Food and Nutrition Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
In rule document 2013-28515 appearing on pages 72340-73354 in the issue of Thursday, December 5, 2013, make the following corrections:
1. On page 73246, in the first column, in footnote 66, “
2. On the same page, in the same column, in footnote 67, “
3. On the same page, in the same column, in footnote 69, “
4. On page 73249, in the third column, in footnote 128, “
5. On page 73250, in the second column, in footnote 148, “
6. On the same page, in the third column, in footnote 149, “
7. On page 73256, in the third column, in footnote 226, “
8. On page 73259, in the second column, in footnote 284, “
9. On page 73260, in the first column, in footnote 296, “(
10. On page 73262, in the first column, in footnote 317, “
11. On page 73269, in the second column, in footnote 424, “
12. On page 73270, in the first column, in footnote 431, “
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide guidance to Blue Cross and Blue Shield organizations, and certain other qualifying health care organizations, on computing and applying the medical loss ratio added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Graham R. Green, (202) 317-6995 (not a toll-free number).
Section 833 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides that Blue Cross and Blue Shield organizations, and certain other qualifying health care organizations, are entitled to: (1) Treatment as stock insurance companies; (2) a special deduction under section 833(b); and (3) computation of unearned premium reserves under section 832(b)(4) based on 100 percent, and not 80 percent, of unearned premiums. This document contains final amendments to 26 CFR part 1 (Income Tax Regulations) under section 833(c)(5). Section 833(c)(5) was added to the Code by section 9016 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act), Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009. Section 833(c)(5) provides that section 833 does not apply to an organization unless the organization's medical loss ratio (MLR) for a taxable year is at least 85 percent. For purposes of section 833, an organization's MLR is its percentage of total premium revenue expended on reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees under its policies during such taxable year (as reported under section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA)).
The Treasury Department and the IRS issued proposed regulations under section 833(c)(5) on May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27873). The Treasury Department and the IRS received four written comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing. After consideration of all comments, these final regulations adopt the provisions of the proposed regulations with certain modifications, the most significant of which are highlighted in the Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions. All comments are available at
The proposed regulations generally provided that an organization's MLR with respect to a taxable year is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the MLR numerator to the MLR denominator. The MLR numerator was defined as the organization's total premium revenue expended on reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees under its policies for the taxable year. The MLR denominator was defined as the organization's total premium revenue for the taxable year, after excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance. The final regulations retain these definitions.
The proposed regulations provided that the MLR numerator does not include amounts expended for “activities that improve health care quality.” Two commenters requested that the MLR numerator include
The final regulations retain the rule in the proposed regulations because the alternative is not supported by the statute. Section 2718 of the PHSA provides that the MLR numerator is based on both “reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees” and “activities that improve health care quality.” By contrast, the express language of section 833(c)(5) provides that the MLR numerator is based on “reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees” without any reference to “activities that improve health care quality.” Accordingly, the final regulations provide that the MLR numerator in section 833(c)(5) does not include costs for “activities that improve health care quality.”
The proposed regulations provided that amounts used for purposes of section 833(c)(5) (that is, total premium revenue and total premium revenue expended on reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees) for each taxable year should be determined based on amounts reported under section 2718 of the PHSA for that taxable year and the two preceding taxable years, subject to the same adjustments that apply for purposes of section 2718 of the PHSA. In the preamble to the proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments as to whether organizations should, instead of using the three-year period used for purposes of section 2718(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the PHSA, compute their expenses and total premium revenue only for the taxable year for which the computation is being made under section 833(c)(5), and whether adoption of the three-year approach would create difficulties with respect to the computation of the MLR for the 2014 taxable year.
Two commenters suggested that each organization described in section 833(c) be permitted a one-time, permanent election to compute its MLR over either the three-year period provided in the proposed regulations or over a one-year period based on the taxable year. The commenters further suggested that if a three-year period is used, transition relief should be provided to phase in the three-year period.
In describing the MLR computation under section 833(c)(5), the statute provides that the elements in the computation are to be “as reported under section 2718 of the Public Service Health Act.” The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that this cross reference indicates that Congress intended that, to the extent consistent with the express language of section 833(c)(5), the meaning of terms and the methodology used in the MLR computation under section 833(c)(5) should be consistent with the definition of those same terms and the methodology under section 2718 of the PHSA. Section 2718(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the PHSA and the associated regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services use a three-year period to compute the medical loss ratio, allowing certain limited adjustments after the end of the year to determine expenses and premium revenue. (See 45 CFR 158.220(b) and 158.140.) Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that amounts used for purposes of section 833(c)(5) for each taxable year should be determined based on amounts reported under section 2718 of the PHSA for that taxable year and the two preceding taxable years, subject to the same adjustments that apply for purposes of section 2718 of the PHSA.
In light of the comments received, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that transition rules to phase in the three-year period provided in these final regulations are appropriate. Accordingly, the final regulations provide that for the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2013, an organization's MLR will be computed on a one-year basis. Thus, for the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2013, an organization's MLR is computed based on its total premium revenue expended on reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees for its first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2013, and its total premium revenue for its first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2013.
For the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2014, an organization's MLR will be computed on a two-year basis. Thus, for the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2014, an organization's MLR is computed based on the sum of its total premium revenue expended on reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees for its first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2013, and for its first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2014, and the sum of its total premium revenue for its first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2013, and for its first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2014.
For the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2015, and for all succeeding taxable years, the final regulations provide that the MLR is determined based on amounts reported under section 2718 of the PHSA for that taxable year and the two preceding taxable years, subject to the same adjustments that apply for purposes of section 2718 of the PHSA.
The final regulations do not adopt the commenters' suggestion to allow organizations to make an election between the three-year period provided in the proposed regulations or the one-year period based on the taxable year. The statutory framework does not contemplate an election or provide for more than one method for computing the MLR. Further, any election would be administratively burdensome for the IRS.
The proposed regulations provided that the consequences of having an MLR of less than 85 percent (an insufficient MLR) are as follows: (1) The organization is not taxable as a stock insurance company by reason of section 833(a)(1), but may be taxable as an insurance company if it otherwise meets the requirements of section 831(c); (2) the organization is not allowed the special deduction set forth in section 833(b); and (3) if the organization qualifies as an insurance company under section 831(c), it must take into account 80 percent, rather than 100 percent, of its unearned premiums under section 832(b)(4) as it applies to other non-life insurance companies.
In response to the proposed regulations, two commenters requested that the consequences of having an insufficient MLR under section 833(c)(5) be limited to the loss of only some of the benefits of section 833. Specifically, commenters posited that an organization that fails the MLR requirement under section 833(c)(5) should not lose its status as an insurance company under section 833(a)(1). Rather, the commenters argued that the organization should only suffer the loss of eligibility for the special deduction in section 833(b) and be subject to the less favorable computation of unearned premium reserves based on 80 percent, rather than 100 percent, of its unearned premiums under section 832(b)(4). Another commenter agreed with the proposed rule that the consequences of
Section 833(c)(5) provides that “this section [833]” shall not apply to any organization unless the organization satisfies the MLR requirement in section 833(c)(5). This language does not contemplate disallowance of some, but not all, of the benefits associated with treatment under section 833. Because the benefit of automatic stock insurance company status is provided to section 833(c) organizations in section 833(a)(1), this benefit is lost upon a failure to satisfy the MLR under section 833(c)(5). Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that for an organization described in section 833(c) that fails to satisfy the MLR requirement under section 833(c)(5): (1) The organization is not taxable as a stock insurance company by reason of section 833(a)(1), but may be taxable as an insurance company if it otherwise meets the requirements of section 831(c); (2) the organization is not allowed the special deduction set forth in section 833(b); and (3) if the organization qualifies as an insurance company under section 831(c), it must take into account 80 percent, rather than 100 percent, of its unearned premiums under section 832(b)(4) as it applies to other non-life insurance companies.
In the proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS declined to adopt a proposal to allow an organization that would have otherwise failed to satisfy the MLR by a de minimis amount to pay an amount to the IRS to retain eligibility for the benefits of section 833 because the statutory framework does not contemplate a penalty or other payment to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments on whether there are other possible means consistent with the statute of mitigating the consequences of having an insufficient MLR.
In response to the proposed regulations, two commenters requested that, in limited circumstances, an organization with an insufficient MLR be permitted to rebate premiums to one of the following to satisfy the section 833(c)(5) MLR requirement: (1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services; (2) policyholders; (3) a State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan or other health related program, foundation, or guarantee fund association; or (4) a risk adjustment, reinsurance, or risk corridor program under the Affordable Care Act. Another commenter suggested that allowing any rebating of premiums to comply with section 833(c)(5) would fail to address consumers' needs for affordable coverage at the time of purchase. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to consider whether, and, if so, how to permit organizations to address de minimis failures to satisfy the MLR under section 833(c)(5).
Commenters requested clarification that an organization's loss of eligibility for treatment under section 833 by reason of section 833(c)(5) will not be treated as a material change in the operations of such organization or in its structure for purposes of section 833(c)(2)(C). Section 833(c) restricts the application of section 833 to any existing Blue Cross or Blue Shield organization, and any other qualifying organization meeting the requirements of section 833(c)(3). Section 833(c)(2)(C) defines the term “existing Blue Cross or Blue Shield organization” to mean any Blue Cross or Blue Shield organization if such organization was in existence on August 16, 1986, such organization was determined to be exempt from tax for its last taxable year beginning before January 1, 1987, and no material change has occurred in the operations of such organization or in its structure after August 16, 1986, and before the close of its current taxable year.
The final regulations adopt this suggestion. Consistent with the annual determination of whether an organization's MLR under section 833(c)(5) is at least 85 percent, which allows eligibility for treatment under section 833 to be recovered if lost by reason of section 833(c)(5), the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that a change in an organization's eligibility for treatment under section 833 solely by reason of section 833(c)(5) will not be treated as a material change in the operations of such organization or in its structure for purposes of section 833(c)(2)(C).
In Notice 2011-4 (2011-2 IRB 282 (December 29, 2010)) and Rev. Proc. 2011-14 (2011-4 IRB 330 (January 11, 2011)) (both of which are available at
These regulations apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and because the regulations do not impose an information collection on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments on its impact on small business. No comments were received.
The principal author of these regulations is Graham R. Green, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions & Products). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment; request for comments.
NMFS is adjusting the 2014 total allowable catch (TAC) amounts for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod fisheries. This action is necessary because NMFS has determined these TACs are incorrectly specified, and will ensure the BSAI pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod TACs are the appropriate amounts based on the best available scientific information. This action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 2, 2014, until the effective date of the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for BSAI groundfish, unless otherwise modified or superseded through publication of a notification in the
Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., January 17, 2014.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2012-0210 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013) set the 2014 BSAI pollock TAC at 1,266,100 metric tons (mt), the 2014 BSAI Atka mackerel TAC at 25,379 mt, and the 2014 BSAI Pacific cod TAC at 260,880 mt. In December 2013, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended a 2014 BSAI pollock TAC of 1,286,075 mt, which is more than the 1,266,100 mt TAC established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI. The Council also recommended a 2014 BSAI Atka mackerel TAC of 32,322 mt, which is more than the 25,379 mt TAC established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI. Furthermore, the Council recommended a 2014 BSAI Pacific cod TAC of 253,894 mt, which is less than the 260,880 mt TAC established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI. In 2014 the Council recommended that the TAC for Pacific cod be split by a Bering Sea TAC of 246,897 and an Aleutian Island TAC of 6,997 mt. The Council's recommended 2014 TACs, and the area and seasonal apportionments, are based on the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report (SAFE), dated November 2013, which NMFS has determined is the best available scientific information for these fisheries.
Steller sea lions occur in the same location as the pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod fisheries and are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod are a principal prey species for Steller sea lions in the BSAI. The seasonal apportionment of pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod harvest is necessary to ensure the groundfish fisheries are not likely to cause jeopardy of extinction or adverse modification of critical habitat for Steller sea lions. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(5) specify how the BS pollock TAC will be apportioned. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(7) specify how the BSAI Pacific cod TAC will be apportioned. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(8) specify how the BSAI Atka mackerel TAC will be apportioned.
In accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(i)(B), and (a)(2)(iv), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that, based on the November 2013 SAFE report for this fishery, the current BSAI pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod TACs are incorrectly specified. Pursuant to § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator is adjusting the 2014 BSAI pollock TAC to 1,286,075 mt, the 2014 BSAI Atka mackerel TAC to 32,322 and the 2014 BSAI Pacific cod TAC to 253,894 mt. Therefore, Table 1 of the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013) is revised consistent with this adjustment.
Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i), Table 3 of the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013) and reallocations (78 FR 14932, March 8, 2013 and 78 FR 49200, August 13, 2013) is revised for the 2014 BSAI allocations of pollock TAC to the directed pollock fisheries and to the Community Development Quota (CDQ) directed fishing allowances consistent with this adjustment.
Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(8), Table 4 of the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013) is revised for the 2014 seasonal and spatial allowances, gear shares, CDQ reserve, incidental catch allowance, and Amendment 80 allocation of the BSAI Atka mackerel TAC.
Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(7), Table 5 of the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013) is revised as Table 5a for the 2014 gear shares and seasonal allowances of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC consistent with this adjustment.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the appropriate allocations for pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod in the BSAI based on the best scientific information available. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 23, 2013, and additional time for prior public comment would result in conservation concerns for the ESA-listed Steller sea lions.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) turboprop engines. This proposed AD was prompted by in-service events involving the perforation of engine cases as a result of the liberation of power turbine (PT) blades and the fracture/displacement of the PT containment ring. This proposed AD would require installing a reinforcement liner to the PT containment ring and, for certain PT containment rings, adding scallops. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 10, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued AD CF-2013-33R1, dated November 14, 2013 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
There have been in-service events involving the perforation of PT6A small series engine cases as a result of the loss of integrity of Power Turbine (PT) Containment Rings under failure loads. Perforation of engine cases has been seen to result from the liberation of PT blades and from fracture/displacement of the PT Containment Ring itself.
P&WC has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-A1427, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2012. The SB describes procedures for reworking an affected PT containment ring by installing a reinforcement liner and, depending on the part number of the reworked ring, machining scallops into the ring.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by Transport Canada Civil Aviation and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require installing a reinforcement liner to the PT containment ring and, for
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,000 engines of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $1,655 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,910,000.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 10, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) turboprop engines as follows: all model PT6A-20, PT6A-20A, PT6A-20B, PT6A-25, PT6A-28, PT6A-34B, PT6A-36, and PT6A-135 engines; model PT6A-21 engines, serial number (S/N) PCE-25361 and earlier; model PT6A-25A engines, S/N PCE-48757 and earlier; model PT6A-25C engines, S/N PCE-26258 and earlier; model PT6A-27 engines, S/N PCE-42523 and earlier as well as all engines converted to PT6A-27; model PT6A-34 engines, S/N PCE-57303 and earlier as well as all engines converted to PT6A-34; model PT6A-34AG engines, S/N PCE-57312 and earlier as well as all engines converted to PT6A-34AG; model PT6A-114 engines, S/N PCE-17218 and earlier; and model PT6A-135A engines, S/N PCE-35089 and earlier.
This AD was prompted by in-service events involving the perforation of engine cases as a result of the liberation of power turbine (PT) blades and the fracture/displacement of the PT containment ring. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
(1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the existing PT containment ring. Use paragraph 3., Accomplishment Instructions, of P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-A1427, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2012, to make the modification.
If you modified the PT containment ring before the effective date of this AD using P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-A1427, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2012, or earlier versions, you have met the requirements of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Civil Aviation AD CF-2013-33R1, dated November 14, 2013, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-A1427, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2012, pertains to the subject of this AD and can be obtained from P&WC, using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; Internet:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a proposed administrative order to reclassify nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices, when used for cardiopulmonary and circulatory bypass, a preamendments class III device, into class II (special controls) and subject to premarket notification based on new information. FDA is also proposing to require the filing of a premarket approval application (PMA) or a notice of completion of a product development protocol (PDP) for nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices for temporary ventricular support. The Agency is also summarizing its proposed findings regarding the degree of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or reduced by requiring the devices to meet the statute's approval requirements when used for temporary ventricular support. In addition, FDA is announcing the opportunity for interested persons to request that the Agency change the classification of any of the devices mentioned in this document based on new information. This action implements certain statutory requirements.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this proposed order by April 7, 2014. FDA intends that, if a final order based on this proposed order is issued, anyone who wishes to continue to market nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices for temporary ventricular support will need to file a PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP within 90 days of the effective date of the final order. See section XVII of this document for the proposed effective date of any final order based on this proposed order.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1518, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
•
Angela Krueger, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1666, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6380,
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115), the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250), the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 108-214), the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85), and the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).
Under section 513 of the FD&C Act, devices that were in commercial distribution before the enactment of the 1976 amendments, May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as preamendments devices), are classified after FDA has: (1) Received a recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory committee); (2) published the panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device; and (3) published a final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.
Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices), are automatically classified by section 513(f) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
A preamendments device that has been classified into class III and devices found substantially equivalent by means of premarket notification (510(k)) procedures to such a preamendments device or to a device within that type may be marketed without submission of a PMA until FDA issues a final order under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket approval or until the device is subsequently reclassified into class I or class II.
Although, under the FD&C Act, the manufacturer of a class III preamendments device may respond to the call for PMAs by filing a PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP, in practice, the option of filing a notice of completion of a PDP has not been used. For simplicity, although corresponding
On July 9, 2012, FDASIA was enacted. Section 608(a) of FDASIA (126 Stat. 1056) amended section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, changing the process for reclassifying a device from rulemaking to an administrative order. Section 608(b) of FDASIA (126 Stat. 1056) amended section 515(b) of the FD&C Act, changing the process for requiring premarket approval for a preamendments class III device from rulemaking to an administrative order.
FDA is publishing this document to propose the reclassification of nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices for cardiopulmonary and circulatory bypass from class III to class II.
Section 513(e) of the FD&C Act governs reclassification of classified preamendments devices. This section provides that FDA may, by administrative order, reclassify a device based upon “new information.” FDA can initiate a reclassification under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act or an interested person may petition FDA to reclassify a preamendments device. The term “new information,” as used in section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, includes information developed as a result of a reevaluation of the data before the Agency when the device was originally classified, as well as information not presented, not available, or not developed at that time. (See, e.g.,
Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available authority (see
FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be considered in the reclassification process, the “valid scientific evidence” upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA. (See section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)).) Section 520(h)(4) of the FD&C Act, added by FDAMA, provides that FDA may use, for reclassification of a device, certain information in a PMA 6 years after the application has been approved. This can include information from clinical and preclinical tests or studies that demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of the device but does not include descriptions of methods of manufacture or product composition and other trade secrets.
Section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act sets forth the process for issuing a final order for reclassifying a device. Specifically, prior to the issuance of a final order reclassifying a device, the following must occur: (1) Publication of a proposed order in the
FDAMA added section 510(m) to the FD&C Act. Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that a class II device may be exempted from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if the Agency determines that premarket notification is not necessary to assure the safety and effectiveness of the device.
FDA is proposing to require PMAs for nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices for temporary ventricular support.
Section 515(b)(1) of the FD&C Act sets forth the process for issuing a final order requiring PMAs. Specifically, prior to the issuance of a final order requiring premarket approval for a preamendments class III device, the following must occur: (1) Publication of a proposed order in the
Section 515(b)(2) of the FD&C Act provides that a proposed order to require premarket approval shall contain: (1) The proposed order, (2) proposed findings with respect to the degree of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or reduced by requiring the device to have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP and the benefit to the public from the use of the device, (3) an opportunity for the submission of comments on the proposed order and the proposed findings, and (4) an opportunity to request a change in the classification of the device based on new information relevant to the classification of the device.
Section 515(b)(3) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA shall, after the close of the comment period on the proposed order, consideration of any comments received, and a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b) of the FD&C Act, issue a final order to require premarket approval or publish a document terminating the proceeding together with the reasons for such termination. If FDA terminates the proceeding, FDA is required to initiate reclassification of the device under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, unless the reason for termination is that the device is a banned device under section 516 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360f).
Under section 501(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(f)), a preamendments class III device may be commercially distributed without a PMA until 90 days after FDA issues a final order (or a final rule under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act if issued prior to the enactment of FDASIA) requiring premarket approval for the device, or 30 months after final classification of the device under section 513 of the FD&C Act, whichever is later. For nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices, the preamendments class III devices that are the subject of this proposal, the later of these two time periods is the 90-day period. Since these devices were classified in 1980, the 30-month period has expired (45 FR 7959, February 5, 1980). Therefore, if the proposal to require premarket approval for nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices for
Also, a preamendments device subject to the order process under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act is not required to have an approved investigational device exemption (IDE) (see part 812 (21 CFR part 812)) contemporaneous with its interstate distribution until the date identified by FDA in the final order requiring the filing of a PMA for the device. At that time, an IDE is required only if a PMA has not been filed. If the manufacturer, importer, or other sponsor of the device submits an IDE application and FDA approves it, the device may be distributed for investigational use. If a PMA is not filed by the later of the two dates, and the device is not distributed for investigational use under an IDE, the device is deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of section 501(f)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, and subject to seizure and condemnation under section 304 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 334) if its distribution continues. Other enforcement actions include, but are not limited to, the following: Shipment of devices in interstate commerce will be subject to injunction under section 302 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 332), and the individuals responsible for such shipment will be subject to prosecution under section 303 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 333). In the past, FDA has requested that manufacturers take action to prevent the further use of devices for which no PMA has been filed and may determine that such a request is appropriate for the class III devices that are the subject of this proposed order, if finalized.
In accordance with section 515(b) of the FD&C Act, interested persons are being offered the opportunity to request reclassification of nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices for temporary ventricular support.
A nonroller-type blood pump, also referred to as a nonroller-pump (NRP), is a prescription device that uses a method other than revolving rollers to pump blood. While the technologies utilized by NRPs which have been reviewed by the Agency to date include: (1) Centrifugal pumps and (2) catheter-based axial pumps, additional methods for blood propulsion can be anticipated in future devices.
To further delineate types of NRP devices and their intended uses, FDA proposes to rename the devices in this regulation for purposes of consistency and clarity. The term “NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary Bypass” will be used to designate blood pumps that use nonroller pump technology temporarily (i.e. <6 hours) to propel blood through a cardiopulmonary bypass circuit. The term “NRP Devices for Temporary Circulatory Bypass” will be used to designate blood pumps that utilize nonroller pump technology to provide temporary (i.e. <6 hours) circulatory bypass around a planned surgical disruption of the arterial and venous great vessels (i.e. aorta and vena cavae). The term “NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support” will be used to designate blood pumps that use nonroller pump technology (e.g. axial or centrifugal flow pumps) to provide temporary (i.e. <6 hours) support of ventricular function resulting from ongoing or anticipated episodes of immediately reversible myocardial dysfunction.
NRP devices in current use for temporary cardiopulmonary and circulatory bypass rely primarily upon centrifugal pump technology that utilizes a rotor to impart energy to the blood in an extracorporeal circuit through centrifugal forces. These pumps house an impeller, magnet, and housing bottom that fit into a drive unit. The motor drive unit holds the disposable blood pump and drives the rotor inside the blood pump with a magnet. These types of pumps have been used as part of an extracorporeal circuit, external to the body and in combination with an oxygenator, to provide cardiopulmonary support for periods lasting less than 6 hours. Additionally, centrifugal pumps can be used in isolation, external to the body but without an oxygenator, to provide temporary circulatory bypass around a planned disruption of the circulatory pathway necessary for open surgical procedures on the aorta or vena cava. Although all currently available devices rely on centrifugal forces to propel blood through these circuits, additional methods for blood propulsion can be anticipated in future devices. For all these future devices, the technology to propel blood as or more efficiently (i.e. adequate volume and with minimal trauma) compared with current technology will be essential in the evaluation for marketing authorization.
NRP devices that pump blood for the purpose of full or partial temporary (i.e. <6 hours) ventricular support may be divided into two broad categories: (1) Those where the temporary NRP device resides within the circulation, and 2) those where the temporary NRP device resides outside the circulation. NRP devices used for temporary ventricular support also typically require percutaneous placement of either catheters (which contain the pump device), or access cannulae. Either or both of these may be required to reside in and/or traverse one or more elements of the circulation (great vessels, valves, septa). Examples include catheter-based microaxial-type pumps comprising a pump motor, cannula, and catheter that connect to a console. Catheter-based microaxial-type pumps are not currently designed to be used with an oxygenator but are temporarily implanted within the heart or vasculature to provide cardiac support by supplementing the function of one or both ventricles, restoring forward flow, and/or allowing the ventricle to rest and repair by decreasing the work and energy demands secondary to ventricular unloading. Centrifugal pump circuits, where the NRP resides outside of the body, have also been used for this purpose following percutaneous placement of inflow and outflow cannulas into the appropriate chambers and vessels. Future development of other pump and cannula technologies to be used for the purpose of temporary ventricular support is anticipated.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule to classify these devices into class III (44 FR 13409, March 9, 1979), the Cardiovascular Device Classification Panel (the 1979 Panel) recommended that nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pumps be classified into class III because the device is life supporting and is potentially hazardous to life or health even when properly used. The 1979 Panel noted that the device is attached directly to the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit and is used in a clinical environment where excessive leakage current can be a serious hazard. The 1979 Panel further noted that the device is used with other devices in a system that may be hazardous if not satisfactorily assembled, used, or maintained. The 1979 Panel indicated that general controls alone would not
In 1987, FDA published a clarification by inserting language in the codified language stating that no effective date had been established for the requirement for premarket approval for nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pumps (52 FR 17732, May 11, 1987).
On July 6, 1993, FDA published a proposed rule to establish an effective date of requirement for premarket approval (i.e. call for PMAs) for nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pumps, and provided an opportunity to request a change in classification in the form of a reclassification petition (58 FR 36290). On July 21, 1993, FDA received a reclassification petition from manufacturers of these devices recommending reclassification to class II (special controls). On August 21, 1995, FDA convened the Circulatory System Devices Classification Panel (the 1995 Panel) to review the proposed reclassification and proposed special controls for nonroller-type cardiopulmonary blood pumps for use in cardiopulmonary bypass circuits for periods of up to 6 hours. Reclassification to class II with special controls was supported by the 1995 Panel for nonroller-type cardiopulmonary blood pumps for use in cardiopulmonary bypass circuits for periods of up to 6 hours. FDA did not issue a final regulation codifying the proposed reclassification. In 2004, the July 6, 1993, proposed rule (58 FR 36290) was withdrawn because the proposed rule was no longer considered a viable candidate for final action, due to the length of time that had elapsed since the proposed rule was issued (69 FR 68831, November 26, 2004).
In 2009, FDA published an order for the submission of information on nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pumps by August 7, 2009 (74 FR 16214, April 9, 2009). FDA received seven responses to that order from device manufacturers. All manufacturers recommended that nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pumps be reclassified to class II. The manufacturers stated that data available in the clinical literature, preclinical and clinical testing, additional knowledge and information regarding the clinical use of the devices, and the overall number of marketed devices provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of these devices.
As explained further in sections VII and XI of this document, a meeting of the Circulatory System Devices Panel (the 2012 Panel) took place December 6, 2012, to discuss whether nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices should be reclassified or remain in class III. The 2012 Panel recommended that nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices for cardiopulmonary and circulatory bypass be reclassified to class II with special controls, and nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices for temporary ventricular support remain in class III because the device is life-supporting and there was insufficient information to establish special controls for this use. FDA is not aware of new information that would provide a basis for a different recommendation or findings.
FDA is proposing that NRP devices used to propel blood within temporary (i.e. less than 6 hours) extracorporeal cardiopulmonary and circulatory bypass circuits be reclassified from class III to class II. In this proposed order, the Agency has identified special controls under section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act that, together with general controls applicable to the devices, would provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. Absent the special controls identified in this proposed order, general controls applicable to the device are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, in accordance with sections 513(e) and 515(i) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 860.130, based on new information with respect to the devices, and taking into account the public health benefit of the use of the device and the nature and known incidence of the risk of the device, FDA, on its own initiative, is proposing to reclassify NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass into class II. FDA believes that this new information is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed special controls can effectively mitigate the risks to health identified in the next section, and that these special controls, together with general controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass.
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Agency to exempt class II devices from premarket notification (510(k)) submission. FDA has considered NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass in accordance with the reserved criteria set forth in section 513(a) of the FD&C Act and decided that the device does require premarket notification. Therefore, the Agency does not intend to exempt this proposed class II device from premarket notification (510(k)) submission.
Because NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass can currently be marketed after receiving clearance of an application for premarket notification, and FDA is proposing to reclassify these devices as class II requiring clearance of an application for premarket notification, this order, if finalized, will not require a new premarket submission for NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass.
After considering available information, including the recommendations of the advisory committees (panels) for the classification of these devices, FDA has evaluated the risks to health associated with the use of NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass and determined that the following risks to health are associated with their use:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
If properly manufactured and used as intended, NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass can provide a treatment option for patients when used for cardiopulmonary bypass by providing propulsion of blood through cardiopulmonary bypass circuits or when used for circulatory bypass by allowing planned surgical disruptions of the circulation to avoid distal organ ischemia or venous hypertension. FDA believes NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass should be reclassified from class III to class II because special controls, in addition to general controls, can be established to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, and because general controls themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. In addition, there is now adequate effectiveness information sufficient to establish special controls to provide such assurance. FDA believes that the risks to health identified in section V associated with NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass can be mitigated with general and special controls. FDA has identified the risks to health in the table that follows, and the special controls to mitigate these identified risks.
Since the time of the 1979 Panel recommendation, sufficient evidence has been developed to support a reclassification of NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass to class II with special controls. FDA has been reviewing these devices for many years and their risks are well known. FDA conducted a comprehensive review of available literature for NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass. FDA's review found 18 studies, including 1 randomized controlled study (RCT), 1 meta-analysis, 4 cohort studies, and 12 case studies, which provided consistent evidence of the safety and effectiveness of NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary Bypass. Further, FDA's review found 23 studies related to NRP Devices for Temporary Circulatory Bypass, including studies related to both venovenous bypass and aortic procedures, which provided consistent evidence of the safety and effectiveness of NRP Devices for Temporary Circulatory Bypass.
The literature data support that the overall complication rates for NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary Bypass is similar to that of another class II device type, roller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pumps (21 CFR 870.4370). For example, a meta-analysis of 18 RCTs by Saczkowski et al. obtained pooled estimates for a number of clinical outcome measures (Ref. 1). This meta-analysis represented 1,868 adult patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass using either a roller pump (907) or a centrifugal pump (961), undergoing predominantly coronary bypass graft surgery (87 percent and 88 percent, respectively). Patients that underwent a cardiopulmonary bypass procedure either using NRPs or roller pumps had no differences in mortality (n = 1,080, odds ratio (OR): 1.05, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 0.58, 1.88), bleeding (mean difference: −10.26 mL, 95 percent CI: −54.28, 33.75), and blood transfusion (OR: 1.11, 95 percent CI: 0.64, 1.92) at the end of cardiopulmonary bypass or 1 day after the procedure. Similarly, no statistically significant differences were found on other safety endpoints reported (postoperative atrial fibrillation, cerebral damage, platelet count, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, hematocrit, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and neurologic outcomes). Additionally, Parolari et al. published a cohort study of 4,000 patients that demonstrated that patients that had cardiopulmonary bypass with either a centrifugal pump or a roller pump had the same in-hospital mortality (2 percent) (Ref. 2). Multivariate results showed that patients who underwent cardiopulmonary bypass with the centrifugal pump had a reduction in perioperative permanent neurological deficit and perioperative coma of 43 percent and 54 percent, respectively, compared to those patients that had a circuit utilizing a roller pump (p < 0.05).
The literature data also support the effectiveness of NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary Bypass. Based on FDA's analysis, the most common indicators of effectiveness were length of stay at the hospital, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and duration of intubation. In Saczkowski's meta-analysis (Ref. 1), no statistically significant differences were found between the NRPs and roller pumps' pooled estimates in intensive care unit length of stay and hospital length of stay. Intubation time among these patients ranged from 8 hours to more than 1 day. Similarly, Zirbel et al. did not find significant differences in a small cohort study in the hospital and ICU length of stay and intubation time among patients on cardiopulmonary bypass with a selected centrifugal pump as compared to those on a roller pump (Ref. 3).
The safety and effectiveness of NRPs Devices for Temporary Circulatory Bypass during surgical procedures on
The literature data outlined in this document support a conclusion of reasonable evidence for the safety and effectiveness of cardiopulmonary and circulatory bypass blood pump devices. In addition, bench studies designed to demonstrate the devices' ability to function as intended have been well characterized.
FDA's presentation to the 2012 Panel included a summary of the available safety and effectiveness information for NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass, including identified risks to health drawn from adverse event reports from FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database and available literature. Based on the available scientific literature, which supports that use of NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass may be beneficial for patients requiring cardiopulmonary or circulatory bypass, FDA recommended to the 2012 Panel that NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass be reclassified to class II (special controls). The 2012 Panel agreed with FDA's conclusion that the available scientific evidence is adequate to support the safety and effectiveness of NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass.
