 
also requires EPA to propose to address remaining issues raised in a 
petition filed in response to the June 24, 2008, promulgation of 
amendments to the Refinery NSPS subpart J and new standards of 
performance for subpart Ja, and to propose standards, as necessary, to 
address the RTR review for the 2002 Refinery MACT II standards. The 
settlement requires EPA to issue final standards for the NSPS and RTR 
reviews by November 10, 2012. This settlement agreement is currently 
under negotiation.
    In this action, we will also conduct RTR reviews for the two 
Petroleum Refinery MACT. We will use information obtained through a 
comprehensive information collection process to address The MACT and 
NSPS reviews. Uniform standards (for heat exchangers, equipment leaks, 
storage vessels and transfer operations; control devices and closed-
vent systems) are being developed in separate actions and

[[Page 7834]]

will specify work practices, equipment standards, and monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The refinery sector MACT and 
NSPS are expected to reference the uniform standards. Later, chemical 
sector MACT and NSPS will also reference the uniform standards, which 
will ensure that requirements are consistent, to the extent 
appropriate, across the chemical sectors.
    Statement of Need: Under the ``technology review'' provision of CAA 
section 112, EPA is required to review maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standards and to revise them ``as necessary (taking 
into account developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years. Under the 
``residual risk'' provision of CAA section 112, EPA must evaluate the 
MACT standards within 8 years after promulgation and promulgate 
standards if required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health or prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 
111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA mandates that EPA review and, if appropriate, 
revise existing NSPS every 8 years.
    Summary of Legal Basis: CAA sections 111 and 112.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA is currently assessing the costs 
and benefits associated with this action.
    Risks: EPA is currently assessing risks for this action.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Action described in RIN 2060-AQ28 (NSPS 
reconsideration issues) will be included in this action. EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682.
    Sectors Affected: 32411 Petroleum Refineries.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/petrefpg.html.
    Agency Contact: Brenda Shine, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-3608, Fax: 919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
    Penny Lassiter, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
E1430-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-5396, Fax: 
919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AQ75

EPA

125. Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle 
Emission and Euel Standards

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: CAA 202(a) and 211(v)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will establish new standards for light-duty 
vehicles and their fuels in order to reduce emissions of criteria and 
toxic pollutants and their impact on air quality and health. This 
action will set forth a comprehensive approach toward regulating motor 
vehicles for non-greenhouse gas pollutants, as requested by a May 2010 
Presidential memorandum.
    Statement of Need: States are working to attain National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards for ozone, PM, and NOX. Light-duty 
vehicles are responsible for a significant portion of the precursors to 
these pollutants and are large contributors to ambient air toxic 
pollution. For example, without future controls, by 2014 light-duty 
vehicles are projected to contribute 25 percent of nationwide mobile-
source NOX, 40 percent of nationwide mobile-source VOC, and 
10 percent nationwide mobile-source PM. Importantly, by 2020 mobile 
sources are expected to be as much as 50 percent of the inventories for 
some individual urban areas without future controls. Light-duty 
vehicles also contribute about half of the 2030 mobile source inventory 
of toxics; the 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment showed that 
mobile sources were responsible for over 50 percent of cancer risk and 
over 80 percent of noncancer hazard. Clearly, there is a need for 
tighter light-duty vehicle standards and fuel standards as part of a 
comprehensive approach to reducing pollution from motor vehicles. 
Renewable fuels are recognized to pose potential air quality concerns, 
and EPA has a mandate to address them under Clean Air Act section 
211(q) and 211(v). Specifically, both EPAct of 2005 and EISA (2007) 
amended the CAA to require EPA to determine adverse air quality impacts 
of renewable fuels and to implement appropriate measures to mitigate 
these impacts to the greatest extent achievable.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act, section 202(a)(1), 
states ``The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time 
to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, 
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any 
class, or class of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, 
which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may 
be reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' 
Section 202(a) covers all on-highway vehicles, including medium and 
heavy-duty trucks. EPA is also using its authority under section 211(c) 
of the Clean Air Act to address gasoline sulfur controls, section 
211(h) to address Reid Vapor Pressure, and section 211(v), which 
requires that the Administrator promulgate fuel regulations to 
implement appropriate measures to mitigate, to the greatest extent 
achievable, and considering the results of the anti-backsliding study 
completed under section 211(v)(1), any adverse impacts on air quality 
as a results of the renewable volumes or make a determination that no 
such measures are necessary.
    Alternatives: The rulemaking proposal will include an evaluation of 
regulatory alternatives that can be considered in addition to the 
Agency's primary proposal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Detailed analysis of economy-wide 
cost impacts, emissions reductions, and societal benefits will be 
performed during the rulemaking process.
    Risks: The failure to set new Tier 3 vehicle/fuel standards will 
adversely impact the population living in nonattainment areas, where 
reductions from the Tier 3 rule are needed to help attain and maintain 
the ozone and PM NAAQS (and to mitigate adverse effects of renewable 
fuels). Also, without the new Tier 3 vehicle/fuel standards, the 
sizeable population living, working, and going to school near roads 
will continue to be exposed to higher levels of air toxics, which is a 
current environmental justice and children's health concern.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0135. Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563.

[[Page 7835]]

    Sectors Affected: 811198 All Other Automotive Repair and 
Maintenance; 336111 Automobile Manufacturing; 811112 Automotive Exhaust 
System Repair; 336311 Carburetor, Piston, Piston Ring, and Valve 
Manufacturing; 336312 Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing; 
336120 Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing; 336112 Light Truck and Utility 
Vehicle Manufacturing; 454312 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas) 
Dealers; 541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services; 
324110 Petroleum Refineries; 484220 Specialized Freight (except Used 
Goods) Trucking, Local; 484230 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) 
Trucking, Long-Distance.
    Agency Contact: Catherine Yanca, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation, NVFEL S87, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4769, 
Email: [email protected].
    Kathryn Sargeant, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, NVFEL S77, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4441, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AQ86

EPA

126. Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard for Electric 
Generating Units for New Sources

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: CAA 111
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, September 30, 2011. Final, 
Judicial, May 25, 2012.
    Abstract: This action will amend the electric generating units 
(EGUs) New Source Performance Standard and add a section 111(b) 
greenhouse gas (GHG) standard for new and modified facilities.
    Statement of Need: EPA entered into settlement agreement with 
multiple State and environmental petitioners on December 21, 2010, to 
establish standards of performance for GHGs for new EGUs and emissions 
guidelines for GHGs from existing EGUs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 111.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAP-2011-
0660.
    Sectors Affected: 221 Utilities.
    Agency Contact: Christian Fellner, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 
919 541-4003, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: 
[email protected].
    Brian Shrager, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-7689, Fax: 
919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AQ91

EPA

127.  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient 
Production, and Polyether Polyols Production Risk and Technology Review

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act secs 111 and 112.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 and 63.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, November 30, 2011. Final, Judicial, 
November 30, 2012.
    Abstract: In this action, EPA will perform risk and technology 
reviews for three National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP). These NESHAP are under a deadline consent decree 
for proposal in November 2011 and promulgation in November 2012: Group 
IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, and 
Polyether Polyols Production. Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(f)(2) 
and 112(d)(6) require EPA to conduct residual risk and technology 
reviews. Under the ``technology review'' provision of CAA section 112, 
EPA is required to review maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
standards and to revise them ``as necessary (taking into account 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no 
less frequently than every 8 years. Under the ``residual risk'' 
provision of CAA section 112, EPA must evaluate the MACT standards 
within 8 years after promulgation and promulgate standards if required 
to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or 
prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the 
CAA mandates that EPA review and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS 
every 8 years. EPA will also remove startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
exemptions for these source categories, as required by recent court 
decisions.
    Statement of Need: This action addresses EPA's statutory 
obligations to perform Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR) and NSPS 
reviews for chemical sector MACT. It will address Clean Air Act (CAA) 
section 112(f)(2) to conduct residual risk reviews, section 112(d)(6) 
to conduct technology reviews, and section 111(b)(1)(B) to conduct NSPS 
reviews for multiple chemical sector source categories. Under the 
``technology review'' provision of CAA section 112, EPA is required to 
review maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and to 
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years. Under the ``residual risk'' provision of CAA 
section 112, EPA must evaluate the MACT standards within 8 years after 
promulgation and promulgate standards if required to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Under the CAA section 111, EPA must evaluate NSPS 
requirements and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS every 8 years.
    Summary of Legal Basis: CAA sections 111 and 112.
    Alternatives: Unavailable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are currently estimating the 
costs and benefits associated with this action.
    Risks: We are currently assessing the risks associated with this 
action.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/09/12  77 FR 1268
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/09/12  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
    Agency Contact: Nick Parsons, Environmental Protection Agency, Air

[[Page 7836]]

and Radiation, E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-5372, Fax: 919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
    Penny Lassiter, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
E1430-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-5396, Fax: 
919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AR02

EPA

128.  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 
and Process Heaters; Proposed Reconsideration

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal 
governments and the private sector.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 112
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA estimates the total national capital cost for the 
proposed reconsideration rule to be approximately $5.4 billion in the 
year 2015, with a total national annual cost of $1.5 billion in the 
year 2015. The annual cost, which considers fuel savings, includes 
control device operation and maintenance, as well as monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and performance testing. EPA estimates that 
implementation of the rulemaking, as proposed, would reduce nationwide 
emissions from major source boilers and process heaters by: 1,000 to 
3,600 pounds per year of mercury, 2,200 tpy of non-mercury metals, 
37,000 tpy of HCl, 41,000 tpy of PM, 560,000 tpy of SO2, and 
4,700 tpy of volatile organic compounds. These emissions reductions 
would lead to the following annual health benefits. In 2015, this rule 
will protect public health by avoiding 3,100 to 8,000 premature deaths, 
2,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,900 nonfatal heart attacks, 5,350 
hospital and emergency room visits, 4,600 cases of acute bronchitis, 
390,000 days when people miss work, 51,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 
and 96,000 acute respiratory symptoms. The monetized value of the 
benefits ranges from $27 billion to $67 billion in 2015--outweighing 
the costs by at least $25 billion.
    Statement of Need: As a result of the vacatur of the Industrial 
Boiler MACT, the Agency will develop another rulemaking under CAA 
section 112, which will reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 
from this source category. Recent court decisions on other CAA section 
112 rules will be considered in developing this regulation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 112.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA estimates the total national 
capital cost for the final rule to be approximately $9.5 billion in the 
year 2013, with a total national annual cost of $2.9 billion in the 
year 2013. The annual cost, which considers fuel savings, includes 
control device operation and maintenance as well as monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and performance testing. EPA estimates that 
implementation of the rulemaking, as proposed, would reduce nationwide 
emissions from major source boilers and process heaters by: 15,000 
pounds per year of mercury, 3,200 tons per year (tpy) of non-mercury 
metals, 37,000 tpy of HCl, 50,000 tpy of PM, 340,000 tpy of 
SO2, 722 grams per year of dioxin, and 1,800 tpy of volatile 
organic compounds. These emissions reductions would lead to the 
following annual health benefits. In 2013, this rule will protect 
public health by avoiding 1,900 to 4,800 premature deaths, 1,300 cases 
of chronic bronchitis, 3,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 3,200 hospital and 
emergency room visits, 3,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 250,000 days 
when people miss work, 33,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1,500,000 
acute respiratory symptoms. The monetized value of the benefits ranges 
from $17 billion to $41 billion in 2013--outweighing the costs by at 
least $14 billion.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/23/11  76 FR 80598
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/21/12  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Additional Information: Split from RIN 2060-AQ25. Split from RIN 
2060-AM44. This rulemaking combines the area source rulemaking for 
boilers and the rulemaking for reestablishing the vacated NESHAP for 
boilers and process heaters. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0058.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 611 Educational 
Services; 322 Paper Manufacturing; 221 Utilities; 321 Wood Product 
Manufacturing.
    Agency Contact: Brian Shrager, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-7689, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    Robert J Wayland, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
1045, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AR13

EPA

129.  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; 
Reconsideration and Proposed Rule Amendments

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 112
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, April 30, 2012, Tentative date 
for promulgation of amendments to the rule.
    Abstract: On March 21, 2011, EPA issued a final rule establishing 
standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants from boilers 
located at area sources. EPA also issued on March 21, 2011, a Notice of 
Reconsideration listing four issues for which additional opportunity 
for public review and comment should be obtained. Subsequently, we 
received petitions to reconsider and clarify and amend certain 
applicability and implementation provisions of the final rule. This 
action will propose the amendments after we analyze the information 
submitted in the petitions.
    Statement of Need: Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to 
convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule if a person 
raising an objection to the rule can demonstrate to EPA that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment, and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 112.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.

[[Page 7837]]

    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost and benefits numbers for the 
Boiler Area Source Rule (subpart JJJJJJ) are as follows.
    Proposal: Total annualized costs = $1.0 billion. Total net 
monetized benefits = $0.5 billion to $1.9 billion (3% discount rate), 
$0.4 billion to $1.7 billion (7% discount rate). Non-monetized Benefits 
= 39,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 130 tons of HCl, 5 tons of HF, 0.75 
tons of mercury, 250 tons of other metals, 470 grams of dioxins/furans. 
Additionally, health effects from NO2 and SO2 
exposure diminish, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 
impairment.
    Final: Total annualized costs = $535 million. Total net monetized 
benefits = -$280 million to $30 million (3% discount rate), -$300 
million to -$20 million (7% discount rate). Non-monetized Benefits = 
1,100 tons of carbon monoxide, 340 tons of HCl, 8 tons of HF, 90 pounds 
of mercury, 320 tons of other metals, <1 gram of dioxins/furans (TEQ), 
health effects from SO2 exposure, ecosystem effects, 
visibility impairment.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/23/11  76 FR 80532
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/21/12  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Split from RIN 2060-AM44. Related to RIN 
2060-AQ25. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790.
    Sectors Affected: 611 Educational Services; 62 Health Care and 
Social Assistance; 44-45 Retail Trade; 321 Wood Product Manufacturing.
    Agency Contact: Jim Eddinger, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-5426, Email: [email protected].
    Robert J Wayland, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
1045, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AR14

EPA

130.  Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 
Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial 
Solid Waste Incineration Units; Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 62.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On March 21, 2011, EPA issued a final rule establishing 
new source performance standards and emission guidelines for commercial 
and industrial solid waste incineration units. EPA also issued on March 
21, 2011, a Notice of Reconsideration listing issues for which 
additional opportunity for public review and comment should be 
obtained. Subsequently, we received more than 15 petitions to 
reconsider, clarify, and amend certain provisions of the final rule. 
This action will propose the amendments after we analyze the 
information submitted in the petitions.
    Statement of Need: As a result of the vacatur of the CISWI 
definition and the remand of the CISWI rule, the Agency will develop 
another rulemaking under CAA section 129 that will reduce hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions from this source category. Recent court 
decisions on other rules will be considered in developing this 
regulation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 129.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA estimates the total national 
capital cost for the final rule to be approximately $706 million in the 
year 2013, with a total national annual cost of $280 million in the 
year 2013. The annual cost, which considers fuel savings, includes 
control device operation and maintenance as well as monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and performance testing. EPA estimates that 
implementation of the rulemaking, as proposed, would reduce nationwide 
emissions from commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units 
by: 5,700 tons per year (tpy) of acid gases (i.e., hydrogen chloride 
and sulfur dioxide), 1,600 tpy of particulate matter, 23,000 tpy of 
carbon monoxide, 5,700 tpy of nitrogen oxides, and 5.5 tpy of metals 
(i.e., lead, cadmium, and mercury) and dioxins/furans. These emissions 
reductions would lead to the following annual health benefits. In 2013, 
this rule will protect public health by avoiding 40 to 100 premature 
deaths, 27 cases of chronic bronchitis, 64 nonfatal heart attacks, 68 
hospital and emergency room visits, 65 cases of acute bronchitis, 1,350 
cases of respiratory symptoms, 5,300 days when people miss work or 
school, 700 cases of aggravated asthma, and 31,000 days when people 
must restrict their activities. The monetized value of the benefits 
ranges from $360 to $870 million in 2013--outweighing the costs by at 
least $80 million.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/23/11  76 FR 80452
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/21/12  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Split from RIN 2060-AO12. EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 334 Computer and 
Electronic Product Manufacturing; 3254 Pharmaceutical and Medicine 
Manufacturing; 321 Wood Product Manufacturing.
    Agency Contact: Toni Jones, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-0316, Fax: 919 541-3470, Email: [email protected].
    Charlene Spells, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, E-143-05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
5255, Fax: 919 541-3470, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AR15

EPA

131. NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: CWA secs 304(i) and 501(a), 33 U.S.C. 1314(i) and 
1361(a)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 123, 403, and 501.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA has responsibility to ensure that the Clean Water 
Act's (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
program is effectively and consistently implemented across the country. 
This regulation would identify the essential information that EPA needs 
to receive electronically, primarily from NPDES permittees with some 
data required from NPDES agencies (NPDES-authorized States, 
territories, and tribes)

[[Page 7838]]

to manage the national NPDES permitting and enforcement program. 
Through this regulation, EPA seeks to ensure that such facility-
specific information would be readily available, accurate, timely, and 
nationally consistent on the facilities that are regulated by the NPDES 
program.
    In the past, EPA primarily obtained this information from the 
Permit Compliance System (PCS). However, the evolution of the NPDES 
program since the inception of PCS has created an increasing need to 
better reflect a more complete picture of the NPDES program and the 
diverse universe of regulated sources. In addition, information 
technology has advanced significantly so that PCS no longer meets EPA's 
national needs to manage the full scope of the NPDES program or the 
needs of individual States that use PCS to implement and enforce the 
NPDES program.
    Statement of Need: As the NPDES program and information technology 
have evolved in the past several decades, the Permit Compliance System 
(PCS)--EPA's NPDES national data system, which has been in use since 
1985--has become increasingly ineffective in meeting the full scope of 
EPA's and individual States' needs to manage, direct, oversee, and 
report on the implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program. 
Therefore, a NPDES component of EPA's existing Integrated Compliance 
Information System (ICIS), ICIS-NPDES, was designed and constructed 
based upon EPA and State input to manage data for the full breadth of 
the NPDES program. This rulemaking would identify essential NPDES-
specific information EPA needs to receive from NPDES agencies 
(authorized States and tribes, as well as EPA regions). This 
information would be sought in a format compatible with the new NPDES 
component of the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) in 
order to better enable EPA to ensure the protection of public health 
and the environment, effectively manage the national NPDES permitting 
and enforcement program, identify and address environmental problems, 
and ultimately replace PCS. This action would be of interest primarily 
to NPDES permittees, NPDES-authorized States, and to the public at 
large, which would ultimately have increased access to this NPDES 
information.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water 
Act to ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 
integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The Clean Water 
Act established a comprehensive program for protecting and restoring 
our Nation's waters. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of 
pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States except 
when authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit. The Clean Water Act established the NPDES permit 
program to authorize and regulate the discharges of pollutants to 
waters of the United States. EPA has issued comprehensive regulations 
that implement the NPDES program at 40 CFR parts 122 to 125, 129 to 
133, 136, and subpart N.
    Under the NPDES permit program, point sources subject to regulation 
may discharge pollutants to waters of the United States subject to the 
terms and conditions of an NPDES permit. With very few exceptions (40 
CFR 122.3), point sources require NPDES permit authorization to 
discharge, including both municipal and industrial discharges. NPDES 
permit authorization may be provided under an individual NPDES permit, 
which is developed after a process initiated by a permit application 
(40 CFR 122.21), or under a general NPDES permit, which among other 
things, applies to one or more categories of dischargers (e.g., oil and 
gas facilities, seafood processors) with the same or substantially 
similar types of operations and the same effluent limitations, 
operating conditions, or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the primary 
responsibility to ensure that the NPDES program is effectively and 
consistently implemented across the country, thus ensuring that public 
health and environmental protection goals of the CWA are met. Many 
States and some territories have received authorization to implement 
and enforce the NPDES program, and EPA works with its State partners to 
ensure effective program implementation and enforcement. CWA section 
304(i)(2) directs EPA to promulgate guidelines establishing the minimum 
procedural and other elements of a State, territory, or tribal NPDES 
program, including monitoring requirements; reporting requirements 
(including procedures to make information available to the public); 
enforcement provisions; and funding, personnel qualifications, and 
manpower requirements [CWA sec. 304(i)(2)].
    EPA published NPDES State, territory, and tribal program 
regulations under CWA section 304(i)(2) at 40 CFR part 123. Among other 
things, the part 123 regulations specify NPDES program requirements for 
permitting, compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority, 
sharing of information, transmission of information to EPA, and 
noncompliance and program reporting to EPA.
    This proposed rulemaking may add some specificity to those 
particular regulations regarding what NPDES information is required to 
be submitted to EPA by States and may modify other regulations to 
require electronic reporting of NPDES information by NPDES permittees 
to the States and EPA.
    Alternatives: For this proposed rulemaking, EPA has determined that 
the need for EPA's receipt of such NPDES information exists. If, for 
whatever reason, electronic reporting by permittees is not a feasible 
option for certain NPDES information, the obvious alternative would be 
for EPA to require States to provide that information to EPA. The 
States already receive that information from the permittees, and 
therefore, they have the information that EPA seeks.
    Within the rulemaking process itself, various alternatives are 
under consideration based on the feasibility of particular electronic 
reporting options. For example, EPA may consider establishing 
requirements for electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports 
by NPDES permittees. Under this proposed rulemaking, EPA may consider 
establishing similar requirements for any or all of the following types 
of NPDES information: Notices of Intent to discharge (for facilities 
seeking coverage under general permits), permitting information 
(including permit applications), various program reports (e.g., 
pretreatment compliance reports from approved local pretreatment 
programs, annual reports from concentrated animal feeding operations, 
biosolids reports, sewage overflow incident reports, annual reports for 
pesticide applicators, annual reports for municipal stormwater 
systems), and annual compliance certifications.
    Some States might also raise the possibility of supplying only 
summary-level information to EPA rather than facility-specific 
information to EPA. Based upon considerable experience, EPA considers 
such alternative non-facility-specific data to be insufficient to meet 
its needs, except in very particular situations or reports.
    One alternative that EPA may consider for rule implementation is 
whether third-party vendors may be better equipped to develop and 
modify such electronic reporting tools than EPA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The economic analysis for this 
proposed

[[Page 7839]]

rulemaking has not yet been completed; therefore, the dollar values of 
estimated costs and benefits are not yet known. However, some 
generalizations can still be made regarding expectations. EPA 
anticipates that electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports 
(DMRs) by NPDES permittees will provide significant data entry cost 
savings for States and EPA. These discharge monitoring reports are 
already required to be submitted by NPDES permittees to States and EPA, 
which in turn currently enter that information into the State NPDES 
data system or EPA's national NPDES data system. These discharge 
monitoring reports contain significant amounts of information regarding 
pollutants discharged, identified concentrations and quantities of 
pollutants, discharge locations, etc. Through electronic reporting by 
permittees, States and EPA will no longer have associated data entry 
costs to enter this information. Electronic reporting by NPDES 
permittees of other NPDES information (such as notices of intent to 
discharge or various program reports) may also yield considerable data 
entry savings to the States and EPA. In addition, some States have been 
able to quantify savings by the permittees to electronically report 
their NPDES information using existing electronic reporting tools. Such 
savings are being examined in the economic analysis process for this 
rulemaking.
    Additional benefits of this rule will likely include improved 
transparency of information regarding the NPDES program, improved 
information regarding the national NPDES program, improved targeting of 
resources and enforcement based on identified program needs and 
noncompliance problems, and ultimately improved protection of public 
health and the environment.
    Some NPDES information will need to be reported by States to EPA; 
therefore, there will be some data entry costs associated with that 
information, but it will likely be far less than the savings that will 
be realized by States through electronic reporting by NPDES permittees. 
In addition, EPA will likely have sizable costs to develop tools for 
electronic reporting by permittees, as well as operation and 
maintenance costs associated with those tools.
    Risks: Given the scope of this proposed rulemaking, the most 
significant risks associated with this effort may be those if EPA does 
not proceed with this rulemaking. At this point, EPA does not receive 
sufficient NPDES information from the States to be able to fully assess 
the implementation of the national NPDES program nor the smaller 
subprograms. Such information is not currently required by EPA from the 
States, and the lack of such reporting requirements perpetuates this 
problem. Furthermore, EPA does not have facility-specific information 
regarding most of the facilities regulated under the NPDES program, and 
therefore, EPA cannot easily identify potential implementation problems 
or noncompliance problems. This lack of information may adversely 
impact EPA's ability to better ensure the protection of public health 
and the environment, nationally and locally.
    A potential risk associated with this rule may involve EPA efforts 
to develop electronic reporting tools for use by permittees. The costs 
associated with the internal development of such tools, possibly for 
multiple types of NPDES information from various types of NPDES 
permittees, and the future costs of operation and maintenance may be 
substantial for EPA, possibly impacting the availability of funding for 
other purposes. Furthermore, EPA would also need to determine the 
feasibility of ensuring that the electronic tools can be flexible 
enough to meet state needs and work well with State data systems. 
Problems in the development and maintenance of these electronic tools 
could pose significant risks for the effective implementation of this 
rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice--Public Meeting..............   07/01/10  75 FR 38068
Notice--Public Meeting 2............   06/23/11  76 FR 36919
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
Final Action........................   09/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Additional Information: SAN No. 5251.
    URL for More Information: http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/npdes
    Agency Contact: Andrew Hudock, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 2222A, Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 564-6032, Email: [email protected].
    John Dombrowski, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 2222A, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 566-0742, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2020-AA47

EPA

132. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136; 7 U.S.C. 136i; 7 U.S.C. 136w
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 171; 40 CFR 156.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA is proposing change to the Federal regulations under 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that 
guide the certified pesticide applicator program (40 CFR 171). Change 
is sought to strengthen the regulations to better protect pesticide 
applicators and the public and the environment from harm due to 
pesticide exposure. The possible need for change arose from EPA 
discussions with key stakeholders. EPA has been in extensive 
discussions with stakeholders since 1997 when the Certification and 
Training Assessment Group (CTAG) was established. CTAG is a forum used 
by regulatory and academic stakeholders to discuss the current state 
of, and the need for improvements in, the national certified pesticide 
applicator program. Throughout these extensive interactions with 
stakeholders, EPA has learned of the potential need for changes to the 
regulation.
    Statement of Need: These regulations have been in place since 1972. 
Since then, many States have advanced the existing requirements to 
better protect applicators, the public, and the environment. The Agency 
is proposing revisions to establish a more protective national 
standard.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 136 through 7 U.S.C. 136y.
    Alternatives: The Agency has developed mechanisms to improve 
applicator trainers and make training materials more accessible. The 
Agency has also developed nationally relevant training and 
certification materials to preserve State resources.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits from the proposed 
rule are being prepared.
    Risks: Applicators are at risk from exposure to pesticides they 
handle for their work. The public and the environment may also be at 
risk from misapplication by non-competent applicators. Revisions to the 
regulations are expected to minimize these risks by ensuring the 
competency of certified applicators.
    Timetable:

[[Page 7840]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-
0561.
    Sectors Affected: 9241 Administration of Environmental Quality 
Programs; 112 Animal Production; 111 Crop Production; 1132 Forest 
Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products; 32532 Pesticide and Other 
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing; 5617 Services to Buildings and 
Dwellings; 115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm.
    Agency Contact: Kathy Davis, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7002, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: 
[email protected].
    Richard Pont, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
703 305-6448, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ20

EPA

133. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136; 7 U.S.C. 136w
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 170.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA is developing a proposal under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to revise the 
Federal regulations guiding agricultural worker protection (40 CFR 
170). The changes under consideration are intended to improve 
agricultural workers' ability to protect themselves from potential 
exposure to pesticides and pesticide residues. In addition, EPA is 
proposing to make adjustments to improve and clarify current 
requirements and facilitate enforcement. Other changes sought are to 
bring hazard communication requirements more in line with OSHA 
requirements and make improvements to pesticide safety training, with 
improved worker safety the intended outcome. The potential need for 
change arose from EPA discussions with key stakeholders beginning in 
1996 and continuing through 2004. EPA held nine public meetings 
throughout the country, during which the public submitted written and 
verbal comments on issues of their concern. In 2000 through 2004, EPA 
held meetings where invited stakeholders identified their issues and 
concerns with the regulations.
    Statement of Need: Stakeholders have identified gaps in the 
protections in the current regulation. Revisions to the rule are 
necessary to better protect agricultural workers and pesticide handlers 
from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticide exposure.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 136 through 7 U.S.C. 136y.
    Alternatives: Wherever deficiencies in the existing regulation 
could be adequately addressed through non-regulatory means, EPA has 
done so. For example, the Agency has developed improved training 
materials that are sector-specific and in multiple languages; improved 
capacity for outreach; a train-the-trainer program; health care 
practitioner (HCP) curricula to train HCPs on pesticide exposure 
identification and treatment; and a bilingual manual for HCPs to use in 
identifying pesticide poisonings. The Agency also provides financial 
support for pesticide safety training.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Incremental costs to agricultural 
employers are expected to increase as a result of revised requirements 
for training, notification, and other protections. Incremental costs to 
commercial pesticide handler employers are expected to decrease. 
Benefits will accrue to workers' and handlers' health, and improved 
protection of children is expected to be realized from the proposed 
revisions.
    Risks: Agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are at risk from 
pesticide exposure through their work activities, and may put their 
families at risk of secondary exposure. In order to address exposure 
risks to workers, pesticide handlers, and their families, the Agency is 
proposing revisions identified by stakeholders and the public.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................           To Be Determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-
0561.
    Sectors Affected: 111 Crop Production; 32532 Pesticide and Other 
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing; 115 Support Activities for 
Agriculture and Forestry.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm.
    Agency Contact: Kathy Davis, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7002, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: 
[email protected]. Richard Pont, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 703 305-6448, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ22

EPA

134. Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the 
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697; TSCA sec 601
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2013.
    Abstract: In 2008, EPA initiated a proceeding under Toxics 
Substance and Control Act (TSCA) to investigate risks posed by 
formaldehyde emitted from pressed wood products. An advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) sought to engage stakeholders to contribute 
to obtaining a better understanding of the available control 
technologies and approaches, industry practices, and the implementation 
of California's formaldehyde emission limits. Subsequently, EPA 
developed an industry survey to obtain more information on these ANPRM 
topics and continued to assess the hazards of and exposures to 
formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products. On July 7, 2010, the 
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was enacted. 
This law amends TSCA to establish specific formaldehyde emission limits 
for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard, 
which limits are identical to the California emission limits for these 
products. The law further requires EPA to promulgate implementing 
regulations