The 2012 Panel also acknowledged that NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass are life-supporting devices and provided the following rationale for recommending that NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass be reclassified to class II: (1) The available scientific evidence supports an adequate assurance of safety and effectiveness for the device; (2) there is evidence that the device provides hemodynamic support; and (3) the recommended special controls will mitigate the health risks associated with the device.
The 2012 Panel agreed with the identified risks to health presented at the meeting but also recommended that limb ischemia, access vessel injury, and dissection resulting in ischemia related to cardiopulmonary bypass access be considered in the risks to health. FDA agrees with the 2012 Panel's recommendation and modified the risks to health accordingly as outlined in section V of this document. Specifically, the definition of “inadequate tissue perfusion” was expanded to include these events. The 2012 Panel also agreed with FDA's proposed special controls outlined in section VIII of this document. The 2012 Panel transcript and other meeting materials are available on FDA's Web site (Ref. 10).
FDA believes that the following special controls, together with general controls, are sufficient to mitigate the risks to health described in section V of this document:
1. Nonclinical performance testing must provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness with respect to the operating parameters, dynamic blood damage, heat generation, air entrapment, mechanical integrity, and durability/reliability to perform as intended over the intended duration of use;
2. The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible;
3. Sterility and shelf-life testing must demonstrate the sterility of patient-contacting components and the shelf-life of these components; and
4. Labeling must include information regarding the duration of use and a detailed summary of the device- and procedure-related complications pertinent to use of the device.
NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary and Circulatory Bypass are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device. (Proposed 21 CFR 870.4360(a)(1); see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices)).
In accordance with section 515(b) of the FD&C Act, FDA is proposing to require that a PMA be filed with the Agency for NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support within 90 days after issuance of any final order based on this proposal. An applicant whose device was legally in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or whose device has been found to be substantially equivalent to such a device, will be permitted to continue marketing such class III devices during FDA's review of the PMA provided that the PMA is timely filed. FDA intends to review any PMA for the device within 180 days of the date of filing. FDA cautions that under section 515(d)(1)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act, the Agency may not enter into an agreement to extend the review period for a PMA beyond 180 days unless the Agency finds that “the continued availability of the device is necessary for the public health.”
An applicant whose device was legally in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or whose device has been found to be substantially equivalent to such a device, who does not intend to market such device for temporary ventricular support, and for which the device technology would allow such device to be used for cardiopulmonary or circulatory bypass, may remove such intended use from the device's labeling by initiating a correction within 90 days after issuance of any final order based on this proposal. Under 21 CFR part 806.10(a)(2) a device manufacturer or importer initiating a correction to remedy a violation of the FD&C Act that may present a risk to health is required to submit a written report of the correction to FDA.
FDA intends that under § 812.2(d), the preamble to any final order based on this proposal will state that, as of the date on which the filing of a PMA is required to be filed, the exemptions from the requirements of the IDE regulations for preamendments class III devices in § 812.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) will cease to apply to any device that is: (1) Not legally on the market on or before that date or (2) legally on the market on or before that date but for which a PMA is not filed by that date, or for which PMA approval has been denied or withdrawn.
If a PMA for a class III device is not filed with FDA within 90 days after the date of issuance of any final order requiring premarket approval for the device, the device would be deemed adulterated under section 501(f) of the FD&C Act. The device may be distributed for investigational use only if the requirements of the IDE regulations are met. The requirements for significant risk devices include submitting an IDE application to FDA
As required by section 515(b) of the FD&C Act, FDA is publishing its proposed findings regarding: (1) The degree of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or reduced by requiring that this device have an approved PMA when used for temporary ventricular support, and (2) the benefits to the public from the use of NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support. These findings are based on the reports and recommendations of the advisory committees (panels) for the classification of these devices along with information submitted in response to the 515(i) Order (74 FR 16214, April 9, 2009), and any additional information that FDA has obtained. Additional information regarding the risks as well as classification associated with this device type is discussed in Section XI of this order and can be found in 44 FR 13409, March 9, 1979; 45 FR 7959, February 5, 1980; 52 FR 17732, May 11, 1987; 58 FR 36290, July 6, 1993; and 69 FR 68831, November 26, 2004.
An NRP Device for Temporary Ventricular Support is a prescription device that uses any method resulting in blood propulsion to provide the temporary (i.e. ≤ 6 hours) ventricular assistance required for support of the systemic and/or pulmonary circulations during periods when there is ongoing or anticipated hemodynamic instability due to immediately reversible alterations in ventricular myocardial function resulting from mechanical or physiologic causes.
The use of NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support does not share the long history of use compared to NRP Devices for Temporary Cardiopulmonary or Circulatory Bypass. Temporary NRP devices, when used for cardiopulmonary or circulatory bypass, are integral to the underlying procedure (e.g., open heart surgery, resection of thoracic aneurysm) itself, making it both possible and safer. When used for temporary ventricular support, the NRP devices introduce the risk of both the blood pump and its access technology in procedures where a substantial portion of patient benefit is derived or thought to be derived from the avoidance of circulatory support or bypass, or from the safer performance of the underlying procedure (e.g., percutaneous coronary intervention, off pump coronary artery bypass). Based on FDA's review of available data, use of the device is associated with significant procedural risks. These risks do not appear to be balanced by a demonstrable clinical benefit. Specifically, based on FDA's review of the published literature, it appears that there are no completed studies regarding use of NRP devices that support the effectiveness for temporary ventricular support. Further, the 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (ACCF/AHA/SCAI) Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention assigned a class IIb, Level C recommendation to the use of temporary ventricular support devices for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. A Class IIb, level C indication means that the benefit may outweigh the risk and that the treatment or procedure may be considered. This recommendation's usefulness or efficacy is unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well established and is based only on diverging expert opinion, case studies, or standard of care (Ref. 11). When used for temporary ventricular support, FDA concludes that the safety and effectiveness of NRP devices have not been established by adequate scientific evidence. The benefit/risk profile for NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support indications is unknown. Further, safe and effective performance parameters for the class of devices have not been established by data. For these reasons, FDA does not believe sufficient information exists to establish special controls to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the devices.
FDA presented findings regarding NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support to the Circulatory System Devices Panel (the Panel) on December 6, 2012. The Panel recommended that available scientific evidence is not adequate to support the safety and effectiveness of NRP Devices Temporary Ventricular Support and that these devices fit the criteria necessary to remain in class III because (1) the devices are life-supporting and (2) insufficient information exists to determine that special controls would provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness for this use. As a result, the Panel concluded that NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support should remain in class III (subject to premarket approval application). The Panel transcript and other meeting materials are available on FDA's Web site (Ref. 11).
The risks to health for NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support include the risks outlined in section V as well as the following additional risks to health:
•
•
•
These additional risks to health are directly related to the NRP technology that, for temporary use, requires percutaneous placement of either a pump containing catheter or separate inflow and outflow cannulae into the heart or great vessels. For effective use, these pump containing catheters or access cannulae must either reside in and/or traverse one or more elements of the circulation (i.e. great vessels, valves, septa). In contrast, temporary NRP devices that are used as part of an extracorporeal cardiopulmonary bypass or circulatory bypass circuit do not present these risks to health since the actual NRP resides outside of the circulation, and the cannulae required for inflow and outflow are placed under direct visualization into the central circulation during an open surgical procedure without being required to traverse one or more cardiac chambers, septa, or valves for effective use.
As discussed previously, there is limited scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support. Because the benefits of NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support are unknown, it is impossible to estimate the direct effect of the devices on patient outcomes. However, NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support have the potential to benefit the public by providing cardiac support, improving hemodynamic stability, reducing myocardial workload and oxygen consumption, and increasing cardiac output. Their use may also allow initiation or completion of complex therapies, recovery of native ventricular function sufficient for weaning of the device, or bridging to more permanent therapies meant to provide long-term hemodynamic support.
A PMA for NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support must include the information required by section 515(c)(1) of the FD&C Act and include all data and information on: (1) Any risks known, or that should be reasonably known, to the applicant that have not been identified in this document; (2) the effectiveness of the device that is the subject of the application; and (3) full reports of all preclinical and clinical information from investigations on the safety and effectiveness of the device for which premarket approval is sought.
A PMA must include valid scientific evidence to demonstrate reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see § 860.7(c)(1)). In particular, a PMA for the device should discuss the benefits of the device in light of the risks identified in this document. Valid scientific evidence is “evidence from well-controlled investigations, partially controlled studies, studies and objective trials without matched controls, well-documented case histories conducted by qualified experts, and reports of significant human experience with a marketed device, from which it can fairly and responsibly be concluded by qualified experts that there is reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a device under its conditions of use. . . . Isolated case reports, random experience, reports lacking sufficient details to permit scientific evaluation, and unsubstantiated opinions are not regarded as valid scientific evidence to show safety or effectiveness.” (See § 860.7(c)(2)).
Before requiring the filing of a PMA for a device, FDA is required by section 515(b)(2)(D) of the FD&C Act to provide an opportunity for interested persons to request a change in the classification of the device based on new information relevant to the classification. Any proceeding to reclassify the device will be under the authority of section 513(e) of the FD&C Act.
A request for a change in the classification of NRP Devices for Temporary Ventricular Support is to be in the form of a reclassification petition containing the information required by 21 CFR 860.123, including new information relevant to the classification of the device.
Prior to the amendments by FDASIA, section 513(e) of the FD&C Act provided for FDA to issue regulations to reclassify devices and section 515(b) of the FD&C Act provided for FDA to issue regulations to require approval of an application for premarket approval for preamendments devices or devices found to be substantially equivalent to preamendments devices. Because sections 513(e) and 515(b) as amended require FDA to issue final orders rather than regulations, FDA will continue to codify reclassifications and requirements for approval of an application for premarket approval, resulting from changes issued in final orders, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Therefore, under section 513(e)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA, in this proposed order, we are proposing to revoke the requirements in 21 CFR 870.4360 related to the classification of nonroller-type cardiopulmonary bypass blood pump devices as class III devices and to codify the reclassification of nonroller-type cardiopulmonary and circulatory bypass blood pump devices into class II.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This proposed order refers to collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231. The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120. The effect of this order, if finalized, is to shift certain devices from the 510(k) premarket notification process to the PMA process. To account for this change, FDA intends to transfer some of the burden from OMB control number 0910-0120, which is the control number for the 510(k) premarket notification process, to OMB control number 0910-0231, which is the control number for the PMA process. As noted previously, FDA estimates that it will receive three new PMAs as a result of this order, if finalized. Based on FDA's most recent estimates, this will result in 1,038 hours burden increase to OMB control number 0910-0231. FDA also estimates that there will be three fewer 510(k) submissions as a result of this order, if finalized. Based on FDA's most recent estimates, this will result in a 136 hours burden decrease to OMB control number 0910-0120. Therefore, on net, FDA expects a burden hour increase of 901 hours due to this proposed regulatory change.
FDA is proposing that any final order based on this proposed order become effective 90 days after date of publication of the final order in the
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Medical devices, Cardiovascular devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 870 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(a)
(i) Full or partial cardiopulmonary bypass (i.e. circuit includes an oxygenator) during open surgical procedures on the heart or great vessels, or
(ii) Temporary circulatory bypass for diversion of flow around a planned disruption of the circulatory pathway necessary for open surgical procedures on the aorta or vena cava.
(2)
(i) Nonclinical performance testing must provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness with respect to the operating parameters, dynamic blood damage, heat generation, air entrapment, mechanical integrity, and durability/reliability to perform as intended over the intended duration of use;
(ii) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible;
(iii) Sterility and shelf-life testing must demonstrate the sterility of patient-contacting components and the shelf-life of these components; and
(iv) Labeling must include information regarding the duration of use, and a detailed summary of the device- and procedure-related complications pertinent to use of the device.
(b)
(2)
(c)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Justice proposes amending Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations to clarify definitions of two categories of persons who are prohibited from receiving, possessing, shipping, or transporting firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The proposed rule would clarify that the statutory term “adjudicated as a mental defective” includes persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, lack of mental responsibility, or insanity, and that the term includes persons found guilty but mentally ill. The Department recognizes that the term “mental defective” is outdated, but it is included in the statute and cannot be amended by regulation. The proposed amendments would further clarify that federal, state, local, and military courts are recognized lawful authorities that can find persons incompetent to stand trial or find them not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, lack of mental responsibility, or insanity. The proposed rule seeks public comments regarding whether the statutory term “adjudicated as a mental defective” includes an adjudication that occurred when the person was under the age of 18. This proposed rulemaking would also amend ATF regulations to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” applies to involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment. The proposed rule seeks public comments regarding whether the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes an involuntary commitment that occurred when the person was under the age of 18.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 7, 2014. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Standard Time on the last day of the comment period.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF 51P, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
George M. Fodor, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
The Attorney General has delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) the authority to enforce provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), codified in chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. 28 CFR 0.130(a). Regulations in 27 CFR part 478 implement provisions of the GCA.
Section 922(g) of the GCA prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce, possessing a firearm or ammunition in or affecting commerce, or receiving a firearm or ammunition that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) Is a fugitive from justice;
(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
(8) Is subject to certain types of court-issued protective orders; or
(9) Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
On September 6, 1996, ATF published in the
In response to the 1996 NRPM, ATF received a number of comments from the public and from federal and state agencies. Some comments suggested additional language to clarify the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” or included information not originally considered by ATF. Among the comments ATF received was a recommendation from the Department of Defense (DOD) that the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” be amended to specifically include “those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b [
ATF incorporated DOD's suggestion into its final rule published in the
The proposed definition in the 1996 NPRM of “committed to a mental institution” read as published at 61 FR 47098. No comments were received regarding this proposed definition, and the final rule contained this definition without change.
Congress amended the GCA in 2008 to provide that federal departments or agencies may not provide records of individuals “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution” to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) if:
(a) The adjudication or commitment was set aside or expunged, or the person was fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;
(b) The person was found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication or commitment, or was found to be rehabilitated; or
(c) The adjudication or commitment was based solely on a medical finding of disability, without any opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not otherwise been adjudicated as a mental defective under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
Persons granted relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or under a federal or state relief program described in section 101(c)(2)(A) or section 105 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) are not considered to have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
The Department proposes amending the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” in 27 CFR 478.11 to clarify that persons found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect are included in the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective.” The legislative history of the Gun Control Act indicates that Congress intended that the prohibition against the receipt and possession of firearms would apply broadly to “mentally unstable” or “irresponsible” persons.
The Department also proposes amending the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” in 27 CFR 478.11 by removing the reference to articles 50a and 72b of the UCMJ and adding “by a court in a criminal case” to clarify that the term includes federal, state, local and military courts that can find persons incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, lack of mental responsibility, or insanity. This proposal would clarify, rather than alter, the current meaning of the term.
As in the military judicial system, courts in the federal, state, and local judicial systems are responsible for finding individuals incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect, or lack of mental responsibility. Federal courts have authority to determine competency to stand trial as well as to issue special verdicts on the basis of a person's mental capacity at the time of the alleged crime. 18 U.S.C. 4241, 4242. Most states also have laws authorizing state courts to find a person either incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.
The Department also proposes amending the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” in 27 CFR 478.11 to clarify that the term includes those persons found guilty but mentally ill by a court in a criminal case in a jurisdiction that provides for such a finding. This addition to the definition would acknowledge the States that extend the guilty but mentally ill option to defendants who do not meet criteria for a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
State practices have varied regarding whether, for purposes of a NICS background check, commitments of persons under the age of 18 are treated as qualifying commitments to a mental institution and whether the term “adjudicated as a mental defective” includes an adjudication that occurred when the person was under the age of 18. Some States make these records available to the NICS database and others not. In addition, ATF has received inquiries from States seeking greater clarity as to whether these adjudications and commitments qualify. Therefore, we are seeking comment regarding whether individuals “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution” and therefore prohibited from receiving, possessing, shipping, or transporting firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 includes commitments or adjudications as a mental defective that occurred when the person was under the age of 18.
In addition, the Department proposes amending the definition of “committed to a mental institution” to clarify that involuntary commitment to a mental institution includes both inpatient and outpatient treatment. ATF has received inquiries as to whether the definition applies to involuntary outpatient treatment. Although the term “committed to a mental institution” is not defined in 18 U.S.C. 922, the plain language of the statute incorporates both inpatient and outpatient commitments as the statute requires commitment
Furthermore, ATF has received inquiries as to whether commitments of persons under the age of 18 are qualifying commitments to a mental institution. ATF is considering clarifying whether the term “committed to a mental institution” includes a commitment that occurred when the person was under the age of 18. ATF seeks comments on this option and solicits recommendations for other approaches.
Persons are not considered to have been “committed to a mental institution” as a result of a voluntary
Furthermore, persons granted relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or under a federal or state relief program described in section 101(c)(2)(A) or section 105 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) are not considered to have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), section 1(b) (“The Principles of Regulation”), and Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”). The Department has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and accordingly this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. However, this proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor would it 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. Accordingly, this proposed rule is not an economically significant rulemaking action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
Further, the Department has assessed both costs and benefits of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866, section 1(b)(6), and has made a reasoned determination that the benefits of this proposed rule would justify the costs. The Department believes that the costs that would be associated with compliance with this proposed rule are minimal. A few States may incur added costs to provide the additional records to NICS. However, the proposed rule helpfully would clarify the statutory terms “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” to prevent the unlawful possession or transfer of firearms to prohibited persons. In addition, as stated above, the Department is seeking comment regarding whether the terms “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution” includes adjudications as a mental defective or commitments that occurred when the person was under the age of 18. Explicitly including such adjudications or commitments within the definitions of these terms may result in state entities providing additional records to the NICS that may affect future NICS background checks and may have public safety benefits. The Department seeks input from the public for assessing the costs and benefits of explicitly including such adjudications or commitments within the definitions of these terms.
The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”), the Attorney General has determined that the proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (“Civil Justice Reform”).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This proposed rule would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This proposed rule does not contain any new or revisions to existing “collection[s] of information” as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF asks specifically for comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments must reference this document docket number (ATF 51P), be legible, and include the commenter's name and complete mailing address. ATF will treat all comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments.
Comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.
Comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be available for public viewing at ATF and on the Internet as part of the eRulemaking initiative, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Any material that the commenter considers to be inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not be included in the comment. Any person submitting a comment shall specifically designate that portion (if any) of his comments that contains material that is confidential under law (
Submit comments in one of three ways:
•
•
(1) Be legible and appear in a minimum 12 point type (.17 inches);
(2) Be on 8
(3) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(4) Be no more than five pages long. ATF will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages.
•
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director of ATF within the 90-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.
Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received will be available for public inspection through the Federal eGovernment portal,
The author of this document is George M. Fodor, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and ammunition, Authority delegations, Customs duties and inspection, Domestic violence, Exports, Imports, Law enforcement personnel, Military personnel, Nonimmigrant aliens, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, and Transportation.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR Part 478 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921-931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
Adjudicated as a mental defective.
(a) A determination, order, or similar finding by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to self or others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.
(b) The term shall include—
(1) Those persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect, or lack of mental responsibility by a court in a criminal case;
(2) Those persons found guilty but mentally ill by a court in a criminal case in a jurisdiction that provides for such a finding; and
(3) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial by a court in a criminal case.
(c) The term shall not include—
(1) Any person adjudicated by a department or agency of the Federal Government, if any of the conditions of section 101(c)(1) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 apply; or
(2) Any person who has been adjudicated and subsequently received relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or under a program authorized by section 101(c)(2) or section 105(a) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.
Committed to a mental institution.
(a) A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes an involuntary commitment to a mental institution for inpatient or outpatient treatment. The term includes an involuntary commitment for mental defectiveness,
(b) The term does not include a person in a mental institution solely for observation or evaluation, a voluntary admission to a mental institution, or voluntary outpatient treatment. The term shall not include any person so committed by a department or agency of the Federal Government, if any of the conditions of section 101(c)(1) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 apply, or any person who has received relief from disabilities under a program authorized by section 101(c)(2) or section 105(a) of that Act or under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
OSHA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule entitled, “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses,” which would amend the recordkeeping regulations to add requirements for the electronic submission of injury and illness records
The comment period for the proposed rule published November 8, 2013, at 78 FR 67254, is extended. Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by March 8, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023, by any one of the following methods:
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available on
Electronic copies of this
On November 8, 2013, OSHA published a proposed rule to revise its regulation on Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting (Recordkeeping) (78 FR 67254). The proposal would amend the recordkeeping regulations to add requirements for the electronic submission of injury and illness information employers are already required to keep under OSHA's regulations for recording and reporting occupational injuries and illnesses. The proposal set a February 6, 2014 deadline for submitting written comments.
OSHA has received a request from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) to extend the comment period an additional 90 days. NAHB's reasons for requesting an extension include the overlap with the proposed crystalline silica rulemaking, which will also affect the construction industry. Further, the request stated that informing home builders and coordinating their responses will take time and effort beyond the 90 days provided.
OSHA has decided to extend the deadline for submitting comments to March 8, 2014, which provides stakeholders an additional 30 days. The extension ensures that stakeholders will have a full 120 days to submit comments, which OSHA believes is adequate for this limited rulemaking. The extension also ensures that stakeholders who attend the January 9, 2014, public meeting on the proposed rule will have an opportunity to incorporate into their comments their views on relevant information presented at the meeting.
This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under the authority of Sections 8 and 24 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657, 673), 5 U.S.C. 553, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 41-2012 (77 FR 3912).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Division of Air Resources Management, to EPA on December 19, 2013. The SIP revision modifies FDEP's New Source
Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0760 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
For information regarding the Florida SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404) 562-9352; email address:
On December 19, 2013, FDEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA for approval into the Florida SIP to adopt rules equivalent to Federal requirements for NSR PSD permitting. The SIP revision consists of changes to the FDEP Air Quality Regulations, at Chapter 62-210, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.),
This section briefly summarizes EPA's GHG-related actions that provide the background for this action. Please see the preambles for the identified GHG-related rulemakings for more information.
Beginning in 2010, EPA promulgated a series of actions pertaining to the regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part are distinct from one another, established the overall framework for today's proposed action on the Florida SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly called, the “Endangerment Finding” and “Cause or Contribute Finding,” (which EPA issued in a single final action);
In the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA requested that permitting authorities confirm whether their SIPs provide authority to implement the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds.
On September 2, 2010, EPA issued proposed findings of substantial inadequacy
In December 2010, EPA promulgated additional rulemakings to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had SIP-approved PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA finalized the findings of substantial inadequacy and GHG SIP call
FDEP, along with several other state and local permitting authorities, did not submit a corrective SIP revision to apply its PSD program to sources of GHG by the specified deadline cited in the SIP call. Therefore on December 29, 2010,
In the June 3, 2010, GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA established a phased-in approach to implementing CAA permitting requirements to regulate GHG-emitting sources through the PSD program (referred to as Steps 1 and 2).
In the Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA also finalized an approach to assist state and local permitting authorities in streamlining the administration of PSD permits for GHGs through the PALs.
This section summarizes EPA's analysis of the changes being proposed for inclusion into the Florida SIP. Chapter 62-210, F.A.C. entitled “
Florida's NSR permitting program is based on the application of the term “
Under EPA's PSD program, “
Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP submission revises the definition of “
As Florida mentions in its December 19, 2013, SIP submission, its amendment to “
As explained in today's proposed notice, Florida is subject to the FIP for PSD permitting of GHG emissions. EPA remains the sole PSD permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources in Florida until EPA finalizes its proposed approval of the December 19, 2013, SIP revision into the Florida SIP. EPA proposes that upon finalization of Florida's GHG SIP revision, EPA will rescind the GHG PSD FIP for Florida at 40 CFR 52.37.
As part of Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP revision, Florida included a GHG PSD Permit Transition Plan.
In order to promote an orderly transition of the GHG PSD program from the EPA to Florida, the efficient use of Florida's and EPA's resources, and certainty for the regulated community and the public, and consistent with FDEP's proposed GHG PSD permit transition plan, EPA proposes to retain PSD permit implementation authority (under 40 CFR 52.21) for pending applications, draft permits, and final permits for which final agency action has not been taken or for which all administrative and judicial appeals processes pursuant to 40 CFR 124 (including any associated remand actions) have not been completed by the effective date of EPA's final action to approve FDEP's SIP submittal. FDEP would assume full responsibility for the administration and implementation of such GHG PSD permits immediately upon notification from EPA that all administrative and judicial appeals processes and any associated remand actions have been completed or concluded for any such permit application. Applicants with pending GHG PSD permit applications before EPA, including those for which EPA has proposed draft permits or issued final permits that have not yet become effective or have not yet completed the appeals processes pursuant to 40 CFR part 124, may elect to withdraw their applications from EPA and resubmit to FDEP for review and processing. Upon the effective date of EPA's final action to approve the SIP submittal, FDEP will immediately assume full responsibility for new GHG PSD applications for Florida sources. As such, new applications will be submitted to and processed by FDEP's Division of Air Resource Management.
Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP submission amends the State's definition of “
In addition, EPA is proposing that upon finalization of Florida's GHG SIP revision, EPA will rescind the Florida GHG FIP at 40 CFR 52.37. EPA notes that finalization of this portion of today's proposal may follow our finalized approval of the SIP revisions via a separate Administrator-signed action. EPA remains the sole PSD permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources in Florida until EPA finalizes its proposed approval of the December 19, 2013, SIP revision into the Florida SIP.
EPA's approval of Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP revision includes approval of FDEP's GHG PSD Permit Transition Plan, under which EPA will transfer existing EPA-issued GHG permits for Florida sources to Florida for administration and enforcement. EPA proposes to retain PSD permit implementation authority (under 40 CFR 52.21) for pending GHG permit applications, draft permits, and final permits for which final agency action has not been taken or for which all administrative and judicial appeals processes pursuant to 40 CFR part 124 (including any associated remand actions) have not been completed by the effective date of EPA's final action to approve Florida's SIP submittal. Florida would assume full responsibility for the administration and implementation of such GHG PSD permits immediately upon notification from EPA that all administrative and judicial appeals processes and any associated remand actions have been completed or concluded for any such permit application.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP revision is consistent with EPA's PSD regulations for GHG-emitting sources as promulgated in the GHG Tailoring Rule, Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule and section 110 of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the GHG PSD permitting revision into the Florida SIP.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
• are not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse Gas, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or “the Department”) is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking to modify the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to expressly permit certain HIPAA covered entities to disclose to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of individuals who are subject to a Federal “mental health prohibitor” that disqualifies them from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The NICS is a national system maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct background checks on persons who may be disqualified from receiving firearms based on federally prohibited categories or State law. Among the persons subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor are individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise have been determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease. Under this proposal, only covered entities with lawful authority to make adjudication or commitment decisions that make individuals subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of information for NICS reporting purposes, would be permitted to disclose the information needed for these purposes. This disclosure would be restricted to limited demographic and certain other information and would not include medical records, or any mental health information beyond the indication that the individual is subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. HHS notes that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed clarifications to the regulatory definitions relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor. The DOJ proposal is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Submit comments on or before March 10, 2014.
Written comments may be submitted through any of the methods specified below. Please do not submit duplicate comments.
•
•
•
Andra Wicks, 202-205-2292.
On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama announced 23 executive actions aimed at curbing gun violence across the nation. Those actions include efforts by the Federal government to strengthen the national background check system, and a specific commitment to “[a]ddress unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent States from making information available to the background check system.” The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is the system used to determine whether a potential firearms recipient is statutorily prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm. The Department developed this NPRM to propose a modification to the HIPAA Privacy Rule to permit certain covered entities to disclose to the NICS the identities of persons who are not allowed to possess or receive a firearm because they are subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. The Department, through this NPRM, is soliciting public input on various issues, including whether it should modify the HIPAA Privacy Rule to permit covered entities to disclose to the NICS the identities of persons prohibited by State law from possessing or receiving a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159, and its implementing regulations, are designed to prevent the transfer of firearms by licensed dealers to individuals who are not allowed to possess or receive them as a result of restrictions contained in either the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 44), or State law. The Gun Control Act identifies several categories (known as “prohibitors”) of individuals
The Brady Act established the NICS to help enforce these prohibitions, as well as State law prohibitions on the possession or receipt of firearms.
The potential transfer of a firearm from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) to a prospective buyer proceeds as follows: First, the prospective buyer is required to provide personal information on a Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473). Unless the prospective buyer has documentation that he or she qualifies for an exception to the NICS background check
Although FFLs are required in most cases to request a background check through the NICS before transferring a firearm to a prospective buyer,
The Privacy Rule, promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Title II, Subtitle F—Administrative Simplification, Public Law 104-191, establishes federal protections to ensure the privacy and security of protected health information and establishes an array of individual rights with respect to one's own health information. HIPAA applies to covered entities, which include health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that conduct certain standard transactions (such as billing insurance) electronically. HIPAA covered entities may only use and disclose protected health information with the individual's written authorization, or as otherwise expressly permitted or required by the HIPAA Privacy Rule.
The Privacy Rule seeks to balance individuals' privacy interests with important public policy goals including public health and safety. In doing so, the Privacy Rule allows, subject to certain conditions and limitations, uses and disclosures of protected health information without individuals' authorization for certain law enforcement purposes, to avert a serious threat to health or safety, and where required by State or other law, among other purposes. See 45 CFR 164.512.
As stated above, individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor are ineligible to purchase a firearm because they have been “committed to a mental institution” or “adjudicated a mental defective”, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). DOJ regulations define these categories to include persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for reasons such as mental illness or drug use; have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise have been adjudicated by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or unable to manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.
However, because of the variety of State laws, there may be State agencies, boards, commissions, or other lawful authorities outside the court system that are involved in some involuntary commitments or mental health adjudications that make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. Moreover, we understand that some States have designated repositories to collect and report to the
Even in circumstances where records are subject to HIPAA—for example, where the record of an involuntary commitment or mental health adjudication originates with a HIPAA covered entity, or the HIPAA covered entity is the State repository for such records—there are ways in which the Privacy Rule permits the reporting to the NICS. In particular, the Privacy Rule permits the covered entity to disclose the information to the NICS to the extent the State has enacted a law requiring (not merely authorizing) such reporting.
However, many States still are not reporting to the NICS essential information on persons prohibited from possessing firearms for reasons related to mental health. Thus, concerns have been raised that the HIPAA Privacy Rule's restrictions on covered entities' disclosures of protected health information may be preventing certain States from reporting the relevant information to the NICS. Further, in July 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported to Congress on the results of a survey of six States that it had assessed as part of a performance audit of the progress made by DOJ and the States in implementing the NIAA.
On April 23, 2013, the Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting public input on these issues (78 FR 23872). The ANPRM explained that the Department was considering creating an express permission in the HIPAA Privacy Rule for reporting information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor to the NICS by those HIPAA covered entities responsible for involuntary commitments or the adjudications that would subject individuals to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that are otherwise designated by the States to report to the NICS. In the ANPRM, the Department indicated that such an amendment might produce clarity regarding the Privacy Rule and help make it as simple as possible for States to report the identities of such individuals to the NICS.
The ANPRM stated that, in crafting the elements of an express permission, the Department would consider limiting the information to be disclosed to the minimum information necessary for NICS purposes, such as the names of the individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, demographic information such as dates of birth, and codes identifying the reporting entity and the relevant prohibitor. We indicated that the NICS does not include, and we would not consider permitting the disclosure of, an individual's treatment record or any other clinical or diagnostic information for this purpose. In addition, we would consider permitting disclosures for NICS purposes only by those covered entities that order involuntary commitments, perform relevant mental health adjudications, or are otherwise designated as State repositories for NICS reporting purposes.
To inform our efforts to address any issues in this area, we requested comments on a series of questions concerning the nature and scope of the problem of underreporting. The questions included:
• The nature and extent of States' participation in NICS reporting;
• To what extent HIPAA is perceived as a barrier to reporting, and specific examples of situations in which reporting to the NICS is hindered by HIPAA requirements;
• Steps States may have taken to address HIPAA challenges for reporting, including any statutory or regulatory changes at the State level;
• Whether States had designated any HIPAA covered agencies as repositories of information for NICS reporting purposes and, if so, how the States have addressed HIPAA requirements while reporting;
• Whether certain HIPAA covered entities in the States have authority to order involuntary commitments or perform other adjudications that make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor;
• Whether additional, non-HIPAA related barriers to reporting exist;
• Whether there are privacy protections in place for data collected for NICS reporting purposes, and whether or how State public records laws would apply to the information;
• Whether creating an express permission would have implications for treatment, and whether there would be ways to mitigate any unintended consequences of creating such a permission; and
• How HHS could disseminate information or provide additional guidance on the HIPAA Privacy Rule to address confusion about HIPAA that may affect reporting to the NICS.
We requested comments from all stakeholders on these issues, including HIPAA covered entities; agencies of State, territorial, and tribal governments; law enforcement officials; individuals; and consumer advocates and groups.