[[Page 7841]]

by January 1, 2013. This rulemaking covers the mandate for EPA to 
promulgate regulations to address requirements for accrediting bodies 
and third-party certifiers. A separate regulatory agenda entry (RIN 
2070-tbd) covers the mandate for EPA to promulgate regulations to 
implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood 
plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, 
offered for sale, or manufactured (including imported) in the United 
States.
    Statement of Need: EPA is concerned about the human health risks 
that may be presented by exposure to formaldehyde emissions from 
composite wood products, because formaldehyde is a probable human 
carcinogen and an eye, nose, and throat irritant.
    Summary of Legal Basis: TSCA title VI
    Alternatives: TSCA title VI establishes national formaldehyde 
emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density 
fiberboard, and EPA has not been given the authority to change the 
limits. However, EPA will evaluate various implementation alternatives 
during the course of this rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA is currently evaluating the 
costs and benefits of this action.
    Risks: EPA is currently evaluating the risks presented by exposure 
to formaldehyde emissions in excess of the statutory limits.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/03/08  73 FR 73620
ANPRM: Extension of Comment Period..   01/30/09  74 FR 5632
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/13  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: EPA publication information: ANPRM--http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064807cabb2; EPA Docket information: 
ANPRM stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0627; NPRM Stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380
    Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing; 423110 Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle Merchant 
Wholesalers; 4441 Building Material and Supplies Dealers; 42321 
Furniture Merchant Wholesalers; 4421 Furniture Stores; 337 Furniture 
and Related Product Manufacturing; 42331 Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and 
Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers; 45393 Manufactured (Mobile) Home 
Dealers; 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing; 336213 
Motor Home Manufacturing; 423390 Other Construction Material Merchant 
Wholesalers; 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing; 321992 
Prefabricated Wood Building Manufacturing; 441210 Recreational Vehicle 
Dealers; 336214 Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing; 3212 Veneer, 
Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html.
    Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0484, Email: [email protected].
    Lynn Vendinello, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 566-0514, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ44

EPA

135. Mercury; Regulation of Use in Certain Products

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 750.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Elemental mercury is well documented as a toxic, 
environmentally persistent substance that is atmospherically 
transported on a local, regional, and global scale. In addition, 
mercury can be environmentally transformed into methylmercury, which 
bioaccumulates, biomagnifies, and is highly toxic. EPA conducted a 
preliminary analysis of the costs, advantages, and disadvantages 
associated with mercury-free alternatives to certain mercury-containing 
products, and made a preliminary judgment that effective and 
economically feasible alternatives exist. These mercury-containing 
products include switches, relays/contactors, flame sensors, and button 
cell batteries. Therefore, EPA is evaluating whether an action (or 
combination of actions) under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is 
appropriate for mercury used in such products. As appropriate, such an 
action(s) would involve a group(s) of these products. Specifically, EPA 
will determine whether the continued use of mercury in one or more of 
these products would pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the 
environment.
    Statement of Need: Elemental mercury is well documented as a toxic, 
environmentally persistent substance that is atmospherically 
transported on a local, regional, and global scale. In addition, 
mercury can be environmentally transformed into methylmercury, which 
bioaccumulates, biomagnifies, and is highly toxic. Human health risks 
associated with elemental mercury and methylmercury are well 
documented. Humans can be exposed to mercury in products directly 
through inhalation of elemental mercury vapor and indirectly through 
ingestion of fish contaminated with methylmercury. EPA conducted a 
preliminary analysis of the costs, advantages, and disadvantages 
associated with mercury-free alternatives to certain mercury-containing 
products, and made a preliminary judgment that effective and 
economically feasible alternatives exist. In its initial analysis of 
mercury in certain products, EPA considered mercury's well-documented 
toxicity, persistence, ability to bioaccumulate, ability to be 
environmentally transformed into methylmercury, and its demonstrated 
ability to be transported globally, as well as locally. EPA also 
considered the availability of effective and economically feasible 
alternatives for mercury in certain products. EPA believes 
manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal of elemental mercury in 
these products may result in significant potential for human and 
environmental exposures to elemental mercury and methylmercury.
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPA is evaluating whether an action (or 
combination of actions) under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 
U.S.C. 2601 et seq., is appropriate for mercury used in certain 
products. TSCA provides EPA with authority to require reporting, 
recordkeeping, and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to 
chemical substances and/or mixtures. Specifically, section 4 authorizes 
EPA to require testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and 
processors where risks or exposures of

[[Page 7842]]

concern are found. Section 5 authorizes EPA to require prior notice by 
manufacturers, importers, and processors when it identifies a 
``significant new use'' that could result in exposures to, or releases 
of, a substance of concern. Section 6 gives EPA the authority to 
protect against unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment from chemical substances. If EPA finds that there is a 
reasonable basis to conclude that the chemical's manufacture, 
processing, distribution, use or disposal presents an unreasonable 
risk, EPA may by rule take action to: Prohibit or limit manufacture, 
processing, or distribution in commerce; prohibit or limit the 
manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of the chemical 
substance above a specified concentration; require adequate warnings 
and instructions with respect to use, distribution, or disposal; 
require manufacturers or processors to make and retain records; 
prohibit or regulate any manner of commercial use; prohibit or regulate 
any manner of disposal; and/or require manufacturers or processors to 
give notice of the unreasonable risk of injury, and to recall products 
if required. Section 8 authorizes EPA to require reporting and 
recordkeeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or 
distribute chemical substances in commerce.
    Alternatives: EPA conducted a preliminary analysis of the costs, 
advantages, and disadvantages associated with mercury-free alternatives 
to certain mercury-containing products, and made a preliminary judgment 
that effective and economically feasible alternatives exist.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As part of the economic, exposure, 
and risk assessment to support the current action, EPA is conducting a 
comprehensive use-substitute analysis and industry profile that will 
consider the costs and benefits of an action (or combination of 
actions) under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Those assessments 
consider the costs of mercury-containing and mercury-free alternatives 
and the impact that any action would have on potentially affected 
stakeholders, including economic, human health, and environmental 
criteria.
    Risks: As part of the economic, exposure, and risk assessment to 
support the current action, EPA is conducting a comprehensive use-
substitute analysis and industry profile that will consider the risks 
associated with an action (or combination of actions) under Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Those assessments consider the relative 
toxicity and other considerations associated with mercury-free 
alternatives to mercury-containing products and the impact that any 
action would have on potentially affected stakeholders, including 
economic, human health, and environmental criteria.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: SAN No. 5312.
    Sectors Affected: 325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical 
Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/.
    Agency Contact: Thomas Groeneveld, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1188, Fax: 202 566-0469, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynn Vendinello, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 566-0514, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ46

EPA

136. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and 
Commercial Buildings

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 745.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Judicial, April 22, 2010, Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, deadline from settlement agreement.
    NPRM, Judicial, June 15, 2012, Deadline from settlement agreement 
and subsequent renegotiation with litigants.
    Final, Judicial, February 15, 2014, Deadline from settlement 
agreement and subsequent renegotiation with litigants.
    Abstract: Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA) requires EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities in 
target housing (most pre-1978 housing), pre-1978 public buildings, and 
commercial buildings that create lead-based paint hazards. On April 22, 
2008, EPA issued a final rule to address lead-based paint hazards 
created by these activities in target housing and child-occupied 
facilities built before 1978 (child-occupied facilities are a subset of 
public and commercial buildings or facilities where children under age 
6 spend a great deal of time). The 2008 rule established requirements 
for training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling 
technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and 
renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust 
sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for 
recordkeeping. This new rulemaking will address renovation or 
remodeling activities in the remaining buildings described in TSCA 
section 402(c)(3): Public buildings built before 1978 and commercial 
buildings that are not child-occupied facilities. On May 6, 2010, EPA 
announced the commencement of proceedings to propose lead-safe work 
practices and other requirements for renovations on the exteriors of 
public and commercial buildings and to determine whether lead-based 
paint hazards are created by interior renovation, repair, and painting 
projects in public and commercial buildings. For those renovations in 
the interiors of public and commercial buildings that create lead-based 
paint hazards, EPA will propose regulations to address these hazards.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking is being undertaken in response 
to a settlement agreement and is designed to help insure that 
individuals and firms conducting renovation, repair, and painting 
activities in and on public and commercial buildings will do so in a 
way that safeguards the environment and protects the health of building 
occupants and nearby residents, especially children under 6 years old. 
Lead is known to cause deleterious health effects on multiple organ 
systems through diverse mechanisms of action in both adults and 
children. This array of health effects includes effects on heme 
biosynthesis and related functions, neurological development and 
function, reproduction and physical development, kidney function, 
cardiovascular function, and immune function. EPA has conducted several 
studies and reviewed additional information that indicates that the 
renovation of buildings containing lead-based paint can create health 
hazards in

[[Page 7843]]

the form of lead-based paint dust under typical industry work 
practices.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling 
activities that create lead-based paint hazards in target housing, 
public buildings built before 1978, and commercial buildings.
    Alternatives: For those activities that EPA determines create lead-
based paint hazards, EPA will evaluate options to address the hazards. 
These options are likely to include different combinations of work 
practices and worker training and certification.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   05/06/10  75 FR 24848
ANPRM Comment Period End............   07/06/10  .......................
NPRM................................   06/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: EPA publication information: ANPRM-- http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ae7eb8; EPA Docket information: 
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173.
    Sectors Affected: 236 Construction of Buildings; 921 Executive, 
Legislative, and Other General Government Support; 561210 Facilities 
Support Services; 531 Real Estate; 238 Specialty Trade Contractors.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm.
    Agency Contact: Hans Scheifele, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-3122, Email: [email protected].
    Cindy Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 566-0484, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ56

EPA

137. Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan; Subpart J Product Schedule Listing Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d)(2); 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3); CWA 
311(d)(2)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 110.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA is considering proposing revisions to subpart J of 
the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The Clean Water Act requires EPA 
to prepare a schedule of dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill 
mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying 
out the NCP. Under subpart J, respondents wishing to add a product to 
the Product Schedule must submit technical product data to EPA. The 
Agency is considering revisions to subpart J to clarify and/or change 
the effectiveness and toxicity testing protocols required for adding a 
product to the Schedule. These changes, if finalized, will help ensure 
protection of the environment when these products are used to clean up 
and mitigate oil spills (1) into or upon navigable waters, adjoining 
shorelines, or the waters of the contiguous zone, or (2) which may 
affect natural resources belonging to or under the exclusive management 
authority of the United States. Further, the Agency is considering 
proposed changes to 40 CFR 110.4 regarding the use of dispersants.
    Statement of Need: The unprecedented use of dispersants on the 
surface and in the subsea during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
in the Gulf of Mexico raised many questions about dispersant efficacy, 
toxicity, environmental fate, and monitoring. The public and officials 
working at local, State, and Federal levels expressed concerns 
regarding the effects of dispersant use on the ecosystem. These 
concerns require a review of the product toxicity and efficacy testing 
and application in the current subpart J regulatory requirements. 
Additionally, the large-scale submission of oil-mitigating technologies 
through the Interagency Alternative Technology Assessment Program 
(IATAP) as a result of this incident also highlights the need to re-
evaluate the current subpart J regulations, particularly the technical 
data requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(FWPCA) requires the President to prepare and publish a National 
Contingency Plan (NCP) for the removal of oil and hazardous substances. 
In turn, the President delegated the authority to implement this 
section of the FWPCA to EPA through Executive Order 12777 (56 FR 54757; 
Oct. 22, 1991). Section 311(d)(2)(G)(i) of the FWPCA (a.k.a., Clean 
Water Act), as amended by the OPA, requires that the NCP include a 
schedule identifying ``dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill 
mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying 
out'' the NCP. Currently, the use of dispersants, other chemicals, and 
other oil spill mitigating devices and substances (e.g., bioremediation 
agents) to respond to oil spills in U.S. waters is governed by subpart 
J of the NCP (40 CFR part 300 series 900).
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................           To Be Determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under 
E.O.13563.
    Sectors Affected: 3251 Basic Chemical Manufacturing; 325 Chemical 
Manufacturing; 3259 Other Chemical Product and Preparation 
Manufacturing; 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services.
    URL for More Information: www.epa.gov/oilspill.
    Agency Contact: William Nichols, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 564-1970, Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
    Leigh DeHaven, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-1974, 
Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AE87

EPA

138. Stormwater Regulations Revision To Address Discharges From 
Developed Sites

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

[[Page 7844]]

    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, December 15, 2011, Chesapeake Bay 
Settlement Agreement, May 10, 2010, Fowler v. U.S. EPA, No. 1:09-CV-
00005-CKK (D. D.C) modified by agreement 10/04/2011. Final, Judicial, 
November 19, 2012, Chesapeake Bay Settlement Agreement, May 10, 2010, 
Fowler v. U.S. EPA, No. 1:09-CV-00005-CKK (D. D.C.).
    Abstract: Stormwater discharge from developed areas is a major 
cause of degradation of surface waters. This is true for both 
conveyance of pollutants and the erosive power of increased stormwater 
flow rates and volumes. Current stormwater regulations were promulgated 
in 1990 and 1999. In 2006, the Office of Water asked the National 
Research Council (NRC) to review the stormwater program and recommend 
ways to strengthen it. The NRC Report, which was finalized in October 
2008, found that the current stormwater program ``* * * is not likely 
to adequately control stormwater's contribution to waterbody 
impairment'' and recommended that EPA take action to address the 
harmful effects of stormwater flow. This proposed action would 
establish requirements for, at minimum, managing stormwater discharges 
from newly developed and re-developed sites, to reduce the amount of 
pollutants in stormwater discharges entering receiving waters by 
reducing the discharge of excess stormwater. EPA may take other actions 
to implement improved control of stormwater pollution and more 
efficient rainwater use. The Phase I and Phase II MS4 regulations might 
also be combined and amended, and may include provisions for better 
managing existing discharges.
    Statement of Need: Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act requires 
EPA to regulate certain stormwater discharges. Stormwater is a primary 
contributor of water quality impairment. There is a need to strengthen 
the stormwater program's effectiveness by reducing pollutant loading 
from currently regulated and unregulated stormwater discharges and 
preserving surface water health and integrity. This action was informed 
by the 2006 National Research Council report.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act 
requires EPA to regulate certain discharges from stormwater in order to 
protect water quality.
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0817.
    URL for More Information: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking.
    Agency Contact: Connie Bosma, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Water, 4203M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-6773, Fax: 202 564-
6431, Email: [email protected].
    Janet Goodwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4303T, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1060, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF13

EPA

139. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam 
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311; 33 U.S.C. 1314; 33 U.S.C. 1316; 33 
U.S.C. 1317; 33 U.S.C. 1318; 33 U.S.C. 1342; 33 U.S.C. 1361
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 423 revision.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, July 23, 2012, Consent Decree. 
Final, Judicial, January 31, 2014, Consent Decree.
    Abstract: EPA establishes national technology-based regulations, 
called effluent guidelines, to reduce discharges of pollutants from 
industries to waters of the U.S. These requirements are incorporated 
into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge 
permits issued by EPA and States, and through the national pretreatment 
program. The steam electric effluent guidelines apply to steam electric 
power plants using nuclear or fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and 
natural gas. There are about 1,200 nuclear- and fossil-fueled steam 
electric power plants nationwide; approximately 500 of these power 
plants are coal fired. In a study completed in 2009, EPA found that the 
current regulations, which were last updated in 1982, do not adequately 
address the pollutants being discharged and have not kept pace with 
changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last 
3 decades. The rulemaking will address discharges from ash ponds and 
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) air pollution controls, as well as other 
power plant waste streams. Power plant discharges can have major 
impacts on water quality, including reduced organism abundance and 
species diversity, contamination of drinking water sources, and other 
effects. Pollutants of concern include metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic 
and selenium), nutrients, and total dissolved solids.
    Statement of Need: EPA's decision to proceed with a rulemaking was 
announced on September 15, 2009. EPA reviewed wastewater discharges 
from power plants and the treatment technologies available to reduce 
pollutant discharges, which demonstrated the need to update the current 
effluent guidelines (40 CFR 423). The current regulations, which were 
last updated in 1982, do not adequately address the pollutants being 
discharged and have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in 
the electric power industry over the last 3 decades. Steam electric 
power plants are responsible for a significant amount of the toxic 
pollutant loadings discharged to surface waters by point sources, and 
coal ash ponds and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems are the 
source of much of these pollutants.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 301(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act 
requires EPA to promulgate effluent limitations for categories of point 
sources, using technology-based standards, that govern the sources' 
discharge of certain pollutants. 33 U.S.C. section 1311(b). Section 
304(b) of the Act directs EPA to develop effluent limitations 
guidelines (ELGs) that identify certain technologies and control 
measures available to achieve effluent reductions for each point source 
category, specifying factors to be taken into account in identifying 
those technologies and control measures. 33 U.S.C. section 1314(b). 
Since the 1970s, EPA has formulated effluent limitations and ELGs in 
tandem through a single administrative process. Am. Frozen Food Inst. 
v. Train, 539 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The CWA also requires EPA to 
perform an annual review of existing ELGs and to revise them, if 
appropriate. 33 U.S.C. section 1314(b); see also 33 U.S.C. section 
1314(m)(1)(A). EPA originally established effluent limitations and 
guidelines for the steam electric generating industry in 1974 and last 
updated them in 1982. 47 FR 52290

[[Page 7845]]

(Nov. 19, 1982). As described above, EPA determined the existing 
regulations do not adequately address the pollutants being discharged 
and that revisions are appropriate.
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   03/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0819.
    Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation; 
221113 Nuclear Electric Power Generation.
    URL for More Information: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam_index.cfm.
    Agency Contact: Ronald Jordan, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Water, 4303T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1003, Fax: 202 566-
1053, Email: [email protected].
    Jezebele Alicea, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4303T, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1755, Fax: 202 566-1053, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF14

EPA

140. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251(a); 33 U.S.C. 1311(a); 33 U.S.C. 
1342; 33 U.S.C. 1362(14); 33 U.S.C. 1318(a); 33 U.S.C. 1319
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA proposed a regulation that would collect information 
about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs are a 
significant source of nutrient pollution and pathogens in U.S. 
watersheds. The information that would be collected under the proposed 
rule would allow EPA to increase water quality protection through 
better implementation of the NPDES permitting program for CAFOs. The 
proposed regulation would apply to all permitted and unpermitted CAFOs. 
EPA co-proposed a regulation that would only collect information from 
CAFOs in targeted areas, if EPA determined such collection was 
necessary based on specified factors, such as water quality concerns.
    Statement of Need: The proposed rule would collect facility-
specific information about CAFOs to help inform watershed management 
activities. This will enhance EPA's ability to effectively implement 
the NPDES program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The proposed rule would collect facility-
specific information about CAFOs to help inform watershed management 
activities. This will enhance EPA's ability to effectively implement 
the NPDES program and reduce pathogens from CAFOs.
    Alternatives: EPA proposed a number of alternatives including 
relying on existing information to collect information from CAFOs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/21/11  76 FR 65431
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/19/12  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Becky Mitschele, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Water, 4203M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-6418, Email: 
[email protected].
    George Utting, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4203M, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-0744, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF22

EPA

141. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
Application and Program Updates Rule

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA plans to propose regulations that would update 
specific elements of the existing National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) in order to better harmonize regulations and 
application forms, improve permit documentation and transparency and 
provide clarifications to the existing regulations. In this effort, EPA 
plans to address application, permitting, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements that have become obsolete or outdated due to programmatic, 
technical, or other changes that have occurred over the past 35 years. 
Specifically, EPA plans to focus on revising the NPDES permit 
application forms to specifically include all final Agency data 
standards, improving the consistency between the application forms, and 
updating the applications to better reflect current program practices, 
and specifically to incorporate new program areas into the forms (e.g., 
Clean Water Act section 316(b) requirements for cooling water intake 
structures). EPA also plans to address other program elements, 
including permit documentation, EPA State permit objection, and public 
participation procedures to improve the quality and transparency of 
permit development. As an example of a regulation which could be 
proposed to change to reduce burden, as well as improve transparency 
and public access to information, EPA is considering whether to revise 
the public notice requirements to allow a State to post notices of 
draft NPDES permits and other permit actions under the Clean Water Act 
on their State agency Web sites in lieu of traditional newspaper 
posting.
    Statement of Need: Certain application, permitting, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements need to be updated to reflect programmatic and 
technical changes that have occurred over the past 35 years.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Kathryn Kelley, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Water, 4203M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7004, Fax: 202 564-

[[Page 7846]]

9544, Email: [email protected].
    David Hair, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4203M, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2287, Fax: 202 564-9544, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF25

EPA

Final Rule Stage

142. Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7409
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, July 12, 2011.
    Final, Judicial, March 20, 2012, The court has approved the 
amendments to the consent decree incorporating the revised dates.
    Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and, 
if appropriate, revise the air quality criteria for the primary 
(health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On October 11, 1995, EPA 
published a final rule not to revise either the primary or secondary 
NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). On May 22, 1996, EPA 
published a final decision that revisions of the primary and secondary 
NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) were not appropriate at that 
time, aside from several minor technical changes. On December 9, 2005, 
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) initiated the current 
periodic review of NO2 air quality criteria with a call for 
information in the Federal Register (FR). On May 3, 2006, ORD initiated 
the current periodic review of SO2 air quality criteria with 
a call for information in the FR. Subsequently, the decision was made 
to review the oxides of nitrogen and the oxides of sulfur together, 
rather than individually, with respect to a secondary welfare standard 
for NO2 and SO2. This decision derives from the 
fact that NO2, SO2, and their associated 
transformation products are linked from an atmospheric chemistry 
perspective, as well as from an environmental effects perspective, most 
notably in the case of secondary aerosol formation and acidification in 
ecosystems. This review includes the preparation of an Integrated 
Science Assessment (ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), and a Policy 
Assessment Document (PAD) by EPA, with opportunities for review by 
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the public. These 
documents inform the Administrator's proposed decision as to whether to 
retain or revise the standards. It should be noted that this review 
will be limited to only the secondary standards; the primary standards 
for SO2 and NO2 were reviewed separately. The 
ISA, REA, and PAD have been completed, and a notice of proposed 
rulemaking was signed on July 12, 2011. The court ordered date for the 
final rule to be signed is March 20, 2012.
    Statement of Need: As established in the Clean Air Act, the 
national ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen and 
oxides of sulfur are to be reviewed every 5 years.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7409) directs the Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' 
and ``secondary'' national ambient air quality standards for pollutants 
identified under section 108 (the ``criteria'' pollutants). The 
``primary'' standards are established for the protection of public 
health, while ``secondary'' standards are to protect against public 
welfare or ecosystem effects.
    Alternatives: The main alternatives for the Administrator's 
decision on the review of the national ambient air quality standards 
for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur are whether to retain or 
revise the existing standards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that 
the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards are not 
to be considered in setting or revising the NAAQS, although such 
factors may be considered in the development of State plans to 
implement the standards. Accordingly, the Agency prepares cost and 
benefit information in order to provide States information that may be 
useful in considering different implementation strategies for meeting 
proposed or final standards. Cost and benefit information is not 
developed to support a NAAQS rulemaking until sufficient policy and 
scientific information is available to narrow potential options for the 
form and level associated with any potential revisions to the standard. 
Therefore, work on developing the plan for conducting the cost and 
benefit analysis will generally start 1\1/2\ to 2 years following the 
start of a NAAQS review.
    Risks: During the course of this review, risk assessments may be 
conducted to evaluate public welfare risks associated with retention or 
revision of the NOx/SOx secondary standards.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/01/11  76 FR 46084
Notice--Public Meeting..............   08/08/11  76 FR 48073
Final Action........................   04/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: EPA publication information: NPRM--http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA--FRDOC--0001-10843; EPA 
Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1145.
    Agency Contact: Rich Scheffe, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, C304-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-4650, Fax: 919 541-0237, Email: [email protected].
    Karen Martin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-5274, Fax: 
919 541-0237, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AO72

EPA

143. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and 
Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal 
governments and the private sector.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 112(d); Clean Air Act sec 111(b)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 60, subpart Da.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, March 16, 2011, No later than March 
16, 2011, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a 
notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Final, Judicial, December 16, 2011, No later than December 16, 
2011, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice 
of final rulemaking.
    Abstract: On May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28606), EPA published a final rule 
requiring reductions in emissions of mercury from Electric Utility 
Steam Generating Units. That rule was vacated on February 8, 2008, by 
the U.S. Court

[[Page 7847]]

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a result of that 
vacatur, coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units 
remain on the list of sources that must be regulated under section 112 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Agency will develop standards under CAA 
section 112(d), which will reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions from this source category. Recent court decisions on other 
CAA section 112(d) rules will be considered in developing this 
regulation. The rule was proposed on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 24976).
    Under this action, EPA also proposed amendments to the criteria 
pollutant new source performance standards (NSPS) for utilities. On 
February 27, 2006, EPA promulgated amendments to the utility NSPS and 
was subsequently sued by multiple state attorney general offices and 
environmental organizations. On September 2, 2009, EPA was granted a 
voluntary remand without vacatur of the 2006 amendments. Combining the 
two rules in a single action provides interested parties the 
opportunity to provide comments on the combined requirements of the two 
rules. It also avoids double-counting either costs or environmental 
benefits of the separate rules.
    Statement of Need: Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act 
required EPA to conduct a study of the hazards to public health 
resulting from emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric 
utility steam generating units and, after considering the results of 
that study, determine whether it was appropriate and necessary to 
regulate such units under section 112. The study was completed in 1998, 
and, in December 2000, EPA determined that it was appropriate and 
necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam 
generating units and added such units to the list of sources for which 
standards must be developed under section 112. The February 8, 2008, 
vacatur of the May 18, 2005, Clean Air Mercury Rule and March 29, 2005, 
section 112(n) revision rule (which had removed such sources from the 
list) resulted in the requirement to regulate under section 112 being 
reinstated.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 112.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA estimates that this final rule 
will yield annual monetized benefits (in 2007$) of between $37 to $90 
billion using a 3 percent discount rate and $33 to $81 billion using a 
7 percent discount rate. The great majority of the estimates are 
attributable to co-benefits from 4,200 to 11,000 fewer 
PM2.5-related premature mortalities. The monetized benefits 
from reductions in mercury emissions, calculated only for children 
exposed to recreationally caught freshwater fish, are expected to be 
$0.004 to $0.006 billion in 2016 using a 3 percent discount rate and 
$0.0005 to $0.001 billion using a 7 percent discount rate. The annual 
social costs, approximated by the compliance costs, are $9.6 billion 
(2007$) and the annual monetized net benefits are $27 to $80 billion 
using 3 percent discount rate or $24 to $71 billion using a 7 percent 
discount rate. The benefits outweigh costs by between 3 to 1 or 9 to 1 
depending on the benefit estimate and discount rate used.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing Notice...............   04/28/11  76 FR 23768
NPRM................................   05/03/11  76 FR 24976
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/01/11  76 FR 38590
Final Action........................   12/00/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    Additional Information: EPA publication information: NPRM--http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-2910; EPA 
Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0031.
    Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation.
    Agency Contact: Bill Maxwell, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-5430, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    Robert J Wayland, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
1045, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AP52

EPA

144. Oil and Natural Gas Sector--New Source Performance Standards and 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411; 42 U.S.C. 7412
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 63.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, July 28, 2011, Consent Decree 
entered 02/04/2010, 3-month extension granted 1/11/11, new 3-month 
extension granted on 4/18/2011. Final, Judicial, April 3, 2012, Consent 
Decree deadline.
    Abstract: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regulate criteria 
pollutants from new stationary sources. Two NSPS (subparts KKK and LLL) 
for the oil and natural gas industry were promulgated in 1985. Section 
111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that NSPS be reviewed every 8 
years and revised as appropriate. National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulate hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) from new and existing stationary sources. Two NESHAP (subparts HH 
and HHH) for the oil and natural gas industry were promulgated in 1999. 
Section 112 of the CAA requires that NESHAP be reviewed every 8 years 
and revised as appropriate. In addition, section 112(f) requires that 
each category regulated under section 112(d) be reviewed to ensure that 
such regulations provide for an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health (i.e., address ``residual risk'' for each category). This 
action will include the required reviews under sections 111 and 112. 
Because the existing regulations are narrow in scope, the reviews will 
include consideration of broadening the scope of operations and 
emission points covered by the NSPS and MACT.
    Statement of Need: Not yet determined.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Not yet determined.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the NSPS, the annual costs are 
estimated at $738 million. After taking into account the value of the 
natural gas and condensate recovered, there would be a net savings of 
$45 million annually. For the NESHAP, the annual costs of compliance 
will be $16 million. EPA estimates benefits for the VOCs 540,000 tons 
per year, or about 25 percent reduction overall; for methane, 3.4 
million tpy, which is equal to 65 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent (CO2e), which is a reduction of about 26

[[Page 7848]]

percent; and for air toxics, 38,000 tons, or a reduction of nearly 30 
percent.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/23/11  76 FR 52738
Notice--Public Meeting..............   08/26/11  76 FR 53371
Final Action........................   03/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: EPA publication information: NPRM--http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-0002; EPA 
Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.
    URL for More Information: http://epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/.
    Agency Contact: Bruce Moore, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-5460, Fax: 919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
    David Cozzie, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 919 541-5356, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AP76

EPA

145. Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: CWA 101; CWA 301; CWA 304; CWA 308; CWA 316; CWA 
401; CWA 402; CWA 501; CWA 510
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 125.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, March 28, 2011.
    Final, Judicial, July 27, 2012.
    Abstract: Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA 
to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of 
cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available 
(BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Phase II, for 
existing electric generating plants that use at least 50 MGD of cooling 
water, was completed in July 2004. Industry and environmental 
stakeholders challenged the Phase II regulations. On review, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded several key 
provisions.
    In July 2007, EPA suspended the Phase II rule following the 
decision in the Second Circuit. Several parties petitioned the U.S. 
Supreme Court to review that decision, and the Supreme Court granted 
the petitions, limited to the issue of whether the Clean Water Act 
authorized EPA to consider the relationship of costs and benefits in 
establishing section 316(b) standards. On April 1, 2009, the Supreme 
Court reversed the Second Circuit, finding that the Agency may consider 
cost-benefit analysis in its decisionmaking, but not holding that the 
Agency must consider costs and benefits in these decisions.
    In June 2006, EPA promulgated the Phase III regulation, covering 
existing electric generating plants using less than 50 MGD of cooling 
water, new offshore oil and gas facilities, and all existing 
manufacturing facilities. Petitions to review this rule were filed in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In July 2010, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision upholding 
EPA's rule for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. Further, 
the court granted the request of EPA and environmental petitioners in 
the case to remand the existing facility portion of the rule back to 
the Agency for further rulemaking. EPA expects this new rulemaking 
would apply to the approximately 1,200 existing electric generating and 
manufacturing plants. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed that EPA may 
consider costs in relation to benefits but is not required to do so.
    EPA entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs in two lawsuits 
related to section 316(b) rulemakings. Under the settlement agreement, 
as modified, EPA agreed to sign a notice of a proposed rulemaking 
implementing section 316(b) of the CWA at existing facilities no later 
than March 28, 2011, and to sign a notice taking final action on the 
proposed rule no later than July 27, 2012. Plaintiffs agreed to seek 
dismissal of both their suits, subject to a request to reopen the 
Cronin proceeding in the event EPA failed to meet the agreed deadlines.
    EPA's proposed regulation includes uniform controls at all existing 
facilities to prevent fish from being trapped against screens 
(impingement), site-specific controls for existing facilities other 
than new units to prevent fish from being drawn through cooling systems 
(entrainment), and uniform controls equivalent to closed cycle cooling 
for new units at existing facilities (also entrainment). Other 
regulatory options analyzed included similar uniform impingement 
controls and progressively more stringent requirements for entrainment 
controls. Another option considered would impose the uniform 
impingement controls only for facilities withdrawing 50 million or more 
gallons per day of cooling water, with site-specific impingement 
controls for facilities withdrawing less than 50 million gallons per 
day.
    Statement of Need: In the absence of national regulations, NPDES 
permit writers have developed requirements to implement section 316(b) 
on a case-by-case basis. This may result in a range of different 
requirements, and in some cases, delays in permit issuance or 
reissuance. This regulation may have substantial ecological benefits.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Water Act requires EPA to 
establish best technology available standards to minimize adverse 
environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures. On February 
16, 2004, EPA took final action on regulations governing cooling water 
intake structures at certain existing power producing facilities under 
section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (Phase II rule). 69 FR 41576 
(Jul. 9, 2004). These regulations were challenged, and the Second 
Circuit remanded several provisions of the Phase II rule on various 
grounds. Riverkeeper, Inc., v. EPA, 475F.3d83, (2d Cir., 2007). EPA 
suspended most of the rule in response to the remand. 72 FR 37107 (Jul. 
9, 2007). The remand of Phase III does not change permitting 
requirements for these facilities. Until the new rule is issued, permit 
directors continue to issue permits on a case-by-case, Best 
Professional Judgment basis for Phase II facilities.
    Alternatives: This analysis will cover various sizes and types of 
potentially regulated facilities and control technologies. EPA is 
considering whether to regulate on a national basis, by subcategory, by 
broad water body category, or some other basis.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The technologies under consideration 
in this rulemaking are similar to the technologies considered for the 
original Phase II and Phase III rules, and costs have been updated to 
2009. The annual social costs associated with EPA's proposed regulation 
are $384 million, plus an additional $15 million in costs associated 
with the new units provision. The annual social costs of the other 
options ranged from $327 million to $4.63 billion. EPA monetized only a 
portion of the expected annual benefits of the rule, amounting to $18 
million. The monetized benefits for the other

[[Page 7849]]

options ranged from $17 to $126 million. EPA is also conducting a 
stated preference survey to provide a more comprehensive estimate of 
the monetized benefits and expects to publish a notice of data 
availability with these results around the end of 2011.
    Risks: Cooling water intake structures may pose significant risks 
for aquatic ecosystems.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/20/11  76 FR 22174
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/19/11  .......................
Reopening Public Comment Period.....   07/20/11  76 FR 43230
Reopening Comment Period End........   08/18/11  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: EPA publication information: NPRM--http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-
OW-2008-0667.
    Sectors Affected: 336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts 
Manufacturing; 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product 
Manufacturing; 321999 All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product 
Manufacturing; 324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products 
Manufacturing; 326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing; 331521 
Aluminum Die-Casting Foundries; 331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-
Casting); 331315 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing; 311313 
Beet Sugar Manufacturing; 31321 Broadwoven Fabric Mills; 311312 Cane 
Sugar Refining; 32731 Cement Manufacturing; 61131 Colleges, 
Universities, and Professional Schools; 33312 Construction Machinery 
Manufacturing; 333922 Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing; 
331525 Copper Foundries (except Die-Casting); 339914 Costume Jewelry 
and Novelty Manufacturing; 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 
Extraction; 321912 Cut Stock, Resawing Lumber, and Planing; 332211 
Cutlery and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing; 31214 
Distilleries; 221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control; 
221122 Electric Power Distribution; 331112 Electrometallurgical 
Ferroalloy Product Manufacturing; 31332 Fabric Coating Mills; 333111 
Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing; 311225 Fats and Oils 
Refining and Blending; 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation; 
332212 Hand and Edge Tool Manufacturing; 33251 Hardware Manufacturing; 
221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation; 21221 Iron Ore Mining; 331111 
Iron and Steel Mills; 22121 Natural Gas Distribution; 211112 Natural 
Gas Liquid Extraction; 221113 Nuclear Electric Power Generation; 332323 
Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing; 221119 Other 
Electric Power Generation; 332618 Other Fabricated Wire Product 
Manufacturing; 332439 Other Metal Container Manufacturing; 332919 Other 
Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing; 321918 Other Millwork 
(including Flooring); 312229 Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing; 
333923 Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and Monorail System 
Manufacturing; 32212 Paper Mills; 32213 Paperboard Mills; 32411 
Petroleum Refineries; 325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and 
Chemical Manufacturing; 333315 Photographic and Photocopying Equipment 
Manufacturing; 212391 Potash, Soda, and Borate Mineral Mining; 332117 
Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing; 331312 Primary Aluminum 
Production; 331419 Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metal 
(except Copper and Aluminum); 3221 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; 
333911 Pump and Pumping Equipment Manufacturing; 33651 Railroad Rolling 
Stock Manufacturing; 321219 Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing; 
54171 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life 
Sciences; 326192 Resilient Floor Covering Manufacturing; 331221 Rolled 
Steel Shape Manufacturing; 322291 Sanitary Paper Product Manufacturing; 
321113 Sawmills; 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of 
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum); 337215 Showcase, 
Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing; 321212 Softwood Veneer 
and Plywood Manufacturing; 311222 Soybean Processing; 22133 Steam and 
Air-Conditioning Supply; 331222 Steel Wire Drawing; 111991 Sugar Beet 
Farming; 11193 Sugarcane Farming; 311311 Sugarcane Mills; 326211 Tire 
Manufacturing (except Retreading); 31221 Tobacco Stemming and Redrying; 
311221 Wet Corn Milling.
    URL for More Information: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/index.cfm.
    Agency Contact: Paul Shriner, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Water, 4303T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1076, Email: 
[email protected].
    Julie Hewitt, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4303T, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1031, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AE95

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 
Commission, or agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in 
employment by vigorously enforcing seven Federal statutes. These 
statutes are: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 
(prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, 
religion, or national origin); the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended 
(makes it illegal to pay unequal wages to men and women performing 
substantially equal work at the same establishment, unless the 
difference is attributable to a bona fide seniority, merit, or 
incentive system, or to a factor other than sex); the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) as amended (prohibits 
employment discrimination based on age of 40 or older); titles I and V 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and sections 501 
and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (prohibits employment 
discrimination based on disability); title II of the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (prohibits employment 
discrimination based on genetic information and limits acquisition and 
disclosure of genetic information); and section 304 of the Government 
Employee Rights Act of 1991 (protects certain previously exempt State 
and local government employees from employment discrimination on the 
basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, 
or genetic information).
    The item in this Regulatory Plan is entitled ``Disparate Impact and 
Reasonable Factors Other Than Age Under the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act.'' This item previously appeared as two separate items 
titled ``Disparate Impact Burden of Proof Under the Age Discrimination 
in Employment Act'' (RIN 3046-AA76) and ``Reasonable Factors Other Than 
Age Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act'' (RIN 3046-AA87). 
These two items have been merged, and

[[Page 7850]]

a final rule will be issued addressing the issues covered in both 
(appearing under RIN 3046-AA76).
    Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. City of Jackson, 
544 U.S. 228 (2005), Commission regulations interpreted the ADEA to 
require employers to prove that actions that had an age-based disparate 
impact were justified as a business necessity. Although the Court, in 
Smith, agreed with the EEOC that disparate impact claims were 
recognizable under the ADEA, it held that the defense was not business 
necessity but reasonable factors other than age (RFOA). The Smith Court 
did not specify whether the employer or employee bore the burden of 
proof on the RFOA defense.
    On March 31, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) to conform Commission ADEA regulations to Smith, also 
taking the position that the employer bore the burden of proving the 
defense. Because current EEOC regulations do not define the meaning of 
``RFOA,'' the NPRM asked whether regulations should provide more 
information on the meaning of ``reasonable factors other than age'' 
and, if so, what the regulations should say. 73 FR 16807 (March 31, 
2008). Subsequently, the Supreme Court held in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic 
Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008), that employers have 
the RFOA burdens of production and persuasion. After consideration of 
the public comments, and in light of the Supreme Court decisions, the 
Commission issued a second NPRM on February 18, 2010, to address the 
scope of the RFOA defense. A final rule will be issued addressing the 
topics covered in both NPRMs and conforming to both Smith and Meacham. 
The rule will not have a significant impact on small businesses 
because, among other reasons, their employment actions generally will 
not affect individuals in numbers sufficient to raise questions of 
disparate impact.
    This item is highlighted in EEOC's Plan for Retrospective Review of 
Significant Regulations, developed pursuant to Executive Order 13563.
    Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this 
statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The 
statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the 
Commission.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the EEOC's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov. 
These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final 
agency plans can be found at: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/retro_review_plan_final.cfm.
    RIN: 3046-AA76
Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other Than Age Under the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act
    This rulemaking is not expected to alter burdens on small 
businesses.
    RIN: 3046-AA73
Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing
    This rulemaking does not apply to small businesses. It applies only 
to the Federal Government.

EEOC

Final Rule Stage

146. Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other Than Age Under the 
Age Discrimination in Employment Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 628
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1625.7(d).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. City of 
Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), Commission regulations interpreted the 
ADEA to require employers to prove that actions that had an age-based 
disparate impact were justified as a business necessity. Although the 
Court, in Smith, agreed with the EEOC that disparate impact claims were 
cognizable under the ADEA, it held that the defense was not business 
necessity but reasonable factors other than age (RFOA). The Smith Court 
did not specify whether the employer or employee bore the burden of 
proof on the RFOA defense.
    On March 31, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) to conform Commission ADEA regulations to Smith, also 
taking the position that the employer bore the burden of proving the 
defense. Because current EEOC regulations do not define the meaning of 
``RFOA,'' the NPRM also asked whether regulations should provide more 
information on the meaning of ``reasonable factors other than age'' 
and, if so, what the regulations should say. 73 FR 16807 (March 31, 
2008). Subsequently, the Supreme Court held in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic 
Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008), that employers have 
the RFOA burdens of production and persuasion. After consideration of 
the public comments, and in light of the Supreme Court decisions, the 
Commission issued a second NPRM on February 18, 2010 to address the 
scope of the RFOA defense. A final rule will be issued addressing the 
issues covered in both NPRMs and conforming to both Smith and Meacham.
    The RIN associated with the NPRM titled ``Reasonable Factors Other 
Than Age Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act'' (RIN 3046-
AA87) has been merged with this item (RIN 3046-AA76), which will be the 
RIN used to identify the final rule.
    Statement of Need: Current EEOC regulations interpret the ADEA as 
prohibiting an employment practice that has a disparate impact on 
individuals within the protected age group unless it is justified as a 
business necessity. The Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. City of 
Jackson validated the Commission's position that disparate impact 
analysis applies in ADEA cases. The holding, however, differed from the 
Commission's position that the business necessity test was the 
appropriate standard for determining the lawfulness of a practice that 
had an age-based disparate impact. The EEOC is revising its regulation 
to reflect the Smith decision. Moreover, as noted above, a related item 
(RIN 3046-AA87) entitled ``Reasonable Factors Other Than Age 
Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act'' has been merged with 
this item. In this final rule, the EEOC is also revising its 
regulations to address the scope of the RFOA defense.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The ADEA authorizes the EEOC ``to issue 
such rules and regulations it may consider necessary or appropriate for 
carrying out this chapter * * *.'' 29 U.S.C. section 628.
    Alternatives: The Commission has considered all alternatives 
proposed by the public comments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, the EEOC does not anticipate that the rule will have 
significant economic effects. The purpose of the rule is to help 
explain the implications of recent Supreme Court decisions and the type 
of conduct that would support an RFOA defense in court. It therefore 
does not directly require any action on the part of covered entities.

[[Page 7851]]

    The regulation makes clear that the employer's burden is to prove 
the RFOA, rather than the more stringent business necessity, defense. 
Further, the rule instructs covered entities what to do if they want to 
ensure that their practices are based on reasonable factors other than 
age. The rule does not expand the coverage of the ADEA to additional 
employers or employees, and does not include reporting, recordkeeping, 
or other requirements for compliance. Costs would result primarily from 
voluntary modifications to covered entities' business practices made to 
protect against disparate-impact liability. Modifications may include 
performing disparate impact analyses of business practices before they 
are adopted, providing guidance to decisionmakers on how to implement 
the practice, and evaluating other options to mitigate harm. The costs 
will be minimal, because these actions are required, for purposes of 
establishing the RFOA defense, only to the extent that a reasonable 
employer would perform them under the circumstances. Many covered 
entities already routinely perform them. To the extent that the 
regulation motivates employers to take additional actions, free 
resources minimize the cost of doing so.
    This revision, informed by the comments of stakeholders, will be 
beneficial to courts, employers, and employees seeking to interpret, 
understand, and comply with the ADEA.
    Risks: The rule does not affect risks to public health, safety, or 
the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/31/08  73 FR 16807
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/30/08  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Dianna B. Johnston, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office 
of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4657, Fax: 202 663-4679, 
Email: [email protected].
    Lyn McDermott, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4663, Fax: 202 663-4679, Email: 
[email protected].

    Related RIN: Related to 3046-AA87.
    RIN: 3046-AA76

BILLING CODE 6570-01-P

FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL (FSOC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    Title I, subtitle A, of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank'' or ``Act'') established the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC or Council). The purpose of 
the FSOC is to identify risks to the financial stability of the United 
States that could arise from the material financial distress or 
failure, or ongoing activities, of large, interconnected bank holding 
companies or nonbank financial companies. In addition, the Council is 
responsible for promoting market discipline and responding to emerging 
risks to the stability of the United States financial system. The 
duties of the FSOC are set forth in section 112(a)(2) of the Act. The 
FSOC consists of 10 voting members and 5 non-voting members, who serve 
in an advisory capacity. The Secretary of the Treasury serves as 
Chairperson.
    Dodd-Frank provides the FSOC with authority to issue certain 
regulations to carry out the business of the Council and for certain 
other purposes. In October 2011, the FSOC issued a revised notice of 
proposed rulemaking with guidance on the framework that the Council 
will apply when considering the designation of nonbank financial 
companies that will be subject to consolidated supervision by the 
Federal Reserve and enhanced prudential standards. In fiscal year 2012, 
the Council will approve a rule, which will be issued by the Secretary 
of the Treasury, outlining an assessment schedule to collect 
assessments from bank holding companies with greater than $50bn in 
total assets and non-bank financial companies supervised by the FRB, to 
provide for the total expenses of the Office of Financial Research and 
the Council. Additionally, the Council will issue a final rule to 
implement the Freedom of Information Act that will set forth procedures 
for requesting access to FSOC records.
    Over the next several months, the FSOC and its members will 
continue efforts to issue regulations, policies, and guidance mandated 
by the Act and to take other actions necessary to effectively carry out 
the Act.

BILLING CODE 4810-25-P

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)

I. Mission and Overview

    GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government. GSA's 
acquisition solutions supplies Federal purchasers with cost-effective, 
high-quality products and services from commercial vendors. GSA 
provides workplaces for Federal employees and oversees the preservation 
of historic Federal properties. GSA helps keep the Nation safe by 
providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to the U.S. 
military, and providing State and local governments with law 
enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster 
recovery products and services.
    GSA serves the public by delivering services directly to its 
Federal customers through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), the 
Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Governmentwide Policy 
(OGP). GSA has a continuing commitment to its Federal customers and the 
U.S. taxpayers by providing those services in the most cost-effective 
manner possible.
Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)
    FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and 
services (other than real property) for the Federal Government. The FAS 
organization leverages the buying power of the Government by 
consolidating Federal agencies requirements for common goods and 
services. FAS provides a range of high-quality and flexible acquisition 
services that increase overall Government effectiveness and efficiency. 
FAS business operations are organized into four business portfolios 
based on the product or service provided to customer agencies: 
Integrated Technology Services (ITS); Assisted Acquisition Services 
(AAS); General Supplies and Services (GSS); and Travel, Motor Vehicles 
and Card Services (TMVCS). The FAS portfolio structure enables GSA and 
FAS to provide best value services, products, and solutions to its 
customers by aligning resources around key functions.
Public Buildings Service (PBS)
    PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United 
States, providing facilities and workspace solutions to more than 60 
Federal agencies. PBS aims to provide a superior

[[Page 7852]]

workplace for the Federal worker and superior value for the U.S. 
taxpayer. Balancing these two objectives is PBS' greatest management 
challenge. PBS' activities fall into two broad areas. The first is 
space acquisition through both leases and construction. PBS translates 
general needs into specific requirements, marshals the necessary 
resources, and delivers the space necessary to meet the respective 
missions of its Federal clients. The second area is management of 
space. This involves making decisions on maintenance, servicing 
tenants, and ultimately, deciding when and how to dispose of a property 
at the end of its useful life.
Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP)
    OGP sets Governmentwide policy in the areas of personal and real 
property, travel and transportation, information technology, regulatory 
information, and use of Federal advisory committees. OGP also helps 
direct how all Federal supplies and services are acquired as well as 
GSA's own acquisition programs. OGP's regulatory function fully 
incorporates the provisions of the President's priorities and 
objectives under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 with policies covering 
acquisition, travel, and property and management practices to promote 
efficient Government operations. OGP's strategic direction is to ensure 
that Governmentwide policies encourage agencies to develop and utilize 
the best, most cost effective management practices for the conduct of 
their specific programs. To reach the goal of improving Governmentwide 
management of property, technology, and administrative services, OGP 
builds and maintains a policy framework by (1) incorporating the 
requirements of Federal laws, Executive orders, and other regulatory 
material into policies and guidelines; (2) facilitating Governmentwide 
reform to provide Federal managers with business-like incentives and 
tools and flexibility to prudently manage their assets; (3) 
identifying, evaluating, and promoting best practices to improve 
efficiency of management processes; and (4) performing ongoing analysis 
if existing rules that may be obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, 
excessively burdensome, or counterproductive. In regard to the 
retrospective analysis of existing rules, GSA's plan (dated Aug. 18, 
2011) has been approved by OMB.
    OGP's policy regulations are described in the following 
subsections:
Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management (Federal Travel 
Regulation)
    Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates the travel and 
relocation policy for all title 5 executive agency employees. The Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) is available at www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr. 
Each version is updated as official changes are published in the 
Federal Register (FR). FR publications and complete versions of the FTR 
are available at www.gsa.gov/ftr.
    The FTR is the regulation contained in 41 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), chapters 300 through 304, that implements statutory 
requirements and executive branch policies for travel by Federal 
civilian employees and others authorized to travel at Government 
expense.
    The Administrator of General Services promulgates the FTR to: (a) 
Interpret statutory and other policy requirements in a manner that 
balances the need to ensure that official travel is conducted in a 
responsible manner with the need to minimize administrative costs and 
(b) communicate the resulting policies in a clear manner to Federal 
agencies and employees.
Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management (Federal 
Management Regulation)
    Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for 
aircraft, transportation, personal property, and mail management. The 
FMR is the successor regulation to the Federal Property Management 
Regulation (FPMR), and it contains updated regulatory policies 
originally found in the FPMR. However, it does not contain FPMR 
material that describes how to do business with the GSA.
Office of Acquisition Policy (Federal Acquisition Regulation and GSA 
Acquisition Regulation Manual)
    GSA helps provide to the public and the Federal buying community 
the updating and maintaining of the rule book for all Federal agency 
procurements, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This is 
achieved through its extensive involvement with the Federal Acquisition 
Regulatory (FAR) Council. The FAR Council is comprised of senior 
representation from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of 
Defense (DoD), and GSA.
    The FAR Council directs the writing of the FAR cases, which is 
accomplished, in part, by teams of expert FAR analysts. All changes to 
the FAR are accompanied by review and analysis of public comment. 
Public comments play an important role in clarifying and enhancing this 
rulemaking process. The regulatory agenda pertaining to changes to the 
FAR are outside the scope of this discussion as GSA cannot speak on 
behalf of the FAR Council.
    GSA's internal rules and practices on how it buys goods and 
services from its business partners are covered by the General Services 
Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) and the General Services 
Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAM is closely 
related to the FAR as it supplements areas of the FAR where GSA has 
additional and unique regulatory requirements. Office of Acquisition 
Policy writes and revises the GSAM and the GSAR. The size and scope of 
the FAR are substantially larger than the GSAR. In effect, the GSAR and 
the GSAM adds to the FAR by providing additional guidance to GSA 
officials and its business partners.
    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): The FAR was established to 
codify uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by 
executive agencies. It is issued and maintained jointly, pursuant to 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Reauthorization Act, 
under the statutory authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense, 
Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Statutory authorities to issue 
and revise the FAR have been delegated to the procurement executives in 
Department of Defense (DoD), GSA, and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA).
    GSA Acquisition Regulation Manual (GSAM) along with Acquisition 
Letters: The GSAM incorporates the GSAR, as well as internal agency 
acquisition policy. The rules that require publication fall into two 
major categories:
     Those that affect GSA's business partners (e.g., 
prospective offerors and contractors).
     Those that apply to acquisition of leasehold interests in 
real property. The FAR does not apply to leasing actions. GSA 
establishes regulations for lease of real property under the authority 
of 40 U.S.C. 490 note.
    GSA Acquisition Regulation (GSAR): The GSAR establishes agency 
acquisition rules and guidance, which contains agency acquisition 
policies and practices, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and 
forms that control the

[[Page 7853]]

relationship between GSA and contractors and prospective contractors.

II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

FTR Regulatory Priorities
    In fiscal year 2012, GSA plans to amend the FTR by:
     Revising the Relocation Income Tax (RIT) Allowance; 
amending coverage on family relocation;
     Amending the calculations regarding the commuted rate for 
employee-managed household goods shipments; and
     Removing the Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) rates from the 
FTR; amending reimbursement for employees staying in their privately 
owned homes/condos while on TDY.
FMR Regulatory Priorities
    In fiscal year 2012, GSA plans to amend the FMR by:
     Revising rules regarding management of government 
aircraft;
     Revising rules regarding mail management;
     Amending coverage in motor vehicle management by revising 
the definition of ``motor vehicle rental'';
     Migrating the provisions of the Federal Property 
Management Regulations (FPMR) regarding purchase of new motor vehicles 
to the FMR;
     Migrating the provisions of the Interagency Fleet 
Management Systems from the Federal Property Management Regulations 
(FPMR) into the FMR;
     Incorporating the requirements of the Presidential 
Memorandum on Federal Fleet Performance of May 24, 2011, that all 
agencies develop annual vehicle allocation methodologies to rightsize 
their fleets and that by fiscal year 2015 all light duty vehicles 
acquired be alternatively fueled;
     Amending transportation management regulations by revising 
coverage on open skies agreements, obligation authority, and training 
for civilian transportation officers, and transportation data 
collection;
     Amending Transportation Management and Audit by revising 
the requirements regarding the refund of unused and expired tickets;
     Publishing procedures for handling the transfer of title 
for vehicles to donees via State Agencies for Surplus Property; 
removing activities related to the Federal Asset Sales program, which 
initiated the program (policies began rulemaking process in fiscal year 
2011);
     Removing aircraft, aircraft-related parts, fire control 
equipment, and guided missiles from the exchange/sale prohibited list; 
and
     Migrating supply and procurement policy from the FPMR to 
the FMR.
GSAR Regulatory Priorities
    GSA plans, in fiscal year 2012, to finalize the rewrite of the GSAR 
to maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
and to implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that 
contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can utilize when 
entering into and administering contractual relationships. Currently, 
there are only a few parts of the GSAR rewrite effort still 
outstanding.
    GSA is clarifying the GSAR by--
     Providing consistency with the FAR;
     Eliminating coverage that duplicates the FAR or creates 
inconsistencies within the GSAR;
     Correcting inappropriate references listed to indicate the 
basis for the regulation;
     Rewriting sections that have become irrelevant because of 
changes in technology or business processes or that place unnecessary 
administrative burdens on contractors and the Government;
     Streamlining or simplifying the regulation;
     Rolling up coverage from the services and regions/zones 
that should be in the GSAR;
     Providing new and/or augmented coverage; and
     Deleting unnecessary burdens on small businesses.
    Specific GSAR cases that the agency plans to address in FY 2012 and 
2013 include:
     The rewrite of GSAM part 515, Contracting by Negotiation.
     The rewrite of GSAM part 538, Federal Supply Schedule 
Contracting.
     The rewrite of GSAM part 536, Construction and A/E 
Contracts.
    These cases are more fully described in the Agency's approved Final 
Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules (Aug. 18, 2011), 
created in response to Executive Order 13563.
Regulations of Concern to Small Businesses
    FAR and GSAR rules are relevant to small businesses who do or wish 
to do business with the Federal Government. Approximately 18,000 
businesses, most of whom are small, have GSA schedule contracts. GSA 
assists its small businesses by providing assistance through its Office 
of Small Business Utilization. In addition, GSA extensively utilizes 
its regional resources, within FAS and PBS, to provide grass-roots 
outreach to small business concerns, through hosting such outreach 
events, or participating in a vast array of other similar presentations 
hosted by others.
Regulations Which Promote Open Government and Disclosure
    While there are currently no regulations which promote open 
Government and disclosure, all Government contract spend transactions 
are available online through Federal Procurement Data System-Next 
Generation (FPDS-NG).
Regulations Required by Statute or Court Order
    GSA plans to publish FTR Case 2011-308; Payment of Expenses 
Connected with the Death of Certain Employees in FY 2012. Presidential 
Memorandum ``Delegation Under Section 2(a) of the Special Agent Samuel 
Hicks Families of Fallen Heroes Act'', dated September 12, 2011, 
delegates to the Administrator of General Services the authority to 
issues regulations under Public Law 111-178, the Special Agent Samuel 
Hicks Families of Fallen Heroes Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 5724d, 
relating to the payment of certain expenses when a covered employee 
dies as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of his or her 
official duties. GSA is amending the FTR to establish policy for the 
transportation of the immediate family, household goods, personal 
effects, and one privately owned vehicle of a covered employee whose 
death occurred as a result of personal injury sustained while in the 
performance of the employee's duty as defined by the agency.
Regulation Required by Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP)
    A FAR case will be necessary to implement OFPP Policy Letter 11-01; 
Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions.'' 
Updates will be provided in the Spring Regulatory Agenda.

III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the

[[Page 7854]]

Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that 
agency. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The 
final agency plans can be found at: www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations.
FAR Rules
     9000-AL93 FAR Case 2007-012; Requirements for Acquisitions 
Pursuant to Multiple-Award Contracts; yes, this rule increases 
competition which will benefit small businesses.
     9000-AL46 FAR Case 2008-025; Preventing Personal Conflicts 
of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions; 
no specific impact on small businesses.
     9000-AL82 FAR Case 2011-001; Organizational Conflicts of 
Interest; no specific impact on small businesses.
     9000-AL88 FAR Case 2011-004; Socioeconomic Program Parity; 
this rule, implementing Section 1347 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 
2010, specifically impacts small businesses; however, no overall 
negative impact is expected.
     9000-AM12 FAR Case 2011-024; Set-Asides for Small 
Business; yes, this rule, implementing Section 1331 of the Small 
Business Jobs Act of 2010, will increase opportunities for small 
business contractors authorizing agencies to set aside more work for 
small businesses under multiple award contracts.
GSAR Rules
     3090-A177 GSAR Case 2006-G507; Rewrite of GSAR Part 538, 
Federal Supply Schedule Contracting.
     3090-A176 GSAR Case 2008-G506; Rewrite of GSAR Part 515, 
Contracting by Negotiation.
     3090-A181 GSAR Case 2008-G509; Rewrite of GSAR Part 536, 
Construction and A/E Contracts.

    Note: The GSAR cases do not specifically provide relief to small 
businesses or additional administrative flexibility to state, local 
or tribal governments. However, we do believe that updating and 
clarifying the regulation will benefit all contractors (and Schedule 
users).

BILLING CODE 6820-34-P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    NASA continues to implement programs according to its 2011 
Strategic Plan, released in February 2011. NASA's mission is to ``Drive 
advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance knowledge, 
education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the 
Earth.'' The 2011 Strategic Plan guides NASA's program activities 
through a framework of the following six strategic goals:
     Goal 1: Extend and sustain human activities across the 
solar system.
     Goal 2: Expand scientific understanding of Earth and the 
universe in which we live.
     Goal 3: Create innovative new space technologies for our 
exploration, science, and economic future.
     Goal 4: Advance aeronautics research for societal benefit.
     Goal 5: Enable program and institutional capabilities to 
conduct NASA's aeronautics and space activities.
     Goal 6: Share NASA with the public, educators, and 
students to provide opportunities to participate in our mission, foster 
innovation, and contribute to a strong national economy.
    In the decades since Congress enacted the National Aeronautics and 
Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific and engineering 
capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating tremendous results and 
benefits for humankind. NASA will continue to push scientific and 
technical boundaries in pursuing of these goals.
    The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 CFR chapter 1, 
contains procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal 
agencies. NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through the 
NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. NASA will review and 
update the entire NFS. During the second half of FY 2012 with projected 
completion of January 2013, NASA will report these regulatory actions 
in the spring 2012 Unified Agenda. Concurrently, we will continue to 
make routine changes to the NFS to implement NASA initiatives and 
Federal procurement policy.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13579 ``Regulation and 
Independent Regulatory Agencies'' (Jul. 11, 2011), the following 
Regulation Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in NASA's final retrospective 
review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this list may be 
completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, 
more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past 
publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed 
Actions section for NASA. These rulemakings can also be found on 
Regulations.gov. NASA's final plans can be found at http://www.nasa.gov/open.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Regulation  Identifier No.                      Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2700-AD56.........................................  NASA Grant and
                                                     Cooperative
                                                     Agreement Handbook,
                                                     Delete Requirement
                                                     for U.S.
                                                     Citizenship.
2700-AD60.........................................  NASA Grant and
                                                     Cooperative
                                                     Agreement: Change
                                                     Procedures for
                                                     Letter of Credit
                                                     Advance Payments.
2700-AD79.........................................  NASA Grant Handbook,
                                                     Payment of Profit
                                                     and/or Management
                                                     Expenses on
                                                     Cooperative
                                                     Agreements.
2700-AD81.........................................  Non Procurement
                                                     Rule, Suspension
                                                     and Debarment.
2700-AD82.........................................  NASA, Contract
                                                     Adjustment Board.
2700-AD94.........................................  NASA Grant and
                                                     Cooperative
                                                     Agreement Handbook:
                                                     Update, Streamline
                                                     and Reorganize.
2700-AD96.........................................  Use of NASA Airfield
                                                     Facilities by
                                                     Aircraft Not
                                                     Operated for the
                                                     Benefit of the
                                                     Federal Government.
2700-AD97.........................................  Small Business
                                                     Policy.
2700-AD98.........................................  Space Flight.
2700-AD51.........................................  Inventions and
                                                     Contributions.
2700-AD61.........................................  Information Security
                                                     Protection.
2700-AD63.........................................  Claims for Patent
                                                     and Copyright
                                                     Infringement.
2700-AD71.........................................  Procedures for
                                                     Implementing the
                                                     National
                                                     Environmental
                                                     Policy Act.
2700-AD72.........................................  Tracking and Data
                                                     Relay Satellite
                                                     System.
2700-AD78.........................................  Delegation of
                                                     authority to
                                                     license the use of
                                                     Centennial of
                                                     Flight Commission
                                                     name, Delegation of
                                                     authority of
                                                     certain civil
                                                     rights functions to
                                                     Department of
                                                     Health, Education,
                                                     and Welfare, and
                                                     Care and use of
                                                     animals in the
                                                     conduct of NASA
                                                     activities--REPEALS
                                                     .
2700-AD83.........................................  Collection of Civil
                                                     Claims of the
                                                     United States
                                                     Arising Out of the
                                                     Activities of NASA.