The Department received over 2,050 comments in response to the ANPRM. Commenters included individuals, State agencies, health care providers, professional organizations, consumer advocacy groups, and other stakeholders.
Individuals generally expressed concern that the NICS, the Federal mental health prohibitor, and the contemplated HIPAA permission, would infringe on their Second Amendment right to bear arms and the right to be afforded due process of law under the U.S. Constitution
Many individual commenters, as well as health care providers, organizations representing providers, and consumer advocacy groups, emphasized the importance of protecting individuals' health information privacy and raised concerns regarding the possible adverse consequences an express permission could have on the patient-provider treatment relationship and individuals' willingness to seek needed mental health care. Other commenters supported the proposal as removing a perceived barrier to an important and necessary public safety measure. Four State agencies and several organizations representing State officials and State-based professional organizations responded to the specific questions in the ANPRM regarding how NICS reporting occurs in those specific States and their perceptions of HIPAA-related barriers or other challenges related to NICS reporting. We discuss these comments, along with others, in more detail below.
As noted above, a majority of individual commenters voiced general concern that NICS reporting would lead to infringements on individuals' rights to bear arms and to receive due process of law under the Constitution. Some commenters voiced opposition to any restriction on their right to bear arms.
Many commenters raised concerns with the Federal mental health prohibitor category itself. Some, while supportive of the general proposition that individuals who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others should not have access to firearms, expressed concern that the Federal mental health prohibitor was overly broad and would result in individuals being reported to the NICS Index who do not pose a threat to society. A number of these commenters expressed concern regarding the standard used to determine whether individuals should be reported to the NICS, including those adjudicated as “lack[ing] the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” under 27 CFR 478.11. Several commenters were especially concerned that the prohibitor might include individuals who are adjudicated as temporarily unable to independently manage their Veterans or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.
Further, many commenters asserted that mental illness is not an effective predictor of gun violence, and that there is no direct correlation between reporting individuals with mental illnesses to the NICS Index and a reduction in gun violence. Several commenters added that studies have shown that individuals with mental disorders are more likely to be the victims of violent crime by others than the perpetrators. In addition, some commenters specifically objected to individuals that fall within the Federal mental health prohibitor being reported to the NICS on the grounds that the NICS is a “criminal” database.
Many commenters expressed concerns about whether individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor receive due process. For example, many individuals were concerned that an individual would be reported to the NICS without a formal adjudication through the judicial system. A few commenters argued that any determination that would subject an individual to the Federal mental health prohibitor should include a review by one or more mental health professionals. In general, commenters urged the Department to allow reporting of only those involuntary commitments that involve due process of law.
State officials and many other commenters emphasized the importance of establishing mechanisms to remove an individual's name from the NICS when the basis for their inclusion no longer applies. Some of these commenters also expressed concern about the difficulty, including the cost and time involved, of getting an erroneous submission removed from the NICS database. Several commenters noted that individuals whose conditions or circumstances change would not have a process to seek removal from the NICS.
A few commenters suggested that, in addition to the minimum information currently needed to report an individual to the NICS, covered entities should also be permitted to disclose the date of the disqualifying event. This, they asserted, would make it easier for individuals to determine whether the report was made erroneously.
We acknowledge the concerns of these commenters. However, this proposed rule would not affect the scope of the NICS or the Federal mental health prohibitor. Rather, the rule is intended to address perceptions that HIPAA creates a barrier to entities reporting information to the NICS. More specifically, it would create a way in which covered entities involved in reporting or collecting NICS data may disclose, consistent with the Privacy Rule, the information needed for NICS reporting. It will not expand the categories of prohibited persons or modify other Federal or State laws pertaining to firearms purchases, but would be limited to those covered entities that currently perform the adjudications that make individuals subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that collect information regarding such adjudications on behalf of a State.
Further, the Department clarifies that the proposed HIPAA permission for NICS reporting would be limited to reporting of individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, as defined in Federal law and regulations. DOJ regulations state that this would not include individuals in a mental institution for observation or admitted voluntarily. See 27 CFR 478.11 (Definitions).
We acknowledge the commenters' concerns with respect to opportunities for remediation and note that individuals who believe they are wrongly denied the purchase of a firearm can visit
Health agencies from three States responded to the ANPRM's specific questions regarding NICS reporting in those States. An official from the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services explained that a HIPAA covered State agency had been responsible for reporting to the NICS until 2009, when a new State law transferred reporting responsibility to the State's Administrative Office of the Courts. Officials from the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services stated that non-HIPAA covered entities in those States are responsible for reporting to the NICS (the State Bureau of Investigation and the county Clerks of Court, respectively). Three of the State agency commenters added that entities in their States also do not experience any other, non-HIPAA related, barriers to reporting to the NICS.
Two of the State agency commenters agreed with our statement in the ANPRM that creating an express permission in HIPAA for disclosures to the NICS would resolve any perceived ambiguity and be generally beneficial. Several other commenters agreed, and asserted that an individual's right to the privacy of his or her medical records should not be placed ahead of the safety and welfare of the population as a whole. A few commenters noted that HIPAA was intended to protect the privacy of individuals' health information, not to protect individuals from being identified as potential threats to others.
In addition, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence reported that, while a majority of States have enacted laws relating to reporting information to the NICS or a State repository, HIPAA continues to be cited as a perceived barrier to reporting to the NICS in a number of States. This commenter suggested that the perception of a barrier may arise because HIPAA's permission for uses and disclosures that are required by law would not permit HIPAA covered entities to disclose information for NICS purposes in States that have enacted laws authorizing, but not requiring, such reporting. Further complicating disclosures to the NICS, according to this commenter, is the fact that at least eleven States rely, at least in part, on a mental health facility to report information on individuals in a prohibited category. This commenter reported that all of those States have statutes requiring such reporting, but noted that some of the State laws only require reporting to State repositories, and not to the NICS database. Finally, the National Center for State Courts asserted that reporting to the NICS by entities in a State's judicial system can be challenging due to varying interpretations as to whether or when HIPAA may affect such reporting. This commenter felt an express permission under HIPAA would help resolve this perceived ambiguity.
Some commenters agreed that, if a permission were created, HIPAA's minimum necessary provisions should apply to any disclosures for reporting to the NICS database. These commenters appreciated the Department's assurance that an individual's treatment record, or any other clinical or diagnostic information, is not needed for the NICS, and we would not consider permitting the disclosure of such information under a proposed rule.
In addition, several commenters urged that any HIPAA exception be limited to reporting of “commitments” as defined by 27 CFR 478.11, as these commenters noted, there exists a great variance under State law as to what constitutes a commitment. Several commenters requested clarification on what constitutes a commitment under the Federal mental health prohibitor. One commenter specifically urged the Department to not amend the HIPAA Privacy Rule until the DOJ revises the Gun Control Act regulations to clarify the standards under which an individual becomes subject to a statutory prohibitor.
A number of commenters argued that the proposed permission was unnecessary, some agreeing with the ANPRM's statement that HIPAA's existing permissions (e.g., for uses and disclosures required by State law) largely permit NICS reporting to take place. However, it should be noted that several commenters expressed, and thus may have based their comments on, the misconception that the Privacy Rule's permission to disclose for public health purposes, law enforcement purposes, or to prevent a serious and imminent threat, currently allow for disclosures to the NICS. As we noted in the ANPRM, NICS reporting would not be consistent with the conditions the HIPAA Privacy Rule places on such uses and disclosures. See conditions listed at 45 CFR 164.512(b), (f), and (j).
Many commenters believed a change to the Privacy Rule to be unnecessary because the information generally is reported to the NICS by non-HIPAA covered entities. One commenter pointed out that, even in States that allow mental health providers to commit individuals without prior adjudication, in which case a HIPAA covered provider might be the sole possessor of certain information related to the Federal mental health prohibitor, such information eventually must be shared with the court system, usually within a designated timeframe. This commenter and others argued that it would be more appropriate for a court system, rather than providers, to report information for NICS purposes. A few commenters suggested that, where records relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor are not available to a judicial agency, another State agency or a State's Office of Attorney General should be responsible for reporting.
Some commenters were opposed to the creation of any express permission. Many mental health advocates and individual commenters voiced concern that an express HIPAA permission for reporting to the NICS information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor would reinforce and exacerbate the stigma surrounding mental illness. In addition, many commenters expressed concern that creating an express permission to disclose information for NICS purposes would harm the patient-provider relationship and discourage some individuals from seeking needed mental health treatment, due to fear that their doctor might disclose otherwise confidential communications about particularly sensitive information, such as mental health treatment information. Some commenters expressed particular concern that a change to the Privacy Rule would adversely affect veterans by deterring individuals with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health issues from seeking mental health services for fear of losing their firearms.
After considering the comments we received, we agree that the creation of an express permission in the HIPAA Privacy Rule to disclose information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor for NICS purposes is
It is important to note that a mental health diagnosis does not, in itself, make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, which requires an involuntary commitment or adjudication that the individual poses a danger to self or others or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs. For example, with respect to the Federal mental health prohibitor, concerns about veterans being reported to the NICS based solely on a diagnosis of PTSD are misplaced. Still, we acknowledge commenters' concerns about possible detrimental effects of an express NICS disclosure provision on individuals' relationships with their health care providers, or on individuals' willingness to seek care in the first place. We agree that encouraging individuals to obtain appropriate treatment is critical to both individuals' health and the public's safety. Therefore, we have narrowly drawn this proposed permission such that it would not apply to the vast majority of treating health care providers, who do not perform the formal involuntary commitments or other adjudications that make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, and do not serve as repositories of information about such commitments and adjudications. Those health care providers do not report to the NICS currently and this would not change under the proposed rule.
The Department has carefully tailored the proposed permission to generally apply to entities that are not directly involved in treatment to minimize any potential adverse unintended consequences, such as discouraging individuals from seeking mental health treatment due to concerns that their provider might report them to the NICS. Instead, as we explain more fully below in the description of the rule, only those HIPAA covered entities that conduct the involuntary commitments or other adjudications that make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of information about such adjudications, would be permitted to rely on the proposed express permission to disclose information for NICS reporting purposes.
The Department is soliciting comment on whether the permission should instead be broad enough to also include reporting of persons to the NICS who are subject to State firearm prohibitions, in light of the many State laws that restrict firearms possession for mental health related reasons. It is possible that extending the permission in this way would expand the number of potential reporting entities to include more covered entities that provide treatment. We describe the potential implications of expanding the scope of the permission to include State law prohibitors more fully below.
In addition, the proposed provision would permit those entities to disclose only the minimum necessary information for NICS reporting purposes. NICS does not access or maintain diagnostic or clinical information, so such information would not be considered the minimum necessary. The Department is soliciting comment on whether to permit the disclosure of certain additional identifying information (but not to include diagnostic or clinical information) that would help the NICS make accurate matches or rule out matches based on the additional information. These additional identifiers are discussed below in the description of the proposed rule.
We believe that the proposed change would appropriately protect and preserve individuals' privacy interests, the patient-provider relationship, and the public's health and safety. We emphasize that most covered entities, including treating providers who do not also perform formal involuntary commitments or other adjudications that make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, as well as business associates, will not be disclosing information about individuals directly to the NICS under this proposal. We expect most reporting to continue to be done by the judicial system. However, where the judicial system lacks the information needed, or where the judicial system is not the appropriate entity to report individuals to the NICS, this proposal, if finalized, will give States and covered entities additional flexibility to ensure accurate information is reported to the NICS.
A few commenters requested information on whether information in the NICS can be accessed by government officials for purposes other than firearm purchase background checks. In addition, some commenters raised concerns regarding the privacy and security protections afforded to information reported to the NICS, including protections for that information when held by States and while in transit.
The relevant regulations permit NICS background checks in conjunction with the transfer of a firearm, issuance of firearm or explosives permits or licenses, as well as in conjunction with ATF civil or criminal law enforcement investigations relating to the Gun Control Act or National Firearms Act. See 28 CFR 25.6(j).
The DOJ regulations make clear that FFLs can initiate NICS background checks only in connection with a firearm transaction requiring a NICS background check. FFLs are prohibited from initiating a query to the NICS for any other purpose. Further, when an individual prohibited from possessing a firearm attempts to obtain a firearm from an FFL, the FFL receives a response indicating only that the transfer has been denied or delayed pending further review, but does not have access to information about the applicable prohibitor or any other additional information regarding the reason for the delay or denial.
With respect to the privacy and security of information reported for NICS purposes, the DOJ has established policies and procedures for ensuring the privacy and security of NICS data in its possession, including physical security and safeguards, such as access restrictions. Further, the DOJ requires State and local law enforcement agencies involved in conducting background checks to observe certain security policies and procedures when processing NICS background checks.
Finally, in response to a question in the ANPRM about the confidentiality of information that has been collected by a repository for NICS reporting, several commenters, including officials from North Carolina, Washington, and
Several commenters recommended better tracking of firearms and better enforcement of existing laws in place of a HIPAA modification. Other commenters urged the Department to focus on improving the current mental health care system in order to reduce gun violence associated with mental illness.
The Department continues to support efforts by the Administration to dispel stigmas relating to mental illness and to encourage individuals to seek voluntary mental health treatment. With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans who did not previously have coverage will receive coverage for mental health services. Additionally, the Administration has improved access to mental health services for veterans and has supported initiatives to train more mental health professionals and help educators recognize students showing signs of mental illness and refer them to appropriate services.
Several commenters requested clarification on whether disclosures for NICS reporting under the proposed rule would be limited to the Federal mental health prohibitor or if covered entities could disclose protected health information related to any of the Federal prohibitors under the Gun Control Act. Some other commenters recommended that the Department amend the HIPAA Privacy Rule to expressly permit such reporting with respect to all of the Federal prohibitors. A few commenters also urged the Department to extend any express permission under the HIPAA Privacy Rule for NICS reporting to include prohibitor categories that State laws have enacted, which may extend beyond the Federal prohibitors. Some commenters suggested creating a provision permitting reporting related to other factors they perceive as associated with gun violence, such as domestic violence and substance abuse.
The Department does not propose to expand the proposed permission to apply to information about individuals who are subject to the other prohibitors listed at 18 U.S.C. 922. HIPAA covered entities are unlikely to have information related to the other Federal prohibitors, with the possible exception of the drug use prohibitor, for which we understand criminal records to be the primary source of information for the NICS. We note that, to the extent that individuals' drug use results in their being involuntarily committed, those individuals would be subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor and this proposed permission would apply.
Some States have enacted their own laws prohibiting the possession or receipt of firearms for reasons related to mental health and may prohibit the purchase or possession of a firearm by additional individuals who are not otherwise subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. For example, some States may temporarily prohibit firearm possession by individuals who have voluntarily committed themselves to inpatient treatment, which currently does not make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. As noted above, some States currently collect and report to the NICS the identities of individuals who are subject to State prohibitors, as well as the Federal prohibitors. To the extent that States have enacted their own prohibitions related to mental health, State law may also reduce barriers by requiring reporting to the NICS by those making the mental health assessments that make individuals subject to a State prohibition. However, the Department requests comment on whether HIPAA is perceived as a barrier to reporting to the NICS information about individuals who are subject to State law firearm prohibitions and whether the final rule should address this barrier.
Although the NICS has a role in helping to enforce State firearms prohibitions intended to keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals for reasons related to mental health, the NICS Index currently does not contain information about all individuals who are subject to such prohibitions. The Department seeks comment on whether the proposed permission should be broadened to include information relevant to those State law prohibitions, as well as information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor. Expanding the permission would ensure that relevant State law prohibitor information could be reported to NICS in States that do not otherwise require the reporting. At the same time, however, there are implications to expanding the permission to encompass State law prohibitors, which may be broader than the Federal mental health prohibitor. For example, if more entities in States with their own prohibitors have the authority to make determinations that subject individuals to a firearms prohibition, there would be an increased likelihood that more treating providers would be permitted to report information to the NICS. In addition, there may be State laws that prohibit the possession or receipt of a firearm by individuals with particular mental health diagnoses or an assessment of “dangerousness” with correspondingly different procedural protections for individuals. The Department is seeking comment on whether these concerns are borne out in any States and whether the proposed permission should be broadened to include information relevant to those State law prohibitions.
A few commenters asked whether individuals would be notified if their provider disclosed their protected health information for NICS reporting purposes. If such notification were not required, commenters recommended that there be a way for individuals to find out that their provider disclosed their information for such purposes. One commenter asked whether covered entities would be required to revise their Notice of Privacy Practices to inform individuals that the entities might make disclosures for NICS reporting purposes.
We are not proposing new notification requirements.
Several commenters argued that any amendment to HIPAA to provide an express permission for reporting to the NICS database should be passed by
We note that Congress, when it enacted HIPAA, provided the Department with general authority to determine the permissible uses and disclosures of covered entities and modify the HIPAA standards as appropriate. It is under this authority that the Department has proposed to modify the Privacy Rule to permit certain disclosures for the purpose of NICS reporting.
Several commenters asked for additional guidance materials, training, and other outreach efforts from the Department to help covered entities, State agency officials, State legislatures, and State judiciaries better understand HIPAA's permitted and required disclosures. Some commenters specifically cited HIPAA as a perceived barrier to State legislatures passing laws requiring NICS reporting due to misconceptions about HIPAA preempting State law, and requested that the Department conduct outreach to explain HIPAA's preemption provisions. Other commenters urged the Department to increase its outreach efforts to encourage individuals to seek voluntary mental health services.
The Department anticipates issuing guidance to both address misconceptions (e.g., such as the perception that HIPAA is a barrier to State legislatures passing laws requiring reporting) and to help covered entities comply with the rule. With respect to the latter, we intend to work with DOJ to issue additional guidance on the categories within the Federal mental health prohibitor,
Finally, the Department will continue its efforts to increase access to, and utilization of, needed mental health care services.
We are proposing to revise 45 CFR 164.512 of the Privacy Rule by adding a new category of permitted disclosures to 45 CFR 164.512(k), which addresses uses and disclosures for specialized government functions. The new provisions at (k)(7) would permit certain covered entities to disclose the minimum necessary demographic and other information for NICS reporting purposes, which would not include clinical, diagnostic, or other mental health information.
There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some States are currently under-reporting or not reporting this information at all. From what we understand, and what we have heard from commenters, most of the information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor is held by entities that are not covered by HIPAA. For those few HIPAA covered entities that may be involved in the relevant commitments or adjudications, the Privacy Rule contains paths for disclosure, but these do not appear to be sufficient. Therefore, we propose to add another, narrowly tailored, permission for HIPAA covered entities that perform the commitments or adjudications that make individuals subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that act as repositories of NICS records on behalf of a State, to use and disclose certain information for NICS reporting purposes. To the extent that some covered entities may perform adjudicatory or repository functions in States that have not enacted laws requiring reporting to the NICS, and a subset of those may be unable to achieve hybrid entity status for administrative or other reasons, this permission would remove a barrier to their reporting and provide clarity. Importantly, the proposed permission would focus on those entities performing the relevant commitment, adjudicatory or repository functions, not on those performing solely treatment functions.
We note that the proposed modification to the Privacy Rule would merely permit, and not require, covered entities to report to the NICS. In addition, it would not place additional limitations on or otherwise affect the currently existing permitted uses and disclosures of protected health information under the Privacy Rule. Thus, for example, the Rule's current permissions for uses and disclosures required by other law, including State law, would remain unchanged, as would provisions permitting uses and disclosures for law enforcement purposes as part of a specific investigation, or to avert a serious and imminent threat. See 45 CFR 164.512(a), (f), and (j).
The following describes the specific provisions of the proposed rule. Those interested in commenting on the proposed rule can assist the Department by preceding discussion of any particular topic with a citation or reference to the aspect of the proposed rule being discussed. While we request comment on several specific questions, we welcome comments on any aspect of the proposed rule.
Paragraph (k)(7) would permit uses and disclosures of protected health information for purposes of reporting to the NICS or a State-designated entity the identities of individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), provided the conditions in the remaining paragraphs under (k)(7) are met. We do not intend with this paragraph to require formal designations by the States, but we would expect States to be able to identify the responsible entity. We request comment on whether the proposed language encompasses all entities that are responsible for reporting to, or otherwise collecting information for, the NICS on behalf of the States.
The proposed permission would not permit covered entities to use or disclose the protected health information of individuals who are subject to one or more of the other prohibitors listed at 18 U.S.C. 922(g), as the lack of an express HIPAA permission for reporting information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor is a limited problem and we have not heard that there is a similar issue with respect to the other prohibitors. Thus, for example, a covered entity would not be able to use this permission to use or disclose information about an individual who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)), except to the extent the individual is also subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. We note that other laws may impact disclosures related to the other prohibitors, including 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3).
We propose to limit the permission to uses and disclosures about individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. As discussed above, we request comment on the scope of the permission, specifically with regard to whether the permission should be
Paragraph (k)(7)(i) would apply the express permission only to covered entities that function as repositories of information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor on behalf of a State, or that are responsible for ordering the involuntary commitments or other adjudications that make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. The Federal prohibitor regulations define an involuntary commitment as a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. It does not apply to individuals in a psychiatric facility for observation or who have been admitted voluntarily. The other applicable adjudications include determinations by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that persons are a danger to themselves or others, or lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease. See 27 CFR 478.11 (Definitions).
Our understanding is that lawful authority for performing such adjudications and repository functions rests, for the most part, with entities that operate outside the scope of HIPAA. However, in the interest of public safety, we want to ensure that relevant adjudications can be reported in the small subset of States in which HIPAA covered entities may make, or collect and report records of, these determinations.
In permitting only entities involved in these adjudicatory or repository/reporting functions to use or disclose Federal mental health prohibitor information for NICS purposes, the proposal would not create a permission for most treating providers to disclose protected health information about their own patients for these purposes. We agree with the commenters who argued that encouraging voluntary treatment is critical to ensuring positive outcomes for individuals' health as well as the public's safety. We also agree with the many commenters who asserted that non-health care entities should and currently do bear primary responsibility for collection and reporting of information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor in most States. However, where a HIPAA covered entity is a board, commission, or other lawful authority that makes adjudications that result in individuals being subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, we believe those entities are most likely to hold records of the relevant adjudications.
We request public comment on the extent to which some States may have vested responsibility for Federal mental health prohibitor reporting in HIPAA covered entities, to what extent records needed for NICS reporting are created or maintained by covered entities, and whether there are circumstances in which health care providers would need to report the identity of an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor to a State designated records repository or directly to the NICS. We also request comment on the types of additional guidance from OCR and/or the NICS that would be helpful for understanding to which covered entities, and under what circumstances, the proposed permission would apply.
Paragraph (k)(7)(ii) would provide that a covered entity identified in (k)(7)(i) may use or disclose Federal mental health prohibitor information for NICS purposes either directly to the NICS or to an entity designated by the State as a repository of data for purposes of reporting to the NICS. By clearly delimiting the permitted recipients of such disclosures, the rule would ensure that covered entities do not exceed the intended scope of the permission by disclosing information relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor to, for example, law enforcement agencies that do not operate as repositories of data for purposes of reporting to the NICS. Again, as stated above, the Privacy Rule's existing permissions to use or disclose protected health information for specific law enforcement investigations, as provided in 45 CFR 164.512(f), would remain unchanged. We request comment on whether there are States in which a type of entity not described in this proposed paragraph is responsible for NICS reporting and needs to be able to receive NICS data from a HIPAA covered entity.
Paragraph (k)(7)(iii) would strictly limit the information used or disclosed for NICS reporting purposes to the minimum necessary for such purposes. The Privacy Rule requires uses and disclosures of protected health information to be limited to the minimum necessary for their intended purpose, and in the proposed regulation text, we make clear that only limited demographic and other information would constitute the minimum necessary for NICS reporting. At this time, we would consider the minimum necessary information to include an individual's name; date of birth; sex; a code or notation indicating that the individual is subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor; a code or notation representing the reporting entity; and a code identifying the agency record supporting the prohibition. The proposed modification would not permit the use or disclosure of clinical or diagnostic information for NICS reporting purposes. We request comment on whether, and in what circumstances, HIPAA covered entities or other entities such as courts currently report to a records repository or directly to the NICS information that is not listed in the proposed paragraph.
We are also considering permitting the disclosure of some or all the following additional data elements, which are optional fields for a NICS Index entry, as part of the minimum necessary for NICS reporting purposes: Social Security number, place of birth, State of residence, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and race. From what we understand, these elements are not included in every NICS record, but often are used to confirm that a prospective firearm recipient matches a record searched by the NICS or to eliminate “false positive” background check results. We request public comment on this issue.
We have prepared a regulatory impact statement in compliance with Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (January 2011, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (March 22, 1995, Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism.
Executive Orders 12866 and 135643 direct agencies to assess all 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 135634 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for all major rules that have economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year) 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 government or communities (58 FR 51741). Because the proposed rule does not contain any new requirements for covered entities, we estimate that the rule will be cost neutral. We request comment on our assumptions and information on the nature of any unanticipated costs that covered entities may incur as a result of the rule.
Although we expect the economic impact of the rule, including non-quantifiable costs and savings discussed in the regulatory analysis below, to be less than $100 million annually, we nevertheless conducted an analysis of the costs of the proposed rule.
This proposed rule would apply only to covered entities that are responsible for ordering involuntary commitments or conducting other adjudications that make individuals subject to a Federal prohibition against possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) (the Federal mental health prohibitor), or that are otherwise designated by a State to report the identities of such individuals to the NICS. We do not have sufficient data to determine the number of affected entities, but, based on the information available to us, we believe there would be very few. Our understanding is that, for the most part, formal adjudications and repository functions of this nature are conducted by entities, such as court systems or law enforcement agencies, that are not covered by HIPAA. We welcome public comment on the number of covered entities that might be affected by this rule.
This proposed rule is needed to ensure that, where HIPAA covered entities make adjudications causing individuals to become subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or serve as repositories of records of such adjudications on behalf of States, those covered entities can report the identities of those individuals to the NICS. Specific permission under the Privacy Rule for these disclosures is necessary to the extent that some States have not enacted laws requiring reporting to the NICS, but a covered entity in the State is nevertheless responsible for such reporting. Importantly, the proposed rule would permit only a small subset of HIPAA covered entities (i.e., those that perform the relevant mental health adjudications or repository functions) to use or disclose only limited, non-clinical information, for NICS purposes. This narrowly tailored permission would permit these important uses or disclosures for public safety to occur while maintaining a separation between reporting functions and the mental health treatment a patient might be receiving.
The rule would be cost neutral with respect to HIPAA covered entities. The rule would not require entities that already have a NICS reporting process in place to change their current system and would not create new reporting or recordkeeping requirements for any covered entity. The small number of covered entities that would be newly permitted to report to the NICS or a State repository under the rule could begin reporting and may need to develop policies and procedures to do so. As the Privacy Rule only allows the use or disclosure of information, and does not require it, any resulting burden of reporting and associated procedures is attributable to the Federal statutory mental health prohibitor and the NICS system itself. See 28 CFR Part 25, Subpart A (
To the extent that the rule would permit some covered entities to report to the NICS for the first time, there may be an increase in the number of individuals whose identities are newly included in the NICS and who are denied a firearm transfer as a result. As a result, there may be a concomitant increase in applications for relief from disabilities in states that provide such a relief program. However, any burden to individuals completing and submitting the relief application form is attributed to the procedures established by the State where the commitment or adjudication occurred. The procedures for applying for relief in States that have established mental health relief from disabilities programs pursuant to the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 vary. We received a number of comments on the ANPRM asserting that creating an express permission in the Privacy Rule for NICS reporting would discourage individuals from seeking needed mental health care. We appreciate these concerns and agree with commenters who asserted that individuals' health and the public's safety are best served by encouraging appropriate treatment. We also recognize that discouraging treatment could increase the burden of untreated mental conditions to individuals, in the form of increased suffering and loss of productivity; to the health care system, when individuals with untreated mental illness need emergency hospitalization, for example; and to the public's safety. However, the majority of these commenters expressed the mistaken belief that the proposed permission would allow or require mental health care providers to report diagnostic or clinical information to the NICS. Many of these commenters also voiced concern that an express permission under HIPAA would potentially increase burdens on providers. Although one commenter suggested that an express permission under HIPAA would help lessen concerns about provider liability for disclosures related to NICS reporting, many more commenters expressed concern that
As explained above, we have carefully and narrowly tailored the proposed rule to apply only to a small number of covered entities that may be responsible for the adjudications that make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of data about such adjudications. As such, the proposed rule generally would maintain a separation between treatment functions and NICS reporting functions. In addition, the rule would not permit the use or disclosure of any diagnostic or clinical information, or any other information about an individual that is not the minimum necessary for NICS reporting purposes. Because of these strict limitations on the permitted uses and disclosures, we believe that individuals would not be dissuaded from seeking needed mental health care services as a result of the proposed rule. We welcome comment on this assumption.
Finally, we recognize the intangible burden to individuals of the stigma associated with mental health conditions. We again emphasize, as we did in the ANPRM, that individuals with treated mental health conditions as a group have not been shown to pose an increased risk of gun violence against others compared with the general population, and are in fact more likely to be victims of violence than other members of the general population. We note further that the Federal mental health prohibitor does not apply to all individuals with mental health conditions, but instead a subset of individuals who have been involuntarily committed or otherwise adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others, or unable to manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease. With this proposed rule, the Department is not adopting or endorsing the idea that individuals with mental health conditions pose a danger to society. Rather, the rule would permit a limited number of HIPAA covered entities to report to the NICS the identities of individuals in a particular subcategory of persons who are currently prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms. This permission would facilitate the enforcement of prohibitions that were established by the Gun Control Act. Therefore, we do not expect that this proposed rule would exacerbate stigma associated with mental health conditions.
We request comment on this assumption and on any other costs that may be associated with the rule.
While we believe that there may be benefits to public safety as a result of the rule, we are not able to monetize the value of such benefits.
For example, the rule may result in increased reporting to the NICS of individuals who may pose a risk of gun violence related to a serious mental health condition. To the extent that this rule would permit covered entities to report those individuals' identities for NICS purposes, resulting in denial of firearms to those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law, the rule would provide a public safety benefit. However, we do not have information about whether, or how many, covered entities would begin to report or increase reporting to the NICS as a result of the rule.
An additional benefit of the rule would be to alleviate the concerns of State lawmakers who, according to a handful of commenters, may be reluctant to pursue legislation requiring entities to report Federal mental health prohibitor information for NICS purposes because of a misconception that the HIPAA Privacy Rule would preempt such requirements. As explained more fully above, the Privacy Rule permits uses and disclosures that are required by law. To the extent that State lawmakers harbor this misconception, this rule would serve both to clarify HIPAA's preemption provisions and provide an avenue for NICS reporting that may obviate a need to enact legislation at the State level.
We welcome comment on any of these issues.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze and consider options for reducing regulatory burden if a rule will impose a significant burden on a substantial number of small entities. The act requires the head of the agency to either certify that the rule would not impose such a burden or perform a regulatory flexibility analysis and consider alternatives to lessen the burden. For the reasons explained more fully above in the summary of costs and benefits, it is not expected that the rule would result in compliance costs for covered entities of any size because the rule would not impose new requirements.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates would require spending in any one year $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2013, that threshold is approximately $150 million dollars. UMRA does not address the total cost of a rule. Rather, it focuses on certain categories of cost, mainly those “Federal mandate” costs resulting from: (1) Imposing enforceable duties on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector; or (2) increasing the stringency of conditions in, or decreasing the funding of, State, local, or Tribal governments under entitlement programs. As this proposed rule would not impose enforceable duties or affect entitlement programs, UMRA does not require us to prepare an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule. Nonetheless, we have done so in accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and present this analysis in sections C and D above.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications.
The Federalism implications of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules were assessed as required by Executive Order 13132 and published as part of the preambles to the final rules on December 28, 2000 (65 FR 82462, 82797) and February 20, 2003 (68 FR 8334, 8373), respectively. This proposed rule would not impose requirements, or any associated costs, on State and local governments. Regarding preemption, the preamble to the final Privacy Rule explained that the HIPAA statute dictates the relationship between State law and Privacy Rule requirements. Therefore, the Privacy Rule's existing preemption provisions do not raise Federalism issues, and these provisions would not be affected by this proposed rule. In addition, we again emphasize that the proposed modification to the rule would not require covered entities to make disclosures that are prohibited by State law, nor would it prevent disclosures required by State law. For these reasons, the rule would not have Federalism implications.
Whenever a rule is considered a significant rule under Executive Order 12866, we are required to develop an accounting statement indicating the costs associated with the rule. As explained above in the RIA, we expect that the rule would be cost neutral. However, we invite comment on potential costs associated with the rule, including costs to covered entities that choose to amend written HIPAA policies and procedures or train staff.
This proposed rule does not contain new requirements for information collections (i.e., reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosures) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Computer technology, Electronic information system, Electronic transactions, Employer benefit plan, Health, Health care, Health facilities, Health insurance, Health records, Hospitals, Medicaid, Medical research, Medicare, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Security.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter C, part 164, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 1302(a); 42 U.S.C. 1320d-1320d-9; sec. 264, Pub. L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 2033-2034 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(note)); and secs. 13400-13424, Pub. L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 258-279.
(k) * * *
(7)
(i) Is a State agency or other entity that is, or contains an entity that is:
(A) An entity designated by the State to report, or which collects information for purposes of reporting, on behalf of the State, to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; or
(B) A court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that makes the commitment or adjudication that causes an individual to become subject to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
(ii) Discloses the information to:
(A) The National Instant Criminal Background Check System; or
(B) An entity designated by the State to report, or which collects information for purposes of reporting, on behalf of the State, to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and
(iii) (A) Discloses only the limited demographic and certain other information needed for purposes of reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and
(B) Does not disclose diagnostic or clinical information for such purposes.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the May 24, 2013, proposed designation of critical habitat for
The comment period for the proposed rule published May 24, 2013, at 78 FR 31479, is reopened. We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before February 6, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, J.C. Watts Federal Building, 330 W.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The distribution of the
(b) The amount and distribution of
(c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, we seek information on the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(8) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (78 FR 31479) during the initial comment period from May 24, 2013, to July 23, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed critical habitat rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed critical habitat rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for
On May 24, 2013, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the species (78 FR 31479). We proposed to designate approximately 2,053 acres (ac) (830 hectares (ha)) in six units located in Bullitt and Jefferson Counties, Kentucky, as critical habitat. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending July 23, 2013. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion of an area we consider, among other factors, the additional regulatory benefits that an area would receive through the analysis under section 7 of the Act addressing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies); the educational benefits of identifying areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species; and any ancillary benefits triggered by existing local, State, or Federal laws as a result of the critical habitat designation.
When considering the benefits of excluding a particular area, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to incentivize or result in the conservation of the species and its habitat; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a conservation or management plan for the species and its habitat. In the case of
We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. To consider information related to economic impact, we have prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the impacts of all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct an optional section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress (IEc 2013, entire). The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and may require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation and may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis, combined with the information contained in our IEM, is what we consider our DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Kentucky glade cress and is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts, if sufficient data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our IEM dated September 9, 2013, we identified probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Residential and commercial development; (2) transportation
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that would result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Kentucky glade cress critical habitat. Because the designation of critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress was proposed concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and those which would result solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical and biological features identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the life requirements of the species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to the Kentucky glade cress would also likely adversely affect the essential physical and biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this species.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Kentucky glade cress totals 2,053 ac (830 ha) in six units, consisting of 18 subunits, that are all occupied by the species. All of the units and subunits are privately owned except for unit 1, which is owned by the Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Government, and subunit 4B, where the Kentucky State Nature Preserve Commission owns a 20-acre conservation easement (Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Inclusive of all units, any actions that may affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Kentucky glade cress. In general, because the glade cress is a narrow endemic species, the quality of its habitat is closely linked to the species' survival and conservation measures would be, in most cases, addressed through the consultation recommendations as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Kentucky glade cress (Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Therefore, in our DEA, we determined that in most circumstances, these costs of the proposed critical habitat designation would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
Federal action agencies will most likely incur incremental costs associated with section 7 consultations. In the DEA, we determined that few activities will lead to section 7 consultation because this species is an upland plant with no occurrences on Federal lands. Future section 7 consultation is likely to be infrequent. Activities we expect to be subject to consultation may involve the development in the Louisville, Kentucky/Jefferson County metropolitan area, which is predicted to grow substantially through year 2050. Critical habitat may impact property values indirectly if developers assume the designation will limit the potential use of that land. However, the designation of critical habitat is not likely to result in an increase of consultations. Therefore, the incremental administrative burden resulting from the designation is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on the small number of anticipated consultations and pre-consultation costs. The $100 million threshold is established by Executive Order 12866, which directs agencies to assess the potential costs and benefits of regulatory actions and quantify those costs and benefits if that action may have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more annually.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
In our May 24, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 31479), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable effects on landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable economic impacts of the designation. Following our evaluation in the DEA of the probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress, we have amended or affirmed our determinations below. Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under these circumstances only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. Federal agencies are not small entities, and to this end, there is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for Kentucky glade cress in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. The DEA found that no significant economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress. Because the Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and private property rights should result from this designation. Based on information contained in the economic analysis assessment and described within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. Therefore, we conclude that this designation of critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; notice of availability and reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50768), proposed listing rule for the Georgetown salamander (
The comment period for the proposed rule published August 22, 2013, at 77 FR 50768, is reopened. The comment period end date is January 22, 2014. We request that comments be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by telephone 512-490-0057; or by facsimile 512-490-0974. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
On August 22, 2012, we published in the
Since that time, the City of Georgetown, Texas, has prepared and finalized ordinances for the Georgetown salamander. All 14 of the known Georgetown salamander locations are within the City of Georgetown's jurisdiction for residential and commercial development. The enacted ordinances are directed at alleviating threats to the Georgetown salamander from urban development by requiring geologic assessments prior to construction, establishing occupied site protections through stream buffers, maintaining water quality through best management practices, developing a water quality management plan for the City of Georgetown, and monitoring occupied spring sites by an adaptive management working group. The Service would like to consider the ordinances in its final listing determination. As such, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public an opportunity to provide comment on the application of the City of Georgetown's ordinances to our determination of status under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and the likelihood of implementation and effectiveness of the ordinances.
For more detailed information or to obtain copies of the City of Georgetown's new ordinances, go to
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders that was published in the
If you previously submitted comments or information on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning this proposed listing will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we received.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in the Summer Food Service Program for Children. These adjustments address changes in the Consumer Price Index, as required under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The 2014 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. The 2014 rates are also presented individually, as separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, to show the effect of the Consumer Price Index adjustment on each rate.
Tina Namian, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Suite 1206, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, 703-305-2590.
The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, and final rule-related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3518, no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from formal review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The terms used in this notice have the meaning ascribed to them under 7 CFR Part 225 of the SFSP regulations.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in SFSP. In accordance with sections 12(f) and 13, 42 U.S.C. 1760(f) and 1761, of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) and SFSP regulations under 7 CFR Part 225, the United States Department of Agriculture announces the adjustments in SFSP payments for meals served to participating children during calendar year 2014.
The 2014 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. Reimbursement is based solely on a “meals times rates” calculation, without comparison to actual or budgeted costs.
Sponsors receive reimbursement that is determined by the number of reimbursable meals served multiplied by the combined rates for food service operations and administration. However, the combined rate is based on separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, each of which is adjusted differently for inflation.
The combined rates are constructed from individually authorized operating and administrative reimbursements. Simplified procedures provide flexibility, enabling sponsors to manage their reimbursements to pay for any allowable cost, regardless of the cost category. Sponsors remain responsible, however, for ensuring proper administration of the Program, while providing the best possible nutrition benefit to children.
The operating and administrative rates are calculated separately. However, the calculations of adjustments for both cost categories are based on the same set of changes in the
Presentation of the 2014 maximum per meal rates for meals served to children in SFSP combines the results from the calculations of operational and administrative payments, which are further explained in this notice. The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to SFSP sponsors will be based upon these adjusted combined rates and the number of meals of each type served. These adjusted rates will be in effect from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014.
The portion of the SFSP rates for operating costs is based on payment amounts set in section 13(b)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1). They are rounded down to the nearest whole cent, as required by section 11(a)(3)(B) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)(B).
The administrative cost component of the reimbursement is authorized under section 13(b)(3) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(3). Rates are higher for sponsors of sites located in rural areas and for “self-prep” sponsors that prepare their own meals, at the SFSP site or at a central facility, instead of purchasing them from vendors. The administrative portion of SFSP rates are adjusted, either up or down, to the nearest quarter-cent.
Sections 9, 13, and 14, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761, and 1762a, respectively.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is partially rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period February 1, 2012, through January 31, 2013, based on the withdrawal of certain requests for review.
Steven Hampton, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0116.
On February 1, 2013, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units from the PRC.
On March 28, 2013, Petitioner withdrew its review request with respect to Tai Wa Hong and Goldon Singapore.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice of partial rescission of the administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an Opportunity To Apply for Membership on the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness.
The Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is requesting nominations to fill vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee). The Committee was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee was first chartered on November 21, 2011. The Department of Commerce rechartered the Committee for another two-year term beginning on November 20, 2013, with modifications to the charter to clarify the scope of issues on which the Committee advises the Secretary, including supply chain competitiveness issues related to trade programs, freight movement and policy, information and data systems associated with system performance measurement, regulatory issues, and infrastructure finance, and to increase the maximum membership from 40 to 45 members. The Committee advises the Secretary on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and provides advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. The Department is seeking nominations to fill vacancies on the Committee.
Nominations for membership must be received on or before February 21, 2014.
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-1135; email:
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-1135; email:
The Department of Commerce is seeking nominations to fill vacancies on the Committee. The Committee was established on November 21, 2011, and the Committee was rechartered on November 20, 2013. The new charter increased the maximum membership of the Committee to forty-five (45) members. Members will serve for a two-year term and will be selected in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce Guidelines based upon their ability to advise the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and to provide advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. The Committee provides detailed policy and technical advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding:
(1) national, state, or local factors in trade programs and policies that affect the efficient domestic and international operation and competitiveness of U.S. global supply chains from point of origin to destination;
(2) elements of national policies affecting the movement of goods, infrastructure, investment, and regulatory factors that affect supply chain competitiveness and sustainability; and
(3) information and data systems to generate metrics that can be used to quantify and improve supply chain performance.
Members of the Committee shall represent companies, organizations, and stakeholders involved in the U.S. supply chain, with at least one individual representing each of the following: supply chain firms or their associations; users of supply chains (e.g., retailers, distributors, manufacturers or other sectors); freight transportation providers; ports; and academia. Representatives from the retail, airport, energy, logistics and freight forwarding, and big data analysis sectors are encouraged to apply.
Other than the experts from academia, all members shall serve in a representative capacity, expressing the views and interests of a U.S. company or U.S. organization, as well as its particular sector. Members serving in such a representative capacity are not Special Government Employees. The members from academia serve as experts and therefore are Special Government Employees (SGEs) and shall be subject to the ethical standards applicable to SGEs.
Each member of the Committee must be a U.S. citizen, not a federally-registered lobbyist, and not registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. All appointments are made without regard to political affiliation. Self-nominations will be accepted.
Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their travel expenses. The Committee shall meet as often as necessary as determined by the DFO, but not less than once per year.
Members shall serve at the pleasure of the Secretary.
All nominations for membership on the Committee should provide the following information:
(1) Name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone, fax, and email address) of the individual requesting consideration;
(2) An affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; and
(3) An affirmative statement that the applicant is not a federally-registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that if appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a Committee member if the applicant becomes a federally-registered lobbyist.
(1) A sponsor letter on the letterhead of the sponsoring U.S. company or U.S. organization to be represented, containing a brief description why the nominee should be considered for membership;
(2) Short biography of nominee including credentials;
(3) Brief description of the U.S. company or U.S. organization to be represented and its activities and size (number of employees or members and annual sales, if applicable); and
(4) An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all Committee eligibility requirements for representative members, including that the applicant represents a U.S. company or U.S. organization.
a. For purposes of Committee eligibility, a U.S. company is at least 51 percent owned by U.S. persons.
b. For purposes of Committee eligibility, a U.S. organization is controlled by U.S. persons, as determined based on its board of directors (or comparable governing body), membership, and funding sources, as applicable.
(1) A description of the nominee's area(s) of expertise;
(2) A concise Curriculum Vitae (CV) or resume that covers education, experience, and relevant publications and summarizes how this expertise addresses supply chain competitiveness; and
(3) An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all Committee eligibility requirements.
Nominations may be emailed to
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) preliminarily determines that welded stainless pressure pipe from the socialist republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The weighted-average dumping margins are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Pursuant to requests from respondents, we are postponing for 60 days the final determination and extending provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, the final determination will be issued not later than 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
Lilit Astvatsatrian or Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., , Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412 or (202) 482-3434, respectively.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. For purposes of this investigation, references to size are in
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A269, ASTM A-270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department has conducted this antidumping duty investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices and constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As announced in the
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for this preliminary determination to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance via IA ACESS
Pursuant to requests from Sonha, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of welded stainless pressure pipe from Vietnam, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of welded stainless pressure pipe, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration within 45 days of our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) preliminarily determines that welded stainless pressure pipe (“WSPP”) from Malaysia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated weighted-average dumping is shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Charles Riggle or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0650 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.
On May 16, 2013, the Department received an antidumping duty (“AD”) petition concerning imports of WSPP from Malaysia filed in proper form by Bristol Metals, LLC, Felker Brothers Corp., and Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc. (“Petitioners”).
In the
On July 19, 2013, based on its analysis of the CBP data, the Department selected Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd. (“Kanzen”) and Pantech Stainless & Alloy Industries Sdn. Bhd. (“Pantech”) as mandatory respondents.
On August 5, 2013, Superinox Pipe Industry Sdn. Bhd. filed a submission with the Department stating that it wanted to participate in the investigation as a voluntary respondent. Between August 27 and September 9, 2013, Superinox Pipe Industry Sdn. Bhd. and its affiliates, Superinox International Sdn. Bhd., and Tatt Giap Hardware Sdn. Bhd. (collectively, “Superinox”), submitted responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department's questionnaire, which were filed by the deadlines originally given to Kanzen and Pantech before they decided not to participate in the investigation. Based on an analysis of the CBP data used to select the original mandatory respondents, the Department found that the next largest producer or exporter was Superinox International Sdn. Bhd. On September 25, 2013, the Department selected Superinox International Sdn. Bhd. as the third mandatory respondent.
On October 25, 2013, Petitioners requested that the Department make a finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to U.S. imports of WSPP from Malaysia and order suspension of liquidation 90 days prior to the date of its preliminary determination.
On November 18, 2013, Superinox requested a postponement of the final determination and an extension of provisional measures.
The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was May 2013.
On September 19, 2013, Petitioners made a timely request, which they amended on September 24, 2013, for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e).
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on November 18 and November 21, 2013, Superinox and Petitioners, respectively, requested that the Department postpone the final determination by 60 days (135 days after publication of the preliminary determination), and Superinox requested that the Department extend the provisional measures.
In accordance with sections 735(a)(2) and 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b) and (e), because: (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the exporter requesting the postponement, Superinox, accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial of the postponement exist, we are postponing
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. For purposes of this investigation, references to size are in nominal inches and include all products within tolerances allowed by pipe specifications. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A269, ASTM A-270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
Because the mandatory respondents Kanzen, Pantech, and Superinox either failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire or informed the Department that they would no longer participate in the investigation, we have preliminarily determined to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference to these respondents pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
On October 25, 2013, Petitioners requested that the Department make a finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to U.S. imports of WSPP from Malaysia. Petitioners alleged that U.S. importers of WSPP from Malaysia should have known that exporters were selling subject merchandise in the United States at less than fair value and there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales because the weighted-average dumping margins that will be assigned as AFA in this investigation will likely exceed 25 percent, the level required to impute knowledge of dumping, and the ITC preliminarily found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by such imports. Moreover, Petitioners allege that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise into the United States over a relatively short period, which is the second criterion for finding critical circumstances, because there was an 87.6 percent increase in the volume of imports in the three months following the filing of the Petition compared to the volume of imports during the three months immediately preceding the filing of the Petition.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
The Department normally considers weighted-average dumping margins of 25 percent or more, for export price sales, or 15 percent or more, for constructed export price sales, sufficient to impute knowledge of the exporter selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value.
In determining whether the importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC.
Furthermore, because the mandatory respondents are not participating in this investigation, consistent with Department practice, we have also based our “massive imports” determination on AFA.
However, we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to all other exporters or producers of WSPP from Malaysia because we do not find the criterion of section 733(e)(1)(A) of the Act satisfied with respect to all other exporters or producers. Due to the absence of cooperative mandatory respondents, we have calculated the weighted-average dumping margin for “all-other” exporters or producers by averaging the dumping margins alleged in the Petition, as adjusted at initiation. The average of the Petition's dumping margins is 22.70 percent. Since the preliminary “all-others” rate is not greater than 25 percent, we preliminarily find that this weighted-average dumping margin does not provide a sufficient basis for imputing knowledge of sales of subject merchandise at less than fair value to importers with respect to exporters or producers in the all-others group.
The preliminarily weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters or producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero,
We will disclose the calculations used to determine the AFA rate to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
As noted above, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration from SI/SPI, Kanzen, and Pantech. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of WSPP from Malaysia from SI/SPI, Kanzen, and
Pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this proceeding is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of WSPP from Malaysia before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) preliminarily determines that welded stainless pressure pipe (“WSPP”) from Thailand is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margin of sales at LTFV is shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Pursuant to requests from respondents, we are postponing for 60 days the final determination and extending provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, the final determination will be issued not later than 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
Brandon Farlander or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-4852, respectively.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. For purposes of this investigation, references to size are in nominal inches and include all products within tolerances allowed by pipe specifications. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A269, ASTM A-270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department has conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
The “All Others” rate is derived exclusive of all
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to requests from respondents, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of WSPP from Thailand as, described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this proceeding is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of WSPP from Thailand before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice, approved monitoring service providers.
NMFS has approved five companies to provide at-sea monitoring services to Northeast (NE) multispecies vessels in fishing year (FY) 2014. Regulations implementing Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 16) require third-party at-sea monitoring service providers to apply to, and be approved by, NMFS in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act in order to be eligible to provide at-sea monitoring services to sectors.
Copies of the list of NMFS-approved sector monitoring service providers are available at
• Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Mark Grant.
• Mail: 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Mark Grant.
For service provider contact information, see the
Mark Grant, Sector Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9145, fax (978) 281-9135, email
Amendment 16 (75 FR 18262; April 9, 2010) expanded the sector management program, including requirements to ensure accurate monitoring of sector at-sea catch and dockside landings, and common pool dockside landings. Framework Adjustment 48 to the FMP (Framework 48, 78 FR 26118, May 3, 2013) removed dockside monitoring requirements and revised the goals and objectives for sector monitoring programs.
Regulations at 50 CFR 648.87(b)(4) describe the criteria for NMFS approval of at-sea monitoring service providers. NMFS is approving service providers for FY 2014 (beginning May 1, 2014) based on: (1) Completeness of applications, (2) determination of the applicant's ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of a sector monitoring service provider, and (3) performance as NMFS-funded providers in FY 2013. NE multispecies sectors are required to design and implement independent, third-party at-sea monitoring programs in FY 2014, and are responsible for the costs of these monitoring requirements, unless otherwise instructed by NMFS.
NMFS first approved service providers for FY 2010, based upon the completeness of their application addressing the regulatory requirements (§ 648.87(b)(4)(i)), and a determination of the applicant's ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of a monitoring service provider. For FY 2013, NMFS approved service providers based on completeness of applications, determination of ability, and performance during FY 2012. During FY 2012 and 2013, at-sea monitoring has been conducted by A.I.S., Inc.; East West Technical Services, LLC; and MRAG Americas, Inc. under contract with NMFS.
Once approved, providers must document having met performance requirements in order to maintain eligibility (§ 648.87(b)(4)(ii)). NMFS can disapprove any previously approved service provider during the FY if the service provider in question ceases to meet the performance standards. NMFS must notify service providers of disapproval in writing.
NMFS received complete applications from five companies interested in providing at-sea monitoring services in FY 2014. Four of the applicants were previously approved to provide at-sea monitoring services to sectors. The fifth application was received from Fathom Research, a new applicant. The Regional Administrator has approved the following service providers as eligible to provide at-sea monitoring services in FY 2014:
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to discuss peer review of a wreckfish stock assessment. See
The SSC meeting will be held via webinar on Monday, January 27, 2014, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
The meetings will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact John Carmichael at the SAFMC (see
John Carmichael; 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
This meeting is held to discuss the peer review of a stock assessment of wreckfish in the South Atlantic. In accordance with the peer review policy approved by the Council, the SSC previously reviewed a proposal to assess the wreckfish resource, and will now consider the process for peer review of that assessment. The assessment is currently underway by Dr. Douglas Butterworth and colleagues, and is expected to be complete in mid-February, 2014. At this meeting, the SSC will recommend Terms of Reference, timing and reviewers for the peer review.
1. Wreckfish assessment Peer Review Terms of Reference.
2. Wreckfish assessment Reviewers.
3. Timing and Approach of Peer Review.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Omni Providence Hotel, 1 West Exchange Street, Providence, RI 02048; telephone: (401) 598-8000; fax: (401) 598-8200.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel will review Framework 25 analyses and make final recommendations for preferred alternatives. Framework 25 includes fishery specifications for FY2014 and FY2015 (default), which includes days-at-sea allocations, access area allocations, individual fishing quota (IFQ) allocations for the general category fishery, a hard total allowable catch (TAC) for the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) area and target TAC for vessels with a general category incidental catch permit. The Advisory Panel will also make final recommendations on other measures being considered: (1) measures for unused 2012 and 2013 Closed Area I access area trips; and (2) accountability measures for Southern New England/Mid Atlantic (SNE/MA) windowpane flounder. Other issues may be discussed.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will review Framework 25 analyses and make final recommendations for preferred alternatives. Framework 25 includes fishery specifications for FY2014 and FY2015 (default), which includes days-at-sea allocations, access area allocations, individual fishing quota (IFQ) allocations for the general category fishery, a hard total allowable catch (TAC) for the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) area and target TAC for vessels with a general category incidental catch permit. The Committee will also make final recommendations on other measures being considered: (1) measures for unused 2012 and 2013 Closed Area I access area trips; and (2) accountability measures for Southern New England/Mid Atlantic (SNE/MA) windowpane flounder. In addition, the Committee will discuss and provide input on alternatives and analyses under development for an omnibus amendment to simplify vessel baseline restrictions. Other issues may be discussed.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
In notice document 2013-31471 appearing on pages 464-497 in the issue of Friday, January 3, 2014, make the following correction:
On page 464, in the first column, in the 41st through 42nd lines, “February 3, 2014” should read “January 30, 2014”.
National Intelligence University, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice of closed meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors has been scheduled. The meeting is closed to the public.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 (7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and Wednesday, January 15, 2014 (8: a.m. to 12 p.m.).
National Intelligence University, Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Dr. David R. Ellison, President, DIA National Intelligence University, Washington, DC 20340-5100, Phone: (202) 231-3344.
This meeting is being held pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (d) of Section 10 of Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409.
The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and therefore will be closed. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
Due to events beyond the control of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors or its Designated
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 6, 2014.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 6, 2014.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 10, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Tomakie Washington, 202-401-1097 or electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-919 (Market Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by February 6, 2014.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0234, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC14-2-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
In 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 35 Subpart H
Market power analyses must address both horizontal and vertical market power. To demonstrate lack of horizontal market power, the Commission requires two indicative market power screens: the uncommitted pivotal supplier screen (which is based on the annual peak demand of the relevant market) and the uncommitted market share screen applied on a seasonal basis. The Commission presumes sellers that fail either screen to have market power and such sellers may submit a delivered price test analysis to rebut the presumption of horizontal market power. If a seller fails to rebut the presumption of horizontal market power, the Commission sets the just and reasonable rate at the default cost-based rate unless it approves different mitigation based on case-specific circumstances. When submitting horizontal market power analyses, a seller must use the form provided in Appendix A of Subpart H and include all materials referenced.
To demonstrate a lack of vertical market power to the extent that a public utility with market-based rates, or any of its affiliates, owns, operates or controls transmission facilities, it must:
• Have on file a Commission-approved Open Access Transmission Tariff
• Demonstrate that neither it nor its affiliates can erect other barriers to entry
• Submit a description of its ownership or control of, or affiliation with an entity that owns or controls:
○ Intrastate natural gas transportation, intrastate natural gas storage or distribution facilities
○ Sites for generation capacity development; and physical coal supply sources and ownership or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies
• Make an affirmative statement that it has not erected and will not erect barriers to entry into the relevant market
In addition to the market power analyses, a seller must submit an asset appendix with its initial application for market-based rate authorization or updated market power analysis, and all relevant change in status filings. The asset appendix must:
• List, among other things, all affiliates that have market-based rate authority and identify any generation assets owned or controlled by the seller and any such affiliate
• List all generation assets owned (clearly identifying which affiliate owns which asset) or controlled (clearly identifying which affiliate controls which asset) by the corporate family by balancing authority area, and by geographic region, and provide the in-service date and nameplate and/or seasonal ratings by unit
• Must reflect all electric transmission and natural gas intrastate pipelines and/or gas storage facilities owned or controlled by the corporate family and the location of such facilities.
Sellers that own or control more than 500 megawatts of generation and/or that own, operate or control transmission facilities, are affiliated with any entity that owns, operates or controls transmission facilities in the same region as the seller's generation assets, or with a franchised public utility in the same region as the seller's generation assets, are required to file updated market power analyses every three years. The updated market power analyses must demonstrate that a seller does not possess horizontal market power.
The Commission requires authorized market-based rate sellers to file any change in status that would reflect a departure from the characteristics the Commission relied upon in granting market-rate authority.
• (1) A net increase of 100 MW or more in ownership or control of generation capacity;
• (2) affiliation with an entity not disclosed in the application for market-based rate authority that owns or controls generation, transmission, or has a franchised service area; or
• (3) the acquisition of control of any site(s) for new generation capacity (described in the Quarterly Land Acquisition section below).
Wholesale power marketers and wholesale power producers that are not affiliated with franchised public utilities or transmission owners, that do not own transmission, and that do not, together with all of their affiliates, own or control more than 500 MW of generation in the relevant region are not required to submit updated market power analyses. The Commission determines which sellers are in this category through information filed by the utility either when the seller files its initial application for market-based rate authorization or through a separate filing made to request such a determination.
FERC also requires that all entities with market-based rate authorization report on a quarterly basis,
The market power analyses help to inform the Commission as to whether entities have market power and whether sellers with market-based rate authority are only able to charge rates that are just and reasonable.
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $7,268,721 [85,444 hours * $85.07
• Economist: $67.57/hour
• Electrical Engineer: $59.62/hour
• Lawyer: $128.02/hour
($67.57+$59.62+$128.02) ÷ 3 = $85.07/hour
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on December 31, 2013, pursuant to section 1(5), 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. App. 1(5), 6, 8, 9, 13, 15 and 16; section 1803 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992; Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2013); and Rules 343.1(a) and 343.2(c) of the Commission's Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.1(a) and 343.2(c), US Airways, Inc. (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Colonial Pipeline Company (Respondent), challenging the justness, reasonableness, and lawfulness of the jurisdictional rates and charges by the Respondent for transportation of petroleum products, including aviation kerosene and jet fuel, on its interstate pipeline system, from all origins to all destinations in the challenged tariffs, as more fully described in the complaint. US Airways, Inc. further states that it seeks privileged and confidential treatment of its complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on December 17, 2013, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(5)(2013), Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC and SourceGas Distribution LLC submitted a joint petition for a temporary and limited waiver of the Commission's capacity release regulations and policies, and certain gas tariff provisions that implement these regulations and policies, all as more fully described in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
On December 5, 2013, Wausau Paper Mills (transferor) and City of Brainerd, Public Utilities Commission (transferee) filed an application for transfer of license of the Brainerd Hydroelectric Project located on the Mississippi River, in Crow Wing County, Minnesota.
The transferor and transferee seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Brainerd Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the transferee.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2014.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Jeremy Morrison, Bureau of Competition, (202-326-3149), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for December 23, 2013), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 22, 2014. Write “AB Acquisition, LLC—Consent Agreement; File No. 131 0227” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “AB Acquisition, LLC—Consent Agreement; File No. 131 0227” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Order”) from AB Acquisition, LLC (“Respondent”). The purpose of the proposed Consent Order is to remedy the anticompetitive effects that otherwise would result from the merger of Respondent with United Supermarkets, L.L.C. (“United”). Under the terms of the proposed Consent Order, Respondent is required to divest its supermarkets and related assets in Amarillo and Wichita Falls, Texas to a Commission-approved purchaser. The divestitures must be completed no later than 10 days following the date of Respondent's merger with United.
The proposed Consent Order has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission again will review the proposed Consent Order and any comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw the Consent Order, modify the Consent Order, or make it final.
On September 9, 2013, Respondent and United entered into a merger agreement whereby Respondent agreed to purchase 100% of United's equity. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed merger, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by removing an actual, direct, and substantial supermarket competitor in Amarillo and Wichita Falls, Texas. The elimination of this competition would result in significant competitive harm, specifically higher prices and diminished quality and service levels in both markets. The proposed Consent Order would remedy the alleged violations by requiring Respondent to divest its supermarkets in the two affected markets. The divestitures will establish a new independent competitor to Respondent in both relevant areas, replacing the competition that otherwise would be lost as a result of the proposed merger.
Respondent, through its wholly owned indirect subsidiary, Albertson's LLC (“Albertson's”), owns and operates 606 supermarkets in the western and southern United States under the Albertsons banner. In Texas, Albertson's operates 72 supermarkets under the Albertsons banner, the majority of which are in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. Albertson's operates 10 Albertsons banner stores in North and West Texas.
United is a privately held regional grocery retailer that owns and operates 51 traditional and specialty supermarkets and 7 convenience stores across North and West Texas. United operates its supermarkets under three different banners: United Supermarkets, Market Street, and Amigos. United Supermarkets is a traditional supermarket banner. Market Street offers everyday grocery needs, as well as gourmet and specialty items, whole health products, and prepared food. Amigos is operated as a specialty store with a focus on traditional and authentic items targeted to Hispanic shoppers. United also owns three distribution centers, an ice manufacturing plant, and a food manufacturing plant.
Respondent's proposed merger with United poses substantial antitrust concerns for the retail sale of food and other grocery products in supermarkets. Supermarkets are defined as traditional full-line retail grocery stores that sell, on a large-scale basis, food and non-food products that customers regularly consume at home—including, but not limited to, fresh meat, dairy products, frozen foods, beverages, bakery goods, dry groceries, detergents, and health and beauty products. This broad set of products and services provides a “one-stop shopping” experience for consumers by enabling them to shop in a single store for all of their food and grocery needs. The ability to offer consumers one-stop shopping is a critical differentiating factor between supermarkets and other food retailers.
The relevant product market includes supermarkets within “hypermarkets,” such as Wal-Mart Supercenters.
Other types of retailers—such as hard discounters, convenience stores, specialty food stores and club stores—also sell food and grocery items. However, these types of retailers are not in the relevant product market because they do not have a supermarket's full complement of products and services. Shoppers typically do not view these other food and grocery retailers as adequate substitutes for supermarkets. Further, although these other types of retailers offer some competition, supermarkets do not view them as providing as close competition as traditional supermarkets.
There are two relevant geographic markets in which to analyze the merger's effects: (1) the western half of Amarillo, Texas (“West Amarillo”), and (2) the southwest area of Wichita Fall, Texas (“Southwest Wichita Falls”). Specifically, West Amarillo includes the area from the western city limit to the railroad tracks that run parallel to, and are located to the east of, the Interstate 40 and U.S. Route 87/287 corridor. Southwest Wichita Falls is the area within the city limits that runs south of U.S. Route 277 and west of U.S. Route 281. A hypothetical monopolist of the retail sale of food and other grocery products in supermarkets in each relevant area could profitably impose a small but significant non-transitory increase in price.
Interviews with the merging parties' executives and market participants, as well as a review of party documents, demonstrate that Albertson's and United are close and vigorous competitors in terms of format, service, product offerings, promotional activity, and location in the West Amarillo and Southwest Wichita Falls markets. For example, Albertson's and United are the only supermarkets in Amarillo and Wichita Falls that retain a traditional supermarket format, with both emphasizing specialty departments like meat and fresh seafood. Both are also the only traditional supermarket operators in Amarillo and Wichita Falls that carry a broad range of products catering to the entire community. Additionally, Albertson's and United's stores have the most similar store formats and size among supermarket operators in Amarillo and Wichita Falls, including the amount of floor space devoted to food and other grocery products. Absent relief, the proposed merger would eliminate significant head-to-head competition between Respondent and United and would increase Respondent's ability and incentive to raise prices unilaterally post-merger. The proposed merger would also decrease incentives to compete on non-price factors, such as service levels, convenience, and quality.
The West Amarillo and Southwest Wichita Falls markets already are highly concentrated, and would become significantly more so post-merger. The merger would reduce the number of supermarket competitors from three to two; Wal-Mart Supercenter would be the only remaining competitor in each of the two relevant areas. In West Amarillo, the proposed merger would increase the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”), which is the standard measure of market concentration under the 2010 Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Horizontal Merger Guidelines (“HMG”), 503 points, from 4501 to 5004. In Southwest Wichita Falls, the proposed merger would increase the HHI 811 points, from 4193 to 5004. Under the HMG, these concentration levels trigger the presumption that the merger likely enhances Respondent's market power in West Amarillo and Southwest Wichita Falls.