[[Page 7855]]

 
2700-AD84.........................................  Research Misconduct.
2700-AD85.........................................  Accessibility
                                                     Standards for New
                                                     Construction and
                                                     Alterations in
                                                     Federally-Assisted
                                                     Programs.
2700-AD86.........................................  Privacy Act--NASA
                                                     Regulations.
2700-AD87.........................................  Space Flight Mission
                                                     Critical Systems
                                                     Personnel
                                                     Reliability
                                                     Program.
2700-AD88.........................................  Aeronautics and
                                                     Space--Statement of
                                                     Organization and
                                                     General
                                                     Information.
2700-AD89.........................................  Security Program;
                                                     Arrest Authority
                                                     and Use of Force by
                                                     NASA Security Force
                                                     Personnel.
2700-AD90.........................................  Inspection of
                                                     Persons and
                                                     Personal Effects at
                                                     NASA Installations
                                                     or on NASA's
                                                     Property.
2700-AD91.........................................  NASA Security Areas.
2700-AD92.........................................  Information Security
                                                     Program--NASA
                                                     Regulations.
2700-AD95.........................................  Delegations and
                                                     Designations.
2700-AD99.........................................  Duty-Free Entry of
                                                     Space Articles.
2700-AE00.........................................  National Space Grant
                                                     College and
                                                     Fellowship Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Abstracts for regulations to be amended or repealed between October 
2011 and October 2012 are reported in the fall 2011 edition of Unified 
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulation actions.

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Overview
    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issues 
regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the public. 
Records management regulations directed to Federal agencies concern the 
proper management and disposition of Federal records. Through the 
Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also issues 
Governmentwide regulations concerning information security 
classification and declassification programs. NARA regulations directed 
to the public address access to and use of our historically valuable 
holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, Nixon 
Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues 
regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
    NARA has three regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2012, which 
are included in The Regulatory Plan.
    The first is a continuation of the previous fiscal year's update to 
NARA's regulations related to declassification of classified national 
security information in records transferred to NARA's legal custody. 
The rule incorporates changes resulting from promulgation of Executive 
Order 13526, Classified National Security Information. These changes 
include establishing procedures for the automatic declassification of 
records in NARA's legal custody and revising requirements for 
reclassification of information to meet the provisions of E.O. 13526. 
Executive Order 13526 also created the National Declassification Center 
(NDC) with a mission to align people, processes, and technologies to 
advance the declassification and public release of historically 
valuable permanent records while maintaining national security. The 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on July 8, 2011.
    The second priority is NARA's revisions to the Federal records 
management regulations found at 36 CFR chapter XII, subchapter B, to 
include the Electronic Records Archives (ERA). ERA is NARA's system 
that Federal agencies use to draft new records retention schedules for 
records, officially submit those schedules for approval by NARA, 
request the transfer of records to NARA for accessioning or pre-
accessioning, and submit electronic records for storage in the ERA 
electronic records repository. The revisions will cover provisions in 
36 CFR parts 1220, 1225, 1226, and 1235.
    The third priority is NARA's revisions to its Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) regulations, clarifying the applicability of the 
FOIA to categories of records in NARA's holdings.

NARA

Proposed Rule Stage

147.  Federal Records Management; Electronic Records Archives 
(ERA)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2107
    CFR Citation: 36 CFR 1235.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The National Archives and Records proposes to revise the 
Federal records management regulations found at 36 CFR chapter XII, 
subchapter B, to include the Electronic Records Archives (ERA). ERA is 
NARA's system that Federal agencies use to draft new records retention 
schedules for records, officially submit those schedules for approval 
by NARA, request the transfer of records to NARA for accessioning or 
pre-accessioning, and submit electronic records for storage in the ERA 
electronic records repository. The revisions will cover provisions in 
36 CFR parts 1220, 1225, 1226, and 1235.
    Statement of Need: NARA will revise the Federal records management 
regulations found at 36 CFR chapter XII, subchapter B, to include the 
Electronic Records Archives (ERA). ERA is NARA's system that Federal 
agencies use to draft new records retention schedules for records, 
officially submit those schedules for approval by NARA, request the 
transfer of records to NARA for accessioning or pre-accessioning, and 
submit electronic records for storage in the ERA electronic records 
repository. The revisions will cover provisions in 36 CFR parts 1220, 
1225, 1226, and 1235.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 44 U.S.C. 2107(2).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL for Public Comments: regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Laura McCarthy, National Archives and Records 
Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 301 
837-3023, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3095-AB74

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


[[Page 7856]]



OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Office of Personnel Management's mission is to ensure the 
Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce. OPM fulfills 
that mission by, among other things, providing human capital advice and 
leadership for the President and Federal agencies; delivering human 
resources policies, products, and services; and holding agencies 
accountable for their human capital practices. OPM's 2011 regulatory 
priorities are designed to support these activities.

Pay System for Senior Professionals (SL/ST)

    OPM proposes to amend rules for setting and adjusting pay of 
senior-level (SL) and scientific and professional (ST) employees. The 
Senior Professional Performance Act of 2008 changed pay for these 
employees by eliminating their previous entitlement to locality pay and 
providing instead for rates of basic pay up to the rate payable for 
level III of the Executive Schedule (EX-III), or if the employee is 
under a certified performance appraisal system, the rate payable for 
level II of the Executive Schedule (EX-II). Consistent with this 
statutory emphasis on performance-based pay, these regulations will 
provide more flexible rules for agencies to set and adjust pay for SL 
and ST employees based primarily upon individual performance, 
contribution to the agency's performance, or both, as determined under 
a rigorous performance appraisal system.

Managing Senior Executive Performance

    OPM proposes to revise the regulations addressing the performance 
management of Senior Executives to provide for a Governmentwide 
appraisal system built around the Executive Core Qualifications and 
agency mission results. During fiscal year 2011, the President's 
Management Council (PMC) sponsored several workgroups to address 
various SES-related issues. One of the recommendations from the work 
group on SES appraisal system certification, and supported by the PMC, 
the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, OPM, and OMB, was the 
creation of a Governmentwide appraisal system for the SES to support 
and facilitate interagency consistency and mobility of this 
Governmentwide corps. The new regulations will provide a common 
structure and basic requirements, while allowing flexibility to address 
agency-specific needs.

Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives

    In OPM's continuing effort to improve the administration and 
oversight of recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives, OPM 
anticipates issuing final regulations to improve oversight of group 
recruitment incentive determinations and all retention incentives, add 
succession planning to the list of factors that an agency may consider 
before approving a retention incentive, and provide that OPM may 
require data on recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives from 
agencies on an annual basis. These regulations will help support OPM's 
efforts to ensure agencies actively manage their incentive programs so 
that they continue to be cost-effective compensation tools.

Benefits for Reservists and Their Family Members

    OPM anticipates issuing final regulations to implement section 
565(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84, Oct. 28, 2009) that amends the Family 
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provisions at 5 U.S.C. 6381 to 6383 to add 
qualifying exigencies to the circumstances or events that entitle 
Federal employees to up to 12 administrative workweeks of FMLA unpaid 
leave during any 12-month period. The final regulations would amend 
OPM's current regulations at part 630, subpart L, to cover qualifying 
exigencies when the spouse, son, daughter, or parent of the employee is 
on covered active duty in the Armed Forces or has been notified of an 
impending call or order to covered active duty. OPM proposes eight 
categories of qualifying exigencies: Short-notice deployments, military 
events and related activities, childcare and school activities, 
financial and legal arrangements, counseling, rest and recuperation, 
post-deployment activities, and additional activities not encompassed 
in the other categories when the agency and employee agree they qualify 
as exigencies, including the timing and duration of the leave.

Suitability Reinvestigations

    OPM anticipates issuing final regulations modifying suitability 
regulations to assist agencies in carrying out new requirements to 
reinvestigate individuals in public trust positions under Executive 
Order 13488, Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal 
Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in 
Positions of Public Trust, to ensure their continued employment is 
appropriate. The proposed rule was originally published on November 3, 
2009, at 74 FR 56747, with the comment period ending on January 4, 
2010. A new notice was provided on November 5, 2010, at 75 FR 68222 to 
provided additional information relative to the scope of 
reinvestigations for public trust positions in order to allow for 
further comment as to reinvestigation frequency.

Designation of National Security Position

    OPM anticipates issuing final regulations regarding designation of 
national security positions. The proposed rule was published on 
December 14, 2010, at 75 FR 77783, as one of a number of initiatives 
OPM has undertaken to simplify and streamline the system of Federal 
Government investigative and adjudicative processes to make them more 
efficient and as equitable as possible. The purpose of the revised rule 
is to clarify the requirements and procedures agencies should observe 
when designating national security positions as required under 
Executive Order 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employment. 
The regulations will clarify the categories of positions, which by 
virtue of the nature of their duties have the potential to bring about 
a material adverse impact on the national security, whether or not the 
positions require access to classified information. The regulations 
also will acknowledge, for greater clarity, complementary requirements 
set forth in part 731, Suitability, so that every position is properly 
designated with regard to both public trust risk and national security 
sensitivity considerations. Finally, the rule will clarify when 
reinvestigation of individuals in national security positions is 
required.

Pathways

    OPM proposes to issue regulations based on the Executive Order 
(E.O.) 13562 ``Recruiting and Hiring Students and Recent Graduates'' 
issued December 27, 2010. This E.O. established the concept of Pathways 
Programs to promote employment opportunities for students and recent 
graduates in the Federal workforce, as well as provides an exception to 
the competitive hiring rules. The Pathways Programs consist of three 
discrete excepted service internships programs for students and recent 
graduates: The Internship Program; the Recent Graduates Program; and 
the Presidential Management Fellows Program. The E.O. also established 
a new excepted service

[[Page 7857]]

Schedule D in the Code of Federal Regulation (5 CFR).

Hiring Reform--Recruitment, Selection, and Placement (General) Job 
Announcement and Applicant Notification

    OPM proposes to amend the regulations concerning the content of a 
job announcement. We are also proposing to add regulations to require 
Federal agencies to notify applicants at key stages in the hiring 
process; to require agencies to use alternative valid assessment tools, 
excluding lengthy written essays or narratives of knowledge, skills, 
and abilities/competencies, and to require agencies to accept cover 
letters and r[eacute]sum[eacute]s as the initial application for a 
Federal job. With these changes, OPM plans to streamline the Federal 
hiring process and improve an applicant's experience.

Schedule A--Elimination of Job Readiness Certification for People With 
Disabilities

    OPM proposes to amend its regulations on the appointment of persons 
with mental retardation, severe physical disabilities, or psychiatric 
disabilities. The proposed changes will eliminate the certification of 
job readiness requirement for people with mental retardation, severe 
physical disabilities, or psychiatric disabilities using the Schedule A 
appointment authority.

Noncompetitive Appointment of Certain Former Overseas Employees

    OPM is issuing a proposed regulation to clarify that an employee's 
same-sex domestic partner qualifies and should be treated as a family 
member for purposes of eligibility for noncompetitive appointments 
based on overseas employment, as provided in section 315.608 of title 
5, Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations implemented, in part, 
a June 2, 2010, Presidential Memorandum by providing same-sex domestic 
partners with the same employment opportunities that opposite-sex 
spouses of Federal employees receive under 5 CFR 315.608.

Multi-State Exchanges; Implementations for Affordable Care Act 
Provisions

    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to 
implement regulations for the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 
2010 in order for OPM to contract with at least two multi-State plans 
for the Affordable Insurance Exchanges to be offered in 2014.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found 
at: http://www.opm.gov/open/.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            RIN                   Title         Small Business  Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3206-AL93..................  Absence and      N/A.
                              Leave; Sick
                              Leave.
3206-AM00..................  Recruitment,     N/A.
                              Selection, and
                              Placement
                              (General) Job
                              Announcement
                              and Applicant
                              Notification.
3206-AM18..................  Personnel        N/A.
                              Management in
                              Agencies;
                              Employee
                              Surveys.
3206-AM20..................  Presumption of   N/A.
                              Insurable
                              Interest for
                              Same-Sex
                              Domestic
                              Partners.
3206-AM24..................  Regulatory       N/A.
                              Requirements
                              for Alcoholism
                              and Drug Abuse
                              Programs and
                              Services for
                              Federal
                              Civilian
                              Employees.
3206-AM27..................  Designation of   N/A.
                              National
                              Security
                              Positions.
3206-AM31..................  Change in        N/A.
                              Definitions;
                              Evacuation Pay
                              and the
                              Separate
                              Maintenance
                              Allowance at
                              Johnston
                              Island.
3206-AM34..................  Excepted         N/A.
                              Service,
                              Career and
                              Career-
                              Conditional
                              Employment;
                              and Pathways
                              Programs.
3206-AM35..................  Noncompetitive   N/A.
                              Appointment of
                              Certain Former
                              Overseas
                              Employees.
3206-AL36..................  Agency Use of    N/A.
                              Appropriated
                              Funds for
                              Child Care
                              Costs for
                              Lower Income
                              Employees.
3206-AM39..................  Federal          N/A.
                              Employees
                              Health
                              Benefits
                              Program;
                              Community-
                              Rated Health
                              Plans.
3206-AM45..................  Retirement       N/A.
                              Systems
                              Modernization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6325-44-P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the 
pensions of about 44 million people in about 27,500 private-sector 
defined benefit plans. PBGC receives no funds from general tax 
revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment 
income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from 
the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans.
    To carry out these functions, PBGC issues regulations on such 
matters as termination, payment of premiums, reporting and disclosure, 
and assessment and collection of employer liability. The Corporation is 
committed to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely 
regulations to help affected parties.
    PBGC intends that its regulations (new and existing) implement the 
law in ways that do not impede the maintenance of existing defined 
benefit plans or the establishment of new plans. Thus, in developing 
new regulations and reviewing existing regulations, the focus, to the 
extent possible, is to avoid placing burdens on plans, employers, and 
participants, and to ease and simplify employer compliance. In 
particular, PBGC strives to meet the needs of small businesses that 
sponsor defined benefit plans.
    PBGC develops its regulations in accordance with the principles set 
forth in Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011) and PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review 
(Regulatory Review Plan), which can be found at www.pbgc.gov/documents/plan-for-regulatory-review.pdf. This Statement of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Priorities reflects the initial results of the Regulatory 
Review Plan.

[[Page 7858]]

PBGC Insurance Programs

    PBGC administers two insurance programs for privately defined 
benefit plans under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974 (ERISA): A single-employer plan termination insurance 
program and a multiemployer plan insolvency insurance program.
     Single-Employer Program. Under the single-employer 
program, when a plan terminates with insufficient assets to cover all 
plan benefits (distress and involuntary terminations), PBGC pays plan 
benefits that are guaranteed under title IV. PBGC also pays 
nonguaranteed plan benefits to the extent funded by plan assets or 
recoveries from employers.
     Multiemployer Program. The smaller multiemployer program 
covers about 1,500 collectively bargained plans involving more than one 
unrelated employer. PBGC provides financial assistance (in the form of 
a loan) to the plan if the plan is unable to pay benefits at the 
guaranteed level. Guaranteed benefits are less than single-employer 
guaranteed benefits.
    At the end of fiscal year 2010, PBGC had a $23 billion deficit in 
its insurance programs.

Regulatory Objectives and Priorities

    PBGC's regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the 
context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
     To encourage voluntary private pension plans;
     To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of 
pension benefits; and
     To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
    Pensions and the statutory framework in which they are maintained 
and terminated are inherently complex. Despite this inherent 
complexity, PBGC is committed to issuing simple, understandable, 
flexible, and timely regulations and other guidance that do not impose 
undue burdens that could impede maintenance or establishment of defined 
benefit plans.
    Through its regulations and other guidance, PBGC strives to 
minimize burdens on plans, plan sponsors, and plan participants; 
simplify filing; provide relief for small businesses and plans; and 
assist plans in complying with applicable requirements. To enhance 
policymaking through collaboration, PBGC also plans to expand 
opportunities for public participation in rulemaking (see Open 
Government and Public Participation below).
    PBGC's current regulatory objectives and priorities are to 
reconsider two proposed regulations, continue to provide targeted 
relief in certain premium situations, and complete implementation of 
the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006). PBGC will streamline 
requirements and reduce unjustified burdens as much as possible in its 
planned rulemakings.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. The proposals are described 
below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Effect on Small
              Title                       RIN              Business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reportable Events; Pension                1212-AB06  Expected to reduce
 Protection Act of 2006.                              burden on small
                                                      business.
Liability for Termination of              1212-AB20  Expected to reduce
 Single-Employer Plans; Treatment                     burden on small
 of Substantial Cessation of                          business.
 Operations; ERISA section
 4062(e).
Assessment of and Relief From             1212-AB04  No significant
 Information Penalties.                               effect on burden.
Allocation of Assets in Single-           1212-AA55  Undetermined.
 Employer Plans; Valuation of
 Benefits and Assets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reportable events. PPA 2006 affected certain provisions in the 
PBGC's reportable events regulation (part 4043), which requires 
employers to notify PBGC of certain plan or corporate events. In 
November 2009, PBGC published a proposed rule to conform the regulation 
to the PPA 2006 changes and make other changes.\1\ In response to 
Executive Order 13563 and comments on the non-PPA provisions of the 
proposed rule, PBGC decided to re-propose the rule. PBGC is trying to 
take advantage of other existing reporting requirements and methods to 
avoid burdening companies and plans. PBGC is also considering how to 
implement stakeholder suggestions that different reporting requirements 
should apply in circumstances where the risk to PBGC is low or 
compliance is especially burdensome. PBGC expects that the new proposal 
will more effectively target troubled plans while reducing burden for 
healthy plans and sponsors. The target date for publication of a new 
proposed rule is March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 74 FR 61248 (Nov. 23, 2009), www.pbgc.gov/Documents/E9-28056.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERISA section 4062(e). The statutory provision requires reporting 
of, and liability for, certain substantial cessations of operations by 
employers that maintain single-employer plans. In August 2010, PBGC 
issued a proposed rule to provide guidance on the applicability and 
enforcement of section 4062(e).\2\ In light of comments, PBGC is 
reconsidering its 2010 proposed rule. In particular, PBGC is 
considering reducing the reporting burden and tying 4062(e) to actual 
risk through the same approaches being considered for reportable 
events. The target date for publication of a new proposed rule is June 
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 75 FR 48283 (Aug. 10, 2010), www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2010-19627.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information penalty policy. PBGC plans to amend its regulation on 
Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions (part 4003) to 
cover information penalties under ERISA section 4071. This amendment, 
which was part of an earlier proposed rule, would make the process for 
assessing and reviewing information penalties more transparent and 
consistent with other agency determinations. The target date for 
publication of a final rule is January 2012.
    Changes in other regulations to improve plan and PBGC 
administration. PBGC will review selected aspects its regulations on 
Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (part 4022), 
Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (part 4044) and 
Withdrawal Liability for Multiemployer Plans (Subchapter I) and 
Insolvency, Reorganization, Termination, and Other Rules Applicable to 
Multiemployer Plans (Subchapter J) to eliminate obsolete provisions, 
simplify language, and fill in gaps where guidance would be helpful to 
the public and the relevant operating departments. See the Regulatory 
Review Plan for details.

Premium Payment Relief

    PBGC is granting relief in three types of situations under its 
premium

[[Page 7859]]

regulations.\3\ PBGC decided to grant this relief as a result of its 
regulatory review under Executive Order 13563 and in response to 
comments from premium payers and pension professionals. In that same 
spirit, PBGC is considering revising its premium penalty policy--
appendix to PBGC's regulation on Payment of Premiums (part 4007)--to be 
more flexible in the case of clerical or administrative errors 
generally and is already taking steps in this direction. Such changes 
could remove undue penalty burdens on plan sponsors where there is 
minimal risk to the pension insurance system or intent to evade 
regulatory requirements. See Small Businesses for a possible regulatory 
initiative affecting small businesses and plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 76 FR 57082 (Sep. 15, 2011), www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2011-23692.pdf. For 2011 and later plan years, PBGC is waiving premium 
penalties assessed solely because payments are late by not more than 
7 calendar days. For 2010 and later plan years, PBGC is providing 
relief similar to, but more expansive than, the relief provided in 
2010 under Technical Update 10-2: Variable Rate Premiums; 
Alternative Premium Funding Target Elections; Box 5 Relief. For 2008 
and 2009 plan years, PBGC is waiving premium penalties for late 
premiums in connection with certain errors in connection with 
alternative premium funding target elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPA 2006 Implementation

    Cash balance plans. PPA 2006 changed the rules for determining 
benefits in cash balance plans and other statutory hybrid plans. In 
October 2011, PBGC published a proposed rule implementing the changes 
in both PBGC-trusteed plans and in plans that close out in the private 
sector. PBGC expects to finalize the proposal in 2012.
    Missing participants. Currently, PBGC's Missing Participants 
Program applies only to terminating single-employer defined benefit 
plans insured by PBGC. PPA 2006 expanded the program to cover single-
employer plans sponsored by professional service employers with fewer 
than 25 employees, multiemployer defined benefit plans, and 401(k) and 
other defined contribution plans. PBGC is developing a proposed rule to 
implement the expansion and streamline the existing program. The target 
date for publication of the proposed rule is June 2012.
    Shutdown benefits. Under PPA 2006, the phase-in period for the 
guarantee of a benefit payable solely by reason of an ``unpredictable 
contingent event,'' such as a plant shutdown, starts no earlier than 
the date of the shutdown or other unpredictable contingent event. PBGC 
published a proposed rule implementing this statutory change in March 
2011\4\ and received one comment. The target date for publication of a 
final rule is May 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 76 FR 13304 (Mar. 11, 2011), www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2011-5696.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commercial airline plans. Under PPA 2006, there are special rules 
for commercial airline plans that elected the PPA 2006 17-year funding 
relief and terminate within 10 years of the election. The amount of 
benefits guaranteed in such plans is fixed as of the first plan year to 
which funding relief applies, with plan assets first allocated to the 
amount of guaranteed benefits lost due to the new rules. The target 
date for a proposed rule implementing these rules is June 2012.
    Owner-participant benefits. ERISA contains special guarantee and 
asset allocation rules that apply to owner-participants in terminating 
underfunded plans. PPA 2006 simplified these rules and applied them 
only to majority (50% or more) owners, as opposed to substantial (10% 
or more) owners, as was the case previously. The target date for 
publication of a proposed rule implementing these changes is June 2012.

Other Regulations

    DC to DB plan rollovers. PBGC is developing a proposed rule to 
address title IV treatment of rollovers from defined contribution plans 
to defined benefit plans, including asset allocation and guarantee 
limits. The target date for publication of this proposed rule is May 
2012.
    ERISA section 4010. In response to comments, PBGC has begun 
reviewing its regulation on Annual Financial and Actuarial Information 
Reporting (part 4010) and the related e-filing application to consider 
ways of reducing reporting burden, without forgoing receipt of critical 
information. PBGC is considering waiving reporting for plans that must 
file 4010 information solely based on (1) the conditions for a 
statutory lien resulting from missed required contributions totaling 
over one million dollars being met or (2) outstanding funding waivers 
totaling over one million dollars. Waiving such reporting would reduce 
the compliance and cost burden on plan sponsors; PBGC can obtain some 
information similar to that reported under section 4010 from other 
sources, such as reportable events filings. PBGC is also considering 
other changes to section 4010 reporting that would further reduce 
burden for financially sound companies, by taking into account company 
financial health and targeting reporting more closely to the risk of 
plan termination; such changes might require legislative action.

Small Businesses

    PBGC takes into account the special needs and concerns of small 
businesses in making policy. A large percentage of the plans insured by 
PBGC are small or maintained by small employers. PBGC is considering 
several proposed rules that will focus on small businesses:
    Small plan premium due date. The premium due date for plans with 
fewer than 100 participants is 4 months after year-end (April 30 for 
calendar year plans). PBGC has heard that some small plans with year-
end valuation dates have difficulty meeting the filing deadline because 
such plans traditionally do not complete their actuarial valuation for 
funding purposes until after the premium due date. In light of this 
concern, PBGC will review part 4007 to determine whether changes could 
be made that would enable small plans to streamline their premium 
valuation procedures and thereby reduce actuarial fees. PBGC will 
consider several options (e.g., extending the due date or permitting 
the use of prior-year data).
    Missing participants. See Missing participants under PPA 2006 
Implementation above. Expansion of the program will benefit small 
businesses closing out terminating plans.
    Owner-participant benefits. See Owner-participant benefits under 
PPA 2006 Implementation above. These rules primarily affect small 
businesses.

Open Government and Public Participation

    PBGC views public participation as very important to regulatory 
development and review. For example, PBGC's current efforts to reduce 
regulatory burden are in substantial part a response to public 
comments. Regulatory projects discussed above, such as reportable 
events, ERISA section 4062(e), and ERISA section 4010, highlight PBGC's 
customer-focused efforts to reduce regulatory burden.
    PBGC's Regulatory Review Plan sets forth ways to expand 
opportunities for public participation in the regulatory process. For 
example, PBGC plans to hold public hearings as it develops major 
regulations, so that the agency has a better understanding of the needs 
and concerns of plan administrators and plan sponsors.
    Further, PBGC plans to provide additional means for public 
involvement, including online town hall meetings, social media, and 
continuing opportunity for public comment on PBGC's Web site.

[[Page 7860]]

    PBGC also invites comments on the Regulatory Review Plan on an 
ongoing basis as we engage in the review process. Comments should be 
sent to [email protected].
    PBGC will continue to look for ways to further improve its 
regulations.