New entry or expansion in the relevant markets is unlikely to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the proposed merger. Moreover, even if a prospective entrant existed, the entrant must secure a viable location, obtain the necessary permits and governmental approvals, build its retail establishment or renovate an existing building, and open to customers before it could begin operating and serve as a relevant competitive constraint. It is unlikely that entry sufficient to achieve a significant market impact and act as a competitive constraint would occur in a timely manner.
The proposed remedy, which requires the divestiture of the Albertson's supermarkets in Amarillo and Wichita Falls to a Commission-approved purchaser, will restore fully the competition that otherwise would be eliminated in these markets as a result of the merger. Respondent has agreed to divest the Albertson's supermarkets in Amarillo and Wichita Falls to MAL Enterprises, Inc., which operates as Lawrence Brothers IGA (“Lawrence Brothers”). Lawrence Brothers is a family owned and operated supermarket chain based in Sweetwater, Texas, with 18 supermarkets located throughout West Texas and two in New Mexico, all of which are located outside the two relevant geographic markets.
The proposed Order requires Respondent to divest Albertson's Amarillo and Wichita Falls stores and related assets to Lawrence by the later of: (a) January 13, 2014, or (b) 10 days following Albertson's merger with United. If Lawrence Brothers is not approved by the Commission to purchase the assets, Albertson's must immediately rescind the divestiture agreement and divest the Albertson's stores and related assets to a buyer that receives the Commission's prior approval. The proposed Consent Order contains additional provisions designed to ensure the adequacy of the proposed relief. For example, for a period of one year, the Consent Order prohibits Albertson's from interfering with Lawrence Brothers' hiring or employment of any employees currently working at the Albertson's stores in
The sole purpose of this Analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Order. This Analysis does not constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Order, nor does it modify its terms in any way.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Become a Partner—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR) provide strategic direction, ongoing support, and coordination for CDC's portfolio of emergency preparedness and response activities. CDC and OPHPR work every day to keep America safe from all-hazards, focusing on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) as well as naturally-occurring threats, both foreign and domestic.
OPHPR's mission is critically dependent on effectively engaging outside partners to maximize resources and overall impact. Therefore, OPHPR seeks ways to improve its current partner strategy to engage new partners. Forging strategic alliances with diverse stakeholders is critical as OPHPR works to keep America safe from all health, safety, and security threats. Health security is a national challenge that calls for a national, whole community solution.
New partners who do not have an explicit mission statement related to public health preparedness and response are difficult to identify; therefore, OPHPR must use a creative method that allows groups and individuals to self-identify their interest in partnerships—such as an online form housed on CDC's public Web site. By identifying new partners, OPHPR will strengthen its ability to collaborate with a broader audience of stakeholders thereby, strengthening our collective voice on public health preparedness issues to keep our nation's health secure. OPHPR will use the information submitted through this online form to determine who in our agency would be the best liaison for this potential partner, and then follow up on this information with a phone call to further assess how we can begin building and effectively managing this new relationship.
CDC requests Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to collect information for three years.
The “Become a Partner” template is a single, double-sided page that will be used as an online form for anyone voluntarily exploring how to partner with OPHPR. This form will dramatically reduce the burden on respondents and employees by allowing self-identification of partnership interests and collecting information to determine partnership needs and opportunities. The questions in the form specifically request name, address, phone, email, Web site, and a combination of five questions related to partnership interests. The questions asked will help determine if the interested party wants to receive information available through OPHPR, if they want to exchange information that is mutually beneficial for cross-promotion, if they coordinate any activities that support public health preparedness, and if they offer additional services to support public health (not already listed above). Finally, they will be asked to identify the most relevant partnership interests within OPHPR categories.
Ultimately, the form will allow OPHPR to identify and then engage interested partners in meaningful collaborations for the purpose of expanding, enhancing and sustaining public health preparedness and response infrastructure.
We estimate a total of 200 external governmental and non-governmental organizational respondents annually. The “Become a Partner” questionnaire is estimated to take 15 minutes and the “Become a Partner” follow-up questionnaire is estimated to take 30 minutes to complete. Therefore, the total estimated annualized burden for this information collection is estimated to be 75 hours.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use”. This draft guidance document describes studies and criteria FDA recommends in premarket submissions for self-monitoring blood glucose test systems (SMBGs) which are for over-the-counter (OTC) use by lay-persons. When finalized, FDA intends for this document to guide manufacturers in conducting appropriate performance studies and preparing premarket notifications for these device types. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 7, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use”to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-847-8149. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Patricia Bernhardt, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5654, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6136.
This draft guidance document describes studies and criteria FDA recommends for self-monitoring blood glucose test systems (SMBGs) which are for over-the-counter (OTC) use by lay-persons. When finalized, FDA intends for this document to guide manufacturers in conducting appropriate performance studies and preparing premarket notifications for these device types. Portable blood glucose monitoring systems (also called glucose meters) that measure blood glucose concentrations are used by millions of people with diabetes every day. These devices are used by patients in a variety of settings including in their homes, at work, and in schools.
Historically, FDA has not recommended different types of information in premarket submissions (510(k)s) for blood glucose monitoring systems used by medical professionals as compared to OTC devices intended for use by lay users. However, it has become increasingly clear that these different use settings create distinct intended use populations with unique characteristics and device design requirements. In order to distinguish between FDA recommendations for prescription use blood glucose meters, which are intended for use in point-of-care professional healthcare settings, and those intended for OTC self-monitoring by lay-persons, the Agency is issuing two separate draft guidances for (i) prescription use blood glucose meters, for use in point-of-care professional healthcare settings, and (ii) SMBG devices intended for OTC self-monitoring by lay-persons. FDA believes that in making this distinction, SMBG devices can be better designed to meet the needs of their intended use populations, thereby ensuring greater safety and efficacy.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all
To receive “Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use,” you may either send an email request to
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).The collections of information in 21 CFR Part 807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR Part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use.” This draft guidance document describes studies and criteria FDA recommends for blood glucose monitoring test systems (BGMSs) which are for prescription point-of-care use. When finalized, FDA intends for this document to guide manufacturers in conducting appropriate performance studies and preparing premarket notifications for these device types. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 7, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use ” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-847-8149. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Patricia Bernhardt, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5654, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6136.
This draft guidance document describes studies and criteria FDA recommends for blood glucose monitoring test systems (BGMSs) which are for prescription point-of-care use. When finalized, FDA intends for this document to guide manufacturers in conducting appropriate performance studies and preparing premarket notifications for these device types. Portable blood glucose monitoring test systems (glucose meters) that measure blood glucose concentrations are widely used in hospitals as well as in a variety of other clinical settings including both acute and chronic care facilities, general hospital wards and intensive care units, physicians' offices, assisted living facilities and nursing homes.
Historically, FDA has not recommended different types of information in premarket submissions (510(k)s) for blood glucose meters used by medical professionals as compared to over-the-counter self-monitoring devices intended for use by lay users. In recent years, however, concerns have been raised including infection control issues related to point-of-care glucose meters. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), blood glucose monitoring devices can transmit bloodborne pathogens if these devices are contaminated with blood specimens and are shared between users without effective cleaning, disinfecting and appropriate infection control measures. Because BGMS devices, which are used in professional healthcare settings, are more likely to be used on multiple patients, this type of use requires certain design features and cleaning capability to prevent the spread of blood-borne pathogens.
In addition, concerns have been raised citing the inability of currently cleared BGMS devices to perform effectively in professional healthcare settings because the device's safety and effectiveness have not been evaluated for some of the intended use populations. Patients in these settings are often fundamentally different than lay users using these devices at home. Patients in professional healthcare settings can be acutely ill and medically fragile and are more likely to present physiological and pathological factors
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use . It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools.” This guidance describes the qualification process for drug development tools intended for potential use, over time, in multiple drug development programs. The guidance provides a framework for interactions between FDA and sponsors to support work towards qualification of an identified drug development tool and creates a mechanism for formal review of data to qualify the tool and ensure that the evaluation is comprehensive and reliable.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Shaniece Bowens, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4555, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2600.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools.” The guidance describes the qualification process for drug development tools (DDTs) intended for potential use, over time, in multiple drug development programs.
In March 2006, FDA issued the “Critical Path Opportunities Report and List,” in which FDA described six key areas along the critical path to improved therapies and listed specific opportunities for advancement within these topic areas. The report noted that a new product development toolkit containing new scientific and technical methods was needed to improve the efficiency of drug development. Too often, attention to a needed DDT is delayed until the time when the registration study protocols are under development and the available DDTs are inadequate. Innovative and improved DDTs can help streamline the drug development process, improve the chances for clinical trial success, and yield more information about a treatment and/or disease. DDTs include, but are not limited to, biomarkers and patient reported outcome instruments. This guidance describes a formal
A draft version of this guidance was issued in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on the qualification process for drug development tools. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such an approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance contains an information collection that is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The information collection has been approved under the OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0014. The information requested in the guidance is currently submitted to FDA to support medical product effectiveness (see 21 CFR 312.30, 21 CFR 314.50(d)(5), and 21 CFR 314.126(b)(6)).
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received within 60 days of this notice.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
Although some program forms vary (see program-specific burden charts below), general forms include: The Program Application; Academic and Non-Academic Letters of Recommendation; the Authorization to Release Information; and the Acceptance/Verification of Good Standing Report. Additional forms for the NHSC SP include the Data Collection Worksheet, which is completed by the educational institutions of program participants; the Post Graduate Training Verification Form (formerly the Deferment Request Form applicable for S2S participants), which is completed by program participants and their residency director; and the Enrollment Verification Form, which is completed by program participants and the educational institution for each academic term of the program.
The annual estimate of burden for participants/schools/residency programs is as follows:
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received within 60 days of this notice.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
The official agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site (
As this meeting will be a combined format of both in-person and webinar, members of the public and interested parties who wish to participate “in-person” should make an immediate request by emailing their first name, last name, and contact email address to the Designated Federal Official for the Council, Mr. Shane Rogers, at
Anyone requesting information regarding the COGME should contact Mr. Shane Rogers, the Designated Federal Official within the Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, in one of the following three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Shane Rogers, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 9A-27, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call 301-443-5260; or (3) send an email to
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before February 11, 2014.
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358-2280; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for barasingha (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for barasingha (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess Eld's deer (
The applicant requests amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to include African wild dog (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following families and species, to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests amendment of their permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess to include barasingha (Rucervus duvaucelii), Eld's deer (Rucervus eldii), Arabian oryx (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the ring-tailed lemur (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for barasingha (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from wild Kakapo (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given below, by February 6, 2014.
Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (Attn: David Dell, Permit Coordinator).
David Dell, Permit Coordinator, telephone 404-679-7313; facsimile 404-678-7081.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The applicant requests authorization to receive and retain, for greater than 45 days, Kemp's ridley
The applicant requests authorization to amend their permit to take (capture, handle, conduct tissue sampling, release, and collect dead shells for identification) two additional species of freshwater mussels for the purpose of conducting presence/absence/population surveys and assisting in species recovery efforts. These activities will be conducted throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida and Alabama for the following species: fat three-ridge (
The applicant requests authorization to take the Key Largo wood rat (
The applicant requests authorization to take endangered fish and mollusk species while conducting listed species monitoring activities. These activities will be conducted throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama for the following species: James spinymussel (
The applicant requests authorization to amend his current permit to take (capture, handle, radio tag, and release) Indiana bats (
The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to hold for veterinary treatment, to retain unreleasable specimens, or to euthanize specimens of Kemp's ridley (
The applicant requests authorization to renew his current permit take endangered fish and mollusk species while conducting species monitoring activities; and amend his current permit to take (capture, handle, radio tag and release) Indiana bats (
The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, mark, apply transmitters, track, survey, and collect tissues) Indiana bat (
The applicant requests authorization to take endangered species while conducting listed species monitoring activities. These activities will be conducted throughout Georgia for the following species: amber darter (
The applicant requests renewal of authorization to conduct surveys,
The applicant requests authorization amend his current permit to include take (capture, handle, conduct tissue sampling, and release) of the dromedary pearly mussel (
The applicant requests renewal of his existing authorization to harass the red-cockaded woodpecker (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Southwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council (RAC) is scheduled to meet as indicated below.
The Southwest Colorado RAC meetings will be held on February 7 in Montrose, Colorado; May 16 in Gunnison, Colorado; and August 16 in Dolores, Colorado.
The Southwest Colorado RAC meetings will be held February 7 at the Montrose Public Lands Center, 2465 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401; May 16 at the Gunnison County Fairgrounds and Multi-Purpose Building, 275 S. Spruce St., Gunnison, CO 81230; and August 16 at the Dolores Public Lands Center, 29211 Highway 184, Dolores, CO 81323. The meetings will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4 p.m. A public comment period regarding matters on the agenda will be held at 11:30 a.m.
Lori Armstrong, BLM Southwest District Manager, 970-240-5300; or Shannon Borders, Public Affairs Specialist, 970-240-5300; 2505 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Southwest Colorado RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues in Colorado. Topics of discussion for all Southwest Colorado RAC meetings may include field manager and working group reports, recreation, fire management, land use planning, invasive species management, energy and minerals management, travel management, wilderness, land exchange proposals, cultural resource management and other issues as appropriate.
These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RACs. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time, as identified above, allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The United States Forest Service (USFS) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend the duration of Public Land Order (PLO) No. 7169 for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7169 withdrew approximately 86.85 acres of National Forest System land from mining in order to protect the cultural resource sites at Wocus Point. The withdrawal established by PLO No. 7169 will expire on October 25, 2015, unless it is extended. This notice gives the public an opportunity to comment on the application and proposed action and to request a public meeting.
Comments and requests for a public meeting must be received by April 7, 2014.
Comments and meeting requests should be sent to the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208-2965 or 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-3264.
Sara Copp, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6189; or Candice Polisky, USFS Pacific Northwest Region, 503-808-2479. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individuals. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The USFS has filed an application requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend PLO No. 7169 (60 FR 54814 (1995)), which withdrew approximately 86.85 acres in Klamath County, Oregon, from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2) for an additional 20-year term, subject to valid existing rights. PLO No. 7169 is incorporated herein by reference.
The purpose of the proposed withdrawal extension is to ensure the continued protection of the unique and
The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not provide adequate protection.
The USFS would not need to acquire water rights to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal extension.
Records related to the application may be examined by contacting Sara Copp at the above address or phone number.
For a period until April 7, 2014, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the BLM State Director at the address indicated above.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the addresses indicated above during regular business hours. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension. All interested parties who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal extension must submit a written request to the BLM State Director at the address indicated above by April 7, 2014. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the
The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300.4.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Realty Action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to offer one approximately 40-acre parcel of public land in Lincoln County, Nevada, by modified competitive sale. Bidding on the subject parcel will begin at not less than the appraised fair market value (FMV) of $19,000. The BLM identified the parcel for disposal in the 2008 Ely District Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, and has examined the parcel and found it suitable for disposal by modified competitive sale. The sale will be subject to the applicable provisions of Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the regulations at 43 CFR 2710.
Comments regarding the proposed sale must be received by the BLM on or before February 21, 2013. A sale would not be held prior to 60 days following publication of this Notice of Realty Action. If the BLM determines to proceed with the sale, a sale date would be scheduled and announced on the Ely District Web site and in
Written comments concerning the proposed sale should be sent to the BLM Field Manager, Caliente Field Office, 1400 South Street, P.O. Box 237, Caliente, NV 89008, or email
Cynthia Longinetti, Realty Specialist, at 775-289-1809, or
The parcel is located approximately 20 miles southeast of Rachel, Nevada, off State Route 375, on the southern side of Tickaboo Valley, and is legally described as:
The area described contains 40 acres, in Lincoln County, Nevada.
This tract of public land meets the disposal criteria consistent with Section 203 of FLPMA and is in conformance with the BLM Ely District Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approved on November 30, 2007, and Resource Management Plan (RMP), approved on August 20, 2008. The parcel is identified as suitable for disposal and its disposal would be in compliance with Public Law 108-424, the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA), enacted on November 30, 2004. The proposed action also conforms to the 2008 Ely RMP as referenced in the Lands and Realty objectives LR-22, page 68; and Appendix B, page B-1. All of these documents, a map, and the approved appraisal report for the parcel are available for review at the BLM's Ely District Office and Caliente Field Office. A Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy was approved on August 11, 2010.
No significant resource values will be affected by the disposal of the parcel. The parcel is not required for any Federal purposes.
The sale, as proposed, would be a public, oral auction and would be held at the BLM Caliente Field Office, 1400 South Front Street, Caliente, Nevada. Bidding on the sale parcel will begin at the established FMV.
Steve and Glenda Medlin reside on a long-standing 2.5-acre Residential Lease (N-47788) authorized under Section 302 of FLPMA. Grazing Permit #2705021 authorized the Medlin's to operate a cattle ranching business on the surrounding 37.5 acres within the Bald Mountain Grazing Allotment. Over 25 years, the Medlin's built several improvements and caused considerable disturbance to the surrounding 37.5 acres.
The BLM examined the parcel and found it to be consistent with and suitable for disposal using modified competitive sale procedures at 43 CFR 2710.0-6 (c)(1) and 43 CFR 2711.3-2, which allow for the use of modified competitive sales in certain circumstances to assure equitable distribution of land among purchasers
Modified competitive sale procedures: The designated bidder or his authorized representative must be present at the oral bid sale. Should the designated bidder appoint a representative for this sale, they must submit in writing a notarized document identifying the level of capacity given to their designated representative. This document must be signed by both parties. The designated bidder or his authorized representative will have the opportunity to meet and accept the high bid as the purchase price of the parcel or to refuse that offer. Should the designated bidder or his authorized representative fail to exercise the preference consideration offered by the authorized officer to meet the high bid as the purchase price at the sale, the high bid will be declared the successful bid in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 2711.3-2(c), using the procedures specified in 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d), competitive bidding procedures, where the highest qualifying bid received shall be publicly declared by the authorized officer. Acceptance or rejection of any offer to purchase will be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f) and (g) of this subpart.
The bid deposit payment and the final payment must be in the form of a bank draft, cashier's check, certified check, or U.S. postal money order, or any combination thereof, and made payable in U.S. dollars to the Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management. The bid deposit of 20 percent is due immediately following the close of the sale. Personal or company checks will not be accepted. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until the BLM officially accepts the offer to purchase and the full bid price is paid.
Full payment must be made within 180 days from the date the sale offer is received. Failure to pay the full purchase price within 180 days of the sale will disqualify the sale offer. Failure to pay the full purchase price within the allotted time will result in forfeiture of the bid deposit in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d). No exceptions will be made. The BLM cannot accept the full price at any time following the expiration of the 180th day after the sale offer(s). Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to the BLM shall be made a minimum of 2 weeks prior to final payment. Failure to meet conditions established for this sale will void the sale and any monies received will be forfeited.
All minerals for the parcel will be reserved in accordance with the BLM's approved Mineral Report, dated July 19, 2010. Information pertaining to the reservation of minerals specific to the parcel is located in the case file and is available for public review at the BLM Office at the addressed listed above.
The LCCRDA P.L. 108-424, Section 102(g)(1), states that Federal land described in subsection (a) is withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation under the public land laws and mining laws and that the land segregation will terminate when the land is sold. Additionally, in accordance with 43 CFR 2807.15 and 2886.15, upon publication of this Notice of Realty Action and until completion of the sale, the BLM is no longer accepting land use applications affecting the identified public land, except applications for the amendment of previously filed right-of-way applications or existing authorizations to increase the term of the grants.
Any conveyance document issued would be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:
1. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
2. All minerals, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe shall be reserved to the United States.
3. The conveyance will be subject to all valid existing rights, including right-of-way N-90722 for an access road granted to the Lincoln County Road Department commonly known as the Medlin Ranch Road, its successors or assigns pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761) is reserved.
4. By accepting this patent, the purchasers/patentees agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind or nature arising from the past, present, and future acts or omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third-party, arising out of or in connection with the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property which has already resulted or does hereafter result in: (a) Violations of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that are now or may in the future become, applicable to the real property; (b) Judgments, claims or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (c) Costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (c) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substances(s), as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property and other interests of the United States; (e) Activities by which solid waste or hazardous substances or waste, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (f) Natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. This covenant shall be construed as running with the patented real property, and may be enforced by the United States in a court of competent jurisdiction.
5. Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9620(h), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, (100 Stat. 1670), notice is hereby given that the described lands have been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for 1 year or more.
6. All Recognized Environmental Concerns located within or adjacent to the 40-acre parcel on public land have been removed or cleaned up by Steve and Glenda Medlin and inspected for compliance by the BLM. An Environmental Site Assessment was approved by the BLM Ely District Manager on July 12, 2010.
No warranty of any kind, express or implied, is given by the United States, its officers or employees, as to title, access to or from the above described parcel of land, whether or to what extent the land may be developed, its physical condition, or past, present or future uses, or any other circumstances or condition. The conveyance of any such parcel will not be on a contingency basis. However, to the extent required by law, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 120(h) of the CERCLA.
Bidders must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that they meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2711.2 to hold real property in the United States. Failure to submit documentation to the BLM within 30 days from receipt of the high bidder letter shall result in the cancellation of the bid.
The parcel may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the FMV of the parcel. Encumbrances of record, appearing in the case file for the parcel proposed for sale, are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, at the Ely District Office, except during federally recognized holidays.
The parcel is subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and prior to patent issuance, a holder of any right-of-way within the parcel may be given the opportunity to amend the right-of-way for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or to an easement.
The BLM will notify valid existing right-of-way holders of their ability to convert their compliant rights-of-way to perpetual rights-of-way or easements. Each valid holder will be notified in writing of their rights and then must apply for the conversion of their current authorization.
Unless other satisfactory arrangements are approved in advance by a BLM authorized officer, conveyance of title shall be through the use of escrow. Designation of the escrow agent shall be through mutual agreement between the BLM and the prospective patentee, and costs of escrow shall be borne by the prospective patentee.
Requests for all escrow instructions must be received by the Ely District Office prior to 30 days before the scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.
All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the Ely District Office 30 days from the date on the high bidder letter by 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. Name changes will not be accepted after that date. To submit a name change, the apparent high bidder(s) must submit the name change on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the Ely District Office in writing. Certificate of Eligibility forms are available at the Ely District Office and on the BLM Web site at:
The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of the exchange is the bidder's responsibility in accordance with Internal Revenue Service regulations. The BLM is not a party to any 1031 Exchange.
All sales are made in accordance with and subject to the governing provisions of law and applicable regulations.
In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the BLM authorized officer, consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons.
In order to determine the FMV, certain assumptions may have been made concerning the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this notice, the BLM advises that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local government. It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable Federal, State, and local government laws, regulations, and policies that may affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer. When conveyed out of Federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It will be the responsibility of the purchaser to be aware through due diligence of those laws, regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals for future uses. Buyers should also make themselves aware of any Federal or State law or regulation that may impact the future use of the property. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.
Only written comments will be considered properly filed. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment-you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information-may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Any comments regarding the proposed sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
43 CFR 2711.1-2(a) and (c).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
This notice is to inform the public about a policy document that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued on October 28, 2013, that states that BLM will publish information on Expression of Interest (EOI) submissions that BLM receives after January 1, 2014. The policy document directs its state offices to advise EOI submitters that BLM does not require their name and address to be included in their submission and EOI submitters may exclude any information they consider privileged or confidential. Under the updated policy, inclusion of names and addresses will effectively operate as
Atanda Clark, Senior Mineral Leasing Specialist, BLM, Washington Office, 20 M St. SE., Washington DC 20003. Ms. Clark may also be reached at 202-912-7156. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours.
On October 28, 2013, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued Instruction Memorandum No. 2014-004 to update the policy regarding its handling of EOIs. EOIs are informal nominations by the public that identify lands the BLM should consider for inclusion in future Oil and Gas Competitive Lease Sales. Under the updated policy, for any EOIs submitted on or after January 1, 2014, the BLM will no longer hold submitter names and addresses as confidential until two days after an Oil and Gas Competitive Lease Sale as it has done previously, but rather the BLM will publish the EOI submitter names and addresses, if provided, on the BLM state office Web sites before the lease sale. This approach will give an EOI submitter the option to submit an EOI anonymously without the submitter's name included or to submit an EOI with the submitter's name included to allow the BLM to publish that information on the appropriate BLM state office Web site. The BLM will publish all EOIs received after January 1, 2014, including the submitter's name.
For more information regarding this updated policy, see BLM, WO IM No. 2014-004 located at
For any EOIs submitted before January 1, 2014, the BLM will determine whether to release the submitter's name in response to any Freedom of Information Act request on a case-by-case basis.
Notice.
On December 31, 2013, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Aerial Lifts Standard in Construction” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before January 30, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge as of January 1, 2014, from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
The ICR seeks to maintain PRA authority for the information collection requirements specified in regulations 29 CFR 1926.453, the Aerial Lifts Standard in Construction. The standard requires a covered employer that has modified an aerial lift to have the manufacturer or equally qualified entity assess and certify the modified aerial lift is safe for use by or near workers and that it provides workers with a level of protection at least equivalent to the protection afforded by the lift prior to modification. The Occupational Safety and Health Act authorizes the information collection provisions.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2013. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of application for a permanent variance and interim order; grant of interim order; request for comments.
This notice announces the application of Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture (“Tully” or “the applicant”) for a permanent variance from the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA” or “the Agency”) construction standard that regulate work in compressed air. In addition, the applicant requested an interim order based on the alternate conditions specified by its variance application. Based on its review of the application, including the alternate conditions, OSHA concludes that an interim order will provide Tully's employees with the requisite protection while OSHA considers Tully's application for a permanent variance. Therefore, OSHA is granting an interim order to the applicant subject to the conditions described in this notice. OSHA also invites the public to submit comments on the variance application.
Submit comments, information, documents in response to this notice, and requests for a hearing on or before February 6, 2014. The interim order specified by this notice becomes effective on January 7, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
On July 12, 2012, Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture (hereafter, “Tully” or “the applicant”), 355 Front Street, Construction Site, Staten Island, NY 10304, submitted under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act”; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 (“Variances and other relief under section 6(d)”) an application for a permanent variance from several provisions of the OSHA standard that regulates work in compressed air at 29 CFR 1926.803, as well as a request for an interim order
Tully is a contractor that works on complex tunnel projects using recently developed equipment and procedures for soft-ground tunneling. Tully workers engage in the construction of subaqueous tunnels using advanced shielded mechanical excavation techniques in conjunction with an Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine (EPBTBM).
According to its application, Tully is currently the managing partner of Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture, the general contractor for the New York Economic Development Corporation's New York Siphon Tunnel Project. The project consists of a 12-foot diameter tunnel beneath New York Harbor between Staten Island and Brooklyn. Tully will bore the tunnel below the water table through soft soils consisting of clay, silt, and sand. Tully would employ specially trained personnel for the construction of the tunnel, and states that this construction will use shielded mechanical-excavation techniques. Tully asserts that its workers would perform hyperbaric interventions at pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the excavation chamber of the EPBTBM; these interventions consist of conducting inspections and maintenance work on the cutter-head structure and cutting tools of the EPBTBM.
Tully asserts that innovations in tunnel excavation, specifically with EPBTBMs, have, in most cases, eliminated the need to pressurize the entire tunnel. This technology negates the requirement that all members of a tunnel-excavation crew work in compressed air while excavating the tunnel. These advances in technology modified substantially the methods used by the construction industry to excavate subaqueous tunnels compared to the caisson work regulated by the current OSHA compressed-air standard for construction at 29 CFR 1926.803. Such advances reduce the number of workers exposed, and the total duration of exposure, to hyperbaric pressure during tunnel construction.
Using shielded mechanical-excavation techniques, in conjunction with precast concrete tunnel liners and backfill grout, EPBTBMs provide methods to achieve the face pressures required to maintain a stabilized tunnel face through various geologies, and isolate that pressure to the forward section (the working chamber) of the EPBTBM. Interventions in the working chamber (the pressurized portion of the EPBTBM) take place only after halting tunnel excavation and preparing the machine and crew for an intervention. Interventions occur to inspect or maintain the mechanical-excavation components located in the working chamber. Maintenance conducted in the working chamber includes changing replaceable cutting tools and disposable wear bars, and, in rare cases, repairing structural damage to the cutter head.
In addition to innovations in tunnel-excavation methods, Tully asserts that innovations in hyperbaric medicine and technology improve the safety of decompression from hyperbaric exposures. According to Tully, the use of decompression protocols incorporating oxygen is more efficient, effective, and safer for tunnel workers than compliance with the decompression tables specified by the existing OSHA standard (29 CFR Part 1926, subpart S, Appendix A decompression tables). These hyperbaric exposures are possible due to advances in technology, a better understanding of hyperbaric medicine, and the development of a project-specific Hyperbaric Operations Manual (HOM) that requires specialized medical support and hyperbaric supervision to provide assistance to a team of specially trained man-lock attendants and hyperbaric or compressed-air workers.
OSHA initiated a preliminary technical review of the Tully's variance application and developed a set of follow-up questions that it sent to Tully on August 29, 2012 (Ex. OSHA-2012-0036-0002). On October 9, 2012, Tully submitted its response and a request for an interim order (Ex. OSHA-2012-0036-0003). In its response to OSHA's follow-up questions, Tully indicated that the maximum pressure to which it is likely to expose workers during interventions for the New York Economic Development Corporation's New York Siphon Tunnel Project is 58 p.s.i.g. Therefore, to work effectively on this project, Tully must perform hyperbaric interventions in compressed air at pressures higher than the maximum pressure specified by in the existing OSHA standard, 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), which states: “No employee shall be subjected to pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. except in emergency” (see footnote 1 in this notice).
The applicant asserts that the advances in tunnel excavation technology described in Section I of this notice modified significantly the equipment and methods used by contractors to construct subaqueous tunnels, thereby making several provisions of OSHA's compressed-air standard for construction at 29 CFR 1926.803 inappropriate for this type of work. These advances reduce both the number of employees exposed, and the total duration of exposure, to the hyperbaric conditions associated with tunnel construction.
Using shielded mechanical-excavation techniques, in conjunction with pre-cast concrete tunnel liners and backfill grout, EPBTBMs provide methods to achieve the face pressures required to maintain a stabilized tunnel face, through various geologies, while isolating that pressure to the forward section (working or excavation chamber) of the EPBTBM.
Interventions involving the working chamber (the pressurized chamber at the head of the EPBTBM) would take place only after the applicant halts tunnel excavation and prepares the machine and crew for an intervention. Interventions occur to inspect or maintain the mechanical-excavation components located in the forward portion of the working chamber. Maintenance conducted in the forward portion of the working chamber includes changing replaceable cutting tools, disposable wear bars, and, in rare cases, repairs to the cutter head due to structural damage.
In addition to innovations in tunnel-excavation methods, research conducted after OSHA published its compressed-air standard for construction in 1971 resulted in advances in hyperbaric medicine. In this regard, the applicant asserts that the use of decompression protocols incorporating oxygen is more efficient, effective, and safer for tunnel
The applicant contends that a permanent variance would provide its workers with a place of employment that is at least as safe and healthful as they would obtain under the existing provisions of OSHA's compressed-air standard for construction. The applicant certifies that it provided employee representatives of affected workers
The applicant states that it may perform hyperbaric interventions at pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the working chamber of the EPBTBM; this pressure exceeds the pressure limit of 50 p.s.i.g. specified for nonemergency purposes by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5). The EPBTBM has twin man locks, with each man lock having two compartments. This configuration allows workers to access the man locks for compression and decompression, and medical personnel to access the man locks if required in an emergency.
EPBTBMs are capable of maintaining pressure at the tunnel face, and stabilizing existing geological conditions, through the controlled use of propel cylinders, a mechanically driven cutter head, bulkheads within the shield, ground-treatment foam, and a screw conveyor that moves excavated material from the working chamber. As noted earlier, the forward-most portion of the EPBTBM is the working chamber, and this chamber is the only pressurized segment of the EPBTBM. Within the shield, the working chamber consists of two sections: the staging chamber and the forward working chamber. The staging chamber is the section of the working chamber between the man-lock door and the entry door to the forward working chamber. The forward working chamber is immediately behind the cutter head and tunnel face.
The applicant will pressurize the working chamber to the level required to maintain a stable tunnel face. Pressure in the staging chamber ranges from atmospheric (no increased pressure) to a maximum pressure equal to the pressure in the working chamber. The applicant asserts that most of the hyperbaric interventions will be around 14.7 p.s.i.g. Nevertheless, the applicant maintains that they may have to perform interventions at pressures up to 58 p.s.i.g.
During interventions, workers enter the working chamber through one of the twin man locks that open into the staging chamber. To reach the forward part of the working chamber, workers pass through a door in a bulkhead that separates the staging chamber from the forward working chamber. The maximum crew size allowed in the forward working chamber is three. At certain hyperbaric pressures (i.e., when decompression times are greater than work times), the twin man locks allow for crew rotation. During crew rotation, one crew can be compressing or decompressing while the second crew is working. Therefore, the working crew always has an unoccupied man lock at its disposal.
The applicant developed and proposes to use a project-specific HOM (Ex. OSHA-2012-0036-0004) that describes in detail the hyperbaric procedures and required medical examinations used during the tunnel-construction project. The HOM is project specific, and discusses standard operating procedures and emergency and contingency procedures. The procedures include using experienced and knowledgeable man-lock attendants who have the training and experience necessary to recognize and treat decompression sickness and diving-related illnesses and injuries. The attendants are under the direct supervision of the hyperbaric supervisor and attending physician. In addition, procedures include medical screening and review of prospective compressed-air workers (CAWs). The purpose of this screening procedure is to vet prospective CAWs with medical conditions (e.g., deep vein thrombosis, poor vascular circulation, and muscle cramping) that could be aggravated by sitting in a cramped space (e.g., a man lock) for extended periods or by exposure to elevated pressures and compressed gas mixtures. A transportable recompression chamber (shuttle) will be available to extract workers from the hyperbaric working chamber for emergency evacuation and medical treatment; the shuttle attaches to the topside medical lock, which is a large recompression chamber. The applicant believes that the procedures included in the HOM provide safe work conditions when interventions are necessary, including interventions above 50 p.s.i.g.
OSHA's compressed-air standard for construction requires decompression in accordance with the decompression tables in Appendix A of 29 CFR Part 1926, subpart S (see 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)). As an alternative to the OSHA decompression tables, the applicant proposes to use newer decompression schedules that supplement breathing air used during decompression with pure oxygen. The applicant asserts that these decompression protocols are safer for tunnel workers than the decompression protocols specified in Appendix A of 29 CFR Part 1926, subpart S. Accordingly, the applicant proposes to use the 1992 French Decompression Tables to decompress CAWs after they exit the hyperbaric conditions in the working chamber.
Depending on the maximum working pressure and exposure time
The applicant asserts that at higher hyperbaric pressures, decompression times exceed 75 minutes. The HOM establishes protocols and procedures that provide the basis for alternate means of protection for CAWs under these conditions. Accordingly, based on these protocols and procedures, the applicant requests to use the 1992 French Decompression Tables for hyperbaric interventions up to 58 p.s.i.g. for the New York Siphon Tunnel Project. The applicant will follow the decompression procedures described in the project-specific HOM during these interventions.
According to the applicant, breathing air under hyperbaric conditions increases the amount of nitrogen gas dissolved in a CAW's tissues. The greater the hyperbaric pressure under these conditions, and the more time spent under the increased pressure, the greater the amount of nitrogen gas dissolved in the tissues. When the pressure decreases during decompression, tissues release the dissolved nitrogen gas into the blood system, which then carries the nitrogen gas to the lungs for elimination through exhalation. Releasing hyperbaric pressure too rapidly during decompression can increase the size of the bubbles formed by nitrogen gas in the blood system, resulting in DCI, commonly referred to as “the bends.” This description of the etiology of DCI is consistent with current scientific theory and research on the issue (see footnote 8 below discussing a 1985 NIOSH report on DCI).
The 1992 French Decompression Tables proposed for use by the applicant provide for stops during worker decompression (i.e., staged decompression) to control the release of nitrogen gas from tissues into the blood system. Studies show that staged decompression, in combination with other features of the 1992 French Decompression Tables such as the use of oxygen, result in a lower incidence of DCI than the OSHA decompression requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803, which specify the use of automatically regulated continuous decompression (see footnotes 5 through 10 below for references to these studies).
A. A hyperbaric supervisor (a competent person experienced and trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety) directly supervises all hyperbaric interventions and ensures that the man-lock attendant, who is a competent person in the manual control of hyperbaric systems, follows the schedule specified in the decompression tables, including stops; and
B. The use of the 1992 French Decompression Tables for staged decompression offers an equal or better level of management and control over the decompression process than an automatic controller and results in lower occurrences of DCI.
Accordingly, the applicant is applying for a permanent variance from the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii), which requires automatic controls to regulate decompression. As noted above, the applicant will conduct the staged decompression according to the 1992 French Decompression Tables under the direct control of the trained man-lock attendant and under the oversight of the hyperbaric supervisor.
The OSHA compressed-air standard for construction requires employers to use a special decompression chamber when total decompression time exceeds 75 minutes (see 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)). Another provision of OSHA's compressed-air standard calls for locating the special decompression chamber adjacent to the man lock on the atmospheric pressure side of the tunnel bulkhead (see 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(2)(vii)). However, since only the working chamber of the EPBTBM is under pressure, and only a few workers out of the entire crew are exposed to hyperbaric pressure, the man locks (which, as noted earlier, connect directly to the working chamber) are of sufficient size to accommodate the exposed workers. In addition, available space in the EPBTBM does not allow for an additional special decompression lock. Again, the applicant uses the man locks, each of which will adequately accommodate a three-member crew, for this purpose when decompression lasts up to 75 minutes. When decompression exceeds 75 minutes, crews can open the door connecting the two compartments in each man lock during decompression stops or exit the man lock and move into the staging chamber where additional space is available. This alternative will enable CAWs to move about and flex their joints to prevent neuromuscular problems during decompression.
Tully only applied for an interim order and variance for one site, the New York Siphon Tunnel Project, so any variance OSHA grants Tully will have effect only in the State of New York. While the State of New York has an OSHA-approved safety and health program, that program covers only public-sector employers and not private-sector employers such as Tully; therefore, Federal OSHA continues to cover private-sector employers in the State of New York.
This section describes the conditions that comprise the alternative means of compliance with 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii). These conditions form the basis of the interim
The scope of the interim order/permanent variance limits/would limit coverage of the conditions of the interim order/permanent variance to the work situations specified under this condition. Clearly defining the scope of the interim order/permanent variance provides Tully, Tully's employees, and OSHA with necessary information regarding the work situations in which the interim order/permanent variance applies/would apply.
This condition specifies the circumstances under which the interim order/permanent variance is/would be in effect, notably only for hyperbaric work performed during interventions. The condition places clear limits on the circumstances under which the applicant can expose its employees to hyperbaric pressure.
Condition C defines/would define a number of abbreviations used in the interim order/permanent variance. OSHA believes that defining these abbreviations will serve to clarify and standardize their usage, thereby enhancing the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the interim order/permanent variance.
The condition defines/would define a series of terms, mostly technical terms, used in the interim order/permanent variance to standardize and clarify their meaning. Defining these terms will enhance the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the interim order/permanent variance.
This condition requires/would require the applicant to develop and submit to OSHA a project-specific HOM at least six months before using the EPBTBM for tunneling operations. This requirement ensures/would ensure that the applicant develops hyperbaric safety and health procedures suitable for each specific project. The HOM enables/would enable OSHA to determine that the specific safety and health instructions and measures specified by the HOM are/would be appropriate and will/would adequately protect the safety and health of the CAWs, and, if found appropriate, enables/would enable OSHA to enforce these instructions and measures. Additionally, the condition includes/would include a series of related hazard prevention and control requirements and methods (e.g., decompression tables, job hazard analyses (JHA), operations and inspections checklists) designed to ensure the continued effective functioning of the hyperbaric equipment and operating system.
Condition F requires/would require the applicant to develop and implement an effective system of information sharing and communication. Effective information sharing and communication will/would ensure that affected workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related hazards and incidents, and corrective actions taken, prior to the start of each shift. The condition also requires/would require the applicant to ensure that reliable means of emergency communications are/would be available and maintained for affected workers and support personnel during hyperbaric operations, which will/would enable affected workers and support personnel to respond quickly and effectively to hazardous conditions that may develop during EPBTBM operations.
This condition requires/would require the applicant to develop and implement an effective qualification and training program for affected workers. The condition specifies/would specify the factors that an affected worker must know to perform safely during hyperbaric operations, including how to enter, work in, and exit from hyperbaric conditions under both normal and emergency conditions. Having well-trained and qualified workers performing hyperbaric intervention work will/would ensure that they recognize, and respond appropriately to, hyperbaric safety and health hazards. These qualification and training requirements will/would enable affected workers to cope effectively with emergencies, as well as the discomfort and physiological effects of hyperbaric exposure, thereby preventing injury, illness, and fatalities among the workers.
Paragraph (2)(e) of this condition also requires/would require the applicant to provide affected workers with information the workers can use to contact the appropriate healthcare professionals should the workers believe they may be developing hyperbaric-related health effects from their exposure to hyperbaric conditions. This requirement will/would provide for early intervention and treatment of DCI and other health effects resulting from hyperbaric exposure, thereby reducing the severity of these effects.
Condition H requires/would require the applicant to develop, implement, and operate a program of frequent and regular inspections of the EPBTBM's hyperbaric equipment and support systems, and associated work areas. This condition will/would help ensure the safe operation and physical integrity of the equipment and work areas necessary to conduct hyperbaric operations, thereby enhancing worker safety by reducing the risk of a hyperbaric-related emergency.
Paragraph (3) of this condition requires/would require the applicant to document tests, inspections, corrective actions, and repairs involving the EPBTBM, and maintain these documents at the job site for the duration of the job. This requirement will/would provide the applicant with information needed to schedule tests and inspections to ensure the continuing safe operation of the equipment and systems, and to determine that the actions taken to correct defects in hyperbaric equipment and systems were appropriate, prior to returning them to service.
This condition requires/would require the applicant to consult with its designated medical advisor regarding special compression or decompression procedures appropriate for any unacclimated CAW. This provision will/would ensure that the applicant consults with the medical advisor, and involves the medical advisor in the evaluation, development, and implementation of compression or decompression protocols appropriate for any CAW requiring acclimation to the hyperbaric conditions encountered during EPBTBM operations. Accordingly, CAWs requiring acclimation to the hyperbaric conditions in the EPBTBM will/would have an opportunity to acclimate prior to exposure to these conditions. OSHA believes this condition will/would prevent or reduce adverse reactions among CAWs to the effects of
Condition J requires/would require the applicant to maintain records of specific factors associated with each hyperbaric intervention. The information gathered and recorded under this provision, in concert with the information provided under Condition K, will/would enable the applicant and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the interim order/permanent variance in preventing DCI and other hyperbaric-related effects.
Under this condition, the applicant must/would, within specified periods, notify OSHA of any employee injuries, illnesses, or fatalities that occur as a result of hyperbaric exposures during EPBTBM operations; provide OSHA with a copy of the incident investigation of these events that includes information on the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented by the applicant; and certify that it informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation. This condition also requires/would require the applicant to: notify OTPCA and the Manhattan Area Office within 15 working days should the applicant need to revise its HOM to accommodate changes in its compressed-air operations that affect/would affect its ability to comply with the conditions of the interim order/permanent variance; and provide OTPCA and the Manhattan Area Office, at the end of the New York Siphon Tunnel Project, with a report evaluating the effectiveness of the decompression tables.
These notification requirements will/would enable the applicant, its employees, and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the interim order/permanent variance in providing the requisite level of safety to the applicant's workers and, based on this determination, whether to revise or revoke the conditions of the interim order/permanent variance. Timely notification will/would permit OSHA to take whatever action may be necessary and appropriate to prevent further casualties, while providing notification to employees will/would inform them of the precautions taken by the applicant to prevent similar incidents in the future.
This condition also requires/would require the applicant to notify OSHA if it ceases to do business, has a new address or location for its main office, or transfers the operations covered by the interim order/permanent variance to a successor company. In addition, the condition specifies/would specify that OSHA must approve the transfer of the interim order/permanent variance to a successor company. These requirements will/would allow OSHA to communicate effectively with the applicant regarding the status of the interim order/permanent variance, and expedite the Agency's administration and enforcement of the interim order/permanent variance. Stipulating that an applicant must have OSHA's approval to transfer a variance to a successor company will/would provide assurance that the successor company has knowledge of, and will/would comply with, the conditions specified by the interim order/permanent variance, thereby ensuring the safety of workers involved in performing the operations covered by the interim order/permanent variance.
As noted earlier, the applicant requested an interim order that would remain in effect until completion of the New York Siphon Tunnel Project, or until the Agency makes a decision on its application for a permanent variance. During this period, the applicant will fully comply with the conditions of the interim order as an alternative to complying with the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803 (hereafter, “the standard”) that:
A. Prohibit employers using compressed air under hyperbaric conditions from subjecting workers to pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g., except in emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5));
B. Require the use of decompression values specified by the decompression tables in Appendix A of the compressed-air standard (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); and
C. Require the use of automated operational controls and a special decompression chamber (29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii), respectively).
After reviewing the application, OSHA preliminarily determined that:
A. Tully developed, and proposed to implement, effective alternative measures to the prohibition of using compressed air under hyperbaric conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. The proposed alternative measures include use of engineering and administrative controls of the hazards associated with work performed in compressed-air conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. while engaged in the construction of a subaqueous tunnel using advanced shielded mechanical-excavation techniques in conjunction with an EPBTBM. Prior to conducting interventions in the EPBTBM's pressurized working chamber, the applicant halts tunnel excavation and prepares the machine and crew to conduct the interventions. Interventions involve inspection, maintenance, or repair of the mechanical-excavation components located in the working chamber.
B. Tully developed, and proposed to implement, safe hyperbaric work procedures, emergency and contingency procedures, and medical examinations for the project's CAWs. The applicant compiled these standard operating procedures into a project-specific HOM. The HOM discusses the procedures and personnel qualifications for performing work safely during the compression and decompression phases of interventions. The HOM also specifies the decompression tables the applicant proposes to use. Depending on the maximum working pressure and exposure times during the interventions, the tables provide for decompression using air, pure oxygen, or a combination of air and oxygen. The decompression tables also include delays or stops for various time intervals at different pressure levels during the transition to atmospheric pressure (i.e., staged decompression). In all cases, a physician certified in hyperbaric medicine will manage the medical condition of CAWs during decompression. In addition, a trained and experienced man-lock attendant, experienced in recognizing decompression sickness or illnesses and injuries, will be present. Of key importance, a hyperbaric supervisor (competent person), trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety, will directly supervise all hyperbaric operations to ensure compliance with the procedures delineated in the project-specific HOM or by the attending physician.
C. Tully developed, and proposed to implement, a training program to instruct affected workers in the hazards associated with conducting hyperbaric operations.
D. Tully developed, and proposed to implement, an effective alternative to the use of automatic controllers that continuously decrease pressure to achieve decompression in accordance with the tables specified by the standard. The alternative includes using the 1992 French Decompression Tables for guiding staged decompression to achieve lower occurrences of DCI, using a trained and competent attendant for implementing appropriate hyperbaric
E. Tully developed, and proposed to implement, an effective alternative to the use of the special decompression chamber required by the standard. EPBTBM technology permits the tunnel's work areas to be at atmospheric pressure, with only the face of the EPBTBM (i.e., the working chamber) at elevated pressure. The applicant limits interventions conducted in the working chamber to performing required inspection, maintenance, and repair of the cutting tools on the face of the EPBTBM. The EPBTBM's man lock and working chamber provide sufficient space for the maximum crew of three CAWs to stand up and move around, and safely accommodate decompression times up to 360 minutes. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily determined that the EPBTBM's man lock and working chamber function as effectively as the special decompression chamber required by the standard.
OSHA conducted a review of the scientific literature regarding decompression to determine whether the alternative decompression method (i.e., the 1992 French Decompression Tables) the applicant proposed would provide a workplace as safe and healthful as that provided by the standard. Based on this review, OSHA preliminarily determined that tunneling operations performed with these tables
The review conducted by OSHA found several research studies supporting the determination that the 1992 French Decompression Tables result in a lower rate of DCI than the decompression tables specified by the standard. For example, H. L. Anderson studied the occurrence of DCI at maximum hyperbaric pressures ranging from 4 p.s.i.g. to 43 p.s.i.g. during construction of the Great Belt Tunnel in Denmark (1992-1996);
Based on a review of available evidence, the experience of State-Plans that either granted variances (Nevada, Oregon, and Washington)
Under the interim order and variance application, instead of complying with the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii), Tully will: (1) Comply with the conditions listed below under “Specific Conditions of the Interim Order and the Application for a Permanent Variance” for the period between the date of this notice and completion of the New York Siphon Tunnel Project or the date OSHA publishes its final decision on Tully's application in the
The following conditions apply to the interim order OSHA is granting to Tully. In addition, these conditions specify the alternative means of compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) that the Tully is proposing for its permanent variance. The conditions apply to all employees of Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture exposed to hyperbaric conditions at the New York Siphon Tunnel Project. These conditions are:
The interim order/permanent variance applies/would apply only to work:
1. That occurs in conjunction with construction of the New York Siphon Tunnel Project, a subaqueous tunnel constructed using advanced shielded mechanical-excavation techniques and involving operation of an EPBTBM;
2. Performed under compressed-air and hyperbaric conditions up to 58 p.s.i.g.;
3. In the EPBTBM's forward section (the working chamber) and associated hyperbaric chambers used to pressurize and decompress employees entering and exiting the working chamber; and
4. Except for the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii), Tully must/would comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1926.
The interim order/permanent variance applies/would apply only when Tully stops the tunnel-boring work, pressurizes the working chamber, and the CWAs either enter the working chamber to perform interventions (i.e., inspect, maintain, or repair the mechanical-excavation components), or exit the working chamber after performing interventions.
Abbreviations used throughout this interim order/permanent variance include the following:
The following definitions apply/would apply to this interim order/permanent variance. These definitions supplement the definitions in Tully's project-specific HOM.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
1. Tully must/would develop and implement a project-specific HOM, and submit the HOM to OSHA at least six months before using the EPBTBM. Tully must/would receive a written acknowledgement from OSHA regarding the acceptability of the HOM.
2. Tully must/would implement the safety and health instructions included in the manufacturer's operations manuals for the EPBTBM, and the safety and health instructions provided by the manufacturer for the operation of decompression equipment.
3. Tully must/would use air as the only breathing gas in the working chamber.
4. Tully must/would use the 1992 French Decompression Tables for air, air-oxygen, and oxygen decompression specified in the HOM, specifically the tables titled “French Regulation Air Standard Tables.”
5. Tully must/would equip man locks used by its employees with an oxygen-delivery system as specified by the HOM. Tully must/would not store oxygen or other compressed gases used in conjunction with hyperbaric work in the tunnel.
6. Workers performing hot work under hyperbaric conditions must/would use flame-retardant personal protective equipment and clothing.
7. In hyperbaric work areas, Tully must/would maintain an adequate fire-suppression system approved for hyperbaric work areas.
8. Tully must/would develop and implement one or more JHAs for work in the hyperbaric work areas, and review, periodically and as necessary
9. Tully must/would develop a set of checklists to guide compressed-air work and ensure that employees follow/would follow the procedures required by this interim order/permanent variance (including all procedures required by the HOM, which this interim order/permanent variance incorporates/would incorporate by reference). The checklists must/would include all steps and equipment functions that the risk assessment indicates/would indicate are essential to prevent injury or illness during compressed-air work.
10. Tully must/would ensure that the safety and health provisions of the HOM adequately protect/would protect the workers of all contractors and subcontractors involved in hyperbaric operations.
1. Prior to beginning a shift, Tully must/would implement a system that informs/would inform workers exposed to hyperbaric conditions of any hazardous occurrences or conditions that might affect their safety, including hyperbaric incidents, gas releases, equipment failures, earth or rock slides, cave-ins, flooding, fires, or explosions.
2. Tully must/would provide a power-assisted means of communication among affected workers and support personnel in hyperbaric conditions where unassisted voice communication is inadequate.
a. Tully must/would use an independent power supply for powered communication systems, and these systems must operate such that use or disruption of any one phone or signal location will not disrupt the operation of the system from any other location.
b. Tully must/would test communication systems at the start of each shift and as necessary thereafter to ensure proper operation.
Tully must/would:
1. Ensure that each affected worker receives/would receive effective training on how to safely enter, work in, exit from, and undertake emergency evacuation or rescue from, hyperbaric conditions, and document this training.
2. Provide effective instruction, before beginning hyperbaric operations, to each worker who performs/would perform work, or controls/would control the exposure of others, in hyperbaric conditions, and document this instruction. The instruction must/would include topics such as:
a. The physics and physiology of hyperbaric work;
b. Recognition of pressure-related injuries;
c. Information on the cause, signs, and symptoms of decompression illness;
d. How to avoid discomfort during compression and decompression; and
e. Information the workers can use to contact the appropriate healthcare professionals should the workers have concerns that they may be experiencing adverse health effects from hyperbaric exposure.
3. Repeat the instruction specified in paragraph (b) of this condition periodically and as necessary (e.g., after making changes to its hyperbaric operations).
4. When conducting training for its hyperbaric workers, make this training available to OSHA personnel and notify the OTPCA at OSHA's national office and OSHA's Manhattan Area Office before the training takes place.
1. Tully must/would initiate and maintain a program of frequent and regular inspections of the EPBTBM's hyperbaric equipment and support systems (such as temperature control, illumination, ventilation, and fire-prevention and fire-suppression systems), and hyperbaric work areas, as required under 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2) by:
a. Developing a set of checklists to be used by a competent person in conducting weekly inspections of hyperbaric equipment and work areas; and
b. Ensuring that a competent person conducts daily visual checks and weekly inspections of the EPBTBM.
2. If the competent person determines that the equipment constitutes/would constitute a safety hazard, Tully must/would remove the equipment from service until it corrects the hazardous condition and has the correction approved by a qualified person.
3. Tully must/would maintain records of all tests and inspections of the EPBTBM, as well as associated corrective actions and repairs, at the job site for the duration of the job.
Tully must/would consult with its attending physician concerning the need for special compression or decompression exposures appropriate for CAWs not acclimated to hyperbaric exposure.
In addition to the requirements of 29 CFR part 1904 (Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses), Tully must/would maintain records of:
1. The date, times, and pressure for each hyperbaric intervention.
2. The name of each individual worker exposed to hyperbaric pressure and the decompression protocols and results for each worker.
1. To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein, Tully must/would:
a. Notify the OTPCA and the Manhattan Area Office of any injury, illness, or fatality resulting from exposure of an employee to hyperbaric conditions within 8 hours of the incident, and provide a copy of the incident investigation within 24 hours of the incident. The incident-investigation report must include a root-cause determination, and the preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented.
b. Provide certification within 15 days of the incident that it informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation (including the root-cause determination and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented).
c. Notify the OTPCA and the Manhattan Area Office within 15 working days and in writing, of any change in the compressed-air operations that affects Tully's ability to comply with the conditions specified herein.
d. Upon completion of the New York Siphon Tunnel Project, evaluate the effectiveness of the decompression tables used throughout the project, and provide a written report of this evaluation to the OTPCA and the Manhattan Area Office.
e. To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein, inform the OTPCA and the Manhattan Area Office as soon as possible after it has knowledge that it will:
i. Cease to do business;
ii. Change the location and address of the main office for managing the tunneling operations specified herein; or
iii. Transfer the operations specified herein to a successor company.
f. Notify all affected employees of this interim order/permanent variance by the same means required to inform them of its application for a variance.
2. OSHA must/would approve the transfer of this interim order/permanent variance to a successor company.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 655(6)(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1905.11.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Reopening of the record, and extension of time to submit nominations for membership on the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH).
OSHA is reopening the record extending the time for interested persons to submit nominations for FACOSH membership until March 10, 2014.
Nominations for FACOSH must be submitted (postmarked, sent, transmitted, or received) by March 10, 2014.
You may submit nominations and supporting materials, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2013-0013, by one of the following methods:
Submissions in response to this
Electronic copies of this
OSHA is providing additional time for interested persons to submit nominations for FACOSH membership. Interested persons have until March 10, 2014 to submit nominations for five vacancies on FACOSH, three labor and two management members.
OSHA originally published a
FACOSH is authorized to advise the Secretary of Labor on all matters relating to the occupational safety and health of Federal workers (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, Executive Orders 12196 and 13511). This includes providing advice on how to reduce and keep to a minimum the number of injuries and illnesses in the Federal workforce, and how to encourage the establishment and maintenance of effective occupational safety and health programs in each Federal Executive Branch Department and Agency.
• Eight members who are Federal agency management representatives—Two management representatives will be appointed.
• Eight members who are representatives of labor organizations that represent Federal employees—Three labor representatives will be appointed.
FACOSH members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary and may be appointed to successive terms. FACOSH meets at least two times a year.
The Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks broad-based and diverse FACOSH membership. Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on FACOSH. Interested persons also are invited and encouraged to submit statements in support of nominees.
• The nominee's name, contact information and current occupation or position;
• The nominee's resume or curriculum vitae, including prior membership on FACOSH and other
• Category of membership (management, labor) the nominee is qualified to represent;
• A summary of the nominee's background, experience and qualifications that address the nominee's suitability to serve on FACOSH;
• Articles or other documents the nominee has authored that indicate the nominee's knowledge, experience and expertise in occupational safety and health, particularly as it pertains to the Federal workforce; and
• A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to regularly attend and participate in FACOSH meetings, and has no apparent conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on FACOSH.
The information received through the nomination process, along with other relevant sources of information, will assist the Secretary in making appointments to FACOSH. In selecting FACOSH members, the Secretary may consider individuals nominated in response to this
Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of nominations. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see
All submissions in response to this
Electronic copies of this
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 668, 5 U.S.C. 7902, 5 U.S.C. App 2, Executive Order 12196 and 13511, 29 CFR Part 1960, 41 CFR Part 102-3, and Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)).
All meetings are held at 2 p.m.
Board Agenda Room, No. 11820, 1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 20570
Closed.
Pursuant to § 102.139(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider “the issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition . . . of particular representation or unfair labor practice proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.” See also 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).
Henry Breiteneicher, Associate Executive Secretary, (202) 273-2917.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92- 463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
The National Science Board's Task Force on Administrative Burdens, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows:
Thursday, January 30, 2014, 4 p.m.-5 p.m. EST.
Task Force members will discuss a draft report and recommendations.
Open
This meeting will be held by teleconference. A public listening line will be available. Members of the public must contact the Board Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email message to
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from December 12 to December 24, 2013. The last biweekly notice was published on December 24, 2013 (78 FR 77729).
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0287 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0287 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
(1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) has permanently ceased operation. The proposed amendment would revise the Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP) to correspond to the reduced scope of remaining accidents and events. The proposed amendment has no effect on structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC.
With the reactor in a permanently defueled condition, the spent fuel pool and its support systems are dedicated only to spent fuel storage. It is expected that CR-3 will remain in a wet fuel storage configuration for some time. In this condition, the spectrum of postulated accidents is much smaller than for an operational plant. As a result of the certifications submitted by DEF in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the consequent removal of authorization to operate the reactor or to place or retain fuel in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios postulated in the CR-3 Final Safety Analysis Report, acknowledged by the RERP, are no longer possible.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents can no longer occur and the probability of the few remaining are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. Additionally, the proposed changes have no impact on the Radioactive Waste Handling Accident. The CR-3 PDEP is for the plant's defueled condition. There is no impact on the prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor-related transients. Accidents cannot result in different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the reactor is permanently shut down and defueled and CR-3 is no longer authorized to operate the reactor.
The proposed deletion of certain requirements of the RERP does not affect systems credited in the accident analysis for the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA) in the Auxiliary Building at CR-3. The analyses completed for the proposed PDEP presents a bounding radioactive waste handling accident for the permanently defueled condition of the plant. This accident is not new, but it was not previously analyzed in detail because the Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture Accident assumed a bounding source term. This accident is a rupture of a high integrity container, containing spent primary resin beads, during movement and is the most limiting of the remaining radioactive waste handling accidents. The proposed PDEP continues to require proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers for defueled plants (i.e., fuel cladding and spent fuel pool inventory). Since extended operation in a defueled condition is the only operation currently allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses, such a condition does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The proposed amendment does not introduce a new mode of plant operation or new accident precursors, does not involve any physical alterations to plant configuration, or make changes to system setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety function or its design and licensing bases.
Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the CR-3 Technical Specifications. Because there is no change to the physical design of the plant, there is no change to any of these margins.
Because the 10 CFR Part 50 license for CR-3 no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible. The only remaining accidents are a FHA and a radioactive waste handling accident. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact a FHA and a radioactive waste handling accident.
The proposed changes that are limited to the CR-3 PDEP do not impact the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The revised PDEP does not affect any requirements for SSCs credited in the remaining analyses of applicable postulated accidents; and as such, does not affect the margin of safety associated with these accident analyses. Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor is permanently shut down and defueled and CR-3 is no longer authorized to operate the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2013.
The September 4, 2013, supplement provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 20, 2013.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 13, 2013.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 13, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 6, 13, 20, 27, February 3, 10, 2014.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 13, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 20, 2014.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 3, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 10, 2014.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301-415-1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301-415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, or by email at
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an email to
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Retirement Services offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) 3206-0136, Designation of Beneficiary: Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance, SF 2823. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 6, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent by email to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent by email to
Standard Form 2823 is used by any Federal employee or retiree covered by the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program, or by an
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 17(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”), generally prohibits affiliated persons of a registered investment company (“fund”) from borrowing money or other property from, or selling or buying securities or other property to or from, the fund or any company that the fund controls.
To qualify for the exemptions in rule 17a-10, the subadvisory relationship must be the sole reason why section 17(a) prohibits the transaction. In addition, the advisory contracts of the subadviser entering into the transaction, and any subadviser that is advising the purchasing portion of the fund, must prohibit the subadvisers from consulting with each other concerning securities transactions of the fund, and limit their responsibility to providing advice with respect to discrete portions of the fund's portfolio.
To qualify for the exemptions in rule 17a-10, the subadvisory relationship must be the sole reason why section 17(a) prohibits the transaction. In addition, the advisory contracts of the subadviser entering into the transaction, and any subadviser that is advising the purchasing portion of the fund, must prohibit the subadvisers from consulting with each other concerning securities transactions of the fund, and limit their responsibility to providing advice with respect to discrete portions of the fund's portfolio. This requirement regarding the prohibitions and limitations in advisory contracts of subadvisers relying on the rule constitutes a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
The staff assumes that all existing funds with subadvisory contracts amended those contracts to comply with the adoption of rule 17a-10 in 2003, which conditioned certain exemptions upon these contractual alterations, and therefore there is no continuing burden for those funds.
Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 775 fund portfolios enter into new subadvisory agreements each year. Based on discussions with industry representatives, the staff estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours to draft and execute additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in order for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in rule 17a-10. Because these additional clauses are identical to the clauses that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts to rely on rules 10f-3, 12d3-1, and 17e-1, and because we believe that funds that use one such rule generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3 hour time burden equally among all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that the burden allocated to rule 17a-10 for this contract change would be 0.75 hours.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on rule 17a-10. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-22 requires all registered clearing agencies to file with the Commission three copies of all materials they issue or make generally available to their participants or other entities with whom they have a significant relationship. The filings with the Commission must be made within ten days after the materials are issued or made generally available. When the Commission is not the clearing agency's appropriate regulatory agency, the clearing agency must file one copy of the material with its appropriate regulatory agency.
The Commission is responsible for overseeing clearing agencies and uses the information filed pursuant to Rule 17a-22 to determine whether a clearing agency is implementing procedural or policy changes. The information filed aids the Commission in determining whether such changes are consistent with the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. Also, the Commission uses the information to determine whether a clearing agency has changed its rules without reporting the actual or prospective change to the Commission as required under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.
The respondents to Rule 17a-22 are registered clearing agencies. The frequency of filings made by clearing agencies pursuant to Rule 17a-22 varies but on average there are approximately 200 filings per year per active clearing agency. There are seven active registered clearing agencies. The Commission staff estimates that each response requires approximately .25 hours (fifteen minutes), which represents the time it takes for a staff person at the clearing agency to properly identify a document subject to the rule, print and makes copies, and mail that document to the Commission. Thus, the total annual burden for all active clearing agencies is 350 hours (7 clearing agencies multiplied by 200 filings per clearing agency multiplied by .25 hours) and a total of 50 hours (1400 responses multiplied by .25 hours, divided by 7 active clearing agencies) per year are expended by each respondent to comply with the rule.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form ABS-15G (17 CFR 249.1300) is used for reports of information required under Rule 15Ga-1 (17 CFR 240.15Ga-1) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Exchange Act Rule 15Ga-1 requires asset-backed securitizers to provide disclosure regarding fulfilled and unfulfilled repurchase requests with respect to asset-backed securities. The purpose of the information collected on Form ABS-15G is to implement the disclosure requirements of Section 943 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide information regarding the use of representations and warranties in the asset-backed securities markets. We estimate that approximately 810 securitizers will file Form ABS-15G annually at estimated 311.223 burden hours per response. In addition, we estimate that 75% of the 311.223 hours per response (233.417 hours) is carried internally by the securitizers for a total annual reporting burden of 189,068 hours (233.417 hours per response × 810 responses).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to waive CMM membership application fees for affiliated CMMs, and to charge an incremental annual regulatory fee for such CMMs. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to waive Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”) membership application fees for affiliated CMMs,
The Exchange currently operates an Alternative PMM program whereby the ISE appoints CMMs that meet certain qualifications to serve as Alternative PMMs for options products that have not been allocated to a willing PMM.