BILLING CODE 7709-01-P

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Overview
    The mission of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is to 
maintain and strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the 
establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in 
economic recovery of communities after disasters. In carrying out this 
mission, SBA strives to improve the economic and regulatory environment 
for small businesses, including those in areas that have significantly 
higher unemployment and lower income levels than the Nation's averages 
and those in traditionally underserved markets. The Agency serves as a 
guarantor of small business loans and provides management and technical 
assistance to existing or potential small business owners to help them 
grow, sustain, or start their businesses. The Agency also provides 
direct financial assistance to communities that have experienced 
catastrophes. This assistance is a critical factor in rebuilding the 
communities and their devastated economies. SBA's regulatory policy 
encompasses these objectives and is implemented primarily through 
several core program offices: Office of Capital Access, Office of 
Government Contracting and Business, Office of Entrepreneurial 
Development, and Office of Disaster Assistance. Other offices, such as 
the Office of Veterans Business Development and Office of Native 
American Affairs, also play a role in developing and shaping Agency 
regulatory policy that affects veterans, American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, Native Hawaiians, and the indigenous people of Guam and 
American Samoa.
Reducing Burden on Small Businesses
    SBA strives to develop regulations that, to the extent possible, 
reduce or eliminate the burden on the public, especially its core 
constituents--small businesses. The Agency's regulatory process 
generally includes an assessment of the relative costs and benefits of 
the regulations, as required by Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review'' and Executive Order 13563, as well as an analysis 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of whether regulations will have a 
significant economic impact on small businesses or small entities. 
Where practicable or feasible, SBA also analyzes whether there are 
alternative approaches to a proposed regulation that would be more 
beneficial to the public. SBA's program offices are particularly 
invested in finding ways to reduce the burden imposed by the Agency's 
loan, innovation, and procurement programs. As a result, SBA is 
exploring various electronic options for doing business with the 
Agency, including: E-applications for financial assistance, 
participation in Government contracting and surety bond assistance 
programs, as well as submission of loan data. Along those lines, SBA is 
analyzing the following initiatives that would streamline and simplify 
the process for participating in the various SBA programs:
     Single Electronic Lender Application for 7(a) Loan 
Programs
    There is potential for process improvement by adopting a single e-
application for all SBA 7(a) guaranteed loans. This would reduce the 
paperwork burden on lenders (which in turn impacts small business 
borrowers) and will result in greater lender participation, 
particularly small community banks, credit unions, and rural lenders. 
These lenders usually support small businesses that seek relatively 
small amounts of capital to grow and succeed; hence, additional small, 
community lender-partners will potentially lead to increasing the 
amount of small-dollar loans flowing to small businesses. This e-
application could add value by reducing the screen out rate currently 
experienced during the loan application process and could improve the 
timeliness of delivering loan approvals and hence delivery of loan 
proceeds to small businesses.
     Uniform SBIR Portal for Information and Solicitations
    For the Small Business Innovation Research program, there is no one 
form or database for applying for the program and submitting proposals. 
Often, there are multiple systems for a single submission--e.g., eRA 
Commons (Electronic Research Administration NIH Web site) and 
Grants.gov--in addition to the lack of uniformity across the 
participating 11 agencies in the program. The goal of the project would 
be to create a common, simple application form that ports over 
application data into the agencies' application systems on an as-needed 
basis. This would not replace other application systems, but it would 
be a common form that ports data over more simply to multiple 
application systems. In addition to the technology solution, the 
business process of narrowing and simplifying into a common base of 
information can be open-sourced to multiple agencies, as they may 
navigate the same challenges of common applicants for different 
programs.
     Single Uniform Certification for SBA Contracting Programs
    SBA will analyze the regulatory changes required and implications 
of developing and implementing a single certification process for 
common information collected across its small business contracting 
programs, such as the 8(a) Business Development, HUBZone, Women-Owned 
Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, and 
other Small Business Programs.
     Automated Credit Decision Model for 7(a) Loan Program
    For loans of less than $250,000, SBA could develop an optional 
credit scoring methodology to be used by SBA lender partners in their 
underwriting process, which could result in lowering the lenders' cost 
of delivering capital to borrowers and would likely expand their 
interest in making low-dollar loans. This initiative may also attract 
additional lenders (e.g., small community banks, credit unions, and 
rural lenders) to become SBA partners and increase credit availability 
for small businesses.
     Government Contracting Program Eligibility Web Site
    SBA will analyze the feasibility of building a one-stop Web site 
for small businesses to input basic information about their business 
(e.g., number of employees, revenues, ownership (e.g., women-owned, 
service-disabled veteran-owned, minority owned)) to determine 
contracting and loan programs they may be eligible for, as well as help 
identify local district offices and resource partners in their area. 
This would make it easier for the public to access and participate in 
Federal small business programs.
     Integrated Certification and Program Management System
    SBA will review development of a system that will allow the 
certification and program management (e.g., reviews, protests) 
processes to be done electronically for the 8(a) and HUBZone programs. 
The system is also planned to be developed to allow for future 
additions for other programs such as the Women-Owned Small Business 
Federal Contract Program and the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small 
Business program. This system would

[[Page 7861]]

enable easier access to the small business programs and reduce the 
amount of paperwork submitted to SBA by applicants.
     Auto-Approve Disaster Loans Based on Credit Scores
    Private industry approves a substantial number of loans through 
credit scoring to reduce the cost of underwriting. The portfolio 
analysis that is being currently completed indicates that the 
performance of loans to borrowers with a FICO score that is greater 
than 725 have limited risk. Changing this process would allow SBA more 
flexibility to design a loan approval that is in line with current 
private-sector practices and reduce the processing cost for lower-
dollar disaster loans.
     Automated Process of Receiving Insurance Recovery 
Information
    Under the disaster loan program, loan eligibility is based on the 
uncompensated disaster loss. Being able to automate the insurance 
recovery information would enhance our ability to ensure that insurance 
proceeds are addressed and no duplication of benefits occurs as a 
result of insurance recovery after loan approval. This would reduce the 
possibility that disaster victims will be asked to repay erroneously 
disbursed Federal disaster benefits.
Openness and Transparency
    SBA is committed to developing regulations that are clear, simple, 
and easily understood. In addition, consistent with the President's 
mandate, SBA continues to promote transparency, collaboration, and 
public participation in its rulemakings. To that end, SBA routinely 
solicits comments on its regulations, even those that are not subject 
to the public notice and comment requirement under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, and where appropriate, the Agency consults with other 
Federal agencies or other entities that the regulation might affect. In 
addition, in compliance with Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), SBA invited the 
public to take an active role in helping SBA to develop a plan for 
conducting a retrospective review of the Agency's regulations, 
including identification of rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, or 
excessively burdensome to the public. The final plan is available on 
SBA's Open Government Web site at http://www.sba.gov/content/sba-final-plan-retrospective-analysis-existing-rules-0. SBA also conducted 
several public meetings throughout diverse areas of the country to 
solicit feedback on the Agency's development and implementation of 
various rules required by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. The 
Agency will determine how the comments can inform the rules identified 
in this plan and the agenda overall, particularly those rules that 
concern Government contracting programs and activities. Information on 
the completed SBJA Tour can be found at www.sba.gov/jobsacttour.
    Finally, as part of the White House's Startup America initiative, 
SBA and representatives from other agencies met with small business 
entrepreneurs in eight different cities across the country to solicit 
ideas and suggestions for reducing barriers and for regulations that 
foster a more supportive environment for entrepreneurship and 
innovation. As SBA develops its regulations, the relevant ideas and 
suggestions will be incorporated into the rules or used to inform the 
process generally. Information on the Startup America meetings can be 
found at www.sba.gov/content/startup-america-reducing-barriers-roundtables.
Regulatory Framework
    The SBA FY 2011 to FY 2016 strategic plan serves as the foundation 
for the regulations that the Agency will develop during the next 12 
months. This strategic plan proposes three primary strategic goals: (1) 
Growing businesses and creating jobs; (2) building an SBA that meets 
needs of today's and tomorrow's small businesses; and (3) serving as 
the voice for small business. In order to achieve these goals SBA will, 
among other objectives, focus on:
     Expanding access to capital through SBA's extensive 
lending network;
     Ensuring Federal contracting goals are met or exceeded by 
collaborating across the Federal Government to expand opportunities for 
small businesses and strengthen the integrity of the Federal 
contracting data and certification process;
     Ensuring that SBA's disaster assistance resources for 
businesses, nonprofit organizations, homeowners, and renters can be 
deployed quickly, effectively, and efficiently;
     Strengthening SBA's relevance to high-growth entrepreneurs 
and small businesses to more effectively drive innovation and job 
creation; and
     Mitigating risk to taxpayers and improving program 
oversight.
Regulatory Priority
    As reported in the SBA's fall 2011 regulatory agenda, the Agency 
plans to publish several regulations during the coming year that are 
designed to achieve these goals. During this time, SBA's highest 
regulatory priority will focus on implementing changes to the 
regulations or policy directives regarding (1) Multiple award contracts 
and small business set-asides; (2) Small Business Innovation and 
Research (SBIR) Program; (3) Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) 
Program; and (4) Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Opportunities for the 
HUBZone, Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Contracting, and Service-
Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Programs.
    (1) Multiple Award Contracts and Small Business Set-Asides: SBA 
intends to implement authorities provided by section 1331 of the Small 
Business Jobs Act that would allow Federal agencies to set aside a part 
or parts of multiple awards contracts for small business concerns; set 
aside orders placed against multiple award contracts for small business 
concerns; and reserve one or more contract awards for small business 
concerns under full and open competition in certain circumstances. 
Allowing small businesses to gain access to multiple award contracts 
through prime contract awards or through set-asides off the orders of 
the prime contracts should increase Federal contracting opportunities 
for such businesses.
    (2) Small Business Innovation and Research (SBIR) Program: The SBIR 
Policy Directive has been identified as one of the initial candidates 
for review under SBA's Retrospective Review Plan under E.O. 13563. This 
review is also in step with a White House initiative, Innovation and 
Entrepreneurial Working Group (IEWG), to share best practices and 
improve the SBIR and STTR Programs. One of the issues highlighted 
during these discussions is the need to clarify the SBIR data rights 
afforded to SBIR awardees and the Federal Government. SBA has also 
worked with small businesses that have had difficulty protecting their 
SBIR Data Rights as a result of misunderstandings by the procuring 
agencies of the Government's rights to such data. This confusion has 
resulted in disagreements between parties and, in some cases, the 
confusion about data rights may have resulted in small businesses 
shying away from the SBIR Program. As a result, SBA believes that there 
is critical need to update the SBIR Policy Directive to set clear 
guidelines for determining the right of the parties to the SBIR data. 
Accordingly, SBA plans to update the SBIR Policy Directive to, among 
other things, revise the definitions relating to SBIR data and clarify 
the rights of the SBIR awardees and the Federal Government to such 
data. SBA believes that clarifications to

[[Page 7862]]

the directive regarding SBIR data rights will benefit both small 
businesses and the agencies and further could lead to an increase in 
responses to SBIR solicitations and savings of administrative costs.
    (3) Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program: As 
identified in the Retrospective Review Plan required by E.O. 13563, SBA 
also plans to conduct a comprehensive review of the existing STTR 
Program Policy Directive, which has not been updated since 2005. Many 
elements of the STTR program are designed and intended to be identical 
to those of the SBIR program. The SBA is therefore planning to update 
the STTR Policy Directive to maintain the appropriate consistency with 
the SBIR program. As with the SBIR program, SBA also expects to make 
several amendments to the STTR Policy Directive that will reduce 
confusion for both small businesses and the Federal agencies that make 
awards under the program, especially on the issue of data rights. 
Possible benefits include a potential increase in responses to STTR 
solicitations and savings of administrative costs as a result of fewer 
informational inquiries and disputes.
    (4) Small Business Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Programs: SBA 
currently has a mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program for the 8(a) 
Business Development Program that is intended to enhance the 
capabilities of the prot[eacute]g[eacute] and to improve its ability to 
successfully compete for Federal contracts. The Small Business Jobs Act 
authorized SBA to use this model to establish similar mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs for the Service Disabled Veteran-Owned, 
HUBZone and Women-Owned Small Business Programs. This authority is 
consistent with recommendations issued by an interagency task force 
created by President Obama on Federal Contracting Opportunities for 
Small Businesses. Among other things, the task force recommended that 
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs should be promoted through a new 
Governmentwide framework to give small businesses the opportunity to 
develop under the wing of experienced large businesses in an expanded 
Federal procurement arena. During the next 12 months, SBA will make it 
a priority to issue regulations establishing the three newly authorized 
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs and set out the standards for 
participating as a mentor or prot[eacute]g[eacute] in each. As is the 
case with the current mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program, the various 
forms of assistance that a mentor will be expected to provide to a 
prot[eacute]g[eacute] include technical and/or management assistance; 
financial assistance in the form of equity investment and/or loans; 
subcontracts and/or assistance in performing prime contracts with the 
Government in the form of joint venture arrangements.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Agency's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in the Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Regingo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency retrospective review 
plan can be found at: http://www.sba.gov/about-sba-services/open-government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Title of       Small Business  Burden
            RIN                 Rulemaking             Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3245-AF45..................  Small Business   YES.
                              Technology
                              Transfer
                              (STTR) Policy
                              Directive.
3245-AF84..................  Small Business   YES.
                              Innovation
                              Research
                              (SBIR) Program
                              Policy
                              Directive.
3245-AG04..................  504 Regulatory   YES.
                              Enhancements.
3245-AG07..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards:
                              Professional,
                              Scientific,
                              and Technical
                              Services.
3245-AG08..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards:
                              Transportation
                              and
                              Warehousing
                              Industries.
3245-AG25..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size Standards
                              for Utilities
                              Industries.
3245-AG26..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards;
                              Information.
3245-AG27..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards;
                              Administrative
                              and Support,
                              Waste
                              Management and
                              Remediation
                              Services
                              Industries.
3245-AG28..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards:
                              Real Estate,
                              Rental and
                              Leasing
                              Industries.
3245-AG29..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards:
                              Educational
                              Services
                              Industries.
3245-AG30..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards:
                              Health Care
                              and Social
                              Assistance
                              Services
                              Industries.
3245-AG36..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards:
                              Arts,
                              Entertainment,
                              and Recreation.
3245-AG37..................  Small Business   N/A.
                              Size
                              Standards:
                              Construction.
3245-AG38..................  Small Business   YES.
                              HUBZone
                              Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


SBA

Proposed Rule Stage

148. Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Policy Directive

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 638(p)
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: SBA plans to propose amendments to the 2005 STTR Program 
Policy Directive. These proposed amendments bring the text up to date 
on issues, including the changes to program eligibility made by the SBA 
in 2005 and an adjustment to award guideline amounts consistent with 
the adjustments to the SBIR award amounts made in 2008, and they seek 
to add clarity to areas such as STTR data rights and incorporate 
several miscellaneous corrections to the text.
    Statement of Need: SBA is proposing to clarify SBIR data rights and 
make several necessary updates to the SBIR Policy Directive. Many 
elements of the STTR program are designed and intended to be identical 
to those of the SBIR program. SBA is therefore planning to update the 
STTR Policy Directive to maintain the appropriate consistency with the 
SBIR program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Small Business Technology Transfer Act of 
1992 (STTR Act), Public Law 102-564 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 638). The 
STTR Act requires the SBA to ``issue a policy directive for the general 
conduct of the STTR Programs within the Federal Government.'' 15 U.S.C. 
638(p)(1).
    Alternatives: Not applicable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA believes that bringing the STTR 
Policy Directive up to date to conform with the SBIR Program Policy 
Directive will reduce confusion and benefit both small businesses and 
the agencies. The possible benefits include a potential

[[Page 7863]]

increase in responses to STTR solicitations and savings of 
administrative costs as a result of fewer informational inquiries and 
disputes. Ultimately, SBA believes there will be negligible costs to 
the Federal Government with respect to the award and monitoring of STTR 
funding agreements as a result of this rule.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under 
Executive Order 13563 with small business burden reduction.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Edsel M. Brown Jr., Assistant Director, Office of 
Innovation, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 205-6450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AF45

SBA

149. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Policy Directive

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 638(j)
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: SBA plans to update the SBIR Policy Directive to revise 
the definitions relating to SBIR data, add several new definitions, and 
clarify the rights in such SBIR data afforded to SBIR awardees and the 
Federal Government. In addition, the SBA proposes to clarify other 
parts of the Directive relating to Phase I, II, and III awards and the 
definition of Small Business Concern.
    Statement of Need: The White House's Innovation and Entrepreneurial 
Working Group (IEWG) is supporting an initiative to share best 
practices and improve the SBIR and Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) Programs. During sessions concerning this initiative, SBA have 
discussed the issue of SBIR data rights and the need for clarification. 
In addition, SBA has worked with small businesses that have had 
difficulty protecting their SBIR data rights as a result of 
misunderstandings by the procuring agencies of the Government's rights 
to such data. As a result, SBA believes that the directive must be 
clarified.
    SBA is also proposing to amend the definition of Small Business 
Concern. SBA amended this definition in 13 CFR section 121.702 of its 
regulations, at 69 FR 70185 (Dec. 3, 2004). SBA is updating language in 
the Policy Directive to reflect the current definition as set forth in 
the regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Small Business Innovation Development 
Act of 1982 requires the SBA to ``issue policy directives for the 
general conduct of the SBIR programs within the Federal Government.'' 
15 U.S.C. 638(j)(1).
    Alternatives: In clarifying SBIR data rights in the Directive, SBA 
considered using terms as defined in the sections of the FAR and DFARS 
that address SBIR data rights. However, SBA determined that some of the 
terms were not consistent with SBIR policy and other terms could be 
used with modification. For other proposed updates to the Directive, 
alternatives were not applicable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA believes that clarifications to 
the directive regarding SBIR data rights will benefit both small 
businesses and the agencies. It is our understanding that there is a 
misunderstanding of or confusion surrounding the rights in data of each 
party to an SBIR Funding Agreement. This confusion has resulted in 
disagreements between parties. In some cases, the confusion about data 
rights may have resulted in small businesses shying away from the SBIR 
Program. Therefore, the potential benefits include a potential increase 
in responses to SBIR solicitations and savings of administrative costs 
as a result of fewer disputes. Ultimately, SBA believes there will be 
negligible costs to the Federal Government with respect to the award 
and monitoring of SBIR funding agreements as a result of this rule.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under 
Executive Order 13563 with small business burden reduction.
    Agency Contact: Edsel M. Brown Jr., Assistant Director, Office of 
Innovation, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 205-6450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AF84

SBA

150. Acquisition Process: Task and Delivery Order Contracts, Bundling, 
Consolidation

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-240, sec 1311, 1312, 1313, 1331
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 121, 124 to 127, 134.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 27, 2011, SBA, with 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy, must issue guidance by September 
27, 2011, under section 1331.
    Abstract: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is proposing 
regulations that will establish guidance under which Federal agencies 
may set aside part of a multiple award contract for small business 
concerns, set aside orders placed against multiple award contracts for 
small business concerns, and reserve one or more awards for small 
business concerns under full and open competition for a multiple award 
contract. These regulations will apply to small businesses, including 
those small businesses eligible for SBA's socioeconomic programs. The 
U.S. Small Business Administration is proposing regulations that will 
set forth a Governmentwide policy on bundling, which will address teams 
and joint ventures of small businesses and the requirement that each 
Federal agency must publish on its Web site the rationale for any 
bundled contract. In addition, the proposed regulations will address 
contract consolidation and the limitations on the use of such 
consolidation in Federal procurement to include ensuring that the head 
of a Federal agency may not carry out a consolidated contract over $2 
million unless the Senior Procurement Executive or Chief Acquisition 
Officer ensures that market research has been conducted and determines 
that the consolidation is necessary and justified.
    Statement of Need: The law recognizes that many small businesses 
were losing Federal contract opportunities when agencies issue multiple 
award contracts. This will improve small business participation in the 
acquisition process and provide clear direction to contracting officers 
by authorizing small business set-asides in multiple-award contracts.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public 
Law

[[Page 7864]]

111-240, section 1331, requires the SBA to issue regulations 
implementing this provision within one year from the date of enactment.
    Alternatives: SBA has not yet determined the costs resulting from 
this regulation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This provision will allow small 
businesses to gain access to multiple award contracts through prime 
contract awards or through set-asides of the orders of the prime 
contracts. This should increase opportunities for small businesses.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Dean R. Koppel, Assistant Director, Office of 
Policy and Research, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 205-7322, Fax: 202 481-1540, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG20

SBA

151. Small Business Jobs Act: Small Business Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Programs

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-240
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 124; 13 CFR 125; 13 CFR 126; 13 CFR 127.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: SBA currently has a mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program 
for the 8(a) Business Development Program that is intended to enhance 
the capabilities of the prot[eacute]g[eacute] and to improve its 
ability to successfully compete for Federal contracts. The Small 
Business Jobs Act authorized SBA to use this model to establish similar 
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs for the Service Disabled Veteran-
Owned, HUBZone, and Women-Owned Small Federal Contract Business 
Programs. This authority is consistent with recommendations issued by 
an interagency task force created by President Obama on Federal 
Contracting Opportunities for Small Businesses. During the next 12 
months, SBA will make it a priority to issue regulations establishing 
the three newly authorized mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs and 
set out the standards for participating as a mentor or 
prot[eacute]g[eacute] in each. As is the case with the current mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] program, the various forms of assistance that a 
mentor will be expected to provide to a prot[eacute]g[eacute] include 
technical and/or management assistance; financial assistance in the 
form of equity investment and/or loans; subcontracts; and/or assistance 
in performing prime contracts with the Government in the form of joint 
venture arrangements.
    Statement of Need: Congress determined that the SBA-administered 
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program currently available to 8(a) BD 
participants is a valuable tool for all small business concerns and 
authorized SBA to establish mentor prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs for 
the HUBZone SBC, Service Disabled Veteran-Owned SBCs, and Women-Owned 
Small Business programs SBCs. This authority is consistent with 
recommendations issued by an interagency task force created by 
President Obama on Federal Contracting Opportunities for Small 
Businesses. Among other things, the task force recommended that mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs should be promoted through a new 
Governmentwide framework to give small businesses the opportunity to 
develop under the wing of experienced large businesses in an expanded 
Federal procurement arena.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public 
Law No 111-240, section 1337(b)(3), authorizes SBA to establish mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs for HUBZone SBC, Service Disabled 
Veteran-Owned SBCs, and Women-Owned Small Business programs SBCs.
    Alternatives: At this point, SBA believes that the best option for 
implementing the authority is to create a regulatory scheme that is 
similar to the existing mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA has not yet quantified the costs 
associated with this rule. However, program participants, particularly 
the prot[eacute]g[eacute]s, would be able to leverage the mentoring 
opportunities as a form of business development assistance that could 
enhance their capabilities to successfully compete for contracts in and 
out of the Federal contracting arena. This assistance may include 
technical and/or management assistance; financial assistance in the 
form of equity investments and/or loans; subcontracts; and/or 
assistance in performing prime contracts with the Government in the 
form of joint venture arrangements.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Dean R. Koppel, Assistant Director, Office of 
Policy and Research, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 205-7322, Fax: 202 481-1540, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG24

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance 
programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act, 
and the Special Veterans Benefits program under title VIII of the Act. 
As directed by Congress, we also assist in administering portions of 
the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. Our regulations 
codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits and 
our procedures for administering these programs. Generally, our 
regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or 
local governments, except for the States' disability determination 
services. We fully fund the disability determination services in 
advance or by way of reimbursement for necessary costs in making 
disability determinations.
    The six entries in our regulatory plan (plan) represent issues of 
major importance to the Agency. We describe the individual initiatives 
more fully in the attached plan.

Improving the Disability Process

    Since the continued improvement of the disability program is of 
vital concern to us, we have five initiatives in the plan addressing 
disability-related issues. They include:
     A proposed rule that will modify the requirement to 
recontact medical source(s) first when we need to resolve an 
inconsistency or insufficiency in the evidence;
     A proposed rule that will allow adjudicators the 
discretion to proceed to the fifth step of the sequential process for 
assessing disability when we have insufficient information regarding a 
claimant's past relevant work history;
     Three proposed rules updating the medical listings used to 
determine disability--evaluating respiratory

[[Page 7865]]

system disorders, mental disorders, and hematological disorders. The 
revisions reflect our adjudicative experience and advances in medical 
knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment.

Enhance Public Service

    We will revise our rules to establish a 12-month time limit for the 
withdrawal of an old-age benefits application. The final rules will 
permit only one withdrawal per lifetime.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in our final retrospective 
review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this list may be 
completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, 
more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past 
publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed 
Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can also be found on 
Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/open/regsreview/EO-13563-Final-Plan.html.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Expected to  Significantly Reduce
                  RIN                                 Title                     Burdens on Small Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0960-AF35.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Neurological
                                         Impairments.
0960-AF58.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Respiratory System
                                         Disorders.
0960-AF69.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Mental Disorders.
0960-AF88.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Hematological
                                         Disorders.
0960-AG21.............................  New Medical Criteria for          No.
                                         Evaluating Language and Speech
                                         Disorders.
0960-AG28.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Growth Impairments.
0960-AG38.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Musculoskeletal
                                         Disorders.
0960-AG65.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Digestive Disorders.
0960-AG71.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Immune (HIV) System
                                         Disorders.
0960-AG74.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Cardiovascular
                                         Disorders.
0960-AG91.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Skin Disorders.
0960-AH03.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Genitourinary
                                         Disorders.
0960-AH04.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No.
                                         Evaluating Congenital Disorders
                                         That Affect Multiple Body
                                         Systems.
0960-AH28.............................  Revised Medical Criteria for      No
                                         Evaluating Visual Disorders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SSA

Proposed Rule Stage

152. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System 
Disorders (859P)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 3.00 and 103.00, Respiratory System, of appendix 
1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe respiratory 
system disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent an 
individual from doing any gainful activity or that cause marked and 
severe functional limitations for a child claiming SSI payments under 
title XVI. We are proposing to revise these sections to ensure that the 
medical evaluation criteria are up to date and consistent with the 
latest advances in medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These proposed regulations are necessary to 
update the Respiratory System listings to reflect advances in medical 
knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating respiratory disorders. 
The changes would ensure that determinations of disability have a sound 
medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the use 
of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled can be readily 
identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of entitlement or 
eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings and 
continuing to use our current criteria. However, we believe that 
proposing these revisions is preferable because of the medical advances 
that have been made in treating and evaluating respiratory diseases and 
because of our adjudicative experience.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated costs--low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/13/05  70 FR 19358
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/13/05  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Joshua B. Silverman, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations 
Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations, 6401 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 594-2128.
    RIN: 0960-AF58

SSA

153. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders 
(974P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.

[[Page 7866]]

    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 7.00 and 107.00, Hematological Disorders, of 
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations, describe 
hematological disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent a 
person from performing any gainful activity or that cause marked and 
severe functional limitation for a child claiming Supplemental Security 
Income payments under title XVI. We are proposing to revise the 
criteria in these sections to ensure that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up to date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These proposed regulations are necessary to 
update the hematological listings to reflect advances in medical 
knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating hematological 
disorders. The changes ensure that determinations of disability have a 
sound medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the 
use of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled can be 
readily identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of 
entitlement or eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings or making 
only minor technical changes and continuing to use our current 
criteria. However, we believe that proposing these revisions is 
preferable because of the medical advances that have been made in 
treating and evaluating these types of impairments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated savings--low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1483.
    RIN: 0960-AF88

SSA

Final Rule Stage

154. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 42 U.S.C. 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 
421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(h); 42 U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 
902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 
1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1; 20 CFR 404.1520a; 20 CFR 
416.920a; 20 CFR 416.934.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 12.00 and 112.00, Mental Disorders, of appendix 
1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe those mental 
impairments that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from 
doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child claiming Supplemental Security Income payments 
under title XVI. We will revise the criteria in these sections to 
ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up to date and 
consistent with the latest advances in medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These regulations are necessary to update the 
listings for evaluating mental disorders to reflect advances in medical 
knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating these disorders. The 
changes will ensure that determinations of disability have a sound 
medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the use 
of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled can be readily 
identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of entitlement or 
eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings or making 
only minor technical changes. However, we believe that these revisions 
are preferable because of the medical advances that have been made in 
treating and evaluating these types of disorders. We have not 
comprehensively revised the current listings in over 15 years. Medical 
advances in disability evaluation and treatment and our program 
experience make clear that the current listings do not reflect state-
of-the-art medical knowledge and technology.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Savings estimates for fiscal years 
2010 to 2018: (in millions of dollars) OASDI-315, SSI-370.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/17/03  68 FR 12639
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/16/03  .......................
NPRM................................   08/19/10  75 FR 51336
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/17/10  .......................
NPRM................................   11/24/10  75 FR 71632
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/09/10  .......................
Final Action........................   03/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Fran O. Thomas, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-9822.
    RIN: 0960-AF69

SSA

155. How We Collect and Consider Evidence of Disability (3487P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 
405(d)(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(i); 42 
U.S.C. 421(m); 42 U.S.C. 421 note; 42 U.S.C. 422(c); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 
U.S.C. 423 note; 42 U.S.C. 425; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1382; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1382h; 42 U.S.C. 1382h note; 42 U.S.C. 1383(a); 
42 U.S.C. 1383(c); 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. 1383(p); 42 U.S.C. 
1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1512; 20 CFR 404.1519a; 20 CFR 404.1520; 
20 CFR 404.1520b (New); 20 CFR 404.1527; 20 CFR 416.912; 20 CFR 
416.919a; 20 CFR 416.920; 20 CFR 416.920b (New); 20 CFR 416.927.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to modify the requirement to recontact your 
medical

[[Page 7867]]

source(s) first when we need to resolve an inconsistency or 
insufficiency in the evidence he or she provided. Depending on the 
nature of the inconsistency or insufficiency, there may be other, more 
appropriate sources from whom we could obtain the information we need. 
By giving adjudicators more flexibility in determining how best to 
obtain this information, we will be able to make a determination or 
decision on disability claims more quickly and efficiently in certain 
situations. Eventually, our need to recontact your medical source(s) in 
many situations will be significantly reduced as a result of our 
efforts to improve the evidence collection process through the 
increased utilization of Health Information Technology (HIT).
    Statement of Need: The final rule would modify the requirement to 
recontact a claimant's medical source(s) first when we need to resolve 
an inconsistency or insufficiency in the evidence he or she provided. 
Depending on the nature of the inconsistency or insufficiency, there 
may be other, more appropriate sources from whom we could obtain the 
information we need. By giving adjudicators more flexibility in 
determining how best to obtain this information, we will be able to 
make a determination or decision on disability claims more quickly and 
efficiently in certain situations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We could have chosen not to make these changes at 
all. However, the Integrated Disability Process workgroup recommended 
these changes, and we know from the intercomponent review process that 
our adjudicators support them. The changes affect the process of 
collecting and considering evidence, and we believe that this final 
rule represents our best course of action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These changes will have only a 
negligible net effect on the projected level of OASDI and Federal SSI 
benefit outlays.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/12/11  76 FR 20282
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/13/11  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Janet Truhe, Social Insurance Specialist, Social 
Security Administration, Office of Disability Programs, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-7203.
    Brian Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-7102.
    RIN: 0960-AG89

SSA

156. Amendments to Regulations Regarding Withdrawals of Applications 
and Voluntary Suspension of Benefits (3573F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 402(i); 42 U.S.C. 402(j); 
42 U.S.C. 402(o); 42 U.S.C. 402(p); 42 U.S.C. 402(r); 42 U.S.C. 403(a); 
42 U.S.C. 403(b); 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 416; 42 U.S.C. 416(i)(2); 
42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 423(b); 42 U.S.C. 425; 42 U.S.C. 428(a) to 
428(e); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.313; 20 CFR 404.640.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We will modify our regulations to establish a 12-month 
time limit for the withdrawal of an old age benefits application. We 
will also permit only one withdrawal per lifetime. These changes will 
limit the voluntary suspension of benefits only to those benefits 
disbursed in future months.
    Statement of Need: We are under a clear congressional mandate to 
protect the Trust Funds. It is crucial that we change our current 
policies that have the effect of allowing beneficiaries to withdraw 
applications or suspend benefits and use benefits from the Trust Funds 
as something akin to an interest-free loan.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Discretionary.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/08/10  75 FR 76256
Interim Final Rule Effective........   12/08/10  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      02/07/11  .......................
 End.
Final Action........................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Deidre Bemister, Social Insurance Specialist, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Information Security 
Programs, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-6223.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1483.
    RIN: 0960-AH07

SSA

157. Expedited Vocational Assessment Under the Sequential Evaluation 
Process (3684P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a) to 405(b); 42 
U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 U.S.C. 
421(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(j); 42 U.S.C. 421(m); 42 U.S.C. 421 note; 42 
U.S.C. 422(c); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 423 note; 42 U.S.C. 425; 42 
U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 902 note; 42 U.S.C. 1382; 42 U.S.C. 1382c; 
42 U.S.C. 1382h; 42 U.S.C. 1382h note; 42 U.S.C. 1383(a); 42 U.S.C. 
1383(c); 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(i); 42 U.S.C. 1383(p); 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 404.1505; 404.1520; 404.1545; 404.1560; 404.1565; 
404.1569; 404.1594; 416.905; 416.920; 416.945; 416.960; 416.965; 
416.969; 416.987; 416.994.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to give adjudicators the discretion to proceed 
to the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process for assessing 
disability when we have insufficient information about a claimant's 
past relevant work history to make the findings required for step 4. If 
an adjudicator finds at step 5 that a claimant may be unable to adjust 
to other work existing in the national economy, the adjudicator would 
return to the fourth step to develop the claimant's work history and 
make a finding about whether the claimant can perform his or her past 
relevant work. This proposed new process would not disadvantage any 
claimant or change the ultimate conclusion about whether a claimant is 
disabled, but it would promote administrative efficiency and help us 
make more timely disability determinations and decisions.
    Statement of Need: This expedited process will shorten case 
processing

[[Page 7868]]

time, give our adjudicators more flexibility to assess disability 
claims, and assist in reducing the disability backlog.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: Undetermined at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined at this time.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/13/11  76 FR 56357
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/14/11  .......................
Final Action........................   09/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Janet Truhe, Social Insurance Specialist, Social 
Security Administration, Office of Disability Programs, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-7203.
    Joshua B. Silverman, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations 
Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations, 6401 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 594-2128.
    RIN: 0960-AH26

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

Statement of Regulatory Priorities \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This Statement of Regulatory Priorities (Statement) 
supplements the semiannual regulatory agenda that is being published 
contemporaneously. The CFPB is submitting this Statement on a 
voluntary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. CFPB Purposes and Functions
    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) was established 
as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve System by the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 
124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act). Pursuant to the Act, the CFPB has 
rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to 
consumer financial products and services. Among these are the consumer 
financial protection authorities that transferred to the CPFB from 
seven Federal agencies on the designated transfer date, July 21, 2011. 
These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more 
than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws.
    As provided in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the purpose of 
the CFPB is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial laws 
consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access 
to markets for consumer financial products and services and that such 
markets are fair, transparent, and competitive. The CFPB is authorized 
to exercise its authorities for the purpose of ensuring that:
    (1) Consumers are provided with timely and understandable 
information to make responsible decisions about transactions involving 
consumer financial products and services;
    (2) Consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts 
and practices and from discrimination;
    (3) Outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations 
concerning consumer financial products and services are regularly 
identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory 
burdens;
    (4) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, 
without regard to status as a depository institution, in order to 
promote fair competition; and
    (5) Markets for consumer financial products and services operate 
transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
B. Immediate Regulatory Priorities
    The CFPB is working on a wide range of initiatives to address 
issues in markets for consumer financial products and services that are 
not reflected in this notice because the Unified Agenda is limited to 
rulemaking activities. With regard to the exercise of its rulemaking 
authorities, as reflected in the CFPB's semiannual regulatory agenda, 
the CFPB's immediate focus is on completing various rulemakings that 
are mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act and resolving a handful of proposals 
that had been issued by the transferor agencies prior to July 21, 2011. 
In addition, the CFPB must issue a number of procedural rules relating 
to the stand-up of the CFPB as an independent regulatory agency.
    The semiannual regulatory agenda provides more detailed 
descriptions of individual rulemaking projects. The CFPB is 
particularly focused on meeting the rulemaking deadlines set forth in 
the Dodd-Frank Act, in order to provide certainty to consumers, 
financial services providers, and the broader economy. These rules 
include:
     Regulations governing international money transfers 
(remittances) under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. These regulations 
concern disclosures, error resolution procedures, and other topics. The 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issued a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking concerning these rules in May 2011, and the CFPB 
now has responsibility for finalizing this rulemaking, as appropriate. 
Final rules on certain topics are required by January 21, 2012.
     An initial rule determining which nondepository covered 
persons are subject to the CFPB's supervision authority as ``larger 
participant[s]'' of ``other markets'' for consumer financial products 
and services. The Dodd-Frank Act vests the CFPB with authority to 
examine all sizes of nondepository financial services providers engaged 
in mortgage lending and certain related services, payday lending, and 
private student lending. It also authorizes examinations of a ``larger 
participant of a market for other consumer financial products or 
services,'' as defined by the rule. An initial rule defining who is a 
larger participant in these other markets is required by July 21, 2012.
     Consolidated mortgage loan disclosures and related rules 
under the Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures 
Act. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to develop consolidated 
mortgage loan disclosures to satisfy the requirements of both the Truth 
in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Dodd-
Frank Act also imposes certain new disclosure requirements, and the 
CFPB inherits proposals to amend Truth in Lending Act regulations 
relating to mortgage loan disclosures that were issued by the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System in August 2009 and September 
2010. The consolidated disclosures proposal is required by July 21, 
2012.
     Regulations defining lenders' obligations to assess 
borrowers' ability to repay mortgage loans, including certain 
protections from liability for ``qualified mortgages.'' The Dodd-Frank 
Act requires lenders to make a reasonable, good faith determination of 
applicants' ability to repay closed-end mortgage loans. ``Qualified 
mortgages'' as defined under the Act and by regulation receive certain 
protections from liability. The Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning these 
rules in May 2011, and the CFPB now has responsibility for finalizing 
this rulemaking, as appropriate. Although the statutory deadline for 
final rules is January 2013, this rulemaking is a particular priority 
for the CFPB because it impacts basic

[[Page 7869]]

underwriting practices and serves as a building block for other Dodd-
Frank Act rulemakings.
     Regulations to implement other requirements concerning 
mortgage origination and servicing under title XIV of the Dodd-Frank 
Act. As described in more detail in the individual agenda entries, 
these regulations will address a variety of origination and servicing 
practices, including loan originator compensation and anti-steering 
rules, restrictions on high-cost loans, maintenance of escrow accounts 
and other servicing practices, and (on an interagency basis) various 
regulations concerning appraisals. Final rules are required by January 
21, 2013.
    In carrying out these mandates, the CFPB is focused on developing 
clear, simple disclosures that will give consumers the information they 
need to determine which consumer financial products and services best 
meet their needs while avoiding unwarranted regulatory burdens on 
industry. The CFPB has made the consolidation of mortgage disclosure 
forms a priority because streamlining the existing, overlapping forms 
could significantly benefit both consumers and industry members alike.
    Because the CFPB is at an early stage of its operations, it is 
still in the process of assessing the need and resources available for 
additional substantive rulemakings beyond those listed in its fall 2011 
agenda. The CFPB expects to include any such projects that it 
realistically anticipates considering before October 2012 in its spring 
2012 agenda.

BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with 
protecting the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury 
associated with consumer products. To achieve this goal, the 
Commission:
     Develops mandatory product safety standards or banning 
rules when other, less restrictive efforts are inadequate to address a 
safety hazard, or where required by statute;
     Obtains repair, replacement, or refund of the purchase 
price for defective products that present a substantial product hazard;
     Develops information and education campaigns about the 
safety of consumer products;
     Directs staff to participate in the development or 
revision of voluntary product safety standards; and
     Follows congressional mandates to enact specific 
regulations.
    Unless directed otherwise by congressional mandate, when deciding 
which of these approaches to take in any specific case, the Commission 
gathers and analyzes the best available data about the nature and 
extent of the risk presented by the product. The Commission's rules 
require the Commission to consider, among other factors, the following 
criteria when deciding the level of priority for any particular 
project:
     Frequency and severity of injury;
     Causality of injury;
     Chronic illness and future injuries;
     Costs and benefits of Commission action;
     Unforeseen nature of the risk;
     Vulnerability of the population at risk; and
     Probability of exposure to the hazard.

Significant Regulatory Actions

    Currently, the Commission is considering two rules that would 
constitute ``significant regulatory actions'' under the definition of 
that term in Executive Order 12866:
1. Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture
    Under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA), the Commission 
may issue a flammability standard or other regulation for a product of 
interior furnishing if the Commission determines that such a standard 
is needed to adequately protect the public against unreasonable risk of 
the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or 
significant property damage. The Commission's regulatory proceeding 
could result in several actions, one of which could be the development 
of a mandatory standard requiring that upholstered furniture meet 
mandatory labeling requirements, resist ignition, or meet other 
performance criteria under test conditions specified in the standard.
2. Testing and Certification Rule
    Section 102(d)(2) of the CPSIA, as amended by H.R. 2715, requires 
the Commission to: (1) Initiate by regulation a program by which a 
manufacturer or private labeler may label a consumer product as 
complying with the certification requirements of section 102(a) of the 
CPSIA and (2) establish protocols and standards (i) for ensuring that a 
children's product tested for compliance with an applicable children's 
product safety rule is subject to testing periodically and when there 
has been a material change in the product's design or manufacturing 
process, including the sourcing of component parts; (ii) for the 
testing of representative samples to ensure continued compliance; (iii) 
for verifying that a children's product tested by a conformity 
assessment body complies with applicable children's product safety 
rules; and (iv) for safeguarding against the exercise of undue 
influence on a third party conformity assessment body by a manufacturer 
or private labeler.

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

I. Regulatory Priorities
Background
    The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') is an 
independent agency charged by its enabling statute, the Federal Trade 
Commission Act, with protecting American consumers from ``unfair 
methods of competition'' and ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' 
in the marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers 
benefit from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's 
work is rooted in a belief that competition, based on truthful and non-
misleading information about products and services, brings the best 
choice of products and services at the lowest prices for consumers.
    The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the 
marketplace through two different, but complementary, approaches. 
Unfair or deceptive acts or practices injure both consumers and honest 
competitors alike and undermine competitive markets. Through its 
consumer protection activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that 
consumers receive accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in 
the marketplace. At the same time, for consumers to have a choice of 
products and services at competitive prices and quality, the 
marketplace must be free from anticompetitive business practices. Thus, 
the second part of the Commission's basic mission--antitrust 
enforcement--is to prohibit anticompetitive mergers or other 
anticompetitive business practices without unduly interfering with the 
legitimate activities of businesses. These two complementary missions 
make the

[[Page 7870]]

Commission unique insofar as it is the Nation's only Federal agency to 
be given this combination of statutory authority to protect consumers.
    The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It 
pursues its mandate primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act and other statutes. In addition, the 
Commission is also charged with the responsibility of issuing and 
enforcing regulations under a number of statutes. Most notably, 
pursuant to the FTC Act, the Commission currently has in place 16 trade 
regulation rules. Other examples include the regulations enforced 
pursuant to credit and financial statutes \1\ and to energy laws.\2\ 
The Commission also has adopted a number of voluntary industry guides. 
Most of the regulations and guides pertain to consumer protection 
matters and are intended to ensure that consumers receive the 
information necessary to evaluate competing products and make informed 
purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 
sections 1681 to 1681(u), as amended) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 
(Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat.1338, codified in relevant part at 15 
U.S.C. sections 6801 to 6809 and sections 6821 to 6827, as amended).
    \2\ For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 2776, 
codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code, particularly 42 
U.S.C. section 6201 et seq. and the Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 (EISA)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Initiatives
    The Commission protects consumers through a variety of tools, 
including both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. To that end, 
it has encouraged industry self-regulation, developed a corporate 
leniency policy for certain rule violations, and established compliance 
partnerships where appropriate.
    As detailed below, help for consumers in financial distress, health 
care, consumer privacy and data security, and evolving technology and 
innovation continue to be at the forefront of the Commission's consumer 
protection and competition programs. By subject area, the FTC discusses 
the major workshops, reports,\3\ and initiatives pursued since the 2010 
Regulatory Plan was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FTC also prepares a number of annual and periodic 
reports on the statutes it administers. These are not discussed in 
this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Help for Consumers in Financial Distress. Historic levels of 
consumer debt, increased unemployment, and an unprecedented downturn in 
the housing and mortgage markets have contributed to high rates of 
consumer bankruptcies and mortgage loan delinquency and foreclosure. 
Debt relief services have proliferated in recent years as the economy 
has declined and greater numbers of consumers hold debts they cannot 
pay. On August 10, 2010, the Commission published a final rule amending 
the Telemarketing Sales Rule to protect consumers from deceptive or 
abusive practices in the telemarketing of debt relief services. 75 FR 
48458. On October 27, 2010, the Commission issued a policy statement 
staying enforcement of the debt relief provisions of the TSR against 
companies offering tax relief services; i.e., services offered to 
renegotiate, settle, or alter the terms of obligation between a 
consumer and a taxing entity.
    The recent national mortgage crisis has launched an industry of 
companies purporting, for a fee, to obtain mortgage loan modifications 
or other relief for consumers facing foreclosure. The Commission and 
other law enforcement have also taken action against mortgage companies 
that harm consumers through their advertising and servicing practices. 
The Commission initiated and completed rulemakings to protect 
distressed homeowners, one relating to Mortgage Assistance Relief 
Services (``MARS'') and another relating to Mortgage Acts and Practices 
(``MAP'')-Advertising, through the life cycle of the mortgage loan.\4\ 
The Commission ceased work on a pending NPRM for MAP-Servicing on July 
21, 2011, and other MAP rules, when the legal authority to promulgate 
rulemaking transferred to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act of 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Mortgage Loans Rule under Rulemakings and Studies 
Required by Statute, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2009, the Commission issued compulsory information 
requests to nine of the Nation's largest debt buying companies, 
requiring them to produce information about their practices in buying 
and selling consumer debt. These nine companies collectively purchased 
about 75 percent of the debt sold in the United States in 2008. The 
Commission is using the information for a study of the debt buying 
industry. In recent years, debt buyers have become a significant part 
of the debt collection system. In February 2009, the Commission issued 
a report, based on an agency debt collection workshop, in which it 
found major problems in the flow of information among creditors, debt 
buyers, and collection agencies. The Commission issued the compulsory 
information requests to determine whether the practice of debt buying 
is contributing to these problems and, more generally, to obtain a 
better understanding of the role of debt buyers in the debt collection 
system. The Agency plans to report its findings in early 2012.
    In 2011, Commission staff initiated an outreach project to inform 
various advocacy and educational/research organizations about the 
litigation research and recommendations in the Commission's July 2010 
roundtable report entitled ``Repairing a Broken System: Protecting 
Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration.'' \5\ Some 
State reform efforts have been motivated by the Commission's 
recommendations, and the project has created opportunities for FTC 
staff to discuss the Commission's findings and recommendations with 
groups and individuals who work on these issues. The underlying 2010 
report concluded that the system for resolving consumer debt collection 
disputes is broken and recommended significant litigation and 
arbitration reforms to improve efficiency and fairness to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The report is available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/debtcollectionreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 28, 2011, the Commission held a workshop, ``Debt 
Collection 2.0: Protecting Consumers as Technologies Change.'' The 
workshop addressed the impact of technological advances on the debt 
collection system, the resulting consumer protection concerns, and the 
need for responsive policy changes. Technologies discussed included the 
tools collectors use to locate consumers and their assets; changing 
modes of collector-consumer communications, such as mobile phones, 
auto-dialers, and electronic mail; the software that collectors use to 
manage information about consumers and debts; and collector use of 
social media applications. The workshop featured a diverse group of 
speakers, including consumer advocates, academics, technologists, law 
enforcers, and industry representatives. Staff officials are drafting a 
document highlighting the workshop's key findings and their policy 
implications.
    On July 20, 2011, in response to concerns about possible unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive practices by certain debt collectors, the 
Commission finalized a policy statement clarifying that the Agency will 
not take enforcement action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 
Act (FDCPA) or the FTC Act against companies that are attempting to 
collect the debts of deceased consumers, if the companies communicate 
with someone who is authorized to pay debts from the estate of the 
deceased. 76 FR 44915 (Jul. 27, 2011). The policy statement also

[[Page 7871]]

emphasizes that debt collectors may not mislead relatives to believe 
that they are personally liable for a deceased consumer's debts or use 
other deceptive or abusive tactics.
    (b) Health Care. The FTC continues to work to end anticompetitive 
settlement deals featuring payments by branded drug firms to a generic 
competitor to keep generic drugs off the market (so called, ``pay for 
delay'' agreements). The Commission has a two-pronged approach to 
ending these anticompetitive pay-for-delay agreements: Active support 
for legislation to ban harmful pay-for-delay agreements--one example 
being the proposed legislation that Senate Judiciary Committee recently 
approved \6\--and Federal court challenges to invalidate individual 
agreements. The FTC currently has three cases in active litigation.\7\ 
An FTC Staff Report issued during FY 2010 found a record number (31) of 
potential pay for delay agreements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ S.27, ``Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act.''
    \7\ FTC v. Watson Pharm., Inc., No. 10-12729-DD (11th Cir. 
argued May 13, 2011); FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-02141 (E.D. 
Pa. argued Oct. 21, 2009); Brief for FTC as Amicus Curiae Supporting 
Plaintiffs, In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., Nos. 10-2077, 10-2078, 10-
2079 (3d Cir. filed May 18, 2011).
    \8\ The Report on ``Pay-for-Delay: How Drug Company Pay-Offs 
Cost Consumers Billions'' can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/01/100112payfordelayrpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also studied the competitive impact of authorized 
generics, which are generic versions of drugs sold by the branded 
company. On August 31, 2011, the Commission issued a final report on 
authorized generic drugs, finding that when branded pharmaceutical 
companies introduce an authorized generic version of their brand-name 
drug, it can reduce both retail and wholesale drug prices during the 
first 6 months of competition. The report also found that authorized 
generics have a substantial effect on the revenues of competing generic 
firms. Over the longer term, by lowering expected profits for generic 
competitors, the introduction of an authorized generic could affect a 
generic drug company's decision to challenge patents on branded drug 
products with low sales. However, the report concludes that in spite of 
this, patent challenges by generic competitors remain robust even on 
drugs with low sales.
    Additionally, the FTC is playing an active role in health care 
reform. The FTC and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division (the 
Antitrust Agencies) are working with the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS OIG) to implement 
provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act), 
Public Law 111-48 (2010), that provide for the formation of Accountable 
Care Organizations (ACOs) under a new Shared Savings Program. That 
program encourages health care providers to create integrated, 
efficient health care delivery systems that can improve the quality of 
health care services and lower health care costs. The purpose of this 
interagency project is to develop well coordinated rules and policy 
guidance that avoid conflicting or duplicative requirements and 
encourage the formation of pro-competitive, legally compliant Shared 
Savings Program ACOs.
    In April 2011, the Antitrust Agencies jointly proposed an 
enforcement policy statement to provide the antitrust guidance 
providers need to form pro-competitive ACOs that will participate in 
both the Shared Savings Program and commercial markets. At the same 
time, CMS issued its proposed rules for Shared Savings ACOs, and HHS 
OIG issued its proposed policy guidance. After working with CMS and HHS 
OIG to revise these documents in light of public comments, the Agencies 
issued on October 20, 2011, the final version of a joint policy 
statement detailing how the agencies will enforce U.S. antitrust laws 
with respect to new ACOs.
    (c) Privacy Challenges to Consumers Posed by Technology and 
Business Practices. During 2009 to 2010, the Commission hosted a series 
of roundtables to explore the privacy issues and challenges associated 
with 21st century technology and business practices to determine how 
best to protect consumer privacy while supporting beneficial uses of 
information and technological innovation. In December 2010, the FTC 
staff issued a preliminary privacy report \9\ proposing a framework 
that promotes privacy by design, transparency, consumer choice, and 
business innovation. The report is intended to inform policymakers, 
including Congress, as they develop solutions, policies, and potential 
laws governing privacy, and to guide and motivate industry as it 
develops more robust and effective best practices and self-regulatory 
guidelines. The report suggests implementation of a ``Do Not Track'' 
mechanism, so consumers can control the collection of data about their 
online searching and browsing activities. Since the release of the 
report, self-regulatory efforts have progressed and several companies 
have come forward with ideas and innovations to enhance consumer choice 
and online privacy. FTC Staff are closely watching these initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Federal Trade Commission (Bureau of Consumer 
Protection), A Preliminary FTC Staff Report on Protecting Consumer 
Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for 
Businesses and Policymakers'' (Dec. 1, 2010) at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/12/101201privacyreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Children's Identity Theft. The FTC and the Office for Victims 
of Crime (OVC), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 
held a forum on July 12, 2011, which explored the nature of child 
identity theft, including foster care identity theft and identity theft 
within families, with the goal of advising parents and victims on how 
to prevent the crime and how to resolve child identity theft problems. 
The Agencies have released educational materials for public 
distribution.
    (e) Food Marketing to Children. In an effort to combat childhood 
obesity--the most serious health crisis facing today's youth--a working 
group of four Federal agencies on April 28, 2011, released for public 
comment a set of proposed voluntary non-regulatory principles that can 
be used by industry as a guide for marketing food to children. The 
Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, comprised of 
the FTC, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, and the Department of Agriculture, was 
established by a provision in the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act 
(H.R. 1105) and is charged with conducting a study and developing 
recommendations for nutritional standards for foods marketed to 
children ages 17 and under. The working group also held a half-day 
forum on May 24, 2011, to provide stakeholders with a chance to comment 
in person. The comment period closed July 14, 2011, with approximately 
29,000 comments submitted. Members of the Interagency Working Group are 
sharing responsibility for reviewing the comments on the proposed 
principles. Comments pertaining to the proposed nutrition principles, 
including those about the food categories identified in the principles, 
are being reviewed primarily by the CDC, FDA, and USDA. Comments 
relating to the marketing aspects of the recommended principles, as 
well as general comments, are being reviewed primarily by the FTC. The 
Working Group will make final recommendations in a pending report to 
Congress.
    Following OMB approval on July 8, 2010, on August 12, 2010, the 
Commission issued information requests to 48 major food, beverage

[[Page 7872]]

manufacturers, and quick-service restaurant companies about spending 
and marketing activities targeting children and adolescents, as well as 
nutritional information for food and beverage products that the 
companies market to these young consumers. The study will advance the 
Commission's understanding of how food industry promotional dollars 
targeted to children and adolescents are allocated, the types of 
activities and marketing techniques the food industry uses to market 
its products to children and adolescents, and the extent to which self-
regulatory efforts are succeeding in improving the nutritional quality 
of foods advertised to children and adolescents. The Bureau of Consumer 
Protection is analyzing the data and preparing a report, which is 
expected to be released sometime in late 2011 or early 2012.
    (f) Alcohol Advertising. Regarding advertising for beverage alcohol 
products, the Commission issued on September 8, 2010, compulsory 
information requests requiring three mid-sized suppliers to provide 
information about advertising and marketing practices and compliance 
with self-regulatory guidelines. The Commission has reviewed the three 
companies' responses and communicated with them about the results. This 
procedure is consistent with a 2008 commitment by the Commission to 
conduct small studies of industry self-regulation in years when no 
major study was underway. Further, in early 2011, the Commission began 
the process of seeking Office of Management and Budget approval, under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, to conduct another major study of alcohol 
marketing and self-regulation; that study will evaluate the advertising 
practices of the major alcohol suppliers. The Commission will also 
continue to promote the ``We Don't Serve Teens'' consumer education 
program, supporting the legal drinking age.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ More information can be found at http://www.dontserveteens.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) Gasoline Prices. On September 1, 2011, the Commission issued a 
Bureau of Economics staff report examining trends in the petroleum 
industry and how they have affected gasoline prices between 2005 and 
early 2011.\11\ It concludes that while a broad range of factors 
influence the price of gasoline, worldwide crude oil prices continue to 
be the main driver of what Americans pay at the pump. The report spells 
out the factors that determine what consumers pay for gas, and why 
prices seem to ``rocket up'' but ``feather down'' (in other words, why 
prices increase faster in response to cost increases than they fall in 
response to cost decreases). In addition to the price of crude oil, by 
far and away the largest factor in gasoline prices, the report looks at 
factors such as refinery profit margins; and the possible impact of 
futures speculation on oil and gas prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics: 
Gasoline Price Changes and the Petroleum Industry: An Update,'' 
September 2011, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/09/110901gasolinepricereport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) Financing of Motor Vehicles. The Commission is holding a series 
of roundtable events to gather information on possible consumer 
protection issues that may arise in the sale, lease, or financing of 
motor vehicles. For many consumers, buying or leasing a car is their 
most expensive financial transaction aside from owning a home. With 
prices averaging more than $28,000 for a new vehicle and $14,000 for a 
used vehicle from a dealer, most consumers seek to lease or finance the 
purchase of a new or used car. Financing obtained at a dealership may 
provide benefits for many consumers, such as convenience, special 
manufacturer-sponsored programs, access to a variety of banks and 
financial entities, or access to credit otherwise unavailable to a 
buyer. Dealer-arranged financing, however, can be a complicated, opaque 
process and could potentially involve unfair or deceptive practices.
    The first event took place in Detroit, Michigan, on April 12, 2011. 
The FTC's second motor vehicle roundtable took place in San Antonio, 
Texas on August 2-3, 2011. Dates for future additional roundtables will 
be posted on the FTC Web site at http://www.ftc.gov.
    (i) Fraud Forum Surveys. The FTC's Bureau of Economics continues to 
conduct fraud surveys and related research on consumer susceptibility 
to fraud. For example, the FTC is conducting an exploratory study 
during 2011 on consumer susceptibility to fraudulent and deceptive 
marketing. This research is intended to further the FTC's mission of 
protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive marketing. The FTC also 
submitted a clearance request for a second study with the OMB, 
proposing to survey consumer experiences with consumer fraud. Neither 
study is intended to lead to enforcement actions; rather, study results 
may aid the FTC's efforts to better target its enforcement actions and 
consumer education initiatives, and improve future fraud surveys.
    (j) Protecting Consumers from Cross-Border Harm. The FTC continues 
to protect American consumers from fraud by making greater use of the 
tools provided by the U.S. SAFE WEB Act. The FTC has used the Act to 
cooperate with its foreign law enforcement counterparts in 
investigations and enforcement actions involving Internet fraud and 
other technological abuses and deceptive schemes that victimize U.S. 
consumers. During the past year, the FTC added to its U.S. SAFE WEB 
scorecard by sharing information in response to nine requests from five 
foreign law enforcement agencies. It also issued twelve civil 
investigative demands on behalf of two foreign agencies in three 
investigations. In many of these cases, the foreign agencies 
investigated conduct that directly harms U.S. consumers. In others, the 
FTC's assistance has led to reciprocal assistance in other FTC 
investigations. Given the success of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act, the 
Commission continues to recommend that Congress repeal the Act's seven-
year sunset provision before it expires in 2013.
    Significant consumer protection developments this year include the 
launch of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Cross-Border Privacy 
Enforcement Arrangement, and a new asset recovery initiative with 
Federal and provincial Canadian law enforcers. This year the Agency 
also worked with its counterparts in the Global Privacy Enforcement 
Network, a group of privacy enforcement agencies around the globe, to 
launch the organization's Web site, which provides a platform for the 
participants to interact. The Commission was also instrumental in the 
development of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development's new Consumer Policy Toolkit, which was released at an 
event hosted by the FTC featuring Karen Kornbluh, U.S. Ambassador to 
the OECD.
    The FTC also stepped up its efforts to reduce Internet-related 
fraud by convening, with the FBI, a roundtable discussion for law 
enforcement agencies, domain name registrars, and Internet registries 
to discuss measures to curb malicious Internet conduct. Law enforcement 
officials from the United States, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland, and the 
United Kingdom met with U.S.-based and foreign domain name registrars 
and four Internet registries to discuss measures to curtail domain name 
abuse.
    (k) Journalism and the Internet. In 2009 to 2010, the FTC began a 
project to examine how the Internet has transformed the competitive 
dynamics of the news media landscape. The Agency first held a series of 
exploratory workshops, seeking expert views and public comments on 
varied aspects of

[[Page 7873]]

the challenges and new opportunities facing the news industry. The 
Agency continues to analyze the issues discussed at those workshops and 
elsewhere, including the economics of journalism in a digital world, 
new business and non-profit models for journalism, and potential 
changes to a variety of Government policies, including antitrust, 
copyright, and tax policy, relevant to journalism. The Agency plans to 
release a report in late fall 2011.
    (l) Intellectual Property. After a series of eight hearings on the 
Evolving Intellectual Property (IP) Marketplace since the issuance of 
the FTC's October 2003 report ``To Promote Innovation: The Proper 
Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy,'' the Commission 
released a report in March 2011, ``The Evolving IP Marketplace Aligning 
Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition,'' that recommends 
improvements to policies affecting patent notice and remedies for 
patent infringement. Specifically, the report recommends improving 
policies relevant to the patent notice function through actions by the 
courts and the Patent and Trademark Office. Clear notice of what a 
patent covers promotes innovation by encouraging collaboration, 
technology transfer, and design-around. The report suggests notice 
mechanisms to improve the public's ability to identify relevant 
patents, to understand the scope of patent claims, and to predict the 
breadth of claims that are likely to emerge from patent applications. 
The report also explains that patent remedies that align compensation 
of patent holders with the economic value of their patented inventions 
are important for both innovation and competition. Patent damages that 
under-compensate patentees for infringement can deter innovation, but 
overcompensation can lead to higher prices and encourage speculation in 
patent rights, which also deters innovation. Finally, the report makes 
recommendations to courts that would ground damages calculations and 
injunction analysis in economic principles that recognize competition 
among patented technologies.
    (m) Self-Regulatory and Compliance Initiatives with Industry. The 
Commission continues to engage industry in compliance partnerships in 
at least two areas involving the funeral and franchise industries. 
Specifically, the Commission's Funeral Rule Offender Program, conducted 
in partnership with the National Funeral Directors Association, is 
designed to educate funeral home operators found in violation of the 
requirements of the Funeral Rule, 16 CFR 453, so that they can meet the 
rule's disclosure requirements. More than 350 funeral homes have 
participated in the program since its inception in 1996.
    In addition, the Commission established the Franchise Rule 
Alternative Law Enforcement Program in partnership with the 
International Franchise Association (IFA), a nonprofit organization 
that represents both franchisors and franchisees. This program is 
designed to assist franchisors found to have a minor or technical 
violation of the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436, in complying with the 
rule. Violations involving fraud or other section 5 violations are not 
candidates for referral to the program. The IFA teaches the franchisor 
how to comply with the rule and monitors its business for a period of 
years. Where appropriate, the program offers franchisees the 
opportunity to mediate claims arising from the law violations. Since 
December 1998, 21 companies have agreed to participate in the program.
Effect of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
    On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the ``Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,'' Public Law 111-203. 
Title X of the statute, known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act 
of 2010 (or the Consumer Financial Protection Act), created a new 
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (``CFPB'') within the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Federal Reserve Board''). 
Most of the FTC's rulemaking authority under certain ``enumerated 
consumer laws'' was transferred to the CFPB on July 21, 2011. These 
laws include all or most of the rulemaking authority under the Truth in 
Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (including the Fair and 
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (``FACTA'')), the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Electronic Funds 
Transfer Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act 
of 1991, and the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Therefore, the 
Commission removed the following nine matters from its regulatory 
review schedule because authority to modify or repeal them were 
transferred to the CFPB: Disclosure Requirements for Depository 
Institutions Lacking Federal Deposit Insurance, 16 CFR part 320; 
Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, 16 CFR part 322; Statements 
of General Policy or Interpretations [of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 
Rules], 16 CFR part 600; [Identity Theft] Definitions, 16 CFR part 603; 
Free Annual File Disclosures Rule, 16 CFR part 610 Prohibition Against 
Circumventing Treatment as a Nationwide Consumer Reporting Agency, 16 
CFR part 611; Duration of Active Duty Alerts, 16 CFR part 613; 
Appropriate Proof of Identity, 16 CFR part 614; and Procedures for 
State Application for Exemption From the Provisions of the [Federal 
Debt Collection Practices] Act, 16 CFR part 901.2. Further information 
on the impact of the Consumer Financial Protection Act on the 
Commission's rulemakings, studies, and guidelines is discussed below.
Rulemakings and Studies Required by Statute
    Congress has enacted laws requiring the Commission to undertake 
rulemakings and studies. This section discusses required rules and 
studies. The final actions section below describes actions taken on the 
required rulemakings and studies since the 2010 Regulatory Plan was 
published.
    FACTA Rules. The Commission has already issued nearly all of the 
rules required by FACTA. These rules are codified in several parts of 
16 CFR 600 et seq., amending or supplementing regulations relating to 
the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The enforcement of the Red Flags Rule 
(or Identity Theft Rule), 16 CFR 681, was delayed by the Commission 
from its initial effective date of November 1, 2008, until January 1, 
2011, pending clarification by Congress. The ``Red Flag Program 
Clarification Act of 2010'' (or the Act), Public Law 111-319, was 
signed into law on December 18, 2010. The Commission and the banking 
agencies expect to revise the Red Flags Rule to implement the Act by 
the spring of 2012.
    FACTA Studies. On March 27, 2009, the Commission issued compulsory 
information requests to the nine largest private providers of 
homeowner's insurance in the Nation. The purpose was to help the FTC 
collect data for its study on the effects of credit-based scores in the 
homeowners' insurance market, a study mandated by section 215 of the 
FACTA. During the summer of 2009 these nine insurers submitted 
responses to the Commission's requests. FTC staff has reviewed the 
large policy-level data files included in these submissions and has 
identified a sample set of data to be used for the study. Staff expects 
to prepare and submit the report to Congress before the end of 2012. 
The data collection phase of the study should be completed by March 
2012. This study is not affected by the Consumer Financial Protection 
Act.