Currently, since these affiliated entities operate as distinct members these firms must pay a one-time CMM application fee of $5,500 for each entity. As the incremental cost associated with processing an affiliate's membership application is negligible, and given the significant benefits of attracting CMMs willing to quote unallocated options classes as Alternative PMMs, the Exchange is proposing to waive the application fee for CMM applicants that share at least 75% common ownership with another CMM as reflected on each
The Exchange also charges CMMs an annual regulatory fee in order to cover the cost of surveilling these members and performing other regulatory responsibilities. For a CMM that is not also a Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) this regulatory fee is $5,000 per year for the first CMM membership and $1,000 per year for each additional CMM membership. The lower fee charged for additional CMM memberships after the first reflects the lower incremental cost to the Exchange of surveilling such additional memberships. As with additional CMM memberships within the same entity, the Exchange does not have to dedicate the same level of resources to surveilling the activities of affiliated CMMs. The Exchange therefore proposes to only charge the higher $5,000 per year regulatory fee for the first CMM membership within each group of affiliated companies. Affiliated CMMs will pay the $1,000 per year incremental regulatory fee charged for additional CMM memberships after the first. The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the annual regulatory fee for CMMs that are also PMMs as that fee, which is $1,000 per year for each CMM membership, already reflects the incremental regulatory costs of surveilling such members. Again, the Exchange believes that this change will benefit all market participants that trade on the Exchange by attracting additional CMMs to act as Alternative PMMs in options classes not allocated to a PMM.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is fair and equitable to waive the membership application fee for affiliated CMMs due to the negligible cost associated with processing membership applications from such members. This waiver will allow affiliated CMMs to become members without incurring additional “start-up” fees that do not reflect the limited resources expended by the ISE in processing their applications, and will thereby encourage current CMMs to register additional affiliated CMMs as necessary to act as Alternative PMMs. The Exchange similarly believes that it is fair and equitable to charge an incremental regulatory fee to affiliated CMMs due to the incremental cost of regulating these members. This treatment is consistent with how the ISE currently charges regulatory fees for additional CMM memberships within the same entity, and the Exchange is merely extending this treatment to additional CMM memberships that are held within the same affiliated group of companies. By charging the higher initial regulatory fee to only the first CMM membership within each group of affiliated companies, the ISE believes that it is more accurately reflecting the costs associated with regulating affiliated members. Moreover, the Exchange believes that this change will encourage more affiliated CMMs to maintain memberships on the Exchange as necessary to support the Alternative PMM program, which, in turn, will benefit all market participants that trade on the ISE. The Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to apply the proposed application fee waiver and incremental regulatory fee only to CMMs. As explained above, these fee changes are being proposed in order to encourage CMMs to seek Alternative PMM appointments. The Exchange believes that reducing the membership application and regulatory costs for affiliated CMMs will encourage more CMMs to register additional affiliated broker dealers as CMMs in order to quote options classes as Alternative PMMs. Greater participation in the Alternative PMM program will benefit all market participants that trade on the Exchange as it will allow the ISE to list additional options products, which will be supported by the Alternative PMMs. Alternative PMMs have all the responsibilities of regular PMMs, including, among other things, conducting the opening rotation on a daily basis and providing continuous quotations in appointed options classes.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
CME proposes to make amendments to CME Rule 971 as part of an industry wide initiative that is designed to further safeguard customer funds held at the futures commission merchant (“FCM”) level.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule changes and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and operates a substantial business clearing futures and swaps contracts subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME proposes to make rule changes to CME Rule 971 in coordination with the National Futures Association (“NFA”). The proposed rule changes are part of a continuing futures industry effort to enhance the protection of customer funds held at the FCM level.
In the fall of 2012, CME made a separate filing to introduce new provisions in CME Rule 971.C. Under these rule changes, FCM clearing members were required to provide the CME Audit Department, now named the Financial and Regulatory Surveillance Department (“FRS”), with view-only full access of segregated, secured, and Cleared Swaps Customer accounts at a bank or trust company.
When the 2012 rule changes were implemented, CME and NFA had engaged a third party vendor, Alphametrix360, LLC, to facilitate CME's and NFA's view only internet based access to relevant account information. CME is proposing to make certain amendments to the text of Rule 971.C for the purpose of allowing clearing members to be able to submit account information through multiple mediums. These proposed changes simply delete the phrases “view only full” and “via the internet” in the current rule text to effect these changes.
In addition, CME also proposes to make certain additional amendments to CME Rule 971.C to expand these reporting requirements to include all applicable customer depositories under CFTC Regulations. FRS will first expand its reporting requirement to include FCM customer carrying broker balances. Additionally, the expansion is anticipated to continue and subsequently will include Clearing House customer balances. The amended language provides FRS the flexibility to phase in these additional depositories, and is also intended to harmonize industry requirements as similar rules have been proposed and adopted by NFA effective as of September 6, 2013.
CME would like to operationalize the proposed changes on December 31, 2013, pending applicable regulatory reviews and approvals. CME believes it is appropriate to grant this filing on an accelerated basis because the proposed changes are part of an industry wide
CME has also made a filing with the CFTC, CME Submission 13-453, with respect to the proposed changes.
CME believes the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act. First, CME, a derivatives clearing organization, is implementing the proposed changes in accordance Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) as part of an effort to harmonize futures industry requirements in conjunction with the National Futures Association, which has already adopted corresponding rules that went effective as of September 6, 2013. The CEA contains a number of provisions that are comparable to the policies underlying the Exchange Act, including, for example, promoting market transparency for derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public interest.
More importantly, CME believes the proposed changes are specifically designed to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed changes involve enhancements to requirements that provide a self-regulatory organization with access to the customer accounts held at banks for the purpose of discharging regulatory obligations. As such, the proposed enhancements are clearly designed to bolster safeguarding of customer funds held at the FCM level and protect investors. Further, the proposed changes are part of a larger, coordinated futures industry effort to safeguard customer funds. Because the proposed changes are designed to enhance regulatory requirements related to self-regulatory organization access to customer accounts and are also part of an industry-wide plan initiated for the purpose of further safeguarding investor funds, CME believes the changes are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act because they are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of CME or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
CME does not believe that the proposed rule changes will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The rule changes merely amend existing language in CME's rulebook for the purpose of enhancing access to customer accounts for regulatory purposes as part of a larger industry effort to safeguard customer funds.
CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding these proposed rule changes. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2013-37 and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2014.
Section 19(b) of the Act
In its filing, CME requested that the Commission approve these proposed rule changes on an accelerated basis for good cause shown because the proposed changes are part of an industry wide initiative that is specifically designed to protect investors and the public interest through adoption of requirements that help safeguard customer funds held at the FCM level.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to more specifically address the number and size of counterparties to a Qualified Contingent Cross Order (“QCC Order”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposal is to remove the size restriction on contra-party participation on a QCC Order. This proposal would expand the availability of QCC Orders by permitting multiple contra-parties on a QCC Order, each of which may consist of an order for less than 1,000 contracts; provided however, that the originating QCC Order meets the 1,000 contract minimum (as well as the other requirements of a QCC Order). This change is intended to increase liquidity and, potentially, improve the prices at which QCC Orders get executed, as explained further below.
A QCC Order must be comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts
The QCC Order type was originally approved on July 26, 2013.
The Exchange is now proposing to remove the size limit placed on contra-parties to QCC Orders in an effort to increase liquidity and, potentially, improve the prices at which QCC Orders get executed. The ability for market participants to provide liquidity in response to large sized orders is directly proportional to the size and associated risk of the resulting position. As a result, smaller sized trades are often done at a better price than larger sized trades, which convey more risk. The ability to pool together multiple market participants to participate on a trade for any size, as opposed to only allowing market participants to participate for a minimum of 1,000 contracts has a direct and positive impact on the ability of those market participants to provide the best price as they compete to participate against the order without being compelled to provide liquidity with a large minimum quantity. This concept isn't unique to large crosses. It is well understood and observed that any product with multiple market participants providing liquidity offers the tightest and most liquid market and the same applies to the larger orders negotiated away from the exchanges.
Allowing several participants to offer liquidity to a QCC Order serves to ensure that that order receives the best possible price available in the market. Restricting interaction to only participants who are willing to trade a minimum of 1,000 contracts simply guarantees an inferior price because a trade will be limited to few liquidity providers who are taking on more risk as opposed to multiple liquidity providers being able to share the overall risk and trade at a better price. For example, a 1,000 contract order in GOOG will receive a better price if two liquidity providers are able to each provide 500 contracts, rather than one of them having to trade the entire 1,000 contracts.
An area of concern has been the protection of smaller orders, which is why the QCC Order is limited to the 1,000 contract minimum. It is important to note that the concern has always been and should continue to be for the originating or unsolicited part of the order, the order that is seeking liquidity and not the professional responders and providers of liquidity. Allowing smaller orders to participate on the other side of QCC Orders not only provides the best price and opportunity for a trade to occur in a tight and liquid market, but ensures that the highest possible number of liquidity providers are able to participate. Limiting participation only to liquidity providers who are willing to participate on the trade for 1,000 contracts conversely could result in an inferior price by shutting out some participants due to the large size and thereby minimizing the opportunity for competition and price improvement. Removing this limitation benefits both sides of a QCC trade by ensuring a trade at the best possible price without favoring larger participants on the solicited side of the trade.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
In approving QCC Orders, the Commission has stated that “. . . qualified contingent trades are of benefit to the market as a whole and a contribution to the efficient functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery process.”
Consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange believes that this will be beneficial to participants because allowing multiple parties of any size on one contra-side of a QCC Order should foster competition for filling QCC Orders and thereby result in potentially better prices.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the proposal is intended to relieve a burden on competition, which results from different exchanges interpreting their rules differently. Among the options exchanges, the Exchange believes that the proposal to allow multiple counterparties of at least 1,000 contracts should foster competition for filling the contra-side of a QCC order and thereby result in potentially better prices for such orders.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CHX proposes to amend Section P of its Schedule of Fees and Assessments (the “Fee Schedule”) to include Market Data Revenue from trade reports within the purview of the Market Data Revenue Rebates Program. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes [sic] and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section P of its Fee Schedule to include Market Data Revenue (“MDR”) from trade reports (“Trade Reports MDR”) within the purview of the MDR Rebates Program. Specifically, the amended MDR Rebates Program calls for 50% of MDR that exceeds fixed thresholds in any one of six quote or trade reports pools (“Excess MDR”) to be shared with Participants in proportion to their respective Eligible Quote or Trade Activity in that pool from the previous calendar quarter. If the sum of a Participant's rebates from all pools in a given quarter satisfies the
The Securities Information Processors (“SIPs”), which include the Securities Information [sic] Automation Corporation (“SIAC”) and the Unlisted Trading Privilege Plan Quotation Data Feed (“UQDF”) [sic], collect fees from subscribers for trade and quote tape data received from trading centers and reporting facilities, such as the CHX (collectively “SIP Participants”). After deducting the cost of operating each tape, the profits are allocated among the SIP Participants on a quarterly basis, according to a complex set of calculations that consider [sic] estimates of anticipated MDR, adjustments to comport to actual MDR from previous quarters and a non-linear aggregation of total trading and quoting activity in Tapes A, B and C securities in allocating MDR to each SIP Participant. Based on these calculations, the SIPs provide MDR payments to each SIP Participant during the first month of each quarter for trade and quote data from the previous calendar quarter, which are subject to adjustment through subsequent quarterly payments. These payments can be divided into six pools
On September 27, 2013, the Exchange adopted Section P of the Fee Schedule to implement an MDR Rebates Program to share MDR from quotes (“Quotes MDR”) only, which became operative on October 1, 2013.
The Exchange utilizes a set of calculations to attribute Quotes MDR to Participants that are similar to calculations currently utilized by the SIPs in attributing Quotes MDR to SIP Participants. In sum, if Excess MDR exists in a given quotes pool, the Exchange assigns quote credits to each Participant according to their [sic] eligible quote activity in that pool, which takes into account the actual dollar amount of the quote and how long the quote was at the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”). In turn, the actual dollar amount of the rebate for a Participant is the product of the percentage of the total quote credits assigned to the Participant in a given pool and 50% of the Excess MDR in the same pool. If a Participant is eligible for MDR Rebates from multiple pools, the Participant will be eligible to receive an MDR Rebate equal to the sum of all the rebates. However, if the sum of the rebates is less than $500, the Participant will not receive a payment and the rebate will be kept by the Exchange. The purpose of the
As for calculating the pool of funds from which MDR Rebates will be paid, unlike the SIPs, the Exchange derives MDR Rebate allocation from a fixed value that is not be subject to adjustment (
Moreover, the Excess MDR thresholds were selected based on historical data of the Exchange's quote activity and MDR that has been paid to the Exchange in previous quarters. The dollar values represent the amount of MDR that must be paid to the Exchange by the SIPs before the 50% of the Excess MDR would be eligible for sharing pursuant to the MDR Rebates Program.
The Exchange now proposes to expand the current MDR Rebates Program to share Trade Reports MDR. Aside from this, the Exchange does not propose to substantively amend the current MDR Rebates Program in any other way.
Specifically, proposed Section P(1) provides that assuming that the requirements of this Section are met, a Participant will receive a quarterly MDR Rebate in proportion to the Participant's quoting of displayed orders in Tapes A, B and C securities (“Eligible Quote Activity”)
Furthermore, proposed Section P(2) provides that MDR will be calculated separately for quotes and trade reports in Tape A, B and C securities, for a total of six pools. Notably, the Exchange proposes to replace the term “eligible quote activity” with the more general “quotes and trade reports” to clarify that the MDR thresholds in each of the six pools are calculated not based on Eligible Quote or Trading Activity, but rather, on all Quotes and Trade Reports MDR received by the Exchange. Moreover, proposed Section P(2) also provides that if the MDR received by the Exchange in any given pool exceeds the following proposed thresholds in any given calendar quarter, 50% of such Excess MDR will be paid to Participants in proportion to their respective Eligible Quote or Trade Activity in that pool.
The Exchange notes that the SIPs do not distinguish between trades from single-sided orders and trades from cross orders in attributing Trade Reports MDR to a SIP Participant. As such, the Exchange proposes to similarly consider all Trade Reports MDR received from the SIPs in determining whether or not Excess MDR exists in a given trade reports pool. However, given that the Exchange's proposed definition of “Eligible Trade Activity,” Excess MDR in a given trade reports pool will be allocated to Participants based solely on trades resulting from single-sided resting orders submitted by the Participant. [sic] That is, a Participant's trading activity based on cross orders or single-sided orders that take liquidity from the CHX Book will not count as Eligible Trade Activity.
The Exchange does not propose to amend current Section P(3), which provides an aggregate $500.00
The Exchange proposes to utilize a set of calculations to attribute Trade Reports MDR to Participants that are similar to calculations currently utilized by the SIPs in attributing Trade Reports MDR to SIP Participants. If Excess MDR exists in any given trade reports pool, the Exchange proposes to assign trade credits to each Participant according to their [sic] Eligible Trade Activity per trade reports pool. Specifically, the trade credit values will be derived from a set of calculations that will consider,
Similar to the current Quote MDR Rebates, the Exchange does not propose to adjust the Trade Reports MDR Rebates paid to Participants in subsequent quarters to comport to adjustments made by the SIPs to previous MDR payments made to the Exchange. This avoids the problem of having to adjust Trade Reports MDR Rebates that have already been paid.
The following
Assume that the Q1 2014 MDR paid to the Exchange is apportioned as follows:
With respect to quotes, the Tape B quotes pool has Excess MDR in the amount of $40,000. However, the Tapes A and C quotes pools have no Excess MDR because the actual MDR received by the Exchange in the Tape A pool was $100 short of its $3,000 threshold and the Tape C pool was equal to its $12,000 threshold. Thus, Participants may be paid MDR Rebates in proportion to their quote credits from 50% of the Excess MDR in the Tape B pool, which is $20,000.
With respect to trade reports, the Tape B trade reports pool has Excess MDR in the amount of $14,000. However, the Tapes A and C trade reports pools have no Excess MDR because the actual MDR received by the Exchange in the Tape A pool was $7,000 short of its $27,000 threshold and the Tape C pool was equal to its $18,000 threshold. Thus, Participants may be paid MDR Rebates in proportion to their trade credits from 50% of the Excess MDR in the Tape B trade reports pool, which is $7,000.
Each Participant is attributed MDR according to their [sic] respective percentage of the total Tape B quote or trade credits assigned. For instance, Participant A was allocated 2.4% (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to amend the MDR Rebates Program contributes to the protection of investors and the public interest by promoting display liquidity on, and order flow to, the Exchange. Consequently, the MDR rebates, as amended, will promote competition that is necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange proposes to implement the program in time for the initial calendar quarter for 2014. Waiver would allow the Exchange to adhere to this proposed timetable. Also, prompt implementation of the changes to the program may encourage competition among exchanges that have market data revenue sharing programs. For these reasons, and because the proposed rule change presents no novel issues, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (“Fee Schedule”) to eliminate the Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) Order Tier, add a new Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier, and make other changes relating to open orders. The Exchange proposes to implement the changes on January 2, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to eliminate the MPL Order Tier, add a new Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier, and make other changes relating to open orders. The Exchange proposes to implement the changes on January 2, 2014.
Currently, the Exchange provides a $0.0020 per share credit for ETP holders, including Market Makers, that execute an Average Daily Volume (“ADV”) of providing MPL orders during the month that is 0.0775% or more of the U.S. Consolidated ADV (“US CADV”). When the Exchange proposed the MPL Order Tier credit, the Exchange expected it to incentivize ETP Holders to submit additional MPL orders on the Exchange;
The Exchange also is proposing a new Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier. Under the Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier, ETP Holders, including Market Makers, that (1) provide liquidity of 0.40% or more of the US CADV during the billing month across all Tapes, (2) maintain a ratio during the billing month across all Tapes of executed provide liquidity that is eligible to route away from the Exchange (“Routable Orders”) to total executed provide liquidity of 65% or more, (3) execute an ADV of provide liquidity during the billing month across all Tapes that is equal to at least the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's May 2013 provide liquidity across all Tapes
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend footnote 1 in the Fee Schedule to eliminate the restriction that credits will not be applied to open orders (e.g., “Good Till Cancelled” or “GTC” Orders) executed after the trading date on which they were entered. The Exchange is eliminating the restriction to encourage more orders to be submitted and enhance liquidity on the Exchange.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that eliminating the MPL Order Tier is reasonable because it has generally not incentivized ETP Holders to submit additional liquidity in MPL orders as intended.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to add the new Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier is reasonable because it would provide firms with an alternative way in which to qualify for the current Routable Order Tier credit of $0.0032 for Tape A and Tape C securities and an alternative way to qualify for the current Tape B Step Up Tier credit of $0.0027 for Tape B securities through equity and options orders, thereby encouraging increased trading activity on both the NYSE Arca equity and option markets. The Exchange believes that the thresholds that it has set for qualifying for the new tier are reasonable because they are based in part on the qualifications for the existing Routable Order Tier. The Exchange believes that lowering the ratio for Routable Orders from 75% in the current Routable Order Tier to 65% in the proposed Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier is reasonable because under the proposed tier, ETP Holders would be required to meet an additional threshold in options volume in order to qualify for the credit. The Exchange further believes that the proposed Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because ETP Holders that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm would continue to have the opportunity to qualify for the same levels of credit pursuant to either the Routable Order Tier or the Tier 1 and Tape B Step Up Tier. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory for an ETP Holder or Market Maker that qualifies for the proposed Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier to not be eligible for the Tape B Adding Tier, Tape B Step Up Tier, Tape C Step Up Tier, or Tape C Step Up Tier 2 because the ETP Holders and Market Makers that qualify for these specified tiers would already receive the benefit of a lower fee or an equal or incrementally higher credit for such executions that add liquidity.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to include Tape B securities within the proposed Routable Order Cross-Asset Tier because it would encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange in such securities. The Exchange further believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply the same qualifying thresholds to Tape B securities as would apply to Tape A and Tape C securities, but to apply a lower credit for Tape B securities (i.e., $0.0027 compared to $0.0032), because existing pricing on the Exchange for Tape B Securities is often different from Tape A and Tape C Securities, with different credits and fees.
The Exchange believes that eliminating the restriction on open orders in footnote 1 and making credits available to open orders that execute after the day that they are entered is reasonable because it may encourage more open orders to be submitted, which may enhance liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed change to footnote 1 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all ETP Holders would have the opportunity to earn credits for open orders that do not execute on the day entered.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ is proposing to extend for three months the fee pilot pursuant to which NASDAQ distributes the NASDAQ Last Sale (“NLS”) market data products. NLS allows data distributors to have access to real-time market data for a capped fee, enabling those distributors to provide free access to the data to millions of individual investors via the internet and television. Specifically, NASDAQ offers the “NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ” and “NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT” data feeds containing last sale activity in U.S. equities within the NASDAQ Market Center and reported to the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (“FINRA/NASDAQ TRF”), which is jointly operated by NASDAQ and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). The purpose of
This pilot program supports the aspiration of Regulation NMS to increase the availability of proprietary data by allowing market forces to determine the amount of proprietary market data information that is made available to the public and at what price. During the pilot period, the program has vastly increased the availability of NASDAQ proprietary market data to individual investors. Based upon data from NLS distributors, NASDAQ believes that since its launch in July 2008, the NLS data has been viewed by millions of investors on Web sites operated by Google, Interactive Data, and Dow Jones, among others.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a) For a three month pilot period commencing on [October 1, 2013]
(1)-(2) No change.
(b)-(c) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Prior to the launch of NLS, public investors that wished to view market data to monitor their portfolios generally had two choices: (1) Pay for real-time market data or (2) use free data that is 15 to 20 minutes delayed. To increase consumer choice, NASDAQ proposed a pilot to offer access to real-time market data to data distributors for a capped fee, enabling those distributors to disseminate the data at no cost to millions of internet users and television viewers. NASDAQ now proposes a three-month extension of that pilot program, subject to the same fee structure as is applicable today.
NLS consists of two separate “Level 1” products containing last sale activity within the NASDAQ market and reported to the jointly-operated FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. First, the “NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ” data product is a real-time data feed that provides real-time last sale information including execution price, volume, and time for executions occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. Second, the “NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT” data product provides real-time last sale information including execution price, volume, and time for NYSE- and NYSE MKT-securities executions occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. By contrast, the securities information processors (“SIPs”) that provide “core” data consolidate last sale information from all exchanges and trade reporting facilities (“TRFs”). Thus, NLS replicates a subset of the information provided by the SIPs.
NASDAQ established two different pricing models, one for clients that are able to maintain username/password entitlement systems and/or quote counting mechanisms to account for usage, and a second for those that are not. Firms with the ability to maintain username/password entitlement systems and/or quote counting mechanisms are eligible for a specified fee schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ Product and a separate fee schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT Product. Firms that are unable to maintain username/password entitlement systems and/or quote counting mechanisms also have multiple options for purchasing the NASDAQ Last Sale data. These firms choose between a “Unique Visitor” model for internet delivery or a “Household” model for television delivery. Unique Visitor and Household populations must be reported monthly and must be validated by a third-party vendor or ratings agency approved by NASDAQ at NASDAQ's sole discretion. In addition, to reflect the growing confluence between these media outlets, NASDAQ offered a reduction in fees when a single distributor distributes NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products via multiple distribution mechanisms.
NASDAQ also established a cap on the monthly fee, currently set at $50,000 per month, for all NASDAQ Last Sale products. The fee cap enables NASDAQ to compete effectively against other exchanges that also offer last sale data for purchase or at no charge.
As with the distribution of other NASDAQ proprietary products, all distributors of the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ and/or NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT products pay a single $1,500/month NASDAQ Last Sale Distributor Fee in addition to any applicable usage fees. The $1,500 monthly fee applies to all distributors and does not vary based on whether the distributor distributes the data internally or externally or distributes the data via both the internet and television.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
NASDAQ believes that its NASDAQ Last Sale market data products are precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by lessening regulation of the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their
By removing unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to BDs at all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the market as well.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
The court in
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ's ability to price its Last Sale Data Products is constrained by (1) competition between exchanges and other trading platforms that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (2) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed consolidated data; and (3) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary last sale data.
The market for proprietary last sale data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality and price, and distribution of its data products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in content and content distribution industries such as software, where developing new software typically requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is typically small, or even zero (
An exchange's BD customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A BD will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost
Similarly, in the case of products such as NLS that are distributed through market data vendors, the vendors provide price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract “eyeballs” that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail BDs, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value. NASDAQ and other producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully. Moreover, NASDAQ believes that products such as NLS can enhance order flow to NASDAQ by providing more widespread distribution of information about transactions in real time, thereby encouraging wider participation in the market by investors with access to the internet or television. Conversely, the value of such products to distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls, because the products contain less content.
Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. NASDAQ pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge lower direct fees for executions and data.
In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an “excessive” price for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including thirteen SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, BATS, and Direct Edge.
Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Indeed, in the case of NLS, the data provided through that product appears both in (i) real-time core data products offered by the SIPs for a fee, and (ii) free SIP data products with a 15-minute time delay, and finds a close substitute in last-sale products of competing venues.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters.
Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users. Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or 20- minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of proprietary products.
The competitive nature of the market for products such as NLS is borne out by the performance of the market. In May 2008, the internet portal Yahoo! began offering its Web site viewers real-time last sale data (as well as best quote data) provided by BATS. In response, in June 2008, NASDAQ launched NLS, which was initially subject to an “enterprise cap” of $100,000 for customers receiving only one of the NLS products, and $150,000 for customers receiving both products. The majority of NASDAQ's sales were at the capped level. In early 2009, BATS expanded its offering of free data to include depth-of-book data. Also in early 2009, NYSE Arca announced the launch of a competitive last sale product with an enterprise price of $30,000 per month. In response, NASDAQ combined the enterprise cap for the NLS products and reduced the cap to $50,000 (
In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.”
In establishing the price for the NASDAQ Last Sale Products, NASDAQ considered the competitiveness of the market for last sale data and all of the implications of that competition. NASDAQ believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to NLS, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources ensures that NASDAQ cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, without losing business to these alternatives. Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that the acceptance of the NLS product in the marketplace demonstrates the consistency of these fees with applicable statutory standards.
Three comment letters were filed regarding the proposed rule change as originally published for comment. NASDAQ responded to these comments in a letter dated December 13, 2007. Both the comment letters and NASDAQ's response are available on the SEC Web site at
It appears to NASDAQ that SIFMA's contentions in this new proceeding are similar to the contentions in its numerous prior comment letters, which have repeatedly argued that market data fees are improper unless established through public utility-style rate-making proceedings that are nowhere contemplated by the Act. In making its arguments, SIFMA has sought to rely upon
The petitioners believe that the SEC's market-based approach is prohibited under the Exchange Act because the Congress intended “fair and reasonable” to be determined using a cost-based approach. The SEC counters that, because it has statutorily-granted flexibility in evaluating market data fees, its market-based approach is fully consistent with the Exchange Act. We agree with the SEC.
While the court noted that cost data could sometimes be relevant in determining the reasonableness of fees, it acknowledged that submission of cost data may be inappropriate where there are “difficulties in calculating the direct costs . . . of market data,”
SIFMA further contended that prior filings lacked evidence supporting a conclusion that the market for NLS is competitive, asserting that arguments about competition for order flow and substitutability were rejected in
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 504 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading) and 715 (Types of Orders) to more specifically address the number and size of counterparties to a Qualified Contingent Cross Order (“QCC Order”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposal is to remove the size restriction on contra-party participation on a QCC Order. This proposal would expand the availability of QCC Orders by permitting multiple contra-parties on a QCC Order, each of which may consist of an order for less than 1,000 contracts; provided however, that the originating QCC Order meets the 1,000 contract minimum (as well as the other requirements of a QCC Order). This change is intended to increase liquidity and, potentially, improve the prices at which QCC Orders get executed, as explained further below.
A QCC Order must be comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts
The QCC Order type was originally approved on February 24, 2011.
The Exchange is now proposing to remove the size limit placed on contra-parties to QCC Orders in an effort to increase liquidity and, potentially, improve the prices at which QCC Orders get executed. The ability for market participants to provide liquidity in response to large sized orders is directly proportional to the size and associated risk of the resulting position. As a result, smaller sized trades are often done at a better price than larger sized trades, which convey more risk. The ability to pool together multiple market participants to participate on a trade for any size, as opposed to only allowing market participants to participate for a minimum of 1,000 contracts has a direct and positive impact on the ability of those market participants to provide the best price as they compete to participate against the order without being compelled to provide liquidity with a large minimum quantity. This concept isn't unique to large crosses. It is well understood and observed that any product with multiple market participants providing liquidity offers the tightest and most liquid market and the same applies to the larger orders negotiated away from the exchanges.
Allowing several participants to offer liquidity to a QCC Order serves to ensure that that order receives the best possible price available in the market. Restricting interaction to only participants who are willing to trade a minimum of 1,000 contracts simply guarantees an inferior price because a trade will be limited to few liquidity providers who are taking on more risk as opposed to multiple liquidity providers being able to share the overall risk and trade at a better price. For example, a 1,000 contract order in GOOG will receive a better price if two liquidity providers are able to each provide 500 contracts, rather than one of them having to trade the entire 1,000 contracts.
An area of concern has been the protection of smaller orders, which is why the QCC Order is limited to the 1,000 contract minimum. It is important to note that the concern has always been and should continue to be for the originating or unsolicited part of the order, the order that is seeking liquidity and not the professional responders and providers of liquidity. Allowing smaller orders to participate on the other side of QCC Orders not only provides the best price and opportunity for a trade to
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
In approving QCC Orders, the Commission has stated that “. . . qualified contingent trades are of benefit to the market as a whole and a contribution to the efficient functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery process.”
Consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange believes that this will be beneficial to participants because allowing multiple parties of any size on one contra-side of a QCC Order should foster competition for filling QCC Orders and thereby result in potentially better prices.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the proposal is intended to relieve a burden on competition, which results from different exchanges interpreting their rules differently. Among the options exchanges, the Exchange believes that the proposal to allow multiple counterparties of at least 1,000 contracts should foster competition for filling the contra-side of a QCC order and thereby result in potentially better prices for such orders.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CHX proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F) to provide that the Match Trade Prevention order execution modifier is not compatible with the Fill Or Kill order duration modifier. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F) to provide that the Match Trade Prevention (“MTP”) order execution modifier is not compatible with the Fill Or Kill (“FOK”) order duration modifier and that any limit or market order marked MTP and FOK shall be rejected by the Matching System.
An order marked FOK shall be deemed to have been received `Do Not Route,' as defined under paragraph (b)(3)(A), which cannot be overridden by an order sender.”
On November 20, 2013, the Exchange filed SR-CHX-2013-20 for immediate effectiveness, which adopted the current MTP order modifier, as defined under Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F), and became operative on December 2, 2013.
In sum, the MTP functionality is based on the interaction between MTP Trading Groups
Once MTP is triggered, one or both orders will be cancelled pursuant to the MTP Action of the MTP modifier attached to the incoming order. If the incoming order has an MTP Action of “N,” the incoming order would be cancelled. If the incoming order has an MTP Action of “O,” the resting order would be cancelled. If the incoming order has an MTP Action of “B,” both the incoming and resting orders would be cancelled. Moreover, if the incoming order is marked “I,” MTP would be deactivated and would not prevent a match.
On p. 16 and p. 41 of SR-CHX-2013-20,
Generally, when the Matching System receives an incoming limit order marked FOK, the Matching System will take the preliminary step of determining whether there is sufficient resting order size to immediately execute the incoming FOK order in full. In doing so, the Matching System only considers the total size of the resting orders necessary to immediately execute the incoming FOK order in full and does not pre-match the incoming FOK order against each of these resting orders. If there is not enough resting size, the Matching System will cancel the incoming FOK order. If there is enough resting size, the Matching System will next attempt to match the incoming FOK order against each of the resting orders necessary to execute the incoming FOK order in full and will execute such orders in price/time priority of the resting orders.
Prior to adopting the MTP modifier, this process of handling incoming FOK orders was sufficient because there were no other order modifiers that could prevent a full and immediate execution of the incoming FOK order after the preliminary resting size test of the FOK modifier was satisfied. Thus, it was impossible for an incoming FOK order to be partially-executed. However, an incoming FOK order marked MTP could now result in a partial execution of an incoming FOK order. Specifically, if MTP is triggered by the second or subsequent resting order, there may not be enough resting size remaining to fully satisfy the incoming FOK order. Thus, an incoming FOK order could be cancelled with a partial execution, which would violate the FOK modifier. The following Examples 1 and 2 illustrate this scenario.