[[Page 7874]]

    The FTC is also conducting a national study of the accuracy of 
consumer reports in connection with section 319 of the FACTA. This 
study is a follow-up to the Commission's two previous pilot studies 
that were undertaken to evaluate a potential design for a national 
study. Section 319 requires the FTC to study the accuracy and 
completeness of information in consumers' credit reports and to 
consider methods for improving the accuracy and completeness of such 
information. Section 319 of the Act also requires the Commission to 
issue a series of biennial reports to Congress over a period of 11 
years.\12\ A major report on the study, which is presently in the 
field, is due by December 2012. This study is also not affected by the 
Consumer Financial Protection Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Federal Trade Commission Reports to Congress under 
Sections 318 and 319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions 
Act of 2003; available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/FACTACT/FACTAct_Report_2006.pdf (December 2006 Report), http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/12/factareport.shtm (December 2008 Report) and 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/01/1101factareport.pdf (December 2010 
Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mortgage Loans Rules, 16 CFR 321, 322: Section 626 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 2009 directed the Commission to initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding with respect to mortgage loans and prescribed 
that any violation of the Rule shall be treated as a violation of a 
rule under section 18 of the FTC Act regarding unfair or deceptive acts 
or practices. On June 1, 2009, the Commission published an ANPRM in two 
parts: (1) Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (practices of entities 
providing assistance to consumers in modifying mortgage loans or 
avoiding foreclosure) (or MARS), 74 FR 26,130, and (2) Mortgage Acts 
and Practices through the life cycle of the mortgage loan (i.e., loan 
advertising, marketing, origination, appraisals, and servicing) (or 
MAP), 74 FR 26,118.
     MARS--After issuing an NPRM on March 10, 2010, the 
Commission published a MARS final rule. 75 FR 75092 (Dec. 1, 2011). The 
final MARS rule prohibits providers of these services from making false 
or misleading claims, mandates that providers disclose certain 
information about these services, bars the collection of advance fees 
for these services, prohibits persons from providing substantial 
assistance or support to an entity they know or consciously avoid 
knowing is engaged in a violation of these rules, and imposes 
recordkeeping and compliance requirements. All provisions of the rule 
except the advance-fee ban became effective December 29, 2010. The 
advance-fee ban provisions became effective January 31, 2011. 
Additionally, on July 15, 2011, the FTC issued a stay of enforcement 
stating that the Agency would forbear from enforcing the MARS Rule, 
with the exception of the prohibition on misrepresentations, against 
real estate professionals who assist consumers in negotiating or 
obtaining short sales.
     MAP-Advertising--After issuing an NPRM on September 30, 
2010, the Commission announced a final rule for MAP-Advertising on July 
19, 2011. 76 FR 43826. The final rule prohibits misrepresentation in 
commercial communications regarding any term of a mortgage credit 
product and imposes certain recordkeeping requirements. The rule became 
effective on August 19, 2011.
     MAP-Servicing--The Commission ceased work on a pending 
NPRM for MAP-Servicing on July 21, 2011. On that date, the Commission's 
rulemaking authority for all of the MAP rules under the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 2009 was transferred to the CFPB.
    Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and Water 
Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Appliance Labeling Rule), 16 CFR 
305: Under direction from Congress to examine the effectiveness of 
light bulb labels, the FTC introduced a new ``Lighting Facts'' label in 
July 2010 for medium screw-base light bulbs. 75 FR 41696. On July 22, 
2011, the Commission announced an NPRM seeking comment on expanding the 
``Lighting Facts'' label coverage to additional bulb types and a 
specific test procedure for light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs. During 
November 2011, the Commission will issue an ANPRM seeking comment on 
disclosures to help consumers, distributors, contractors, and 
installers easily determine whether a specific furnace, central air 
conditioner, or heat pump meets the applicable new Department of Energy 
efficiency standard for the regions where it will be installed. The 
Commission will seek comment on the content, location, and format of 
such disclosures. As part of this effort, the Commission staff will 
hold a public meeting with the Department of Energy (DOE) to discuss 
possible disclosures. The statutory deadline for the Commission to 
issue regional efficiency standards is 15 months after DOE issued their 
final efficiency standards on October 25, 2011. 76 FR at 37408.
    Section 325 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
provides the Commission with the authority to promulgate energy 
labeling rules for consumer electronics. On October 27, 2010, the 
Commission announced it was issuing a final rule that will require 
televisions manufactured after May 10, 2011, to display EnergyGuide 
labels that include information on estimated yearly energy and the cost 
range compared to similar models. Staff anticipates sending a 
recommendation to the Commission by December 2011 regarding a proposed 
notice of rulemaking for other consumer electronics.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules 
and guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned 
after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 
612. Under the Commission's program, rules have been reviewed on a ten-
year schedule. For many rules, this has resulted in more frequent 
reviews than is generally required by section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This program is also broader than the review 
contemplated under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because it provides 
the Commission with an ongoing systematic approach for seeking 
information about the costs and benefits of its rules and guides and 
whether there are changes that could minimize any adverse economic 
effects, not just a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial 
number of small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 610.
    As part of its continuing ten-year review plan, the Commission 
examines the effect of rules and guides on small businesses and on the 
marketplace in general. These reviews may lead to the revision or 
rescission of rules and guides to ensure that the Commission's consumer 
protection and competition goals are achieved efficiently and at the 
least cost to business. In a number of instances, the Commission has 
determined that existing rules and guides were no longer necessary nor 
in the public interest. Most of the matters currently under review 
pertain to consumer protection and are intended to ensure that 
consumers receive the information necessary to evaluate competing 
products and make informed purchasing decisions. Pursuant to this 
program, the Commission has rescinded 37 rules and guides promulgated 
under the FTC's general authority and updated dozens of other since the 
early 1990s.
    In light of Executive Orders 13563 and 13579, the FTC has taken a 
fresh look at its longstanding regulatory review process. The 
Commission is taking a number of steps to ease burdens

[[Page 7875]]

on business and promote transparency in its regulatory review program:
     The Commission recently issued a revised 10-year review 
schedule (see next paragraph below) and is accelerating the review of a 
number of rules and guides in response to recent changes in technology 
and the marketplace. More than a third of the Commission's 66 rules and 
guides will be under review, or will have just been reviewed, by the 
end of 2011.
     The Commission is requesting public comment on the 
effectiveness of its regulatory review program and suggestions for its 
improvement.
     The FTC has launched a Web page at http://www.ftc.gov/regreview that will serve as a one-stop shop for the public to obtain 
information and provide comments on individual rules and guides under 
review as well as the Commission's regulatory review program generally.
    Pursuant to section 2 of Executive Order 13579 ``Regulation and 
Independent Regulatory Agencies'' (Jul. 11, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the FTC's regulatory review 
plan. The table includes rulemakings that the Agency expects to issue 
in proposed or final form during the upcoming year. Each entry includes 
the title of the rulemaking subject to the Agency's retrospective 
analysis, the RIN and whether it is expected to reduce burdens on small 
businesses. The regulatory review plan can be found at: www.ftc.gov.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Regulatory
                      Rule                        Identifier Nos.   Expected to Reduce Burdens on Small Business
                                                       (RIN)                          (Yes/No)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Opportunity Rule, 16 CFR 437..........         3084-AB04  Yes.
Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Cooling Off            3084-AB10  Yes.
 Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain
 Other Locations, 16 CFR 429.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule, 16           3084-AB20  No.
 CFR 312.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission's ten-year periodic review for 2011 
includes the following rules and guides (76 FR 41151, July 13, 2011):
    (1) Guides for Advertising of Warranties and Guaranties, 16 CFR 
239;
    (2) Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 
1939, 16 CFR part 300;
    (3) Fur Products Labeling Act Rules, 16 CFR 301;
    (4) Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act, 16 CFR part 303;
    (5) Rule on Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices 
(Unavailability Rule), 16 CFR 424;
    (6) Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 16 CFR 700;
    (7) Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and 
Conditions, 16 CFR 701;
    (8) Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms, 16 CFR 702;
    (9) Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures, 16 CFR 703; and
    (10) [Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act] Coverage Rules, 
16 CFR part 801.
    Due to resource constraints, the Commission is postponing review of 
the following matters previously scheduled for 2011 review: 
Administrative Interpretations, General Policy Statements, and 
Enforcement Policy Statements, 16 CFR part 14; the Guides for the 
Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, 16 CFR part 23; the 
Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses Rule [Holder in Due 
Course Rule], 16 CFR part 433; and the Credit Practices Rule, 16 CFR 
part 444.
    Furthermore, consistent with the goal of reducing unnecessary 
burdens, within and outside the Government, Commission staff officials 
are in the process of identifying reports required by statute as well 
as statutes themselves that appear to be of limited value, but that 
divert business or Commission resources from more pressing work. Thus 
far, staff preliminarily has identified two reports that do not appear 
to be useful. The first is a report, required annually, on 
concentration in the ethanol market. The Commission has found each year 
that the market is extremely unconcentrated, and that entry is easy and 
ongoing. Therefore, this report seems to provide little useful 
information. The second report is prepared by the Commission together 
with the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, and 
simply describes actions taken to address scholarship scams. Though 
stopping scholarship scams is an important priority, the report appears 
to provide little valuable information. The Commission will make 
appropriate recommendations to Congress at the conclusion of its 
review.
Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews
    The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and 
guides, which are discussed first under (a) Rules and then (b) Guides.
(a) Rules
    Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled 
Vehicles Rule (``Alternative Fuel Rule''), 16 CFR 309. The Alternative 
Fuel Rule, which became effective on November 20, 1995, and was last 
reviewed in 2004, requires disclosure of appropriate cost and benefit 
information to enable consumers to make reasonable purchasing choices 
and comparisons between non-liquid alternative fuels, as well as 
alternative-fueled vehicles. On June 1, 2011, the Commission requested 
comments on the rule, as part of the Commission's systematic review of 
all current Commission rules and guides. The Commission also sought 
comment on whether to merge its alternative fueled vehicle (AFV) labels 
with fuel economy labels proposed by the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), add new definitions for AFVs contained in recent legislation, 
and change labeling requirements for used AFVs. The comment period 
closed on July 25, 2011, and staff is reviewing the comments. On June 
1, 2011, the Commission also postponed any amendments to its Guide 
Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles upon completion 
of ongoing review by the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of current fuel economy 
labeling requirements and the Commission's accelerated regulatory 
review of its own Alternative Fuel Rule. 76 FR 31467.
    Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). Caller ID--The Commission issued an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking on December 15, 2010, requesting 
public comment on provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule concerning 
caller identification services and disclosure of the identity of the 
seller or telemarketer responsible for telemarketing calls. 75 FR 
78,179. The

[[Page 7876]]

comment period closed on January 28, 2011. The Commission solicited 
comments on whether changes should be made to the TSR to reflect the 
current use and capabilities of Caller ID technologies. In particular, 
the Commission is interested in whether the TSR should be amended to 
better achieve the objectives of the Caller ID provisions--including 
enabling consumers and law enforcement to use Caller ID information to 
identify entities responsible for illegal telemarketing practices. 
Staff is reviewing the comments and anticipates making a recommendation 
to the Commission by April 2012.
    Business Opportunity Rule. Regarding the Business Opportunity Rule, 
the Commission issued an NPRM (71 FR 19,054, Apr. 12, 2006) and a 
revised NPRM (73 FR 16,110, Mar. 26, 2008), then later held a workshop 
on June 1, 2009, to explore changes to the proposed rule, including the 
effectiveness of a proposed disclosure form. On October 28, 2010, the 
Commission released a staff report recommending that coverage of the 
FTC's Business Opportunity Rule be expanded to include work-at-home 
opportunities such as envelope stuffing, medical billing, and product 
assembly, many of which have not been covered before. 75 FR 68,559 
(Nov. 8, 2010). FTC staff also recommended streamlining the disclosures 
required by the Business Opportunity Rule so that companies or 
individuals selling business opportunities make important disclosures 
to consumers on a simple, easy-to-read document. If adopted, the 
changes will make it less burdensome for legitimate sellers to comply 
with the Rule, while still protecting consumers from ``widespread and 
persistent'' business opportunity fraud. Public comments on the staff 
report were accepted until January 18, 2011. Staff anticipates 
Commission action relating to a proposed final rule by the end of 2011.
    Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (``COPPA Rule''), 16 CFR 
312. The COPPA Rule requires operators of Web sites, and online service 
providers directed at children under 13 (operators), with certain 
exceptions, to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, 
using, or disclosing personal information from or about children under 
the age of 13. An operator must make reasonable efforts, in light of 
available technology, to ensure that the person providing consent is 
the child's parent. The Commission issued an ANPRM requesting comments 
on the Rule as part of the systematic regulatory review process. 75 FR 
17089 (Apr. 5, 2010). The Commission held a public roundtable on the 
Rule on June 2, 2010, and the comment period, as extended, ended on 
July 12, 2010. On September 15, 2011, the Commission announced it was 
proposing modifications to the Rule in five areas to respond to changes 
in online technology, including in the mobile marketplace, and, where 
appropriate, to streamline the Rule: Definitions, including the 
definitions of ``personal information'' and ``collection,'' parental 
notice, parental consent mechanisms, confidentiality and security of 
children's personal information, and the role of self-regulatory ``safe 
harbor'' programs. 76 FR 59804. In addition, the Commission also 
proposed adding a new provision addressing data retention and deletion. 
The comment period will close on November 28, 2011.
    Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule. The Mail Order Rule, 16 
CFR 435, requires that, when sellers advertise merchandise, they must 
have a reasonable basis for stating or implying that they can ship 
within a certain time. On September 30, 2011,\13\ the Commission 
published a NPRM proposing to: clarify that the Rule covers all orders 
placed over the Internet; revise the Rule to allow sellers to provide 
refunds and refund notices by any means at least as fast and reliable 
as first class mail; clarify sellers' obligations when buyers use 
payment systems not enumerated in the Rule; and require that refunds be 
made with seven working days for purchases made using third-party 
credit cards. 76 FR 60765. The comment period closes on December 14, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Please see Final Action section for information about a 
separate FR Notice that announces that the Commission is retaining 
MOTR with minor technical corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Used Car Rule. The Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule (``Used 
Car Rule''), 16 CFR 455, sets out the general duties of a used vehicle 
dealer; requires that a completed Buyers Guide be posted at all times 
on the side window of each used car a dealer offers for sale; and 
mandates disclosure of whether the vehicle is covered by a warranty 
and, if so, the type and duration of the warranty coverage, or whether 
the vehicle is being sold ``as is--no warranty.'' The Commission 
published a notice seeking public comments on the effectiveness and 
impact of the rule. 73 FR 42285 (Jul. 21, 2008). The notice seeks 
comments on a range of issues including, among others, whether a 
bilingual Buyers Guide would be useful or practicable, as well as what 
form such a Buyers Guide should take. Second, the notice seeks comments 
on possible changes to the Buyers Guide that reflect new warranty 
products, such as certified used car warranties, that have become 
increasingly popular since the rule was last reviewed. Finally, the 
notice seeks comments on other issues including the continuing need for 
the rule and its economic impact, the effect of the rule on deception 
in the used car market, and the rule's interaction with other 
regulations. The comment period, as extended and then reopened, ended 
on June 15, 2009. Staff anticipates sending a recommendation to the 
Commission by the end of 2011.
    Cooling-Off Rule. The Cooling-Off Rule requires that a consumer be 
given a 3-day right to cancel certain sales greater than $25.00 that 
occur at a place other than a seller's place of business. The rule also 
requires a seller to notify buyers orally of the right to cancel, to 
provide buyers with a dated receipt or copy of the contract containing 
the name and address of the seller and notice of cancellation rights, 
and to provide buyers with forms which buyers may use to cancel the 
contract. An ANPRM seeking comment was published on April 21, 2009. 74 
FR 18170. The comment period, as extended, ended on September 25, 2009. 
74 FR 36972 (Jul. 27, 2009). Staff prepared a recommendation for the 
Commission and anticipates publication of an NPRM by the end of 2011.
    Negative Option Rule. The Negative Option Rule governs the 
operation of prenotification subscription plans. Under these plans, 
sellers ship merchandise automatically to their subscribers and bill 
them for the merchandise within a prescribed time. The rule protects 
consumers by requiring the disclosure of the terms of membership 
clearly and conspicuously and establishes procedures for administering 
the subscription plans. An ANPRM was published on May 14, 2009, 74 FR 
22720, and the comment period closed on July 27, 2009. On August 7, 
2009, the Commission reopened and extended the comment period until 
October 13, 2009. 74 FR 40121. Staff anticipates sending a 
recommendation to the Commission by the end of 2011.
    Pay-Per-Call Rule. The Commission's review of the Pay-Per-Call 
Rule, 16 CFR 308, is continuing. The Commission has held workshops to 
discuss proposed amendments to this rule, including provisions to 
combat telephone bill ``cramming''--inserting unauthorized charges on 
consumers' phone bills--and other abuses in the sale of products and 
services that are billed to the telephone including voicemail, 900-
number

[[Page 7877]]

services, and other telephone based information and entertainment 
services. The most recent workshop focused on the use of 800 and other 
toll-free numbers to offer pay-per-call services, the scope of the 
rule, the dispute resolution process, the requirements for a pre-
subscription agreement, and the need for obtaining express 
authorization from consumers before placing charges on their telephone 
bills. The review record has remained open to encourage additional 
comments on expansion of the rule's coverage. Staff expects to prepare 
a recommendation for the Commission by December 2012.
(b) Guides
    Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green 
Guides), 16 CFR 260: After holding three public workshops, analyzing 
public comments, and studying consumer perceptions of certain 
environmental claims, the Commission announced on October 6, 2010, 
proposed revisions to the Green Guides to help marketers avoid making 
misleading environmental claims. The proposed changes are designed to 
update the Guides and make them easier for companies to understand and 
use. The changes to the Green Guides include new guidance on marketers' 
use of product certifications and seals of approval, ``renewable 
energy'' claims, ``renewable materials'' claims, and ``carbon offset'' 
claims. The comment period closed on December 10, 2010. The staff is 
currently reviewing 338 non-duplicate comments and anticipates sending 
a recommendation to the Commission by the end of 2011.
    Vocational Schools Guides. The Commission sought public comments on 
its Private Vocational and Distance Education Schools Guides, commonly 
known as the Vocational Schools Guides. 74 FR 37973 (Jul. 30, 2009). 
Issued in 1972 and most recently amended in 1998 to add a provision 
addressing misrepresentations related to post-graduation employment, 
the guides advise businesses offering vocational training courses--
either on the school's premises or through distance education, such as 
correspondence courses or the Internet--how to avoid unfair and 
deceptive practices in the advertising, marketing, or sale of their 
courses. The comment period closed on October 16, 2009. Staff is 
reviewing comments and anticipates sending a recommendation to the 
Commission by the end of 2011.
Final Actions \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Other final actions can be found under Rulemakings and 
Studies Required by Statute, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the publication of the 2010 Regulatory Plan, the Commission 
has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to 
terminate rulemaking proceedings.
    FACTA Risk-Based Pricing Rule. After the Commission issued a risk-
based pricing rule jointly with the Federal Reserve, 75 FR 2724 (Jan. 
15, 2010), the Dodd-Frank Act subsequently amended the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act to require that this risk-based pricing notice include a 
credit score if one was used. After issuing an NPRM, the Agencies 
published final rules requiring creditors to disclose credit score 
information to consumers when a credit score is used in setting or 
adjusting the terms of credit. 76 FR 41602 (Jul. 15, 2011).
    Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules. For the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger 
Notification Rules (HSR Rules), 16 CFR 801 to 803), the Commission in 
conjunction with the Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 
published a final rule on July 19, 2011, streamlining the HSR Form and 
capturing new information that will help the Agencies conduct their 
initial review of a proposed transaction's competitive impact. 76 FR 
42471. These final rules were effective August 18, 2011.
    Fuel Ratings Rule. The Fuel Ratings Rule sets out a uniform method 
for determining the octane rating of gasoline from the refiner through 
the chain of distribution to the point of retail sale. The rule enables 
consumers to buy gasoline with an appropriate octane rating for their 
vehicle and establishes standard procedures for determining, 
certifying, and posting octane ratings. After notice and comment, 75 FR 
12,470 (Mar. 16, 2010), on April 8, 2011, the Commission issued 
amendments to the rule that allow an alternative octane rating method 
and made other minor changes. 76 FR 19684. The effective date for the 
amendments was May 31, 2011. The Commission declined to issue final 
ethanol labeling amendments at that time, but is currently considering 
this for possible further action.
    Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule. The Mail Order Rule, 16 
CFR 435, requires that, when sellers advertise merchandise, they must 
have a reasonable basis for stating or implying that they can ship 
within a certain time. During 2007, the Commission sought comments 
about non-substantive changes to the rule to bring it into conformity 
with changing conditions; including consumers' usage of means other 
than the telephone to access the Internet when ordering, consumers 
paying for merchandise by demand draft or debit card, and merchants 
using alternative methods to make prompt rule-required refunds. 72 FR 
51728 (Sep. 11, 2007). On September 30, 2011,\15\ the Commission 
announced it was retaining MTOR. 76 FR 60715. Based on previous Rule 
proceedings and after reviewing public comments received regarding the 
Rule's overall costs, benefits, and regulatory and economic impact, the 
Commission concluded that the Rule continues to benefit consumers and 
the Rule's benefits outweigh its costs. For clarity, the Commission 
reorganized the Rule by alphabetizing the definitions at the beginning 
of the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Please see Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews section above for 
information on a separate FR Notice proposing amendments to MOTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary
    In both content and process, the FTC's ongoing and proposed 
regulatory actions are consistent with the President's priorities. The 
actions under consideration inform and protect consumers, while 
minimizing the regulatory burdens on businesses. The Commission will 
continue working toward these goals. The Commission's 10-year review 
program is patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996. The Commission's 10-year program also is consistent with 
section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, which directs executive branch 
agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically all of their 
significant existing regulations. 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993). In 
addition, the final rules issued by the Commission continue to be 
consistent with the President's Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and 
Principles, Executive Order 12866, section 1(a), which directs agencies 
to promulgate only such regulations as are, inter alia, required by law 
or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material 
failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety 
of the public.
    The Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and 
benefits of proposed actions and possible alternative actions, and to 
receive the broadest practicable array of comment from affected 
consumers, businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the 
Commission's regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly 
promoting the ability of ``private markets to protect

[[Page 7878]]

or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the 
well-being of the American people.'' Executive Order 12866, section 1.

II. Regulatory Actions

    The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the definition in Executive Order 12866.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Section 3(f) of the Executive order defines a regulatory 
action to be ``significant'' if it is likely to result in a rule 
that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the 
economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public 
health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations 
of recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
this Executive order.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION (NIGC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 
(Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary purpose of providing 
``a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a 
means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and 
strong tribal governments.'' IGRA established the National Indian 
Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission) to protect such gaming, 
amongst other things, as a means of generating tribal revenue.
    At its core, Indian gaming is a function of sovereignty exercised 
by tribal governments. In addition, the Federal Government maintains a 
government-to-government relationship with the tribes--a responsibility 
of the NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is committed to strong regulation 
of Indian gaming, the Commission is equally committed to strengthening 
government-to-government relations by engaging in meaningful 
consultation with tribes to fulfill IGRA's intent. The NIGC's vision is 
to adhere to principles of good government, including transparency to 
promote Agency accountability and fiscal responsibility, to operate 
consistently to ensure fairness and clarity in the administration of 
IGRA, and to respect the responsibilities of each sovereign in order to 
fully promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong 
tribal governments. The NIGC is fully committed to working with tribes 
to ensure the integrity of the industry by exercising its regulatory 
responsibilities through technical assistance, compliance, and 
enforcement activities.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    As an independent regulatory agency, the NIGC has been performing a 
retrospective review of its existing regulations well before Executive 
Order 13579 was issued on July 11, 2011. The NIGC, however, recognizes 
the importance of E.O. 13579 and its regulatory review is being 
conducted in the spirit of E.O. 13579, to identify those regulations 
that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 
burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in 
accordance with input from the public. In addition, as required by 
Executive Order 13175, the Commission has been conducting government-
to-government consultations with tribes regarding each regulation's 
relevancy, consistency in application, and limitations or barriers to 
implementation, based on the tribes' experiences. The consultation 
process is also intended to result in the identification of areas for 
improvement and needed amendments, if any, new regulations, and the 
possible repeal of outdated regulations.
    The following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been 
identified as associated with the review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    RIN                                 Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3141-AA15..................................  Tribal Background
                                              Investigations and
                                              Licensing.
3141-AA-27.................................  Class II and Class III
                                              Minimum Internal Control
                                              Standards and Class II
                                              Minimum Technical
                                              Standards.
3141-AA40..................................  Fees.
3141-AA43..................................  Definitions.
3141-AA44..................................  Self Regulation of Class
                                              II.
3141-AA45..................................  Review and Approval of Pre-
                                              Existing Ordinances or
                                              Resolutions.
3141-AA46..................................  Management Contracts.
3141-AA47..................................  Appeal Proceedings Before
                                              the Commission.
3141-AA48..................................  Facility License
                                              Notifications, Renewals,
                                              and Submissions.
3141-AA49..................................  Issuance of Investigation
                                              Completion Letters.
3141-AA50..................................  Enforcement Regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the NIGC is reviewing and considering revising 
its existing regulations in the following areas: (i) Tribal background 
investigations and licensing, in order to streamline the process for 
submitting information to the NIGC; (ii) minimum internal control 
standards (MICS) and minimum technical standards for gaming equipment 
used in the play of Class II games, in order to respond to changing 
technologies in the industry and to ensure that the MICS and technical 
standards remain relevant and appropriate; (iii) requirements for 
obtaining a self-regulation certification for Class II gaming; (iv) 
appeals of the Chair's actions on ordinances, management contracts, 
notices of violations (NOV), civil fine assessments, and closure 
orders, in order to clarify the appeals process for the regulated 
community; (v) facility licensing notifications, renewals, and 
submissions; (vi) monitoring and investigations; (vii) fees, in order 
to allow for the calculation of fees based on each tribe's fiscal year 
(instead of calendar year) and to require quarterly fee payments 
instead of semiannual payments, to ensure fingerprint fees reflect the 
true cost of fingerprint processing by providing for the annual review 
and adjustment of fees, and to implement a late payment system in lieu 
of NOVs for late submissions of fees and utilizing the NOV system only 
in rare instances; and (viii) enforcement, in order to provide for pre-
enforcement procedures.
    The NIGC is also currently considering promulgating new 
regulations: (i) Concerning a definition of the term ``sole proprietary 
interest'' with regard to the conduct of gaming on

[[Page 7879]]

Indian lands, in order to reduce uncertainty surrounding the types of 
development, consulting, financing, and lease agreements tribes may 
enter into with regard to their gaming activities; and (ii) that would 
give preference to qualified Indian-owned business when purchasing 
goods or services needed to carry out the Commission's duties. Lastly, 
the NIGC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking repealing the 
regulation on the review and approval of gaming ordinances enacted by 
tribes prior to the existence of the Commission, as such ordinances may 
no longer exist and thus there is no further need for this regulation. 
The NIGC anticipates that the ongoing consultations with regulated 
tribes will continue to play an important role in the development of 
the NIGC's rulemaking efforts.

BILLING CODE 7565-01-P

U.S. NUCEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Fiscal Year 2011 Regulatory Plan Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the possession and use of source, 
byproduct, and special nuclear material. The NRC's regulatory mission 
is to ensure that civilian uses of nuclear materials and facilities are 
carried out in a manner that will protect public health and safety and 
the environment and that will not be inimical to the common defense and 
security of the United States. The NRC regulates the operation of 
nuclear power plants and fuel cycle plants; the safeguarding of nuclear 
materials from theft and sabotage; the safe transport, storage, and 
disposal of radioactive materials and wastes; the decommissioning and 
safe release for other uses of licensed facilities that are no longer 
in operation; and the medical, industrial, and research applications of 
nuclear material. In addition, the NRC licenses the import and export 
of radioactive materials.
    As part of its regulatory process, the NRC routinely conducts 
comprehensive regulatory analyses that examine the costs and benefits 
of contemplated regulations. The NRC has developed internal procedures 
and programs to ensure that it imposes only necessary requirements on 
its licensees and to review existing regulations to determine whether 
the requirements imposed are still necessary.
    The NRC's fiscal year (FY) 2011 regulatory plan is not indicative 
of all rulemakings ongoing in FY 2011. The NRC anticipates publication 
of one major rule in FY 2011.
    The NRC will update its requirement to recover approximately 90 
percent of its budget authority in FY 2011, not including amounts 
appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, amounts appropriated for 
Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and amounts appropriated for generic 
homeland security activities (nonfee items), through fees to NRC 
licensees and applicants. The NRC receives 10 percent of its budget 
authority (not including nonfee items) from the general fund each year 
to pay for the cost of Agency activities that do not provide a direct 
benefit to NRC licensees, such as international assistance and 
Agreement State activities (as defined under section 274 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended).
    The NRC's other significant regulatory priorities for FY 2012 and 
beyond includes the following:
     Revise the environmental protection requirements for 
renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses.
     Develop performance-based acceptance criteria for fuel 
cladding performance during loss-of-coolant accidents at nuclear power 
plants.
     Certify new designs for nuclear power plants and amend 
existing approved designs.
     Specify the requirements for a site-specific analysis to 
demonstrate compliance with low-level waste disposal performance 
objectives, and the technical requirements needed for this analysis.
     Amend the regulations that govern the medical use of 
byproduct material related to reporting and notifications of medical 
events to clarify requirements for permanent implant branchytherapy.
     Expand the options for independent storage of spent 
nuclear fuel by amending and approving new spent fuel storage cask 
designs.
     Revise the fitness-for-duty requirements specific to drug 
and alcohol testing of employees working at nuclear power plants and 
other licensed facilities, and amend the fatigue management 
requirements pertaining to personnel who perform quality control and 
quality verification functions.
     Put in place security requirements for Category 1 and 
Category 2 quantities of radioactive material.
    In addition to the previously stated priorities, additional 
regulatory priorities may be required due to: (1) Recommendations from 
a task force established to examine the NRC's regulatory requirements, 
programs, processes, and implementation in light of information from 
the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan, following the March 11, 2011, 
earthquake and tsunami; and (2) other emerging events.

NRC

Proposed Rule Stage

158. Medical Use of Byproduct Material--Amendments/Medical Event 
Definition [NRC-2008-0071]

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 35.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations that govern medical use of byproduct material related to 
reporting and notifications of medical events to clarify requirements 
for permanent implant branchytherapy.
    Statement of Need: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
proposing to amend its regulations to change the criteria for defining 
a medical event (ME) for permanent implant brachytherapy from dose-
based to activity-based.
    Several medical use events involving therapeutic use of byproduct 
material in 2003, as well as advice from the Advisory Committee on the 
Medical Use of Isotopes (ACMUI), prompted the reconsideration of the 
appropriateness and adequacy of the regulations regarding MEs and 
written directives (WDs).
    A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 6, 
2008 (73 FR 45635), for public comment. Most of the 57 comment letters 
received primarily opposed parts of the rulemaking. During fall of 
2008, a substantial number of MEs involving permanent implant 
brachytherapy were reported to the NRC. Based on its evaluation of this 
information, including an independent analysis by an NRC medical 
consultant, the staff developed a re-proposed rule in SECY-10-0062, 
``Re-proposed Rule: Medical Use of Byproduct Material--Amendments/
Medical Event Definitions,'' dated May 18, 2010, for Commission 
approval.
    In SRM-SECY-10-0062, dated August 10, 2010, the Commission 
disapproved the staff's recommendation to publish the re-proposed rule. 
Instead, the Commission directed the staff to work closely with the 
ACMUI and the

[[Page 7880]]

broader medical and stakeholder community to develop event definitions 
that will protect the interests of patients, allow physicians the 
flexibility to take actions that they deem medically necessary, while 
continuing to enable the agency to detect failures in process, 
procedure, and training, as well as any misapplication of byproduct 
materials by authorized users. Additionally, the staff was directed to 
hold a series of stakeholder workshops to discuss issues associated 
with the ME definition. The staff plans to expand this part 35 
rulemaking to: Modify preceptor attestation requirements, consider 
extending grandfathering to certain certified individuals (Ritenour 
petition PRM-35-20), and to consider other issues that have developed 
in implementation of the current regulations. The NRC intends to merge 
this proposed rule with RIN 3150-AI63, Preceptor Attestation 
Requirements (NRC-2009-0175).
    Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841.
    Alternatives: As an alternative to the rulemaking, the NRC staff 
considered the ``no-action'' alternative. Under this option the NRC 
would not modify part 35, and the medical events would continue to be 
considered under dose-based criteria than the activity-based criteria 
for the permanent brachytherapy implants.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC is in the process of 
preparing a regulatory analysis to support this rulemaking. The 
analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered 
by the NRC. The analysis will be available as part of the rulemaking 
package.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/15/08  73 FR 8830
ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/26/08  .......................
NPRM................................   08/06/08  73 FR 45635
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/20/08  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   10/06/08  73 FR 58063
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/07/08  .......................
Second NPRM.........................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Edward M. Lohr, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 
Programs, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-0253, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Merged with 3150-AI63.
    RIN: 3150-AI26

NRC

159. Fitness-for-Duty Programs [NRC-2009-0090]

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 41 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 26.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations to ensure that personnel who actually perform independent 
quality control/verification (QC/QV) checks under the licensee's NRC-
approved quality assurance program are subject to the same part 26, 
subpart I, provisions as operating personnel identified in section 
26.4(a)(1). The proposed rule would also consider requests the 
Commission received in Petitions for Rulemaking 26-3, 26-5, and 26-6. 
Part 26, subpart I, currently does not include QC/QV personnel as 
covered workers for fatigue management. Also, petitions for rulemaking 
have raised additional concerns from affected stakeholders. A detailed 
regulatory analysis will be performed per NRC processes which detail 
the costs and benefits associated with the proposed rule. This 
regulatory analysis will be published with the proposed rule.
    Statement of Need: Part 26, subpart I, currently does not include 
QC/QV personnel as covered workers for fatigue management. Also, 
petitions for rulemaking have raised additional concerns from affected 
stakeholders.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A detailed regulatory analysis will 
be performed per NRC processes which detail the costs and benefits 
associated with the proposed rule. This regulatory analysis will be 
published with the proposed rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Scott C. Sloan, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 
301 415-1619, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI58

NRC

160. U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) Design Certification 
Amendment [NRC-2010-0132]

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 52.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations to part 52 by issuing a new appendix for the initial 
certification of the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor standard plant 
design. Applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate a 
nuclear power plant using the EPR design may do so by referencing this 
design certification rule.
    Statement of Need: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or 
the Commission) is amending its regulations to certify an amendment to 
the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR) standard plant design. 
This action is necessary so that applicants or licensees intending to 
construct and operate a U.S. EPR design may do so by referencing this 
design certification rule. The applicant for certification of the 
amendment to the U.S. EPR design is AREVA Nuclear Power.
    A design certification amendment does not establish standards or 
requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be 
voluntarily referenced by applicants for combined licenses. 
Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an 
applicant for a design certification (or amendments thereto), rather 
than the NRC. As a result, there is no monetary impact for this final 
rule.
    Alternatives: The NRC has not prepared alternatives for this rule. 
The NRC evaluates alternatives for rulemakings that establish generic 
regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are not generic rulemakings in 
the sense that design certifications (and amendments thereto) do not 
establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must 
comply. Rather, design

[[Page 7881]]

certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be 
voluntarily referenced by applicants for COLs. Furthermore, design 
certification rulemakings are initiated by an applicant for a design 
certification (or amendments thereto), rather than the NRC. Preparation 
of alternatives in this circumstance would not be useful because the 
design to be certified is proposed by the applicant rather than the 
NRC.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC has not prepared a 
regulatory analysis for this rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses 
for rulemakings that establish generic regulatory requirements 
applicable to all licensees. Design certifications (and amendments 
thereto) are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) do not establish standards or 
requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be 
voluntarily referenced by applicants for COLs. Furthermore, design 
certification rulemakings are initiated by an applicant for a design 
certification (or amendments thereto), rather than the NRC. Preparation 
of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful 
because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant rather 
than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that 
preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor 
appropriate.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Fred Schofer, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of New Reactors, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-5682, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI82

NRC

161. Disposal of Unique Waste Streams [NRC-2011-0012]

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 61.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations to require operating and future low-level radioactive waste 
disposal facilities to conduct a performance assessment and an intruder 
assessment, to demonstrate compliance with performance objectives in 10 
CFR part 61 to enhance safe disposal of low-level radioactive waste. 
These analyses will identify any additional measures that would enhance 
adequate protection of public health and safety. The NRC is also 
proposing additional changes to the current regulations to reduce 
ambiguity, facilitate implementation, and to better align the 
requirements with current health and safety standards. This rule would 
affect existing and future low-level radioactive waste disposal 
facilities that are regulated by the NRC and the Agreement States.
    Statement of Need: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
proposing to amend its regulations to require low-level radioactive 
waste (LLRW) disposal facilities to conduct site-specific analyses to 
demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives. Although the 
NRC believes that part 61 is adequate to protect public health and 
safety, requiring a site-specific analysis to demonstrate compliance 
with the performance objectives would enhance the safe disposal of LLRW 
and would provide added assurance that waste streams not considered in 
the part 61 technical basis comply with the part 61 performance 
objectives. Further, these analyses would identify any additional 
measures that would be prudent to implement, and these amendments would 
improve the efficiency of the regulations by making changes to reduce 
ambiguity, facilitate implementation, and better align the requirements 
with the current and more modern health and safety regulations. This 
rulemaking would correct ambiguities and provide added assurance that 
LLRW disposal continues to meet the performance objectives in part 61.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841.
    Alternatives: As an alternative to the rulemaking, the NRC staff 
considered the ``no-action'' alternative. Under this option the NRC 
would not modify part 61, no long-term analyses would be required, no 
period of performance would be specified, and no intruder assessment 
would be required.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC is in the process of 
preparing a regulatory analysis to support this rulemaking. The 
analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered 
by the NRC. The analysis will be available as part of the rulemaking 
package.
    Risks: Not conducting this rulemaking would allow the ambiguities 
in the part 61 regulations to continue and would not provide the added 
assurance that disposal of the waste streams not considered in the part 
61 technical basis comply with the part 61 performance objectives.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Proposed Rule Language..   05/03/11  76 FR 24831
Comment Period End..................   06/18/11  .......................
NPRM................................   04/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Andrew G. Carrera, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 
Programs, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-1078, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI92

NRC

162.  Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 2012 [NRC-
2011-0207]

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 171.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 30, 2012.
    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as 
amended, requires that the NRC recover approximately 90 percent of its 
budget authority in fiscal year (FY) 2012, less the amounts 
appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, amounts appropriated for 
Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and amounts appropriated for generic 
homeland security activities (non-fee items). The OBRA-90 requires that 
the fees for FY 2010 must be collected by September 30, 2012.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
licensing,

[[Page 7882]]

inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. 
The amendments would implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, which requires that the NRC recover 
approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in fiscal year (FY) 
2012, less the amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, and 
for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and generic homeland security 
activities.
    Based on the FY 2012 NRC budget sent to Congress, the NRC's 
required fee recovery amount for the FY 2012 budget is approximately 
$909.5 million. After accounting for carryover and billing adjustments, 
the total amount to be recovered through fees is approximately $908.5 
million.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would amend the licensing, 
inspection, and annual fees charged to NRC licensees and applicants for 
an NRC license. The amendments are necessary to recover approximately 
90 percent of the NRC budget authority for FY 2012, less the amounts 
appropriated for non-fee items. The OBRA-90, as amended, requires that 
the NRC accomplish the 90 percent recovery through the assessment of 
fees. The NRC assesses two types of fees to recover its budget 
authority. License and inspection fees are assessed under the authority 
of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) to recover 
the costs of providing individually identifiable services to specific 
applicants and licensees (10 CFR part 170). IOAA requires that the NRC 
recover the full cost to the NRC of all identifiable regulatory 
services that each applicant or licensee receives. The NRC recovers 
generic and other regulatory costs not recovered from fees imposed 
under 10 CFR part 170 through the assessment of annual fees under the 
authority of OBRA-90 (10 CFR part 171). Annual fee charges are 
consistent with the guidance in the Conference Committee Report on 
OBRA-90 that the NRC assess the annual charge under the principle that 
licensees who require the greatest expenditure of the Agency's 
resources should pay the greatest annual fee.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The OBRA-90 requires that the fees for FY 
2012 must be collected by September 30, 2012.
    Alternatives: Because this action is mandated by statute and the 
fees must be assessed through rulemaking, the NRC did not consider 
alternatives to this action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The cost to NRC licensees is 
approximately 90 percent of the NRC FY 2012 budget authority less the 
amounts appropriated for non-fee items. The dollar amount to be billed 
as fees to NRC applicants and licensees for FY 2012 is approximately 
$909.5 million.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Renu Suri, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-
0161, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AJ03

NRC

Final Rule Stage

163. Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident Technical 
Requirements [NRC-2004-0006]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 52.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations to allow for a risk-informed alternative to the present 
loss-of-coolant accident break size. This rulemaking would address a 
petition for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 
(PRM-50-75). The final rule was provided to the Commission on December 
10, 2010, in SECY-10-0161.
    The NRC staff provided an initial draft final rule to the Advisory 
Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) on October 16, 2006. After 
reviewing the draft rule, the ACRS informed the Commission of numerous 
technical and policy concerns and recommended that the rule not be 
issued. The staff prepared a Commission paper (SECY-07-0082; May 16, 
2007) to inform the Commission of the impact of the ACRS 
recommendations and to request guidance before proceeding with the 
rule. The Commission provided its guidance in a Staff Requirements 
Memorandum on August 10, 2007. On April 1, 2008, the staff provided an 
updated rule schedule to the Commission. In a meeting on August 6, 
2008, selected NRC managers approved the staff's recommended resolution 
of the open issues related to the final rule. The staff prepared draft 
rule language incorporating the new positions into the rule and adding 
additional requirements for defense-in depth for pipe breaks larger 
than the transition break size. The OGC reviewed the revised rule 
language and recommended that portions of the rule be re-noticed to 
provide an opportunity for public comments on some of the new rule 
requirements. In a meeting on October 8, 2008, NRC managers decided to 
repropose the entire rule. On December 18, 2008, the EDO signed a 
memorandum informing the Commission that the staff will re-notice the 
section 50.46a rule for additional public comments in August 2009. The 
staff discussed the revised proposed rule with the ACRS on May 6-7, 
2009, and then published the rule on August 10, 2009 (74 FR 40006). On 
September 24, 2009, in response to a request from NEI, the NRC extended 
the public comment period by 120 days to close on January 22, 2010 (74 
FR 48667). The NRC evaluated the public comments and prepared draft 
final rule language, which was posted on Regulations.gov on May 12, 
2010. A public meeting was held on June 4, 2010, to discuss resolution 
of public comments and the draft rule language. The staff discussed the 
rule with the ACRS in September and October of 2010. In its letter of 
October 20, 2010, the ACRS concluded that the rule was an acceptable 
alternative for operating reactors. The final rule was provided to the 
Commission on December 10, 2010 (SECY-10-0161).
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would codify alternative 
requirements for ECCS at nuclear power reactors by using risk 
information to refine ECCS requirements based on the likelihood of pipe 
breaks of various sizes. The rule would divide all coolant piping 
breaks currently considered in emergency core cooling requirements into 
two size groups: Breaks up to and including a ``transition'' size, and 
breaks larger than the transition size up to the largest pipe in the 
reactor coolant system. Selection of the transition size was based upon 
pipe break frequency estimates and associated uncertainties. Because 
pipe breaks in the smaller size group are considered more likely, they 
would be analyzed using existing criteria for ensuring that the reactor 
core stays cool during and after an accident. Larger breaks are 
considered less likely and would be analyzed with less conservative 
methods. Plants would still have to mitigate the effects of breaking 
the largest pipe and maintain core

[[Page 7883]]

cooling. Under the draft final rule, power plant operators could make 
plant design changes that could enhance safety and/or provide 
operational benefits. The rule includes risk acceptance criteria to 
ensure that modified designs would continue to provide adequate 
protection of public health and safety.
    Alternatives: The alternative is for the NRC not to issue these 
requirements. The alternative would not allow operators of nuclear 
power plants to have the increased design and operational flexibility 
that would be allowed by these risk-informed requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no costs or benefits 
associated with this alternative rule for licensees who choose not to 
implement it. For the licensees who do choose to comply with the 
alternative requirements, if they request to increase power generation 
at their facilities and eliminate the need for fast-starting of 
emergency diesel generators, they would need to invest an estimated 
overall total of approximately $445 to $1,221 million (in 2008$ @ 3 
percent discount rate) for plant modifications and staff support. Total 
estimated NRC cost associated with implementing the alternative 
requirements and reviewing licensees' design change requests at these 
facilities would be approximately $22 to $24 million (in 2008$ @ 3 
percent discount rate). Substantial net benefits would result after 
subtracting both licensee and NRC costs from the benefits that 
licensees would obtain from making these plant modifications. The total 
cumulative net benefits are estimated to range from $279 to $2,876 
million (in 2008$ @ 3 percent discount rate).
    Risks: The rule would allow plant design and operational changes 
which could result in small but acceptable increases in risk. Specific 
acceptance criteria for risk increases are contained in the rule which 
limit overall risk increases to very small amounts. Allowable risk 
increases under this rule are consistent with the current risk increase 
guidelines specified in Regulatory Guide 1.174, ``An Approach for Using 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-informed Decisions on Plant-
Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.''
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/07/05  70 FR 67597
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/06/06  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   01/25/06  71 FR 4061
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/08/06  .......................
Supplemental NPRM...................   08/10/09  74 FR 40006
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   09/24/09  .......................
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period       10/07/09  74 FR 51522
 Extended.
Supplemental NPRM Extended Comment     01/22/10  .......................
 Period End.
Final Rule..........................   09/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Richard F. Dudley, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 
301 415-1116, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AH29

NRC

164. Physical Protection of Byproduct Material [NRC-2008-0120]

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 30; 10 CFR 32; 10 CFR 33; 10 CFR 34; 10 CFR 
35; 10 CFR 37; 10 CFR 39; 10 CFR 51; 10 CFR 71; 10 CFR 73.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations to put in place security requirements for the use of 
Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material. The 
objective is to ensure that effective security measures are in place to 
prevent the dispersion of radioactive material for malevolent purposes. 
The proposed amendment would also address background investigations and 
access controls, enhanced security for use, and transportation security 
for Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material. This 
rulemaking subsumes RIN 3150-AI56, ``Requirements for Fingerprinting 
and Criminal History Record Checks for Unescorted Access to Radioactive 
Material and Other Property (part 37).''
    Statement of Need: The objective of this rule is to provide 
reasonable assurance of preventing the theft or diversion of category 1 
and category 2 quantities of radioactive material by establishing 
generally applicable security requirements similar to those previously 
imposed on certain licensees by the NRC orders. Although a security 
order is legally binding on the licensee receiving the order, a rule 
makes requirements generally applicable to all licensees. In addition, 
notice and comment rulemaking allows for public participation and is an 
open process. This rulemaking places the security requirements for use 
of category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material into 
the regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
    Alternatives: NRC could continue to regulate the security aspects 
for these facilities by Commission order. This alternative would not 
significantly reduce the burden as the majority of the cost is 
associated with the order requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This final rule will result in 
maximum annual impact to the economy of approximately $17.9 million 
(using a 7% discount rate, annualizing the one-time costs over 20 
years, and adding these ``annualized'' one-time costs to the annual 
costs) or $24.4 million (using a 3% discount rate). The Office of 
Management and Budget has indicated that the annual cost of the orders 
should be included in the annual impact to the economy calculation. The 
estimated annual cost to the industry using the pre-order was $111.6 
million. Therefore, this final rule is considered a major rule as 
defined by the Congressional Review Act.
    The qualitative values of the rule are associated with safeguard 
and security considerations of the decreased risk of a security-related 
event, such as theft or diversion of radioactive material and 
subsequent use for unauthorized purposes. Increasing the security of 
high-risk radioactive material decreases this risk and increases the 
common defense and security of the Nation. Other qualitative values 
that are positively affected by the decreased risk of a security-
related event include public and occupational health due to an accident 
or event and the risk of damage to on-site and off-site property. In 
addition, regulatory efficiency is enhanced by the rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/15/10  75 FR 33901
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/13/10  .......................

[[Page 7884]]

 
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   10/08/10  75 FR 62330
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   01/18/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Merri L. Horn, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 
Programs, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-8126, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI12

NRC

165. Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 
Nuclear Power Plant [NRC-2008-0608]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 51.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations that provide the environmental protection requirements for 
renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses. The regulations 
require that licensees consider the impact that the licensing action 
could have on the human environment.
    Statement of Need: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
amending its environmental protection regulations by updating the 
Commission's 1996 findings on the environmental effect of renewing the 
operating license of a nuclear power plant. The rule redefines the 
number and scope of the environmental impact issues which must be 
addressed by the NRC during license renewal environmental reviews. The 
rule also incorporates lessons learned and knowledge gained from 
license renewal environmental reviews conducted by the NRC since 1996.
    Summary of Legal Basis: NRC's environmental protection regulations 
are in 10 CFR part 51, and implement section 102(2) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A detailed regulatory analysis was 
published with the proposed rule, and can be accessed in ADAMS at 
ML090260568.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/31/09  74 FR 38117
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/14/09  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   10/07/09  74 FR 51522
NPRM Extended Comment Period End....   01/12/10  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Stewart Schneider, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 
301 415-4123, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI42

NRC

166. AP1000 Design Certification Amendment [NRC-2010-0131]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 52.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations for the AP1000 design certification to replace combined 
license information and design acceptance criteria with specific design 
information, address compliance with the aircraft impact assessment 
rule, and incorporate design improvements resulting from detailed 
design efforts. Applicants or licensees intending to construct and 
operate a nuclear power plant using the AP1000 design as amended may do 
so by referencing this design certification rule.
    Statement of Need: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or 
Commission) is amending its regulations to certify an amendment to the 
AP1000 standard plant design. The purpose of the amendment is to 
replace the combined license (COL) information items and design 
acceptance criteria (DAC) with specific design information, address the 
effects of the impact of a large commercial aircraft, incorporate 
design improvements, and increase standardization of the design. This 
action is necessary so that applicants or licensees intending to 
construct and operate an AP1000 design may do so by referencing this 
design certification rule (DCR), and need not demonstrate in its 
application the safety of the certified design as amended.
    The applicant for certification of the amendment to the AP1000 
design is Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse).
    A design certification amendment does not establish standards or 
requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be 
voluntarily referenced by applicants for combined licenses. 
Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an 
applicant for a design certification (or amendments thereto), rather 
than the NRC. As a result, there is no monetary impact for this final 
rule.
    Alternatives: The NRC has not prepared alternatives for this rule. 
The NRC evaluates alternatives for rulemakings that establish generic 
regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are not generic rulemakings in 
the sense that design certifications (and amendments thereto) do not 
establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must 
comply. Rather, design certifications (and amendments thereto) are 
Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by 
rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by applicants for 
COLs. Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an 
applicant for a design certification (or amendments thereto), rather 
than the NRC. Preparation of alternatives in this circumstance would 
not be useful because the design to be certified is proposed by the 
applicant rather than the NRC.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC has not prepared a 
regulatory analysis for this rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses 
for rulemakings that establish generic regulatory requirements 
applicable to all licensees. Design certifications (and amendments 
thereto) are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) do not establish standards or 
requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be 
voluntarily referenced by applicants for COLs. Furthermore, design 
certification rulemakings are initiated by an

[[Page 7885]]

applicant for a design certification (or amendments thereto), rather 
than the NRC. Preparation of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance 
would not be useful because the design to be certified is proposed by 
the applicant rather than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission 
concludes that preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required 
nor appropriate.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/24/11  76 FR 10269
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/10/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Serita Sanders, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of New Reactors, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-2956, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI81

NRC

167. U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) Aircraft Impact Design 
Certification Amendment [NRC-2010-0134]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 52.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations in appendix A ``Design Certification Rule for the U.S. 
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor'' to 10 CFR part 52 ``Licenses, 
Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants'' to comply with 
10 CFR 50.150 ``Aircraft Impact Assessment.'' Applicants or licensees 
intending to construct and operate a nuclear power plant using the ABWR 
design may comply with 10 CFR 50.150 by referencing the amended design 
certification rule.
    Statement of Need: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or 
the Commission) is amending its regulations to certify an amendment to 
the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (U.S. ABWR) standard plant 
design to comply with the NRC's aircraft impact assessment (AIA) 
regulations. This action allows applicants or licensees intending to 
construct and operate a U.S. ABWR to comply with the NRC's AIA 
regulations by referencing the amended design certification rule (DCR). 
The applicant for certification of the amendment to the U.S. ABWR 
design is STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC).
    A design certification amendment does not establish standards or 
requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be 
voluntarily referenced by applicants for combined licenses. 
Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an 
applicant for a design certification (or amendments thereto), rather 
than the NRC. As a result, there is no monetary impact for this final 
rule.
    Alternatives: The NRC has not prepared alternatives for this rule. 
The NRC evaluates alternatives for rulemakings that establish generic 
regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are not generic rulemakings in 
the sense that design certifications (and amendments thereto) do not 
establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must 
comply. Rather, design certifications (and amendments thereto) are 
Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by 
rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by applicants for 
COLs. Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an 
applicant for a design certification (or amendments thereto), rather 
than the NRC. Preparation of alternatives in this circumstance would 
not be useful because the design to be certified is proposed by the 
applicant rather than the NRC.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC has not prepared a 
regulatory analysis for this rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses 
for rulemakings that establish generic regulatory requirements 
applicable to all licensees. Design certifications (and amendments 
thereto) are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) do not establish standards or 
requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be 
voluntarily referenced by applicants for COLs. Furthermore, design 
certification rulemakings are initiated by an applicant for a design 
certification (or amendments thereto), rather than the NRC. Preparation 
of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful 
because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant rather 
than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that 
preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor 
appropriate.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/20/11  76 FR 3540
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/05/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Fred Schofer, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of New Reactors, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-5682, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI84

NRC

168. Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) Design 
Certification [NRC-2010-0135]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 52.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend the Commission's 
regulations to part 52 by issuing a new appendix for the initial 
certification of the ESBWR standard plant design. Applicants or 
licensees intending to construct and operate a nuclear power plant 
using the ESBWR design may do so by referencing this design 
certification rule.
    Statement of Need: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or 
the Commission) is amending its regulations to certify an amendment to 
the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) standard plant 
design. This action is necessary so that applicants or licensees 
intending to construct and operate an ESBWR design may do so by 
referencing this design certification rule (DCR). The applicant for 
certification of the amendment to the ESBWR design is GE-Hitachi 
Nuclear Energy.
    A design certification amendment does not establish standards or 
requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be

[[Page 7886]]

voluntarily referenced by applicants for combined licenses. 
Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an 
applicant for a design certification (or amendments thereto), rather 
than the NRC. As a result, there is no monetary impact for this final 
rule.
    Alternatives: The NRC has not prepared alternatives for this rule. 
The NRC evaluates alternatives for rulemakings that establish generic 
regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are not generic rulemakings in 
the sense that design certifications (and amendments thereto) do not 
establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must 
comply. Rather, design certifications (and amendments thereto) are 
Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by 
rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by applicants for 
COLs. Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an 
applicant for a design certification (or amendments thereto), rather 
than the NRC. Preparation of alternatives in this circumstance would 
not be useful because the design to be certified is proposed by the 
applicant rather than the NRC.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC has not prepared a 
regulatory analysis for this rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses 
for rulemakings that establish generic regulatory requirements 
applicable to all licensees. Design certifications (and amendments 
thereto) are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) do not establish standards or 
requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design 
certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals of 
specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be 
voluntarily referenced by applicants for COLs. Furthermore, design 
certification rulemakings are initiated by an applicant for a design 
certification (or amendments thereto), rather than the NRC. Preparation 
of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful 
because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant rather 
than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that 
preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor 
appropriate.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/24/11  76 FR 16549
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/07/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   02/00/12  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: George M. Tartal, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of New Reactors, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-0016, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI85

NRC

169. List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks--MAGNASTOR, Revision 2 
[NRC-2011-0008]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 72.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The direct final rule amends the Commission's regulations 
by revising the MAGNASTOR System to include Amendment No. 2 to the 
Certificate of Compliance. Amendment No. 2 will include changes to 
allow: The addition of various boron-10 areal densities for use with 
Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor baskets; correction 
of the code reference in Table 2.1-2 of the Final Safety Analysis 
Report, table entitled ``ASME Code Alternatives for MAGNASTOR[supreg] 
components;'' change of transportable storage canister surface 
contamination limits for loose contamination; and other changes in 
appendices A and B of the technical specification to incorporate minor 
editorial corrections. This direct final rule allows the holders of 
power reactor operating licenses to store spent fuel in this approved 
cask system under a general license.
    Statement of Need: On March 22, 2010, and as supplemented on March 
30, March 31, June 8, July 1, November 10, and November 19, 2010, and 
April 22 and May 17, 2011, NAC, the holder of CoC No. 1031, submitted 
an application to the NRC that requested an amendment to CoC No. 1031. 
Specifically, NAC requested changes to revise: TS 3.3.2 to reduce the 
transportable storage canister removable surface contamination limits; 
TS 4.1.1 to add various boron-10 areal densities for use with 
Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor baskets and to 
replace the fuel tube orthogonal pitch with the minimum fuel tube outer 
diagonal dimension; Table 2.1-2, ``ASME Code Alternatives for 
MAGNASTOR[supreg] components,'' of the Final Safety Analysis Report to 
correct the code reference; and appendices A and B of the TSs to make 
editorial corrections.
    As documented in the SER, the NRC staff performed a detailed safety 
evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request and found that an 
acceptable safety margin is maintained. In addition, the NRC staff has 
determined that there continues to be reasonable assurance that public 
health and safety will be adequately protected.
    This direct final rule revises the MAGNASTOR[supreg] System listing 
in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1031. The 
amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in 
the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER. The 
amended MAGNASTOR[supreg] System cask design, when used under the 
conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and NRC regulations, will 
meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; thus, adequate protection of 
public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct 
final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 
10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into MAGNASTOR[supreg] System 
casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1031 under 
10 CFR 72.212.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is limited to the changes 
contained in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1031 and does not include other 
aspects of the MAGNASTOR[supreg] System. The NRC is using the ``direct 
final rule procedure'' to issue this amendment because it represents a 
limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be 
noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety 
continues to be ensured.
    Alternatives: The alternative to this action is to withhold 
approval of Amendment No. 2 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general 
licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into MAGNASTOR[supreg] 
System casks under the changes described in Amendment No. 2 to request 
an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under 
this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to 
prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption 
request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and 
the costs to each licensee.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Approval of the direct final rule is 
consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER 
and

[[Page 7887]]

the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no 
adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This 
direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on 
other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC 
concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are 
commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and 
safety and the common defense and security. For these reasons, the 
Commission concludes that preparation of a regulatory analysis is 
neither required nor appropriate.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Final Rule...................   12/00/11  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Gregory Trussell, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 
Programs, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-6445, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI91

[FR Doc. 2012-1620 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P