Under this Example 1, since Bid A is marked FOK, the Matching System will take the preliminary step of determining whether Bid A could be immediately executed in full. Given that Bid A is for 1,000 shares of XYZ priced at $10.10/share and Offers A and B are for a combined 1000 shares of XYZ priced at $10.10/share, the Matching System will determine that there is enough resting order size on the CHX Book to immediately execute Bid A in full. The Matching System will then attempt to match Bid A against Offer A. Since the non-MTP order modifiers attached to Bid A and Offer A do not conflict, the Matching System will next consider the MTP Trading Groups of the order because the incoming order is marked MTP with an MTP Action of “N.” Since Bid A is from Trading Group A1 and Offer A is from Trading Group B1, MTP will not be triggered and the MTP Action of “N” will not come into play. As such, the Matching System will permit Bid A to execute against Offer A, which will result in Bid A being decremented by 500 shares. The Matching System will then go through the same process with the 500 remaining shares of Bid A and Offer B. Given that Offer B is identical to Offer A, the Matching System will go through the same process and permit the remaining 500 shares of Bid A to execute against Offer B. The result is that Bid A has been immediately executed in full, which is consistent with the FOK modifier.
Under this Example 2, MTP would prevent the remaining 500 shares of Bid A from executing against Offer B because both orders originated from MTP Trading Group A1. Pursuant to the MTP Action of “N,” Bid A would be cancelled as it is the incoming order, while Offer B would remain posted to the CHX Book. As a result, Bid A would be cancelled with a partial execution (
The Exchange notes that this issue could be resolved by having the Matching System pre-match an incoming FOK order against the required resting orders prior to executing any one trade. If the pre-match revealed that one or more of the resting orders could not execute against the incoming order due to MTP and that the result would be insufficient remaining resting size to fully and immediately execute the incoming FOK order, the pre-match would fail and the incoming FOK order would be cancelled without any partial executions. However, given the tremendous amount of resources needed to modify the Matching System to make this change and in light of the fact that the Exchange infrequently receives FOK orders, the Exchange proposes to reject all incoming orders marked MTP and FOK when the FOK modifier is reactivated.
The Exchange submits that the proposed rule filing is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed filing will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because this filing clarifies the operation of the current MTP modifier and does not propose to modify its functionality.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amending [sic] its Price List related to fees for trading licenses and to delete obsolete text. The Exchange proposes to implement the Price List change immediately. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List related to fees for trading licenses and to delete obsolete text. The Exchange proposes to implement the Price List change immediately.
NYSE Rule 300(b) provides that, in each annual offering, up to 1,366 trading licenses for the following calendar year will be sold annually at a price per trading license to be established each year by the Exchange pursuant to a rule filing submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and that the price per trading license will be published each year in the Exchange's Price List. The trading license fees for 2013 are $40,000 per trading license for the first two licenses held by a member organization and $25,000 for each additional trading license. For trading licenses issued after January 1, 2013, fees are prorated for the portion of the calendar year that the trading license is outstanding.
If, however, a member organization is issued additional trading licenses between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, and the total number of trading licenses held by the member organization between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 is greater than the total number of trading licenses held by the member organization on July 1, 2013, then the member organization is not charged a prorated fee for the period from July 3, 2013 to December 31, 2013 for those additional trading licenses above the number the member organization held on July 1, 2013.
For 2014, the Exchange proposes to extend the fee relief for additional licenses until December 31, 2014. As a result, an annual fee would not apply to the number of trading licenses issued to a member organization between July 3, 2013 and December 31, 2014 that exceeds the total number of trading licenses held by the member organization on July 1, 2013. The Exchange proposes to maintain July 1, 2013 as the baseline date so that a consistent point in time would be used to determine how many trading licenses for which a member organization would be charged. The fee calculation for new or merged member organizations would also be extended. Thus, for any firm that becomes a member organization after July 1, 2013, the firm would be considered to have one trading license as of July 1, 2013 and charged a fee for that one license through December 31, 2014. For example, if a firm became a member organization on November 1, 2013, it would pay a prorated fee for one license until December 31, 2013 ($6,666) and then, under the current rates, pay $40,000 for 2014. If a firm becomes a member organization on March 1, 2014, it would pay a prorated fee under current rates for one license for the remainder of 2014 ($33,334). If a member organization merges with another member organization on or after July 1, 2013, the total combined number of trading licenses held by each member organization on July 1, 2013 would be considered the baseline number of trading licenses for the successor member organization as of the date of the merger through December 31, 2014.
Footnote 15 in the Price List currently provides that Floor brokers will receive a monthly credit of $2,000 for the first two Floor broker licenses held by a member organization and a monthly credit of $500 for each additional Floor broker license held by a member organization for November and December 2012. Additionally, the Price List currently includes a section pertaining to the New York Block Exchange (“NYBX”), which was an electronic exchange facility that ceased operating on February 28, 2013.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members or member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because maintaining fee relief for the number of trading licenses that exceeds the total number of trading licenses held by the member organization on July 1, 2013 would continue to encourage member organizations to hold additional trading licenses, which would increase the number of market participants trading on the floor of the Exchange, thereby promoting liquidity, price discovery and the opportunity for price improvement for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that it is
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated member organizations would continue to be subject to the same trading license fee structure and because access to the Exchange's market would continue to be offered on fair and nondiscriminatory terms. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all member organizations would continue to have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the fee relief with respect to additional trading licenses. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to assign new member organizations a baseline of one trading license because this will continue to encourage firms to become member organizations, thereby encouraging trading activity on the Exchange, which benefits all market participants.
The Exchange also believes that removing obsolete text from the Price List is consistent with the Act because it would add greater clarity for member organizations.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee or credit levels at a particular venue to be unattractive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment and is therefore consistent with the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of its new Options Floor Broker Management System.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to delay the implementation of the Exchange's enhancements to the Options Floor Broker Management System (“FBMS”). The Exchange received approval to implement the enhancements as of June 1, 2013,
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to be able to implement the changes by the end of March 2014; the Exchange will announce the specific date in advance through an Options Trader Alert.
Today, FBMS enables Floor Brokers and/or their employees to enter, route, and report transactions stemming from options orders received on the Exchange. FBMS also establishes an electronic audit trail for options orders represented by Floor Brokers on the Exchange. Floor Brokers can use FBMS to submit orders to Phlx XL, rather than executing the orders in the trading crowd.
With the new FBMS, all options transactions on the Exchange involving at least one Floor Broker would be required to be executed through FBMS. In connection with order execution, the Exchange will allow FBMS to execute two-sided orders entered by Floor Brokers, including multi-leg orders up to 15 legs, after the Floor Broker has represented the orders in the trading crowd. FBMS will also provide Floor Brokers with an enhanced functionality called the complex calculator that will calculate and display a suggested price of each individual component of a multi-leg order, up to 15 legs, submitted on a net debit or credit basis.
In the original filing, the Exchange intended to implement these enhancements with a trial period of two to four weeks, to be determined by the Exchange, during which the new FBMS enhancements and related rules would operate along with the existing FBMS and rules. At this time, the Exchange proposes to adopt a longer implementation period of up to eight weeks, recognizing from the ongoing technology work that the users will need more time to gain experience with the new system. The Exchange will announce the beginning and end of the trial period in advance.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange continues to believe, as it stated when proposing these enhancements, that these enhancements to FBMS should result in the Exchange's trading floor operating in a more efficient way, which should help it compete with other floor-based exchanges and help the Exchange's Floor Brokers compete with floor brokers on other options exchanges.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
The Commission believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will clarify that the delayed implementation of the FBMS will be effective and operative immediately. In addition, because the proposal only delays the implementation date of the FBMS and does not make any additional changes to the FBMS itself, it does not raise any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or
(iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and an extension of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, Email address:
(SSA), Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-966-2830, Email address:
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than March 10, 2014. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB- approved information collection.
2.
SSA uses Form SSA-4659 to evaluate the effectiveness of the annual earnings testand to implement ongoing improvements in the process. About twenty-five percent of respondents will have in-person reviews and receive one of the following appointment letters: (1) SSA-L8550-U3 (Appointment Letter—Sample Individual); (2) SSA-L8551-U3 (Appointment Letter—Sample Family); or (3) the SSA-L8552-U3 (Appointment Letter—Rep Payee). Seventy-five percent of respondents will receive a notice for a telephone review using the SSA-L8553-U3 (Beneficiary Telephone Contact) or the SSA-L8554-U3 (Rep Payee Telephone Contact).
To help the beneficiary prepare for the interview, we include three forms with each notice: (1) SSA-85 (Information Needed to Review Your Social Security Claim) lists the information the beneficiary will need to gather for the interview; (2) SSA-2935 (Authorization to the Social Security Administration to Obtain Personal Information) verifies the beneficiary's correct payment amount, if necessary; and (3) SSA-8552 (Interview Confirmation) confirms or reschedules the interview if necessary. The respondents are a statistically valid sample of all OASDI beneficiaries in current pay status or their representative payees.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
3.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
4.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than February 6, 2014. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
Type of Request: Extension of an OMB-approved information collection.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information collection is needed by MARAD and the Department of Defense (DOD), including representatives from the U.S. Transportation Command and its components, to evaluate and assess the applicants' eligibility for participation in the VISA program. The information will be used by MARAD and the U.S. Transportation Command, and its components, to assure the continued availability of commercial sealift resources to meet the DOD's military requirements. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by March 10, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MARAD-2013-0158 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
William Kurfehs, Program Analyst, Office of Sealift Support, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before February 6, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at
Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Intent.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Research and Development (ORD), intends to grant to Primorigen Biosciences, Inc., 510 Charmany Drive, Madison, WI 53719, USA, an exclusive license to practice the following: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 13/225,441 and PCT Application Number PCT/US11/50462, “Efficient Generation of Neurally-Induced Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Applications Thereof,” filed September 3, 2011, and any subsequent non-provisional patent application(s) that will claim the benefit of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 13/225,441 and PCT Application Number PCT/US11/50462, “Efficient Generation of Neurally-Induced Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Applications Thereof.”
Comments must be received within 15 days from the date of this published Notice.
Written comments may be submitted through
Director of Technology Transfer Program, Office of Research and Development (10P9TT), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 443-5640 (This is not a toll-free number).
It is in the public interest to license this invention, as Primorigen Biosciences, Inc. submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted, unless VA ORD receives written evidence and argument within 15 days from the date of this published Notice, which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual regulatory agendas in the
The
The complete 2013 Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan, which contains the regulatory agendas for 60 Federal agencies, is available to the public at
The 2013 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
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 (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared in the
The 2013 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the Regulatory
The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that appear in
The Regulatory Information Service 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 officials, 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.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies comply with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various Executive orders and other statutes.
The
Executive Order 13563 entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” signed January 18, 2011, supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, which includes the general principles of regulation and
The
The
Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily edition of the
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
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 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
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
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.)
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.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
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.
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.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
Some agencies that participated in the 2013 edition of
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
• 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.
Copies of the
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
In accordance with regulations for the
Executive Order 12866, issued in 1993, requires the production of a Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. Executive Order 13563, issued in 2011, reaffirmed the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is providing the Unified Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) and the Regulatory Plan (Plan) for public review. The Agenda and Plan are a preliminary statement of regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities under consideration. The Agenda and Plan includes “active rulemakings” that have at least some possibility of issuance over the next year, but, as in previous years, this list may include rules that are not issued in the coming year.
The public examination of the Agenda and Plan will help ensure a regulatory system that, in the words of Executive Order 13563, protects “public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.”
The 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 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.
A central purpose of the Agenda is to involve the public, including State, local, and tribal officials, in federal regulatory planning. We emphasize that rules listed on the Agenda must still undergo significant development and scrutiny, both within the agencies and externally, before they are issued. No regulatory action can become effective until it has gone through legally required processes, which generally include public review and comment. Any proposed or final action must also 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 previously contemplated regulatory action.
Whether a regulation is listed on the Agenda as “economically significant” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 (generally, having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more) 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 because they confer large benefits or remove significant burdens. 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. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services issues regulations on an annual basis, pursuant to statute, to govern how Medicare payments are increased each year. These regulations effectively authorize transfers of billions of dollars to hospitals and other health care providers each year.
Executive Order 13563 explicitly points to the need for predictability and for certainty, as well as 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 provisions of Executive Order 12866 that specifically emphasize the importance of considering costs—including the requirement that to the extent permitted by law, agencies should not proceed with rulemaking 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 agency regulatory decision making:
•
•
•
•
•
Executive Order 13563 addresses new regulations that are under development and existing regulations that are already in place. With respect to agencies' review of existing regulations, the Executive Order calls for careful reassessment, based on empirical analysis. The prospective analysis required by Executive Order 13563 may depend on a degree of prediction and speculation about likely impacts, 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.
In addition, circumstances may change in a way that requires reconsideration of regulatory requirements. As retrospective or “look back” analysis is 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. The regulatory look back is an ongoing exercise, and regular reporting about recent progress and coming initiatives is required.
In August 2011, over two dozen agencies developed plans to remove what the President called unjustified rules and “absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.” The plans include over 500 initiatives that will reduce costs, simplify the system, and eliminate redundancy and inconsistency—which means many billions of dollars in savings for American businesses. Already, the Administration is on track to save more than $10 billion dollars in the near term, with far more savings to come.
In July 2013, agencies submitted to OIRA their latest updates of their retrospective review plans, pursuant to Executive Orders 13563 and 13610. Many of the initiatives highlighted in the updated plans benefit small businesses. Federal agencies will update their retrospective review plans this winter.
We have asked agencies to emphasize regulatory look backs in their latest Regulatory Plans. 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 eliminate unjustified and outdated regulations.
In May 2012 President Obama issued Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” which emphasizes the importance of international regulatory cooperation as a key tool for eliminating unnecessary differences in regulation between the United States and its major trading partners which, in turn, supports economic growth, job creation, innovation, trade and investment, while also protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Among other things, the Executive Order provides that agencies that are required to submit a Regulatory Plan must “include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563” and Executive Order 13609. Further, the Executive Order requires agencies to “ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such” in the Agenda. Additionally, as part of the regulatory look back initiative, Executive Order 13609 requires agencies to “consider reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners . . . when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary.”
The implementation of Executive Order 13609 and 13610 will further strengthen the emphasis that Executive Order 13563 has placed 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.
In FY 2014, USDA's focus will continue to be on programs that create or 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. USDA anticipates implementing a comprehensive Food, Farm and Jobs Bill (Farm Bill) covering major farm, trade, conservation, rural development, nutrition assistance and other programs. It is anticipated that a number of high priority regulations will be developed during 2014 to implement this legislation should it be enacted. USDA's regulatory efforts in the coming year will achieve the following goals identified in the Department's Strategic Plan for 2010-2015:
•
•
•
•
Important regulatory activities supporting the accomplishment of these goals in 2014 will include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), the following initiatives are identified in the Department's Final Plan for Retrospective Analysis. . . . The final agency plan, as well as periodic status updates for each initiative, are available online at:
Subsequent to EO 13563, and consistent with its goals as well as the importance of public participation, President Obama issued EO 13610 on Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens in May 2012. EO 13610 directs agencies, in part, to give priority consideration to those initiatives that will produce cost savings or significant reductions in paperwork burdens. 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 ongoing regulatory review and burden reduction efforts, USDA has identified the following burden reducing initiatives:
•
•
•
•
•
Periodic status updates for these burden reducing initiatives can be found online at:
In additional to regulatory review initiatives identified under EO 13563 and the paper work burden reduction initiatives identified under the EO 13610, USDA has plans to initiate the following additional streamlining initiatives in 2014.
•
•
•
•
President Obama issued EO 13609 on promoting international regulatory cooperation in May 2012. The EO charges the Regulatory Working Group, an interagency working group chaired by the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), with examining appropriate strategies and best practices for international regulatory cooperation. The EO also directs agencies to identify factors that should be taken into account when evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory approaches used by trading partners with whom the U.S. is engaged in regulatory cooperation. At this time, USDA is identifying international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, while working closely with the Administration to refine the guidelines implementing the EO. Apart from international regulatory cooperation, the Department has continued to identify regulations with international impacts, as it has done in the past. Such regulations are those that are expected to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of interest to our international trading partners.
USDA is diligently working to carry out the President's EO mandate with regard to regulatory cooperation as new regulations are developed. Several agencies within the Department are also actively engaged in interagency and Departmental regulatory cooperation initiatives being pursued as part of the U.S.-Mexico High Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC) and the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), as well as other fora. Specific projects are being pursued by USDA agencies such as AMS, APHIS, and FSIS and address a variety of regulatory oversight processes and requirements related to meat, poultry, animal and plant health. Projects related to electronic certification, equivalence, meat nomenclature, and the efficient and safe flow of plant, animal and food across our shared borders are all regulatory cooperation pursuits these agencies are undertaking in order to secure better alignment between our countries without compromising the high standards of safety we have in place in the U.S. relative to food safety and public health, as well as plant and animal health, so critical to American agriculture.
This following represents summary information on prospective priority regulations as called for in EO's 12866 and 13563:
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's 2014 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal to “ensure that all of America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals,” and its related objectives:
•
•
•
Mission: FSIS is responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg 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, and egg 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's priority initiatives are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission: A major part of the mission of APHIS is to protect the health and value of American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS conducts
Priorities: APHIS continues to pursue initiatives to update our regulations to make them more flexible and performance-based. For example, in the area of animal health, APHIS has prepared a proposal to amend its veterinary biologics regulations to provide for the use of a simpler, uniform label format that would allow biologics licensees and permittees to more clearly communicate product performance information to the end user. In addition, the rule would simplify the evaluation of efficacy studies and reduce the amount of time required by APHIS to evaluate study data, thus allowing manufacturers to market their products sooner. APHIS is also preparing a proposed rule that would revise and consolidate its regulations regarding bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis to better reflect the distribution of these diseases and the current nature of cattle, bison, and captive cervid production in the United States. In the area of plant health, APHIS is preparing a proposed rule that would establish performance standards and a notice-based process for approving the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables from Hawaii and the U.S. Territories and the importation of those articles from other countries. In addition, APHIS will revise agricultural quarantine and inspection user fees so that fees collected are commensurate with the cost of providing the activity.
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides marketing services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers, exporters, and consumers of food products. AMS also manages the government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading, maintains food quality standards, supervises the Federal research and promotion programs, and oversees the country of origin labeling program as well as the National Organic Program (NOP).
Priorities: AMS is committed to ensuring the integrity of USDA organic products in the U.S. and throughout the world. The agency is moving forward with the following rulemaking that affect the organic industry.
•
Mission: FSA's mission is to deliver timely, effective programs and services to America's farmers and ranchers to support them in sustaining our Nation's vibrant agricultural economy, as well as to provide first-rate support for domestic and international food aid efforts. FSA supports USDA's strategic goals 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 administers several conservation programs directed toward agricultural producers. The largest program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which protects millions of acres of environmentally sensitive land.
Priorities: FSA is focused on providing the best possible service to producers while protecting the environment by updating and streamlining environmental compliance. FSA is also strengthening its ability to help the Nation respond to national defense emergencies. FSA's priority initiatives are as follows:
•
•
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, plus developing and providing scientific and technical assistance, and the exchange of scientific information to support international forest and range conservation. Forest Service regulatory priorities support the accomplishment of the Department's goal to ensure our National forests are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources.
Priorities: The Forest Service is committed to developing and issuing science-based regulations intended to ensure public participation in the management of our Nation's national forests and grasslands, while also moving forward the Agency's ability to plan and conduct restoration projects on National Forest System lands. The Forest Service will continue to review its existing authorities and regulations to ensure that it can address emerging challenges, to streamline excessively burdensome business practices, and to revise or remove regulations that are inconsistent with the USDA's vision for restoring the health and function of the lands it is charged with managing. FS' priority initiatives are as follows:
•
•
Mission: Rural Development (RD) promotes a dynamic business environment in rural America that creates jobs, community infrastructure, and housing opportunities in partnership with the private sector and community-based organizations by providing financial assistance and business planning services, and supporting projects that create or preserve quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment, while focusing on the development of single and multi-family housing and community infrastructure. RD 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.
Priorities: RD regulatory priorities will facilitate sustainable renewable energy development and enhance the opportunities necessary for rural families to thrive economically. RD's rules will minimize program complexity and the related burden on the public while enhancing program delivery and RBS oversight.
•
•
•
•
Mission: OASCR's mission is to provide leadership and direction for the fair and equitable treatment of all USDA customers and employees while ensuring the delivery of quality programs and enforcement of civil rights. OASCR ensures compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies for USDA customers and employees regardless of race, color, national origin, sex (including gender identity and expression), religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, political beliefs, parental status, protected genetic information, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all bases apply to all programs.)
•
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 programs, consistent with laws and mandates, and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers.
•
USDA will ensure that its regulations provide benefits that exceed costs, but are 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 2014, USDA's focus will be to implement the changes to
States and tribes would incur costs associated with this proposed rule, in particular in developing animal health plans for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. The proposed animal health plans for brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis would build significantly on existing operations with respect to these diseases. We anticipate that all 50 States and as many as 3 tribes would develop animal health plans. Based on our estimates of plan development costs, the total cost of the development of these 53 animal health plans could be between about $750,000 and $2.9 million. We expect that under current circumstances, four or five States are likely to develop recognized management area plans as proposed in this rule as part of their animal health plans. Based on our estimates of recognized management area plan development costs, the cost of developing recognized management area plans by these States could total between $56,000 and $274,000.
While direct effects of this proposed rule for producers should be small, whether the entity affected is small or large, consolidation of the brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis regulations is expected to benefit the affected livestock industries. Disease management would be more focused, flexible and responsive, reducing the number of producers incurring costs when disease concerns arise in an area. Also, the competitiveness of the United States in international markets depends on its reputation for producing healthy animals. The proposed rule would enhance this reputation through its comprehensive approach to the control of identified reservoirs of bovine tuberculosis or brucellosis in wildlife populations in certain parts of the United States and more stringent import regulations consistent with domestic restrictions. We expect that the benefits would justify the costs.
C William Hench, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Ruminant Health Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B-3E20, Ft. Collins, CO 80526,
• Providing the AQI services for the conveyances and the passengers listed above;
• Providing preclearance or preinspection at a site outside the customs territory of the United States to international passengers, commercial vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, and commercial aircraft;
• Administering the user fee program; and
• Maintaining a reasonable reserve.
In addition, the FACT Act, as amended, contains the following requirement:
• The fees should be commensurate with the costs with respect to the class of persons or entities paying the fees. This is intended to avoid cross-subsidization of AQI services.
Michael Peranio, Chief, User Fees, Financial Services Branch, FMD, MRPBS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 55, Riverdale, MD 20737,
Agency financing of the packaging fee will remain dependent on the borrower's repayment ability and the total secured indebtedness limitation outlined in 7 CFR 3550.63.
By establishing a vast network of competent, experienced, and committed Agency-certified packagers, this action will benefit low- and very low-income people who wish to achieve homeownership in rural areas by increasing their awareness of the Agency's housing program, increasing specialized support available to them to complete the application for assistance, and improving the quality of loan application packages submitted on their behalf.
With voluntary early retirement authority and voluntary separation incentive payments offered in the first quarter of Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013, the number of Rural Development staff available to process section 502 loan applications has been severely reduced. Without operational restructuring and redistribution, program participants will experience unprecedented and significant delays in loan application processing.
The current procedure allows loan application packaging under an informal arrangement, which results in inconsistencies in the packagers' level of program knowledge and expertise as well as their level of service.
Limited travel budgets restrict the Rural Development staffs' ability to target underserved areas (such as Indian reservations, colonias counties, and persistent poverty counties).
For borrowers that choose to apply through the certified loan application packaging process, their increased loan costs are more than offset by the benefits they will experience (largely being made aware of an affordable homeownership program that they may not have otherwise heard of because of the Agency's reduced physical presence in rural areas and having a knowledgeable and committed packager hold their hand through the entire application process).
Implementing a certified loan application process will save the Agency approximately $1.5 million in salaries and expenses per fiscal year in comparison to maintaining the status quo.
Lynnette M. Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
CN and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-265) requires issuance of a final rule within 18 months of the release of the IOM Report.
Lynnette M Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Statement of Need: This rule amends 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 rule revises 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 implementing two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State agencies options that are currently available only through waivers. These provisions 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 will impact the associated paperwork burdens.
There are many potential societal benefits of this rule, including that certain provisions in the rule will reduce the administrative burden for households and State agencies.
Lynnette M Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
FSIS investigators and public health officials frequently use records kept by all levels of the food distribution chain, including the retail level, to identify and trace back product that is the source of the illness to the suppliers that produced the source material for the product. The Agency, however, has often been thwarted in its effort to trace back ground beef products, some associated with consumer illness, to the suppliers that provided source materials for the products. In some situations, official establishments and retail stores have not kept records necessary to allow traceback and traceforward activities to occur. Without such necessary records, FSIS's ability to conduct timely and effective consumer foodborne illness investigations and other public health activities throughout the stream of commerce is also affected, thereby placing the consuming public at risk. Therefore, for FSIS to be able to conduct traceback and traceforward investigations, foodborne illnesses investigations, or to monitor product recalls, the records kept by official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products must disclose the identity of the supplier and the names of the sources of all materials that they use in the preparation of each lot of raw ground beef product.
Further, under 9 CFR 320.1(a), every person, firm, or corporation required by section 642 of the FMIA to keep records must keep those records that will fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his or its business subject to the Act. Records specifically required to be kept under section 320.1(b) include, but are not limited to, bills of sale; invoices; bills of lading; and receiving and shipping papers. With respect to each transaction, the records must provide the name or description of the livestock or article; the net weight of the livestock or article; the number of outside containers; the name and address of the buyer or seller of the livestock or animal; and the date and method of shipment.
Annual benefits from this rule come from estimated averted Shiga toxin-producing E.coli illnesses of $1.06 million and $0.58 million due to averted cases of Salmonellosis.
Total benefits from this rule are estimated to be $1.64 million, with a net annual benefit of $0.13 million.
Non-monetized benefits under this rule include, for the raw ground beef processing industry: (1) An increase in consumers' confidence and greater acceptance of products because mandatory grinding logs will result in a more efficient traceability system, recalls of reduced volume, and reduced negative press; (2) smaller volume recalls will result in higher confidence and acceptability of products including the disposition of product once recovered; (3) improved productivity, which improves profit opportunities.
Avoiding loss of business reputation is an indirect benefit. By identifying and defining the responsible party, FSIS will be able to get to the suspect faster and execute a better targeted recall, meaning that a recall will involve a smaller amount of product. This lower volume per recall will decrease costs for the recalls and the disposition of product. In addition, the Agency expects consumers to benefit from improved traceability and, thus, a reduced incidence of STECs in ground raw beef products due to the rapid removal of those products from commerce. The Agency believes that by having official meat establishments and retail stores that engage in the business of grinding raw beef products keep records, traceability of ground raw beef in the U.S. food supply will be greatly enhanced.
Under the new system, young chicken and turkey 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.
This final rule is the result of the Agency's 2011 regulatory review efforts conducted under Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. 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.
(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.
1. No Action. FSIS considered taking no action but did not select this alternative because a consumer research study submitted to the Agency showed that consumers view information about these additives as important factors in their purchasing decisions.
2. Require the word “enhanced” in the product's common or usual name, or the use of the term “enhanced” in the containing statement, e.g., “enhanced with 15 percent solution.” FSIS did not select this alternative because the word implies that the product is improved by the addition of the solution. The intent of this rule is to increase transparency to consumers, not to suggest that the product is either better or worse than a raw product without the added solution. In addition, consumer research showed that the containing statement, “enhanced with up to 15 percent solution of water salt, and sodium phosphates” was preferred by fewer study participants (about 10 percent fewer) than the use of the description “contains up to 15 percent water, salt, and sodium phosphates.
3. Require that the common or usual name of the added solutions product include an accurate description of the raw meat or poultry component, the percentage of added solution, and the common or usual name of the ingredients in the solution, with all of the print in a single font size, color, and style on a single-color contrasting background (the proposed amendments). FSIS selected this alternative because it is likely to improve consumer awareness and understanding that raw meat or poultry product contains an added solution. Requiring the percentage of the solution and the ingredient of the solution as part of the common or usual name is information consumers need to make informed purchasing decisions.
The proposed rule estimated the expected number of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses prevented would be 453 per year, with a range of 133 to 1,497, if the predicted percentages of beef steaks and roasts are cooked to an internal temperature of 160 °F (or 145 °F and 3 minutes of dwell time). These prevented illnesses amount to $1,486,000 per year in benefits with a range of $436,000 to $4,912,000.
Therefore, the expected annualized net benefits are $296,000 to $4,772,000 with a primary estimate of $1,346,000. If, however, this rule is in effect before the added solutions rule, the expected annualized net benefits are then $1,137,000, with a range of $87,000 to $4,563,000, plus the unquantifiable benefits of increased consumer information and market efficiency, minus an unquantified consumer surplus loss and an unquantified cost associated with food service establishments changing their standard operating procedures.
Restoration objectives span a number of initiatives in various program areas, including the invasive species strategy, recovery of areas affected by high-severity fires, hurricanes, and other catastrophic disturbances; fish habitat restoration and remediation; riparian area restoration; conservation of threatened and endangered species; and restoration of impaired watersheds and large-scale watershed restoration projects. The restoration policy will allow agency employees to more effectively communicate Forest Service work in meeting restoration needs at the local, regional, and national levels. Currently an internal Forest Service interim policy for this proposed directive has been implemented in the field units, without any issues. Incorporating the definition into the Forest Service Manual will bring the FS policy into alignment with current ecological restoration science and with congressional and FS authorizations and initiatives.
The Agency held several lender meetings throughout the country to see how changes to the program could benefit lenders who utilize the program and make it more attractive for them. The proposed changes being considered should lower the subsidy rate, thereby increasing supportable loan level, which is critical to program success as the program's budget is proposed to be decreased. The proposed rule is intended to increase lending activity, expand business opportunities, and create more jobs in rural areas, particularly in areas that have historically experienced economic distress.
There is no expected cost associated with implementation of the rule.
This interim rule revised and updated the existing Renewable Energy System and Energy Efficiency Improvement Program (7 CFR 4280, subpart) that was implemented in response to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (section 9006 of the 2002 Farm Bill). The interim rule implemented the provisions found in section 9006 of the 2002 Farm Bill as amended and various provisions found in fiscal year 2010 notices of funding availability (NOFAs) published in the
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) published a Proposed Rule on April 12, 2013, with a 60-day comment period to implement additional changes to REAP to further improve program delivery (e.g., through the simplification of the application process).
This rulemaking was determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. It will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more and will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is one of the oldest Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government. Commerce'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.
Commerce 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, Commerce works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and workers to:
•
• Support
• Maintain U.S. economic
• Provide effective management and
• Make informed policy decisions and enable better understanding of the economy by providing
Commerce 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 Commerce.
The vast majority of the Commerce's programs and activities do not involve regulation. Of Commerce'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 2013. During the next year, NOAA plans to publish six 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.
Commerce 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 Commerce afford the public the maximum possible opportunity to participate in Departmental rulemakings, even where public participation is not required by law.
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 Commerce's goal of promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global environment.
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with environmental stewardship, Commerce, 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. Commerce is where business and environmental interests 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 Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National Environmental
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.
Commerce, 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 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 2013, 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.
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. The MMPA allows NMFS to permit 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.
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 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
While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the level necessary to be included in Commerce's regulatory plan, NMFS is undertaking three actions that rise to the level of “most important” of Commerce's significant regulatory actions and thus are included in this year's regulatory plan. The three actions implement provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as reauthorized in 2006. The first 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.
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.
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 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
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:
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.
As the agency responsible for leading the administration and enforcement of U.S. export controls on dual-use and other items warranting controls but not under the provisions of export control regulations administered by other departments, 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 (ECRI). BIS published a final rule (76 FR 35275, 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 several rules to control under the EAR items that the President has determined do not warrant control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), administered by the Department of State rule (76 FR 41957), and its United States Munitions List (USML).
In FY 2012, BIS followed up on its FY 2011 successes with the ECRI and proposed rules that would move items currently controlled in nine categories of the USML to control under the Commerce Control List (CCL), administered by BIS. In addition, BIS proposed a rule to ease the implementation process for transitioning items and re-proposed a revised key definition from the July 15 Rule, “specially designed,” that had received extensive public comment. In FY 2013, after State Department notification to Congress of the transfer of items from the USML, BIS expects to be able to publish a final rule incorporating many of the proposed changes and revisions based on public responses to the proposals.
In FY 2013, BIS activities crossed an important milestone with publication of two final rules that began to put ECRI policies into place. An Initial Implementation rule (73 FR 22660, April 16, 2013) sets in place the structure under which items the President determines no longer warrant control on the United States Munitions List will be controlled on the Commerce Control List. It also revises license exceptions and regulatory definitions, including the definition of “specially designed” to more make those exceptions and definitions clearer and to more close align them with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and adds to the CCL certain military aircraft, gas turbine engines and related items. A second final rule (78 FR 40892, July 8, 2012) followed on by adding to the CCL military vehicles, vessels of war submersible vessels, and auxiliary military equipment that President determined no longer warrant control on the USML. BIS expects to publish additional ECRI final rules in FY 2014.
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, “international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting” public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in EO 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.
The Department of Commerce engages with numerous international bodies in various forums to promote the Department's priorities and foster regulations that do not “impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally.” EO 13609(a). For example, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is working with the European Patent Office to develop a new classification system for both offices' use. The Bureau of Industry and Security, along with the Department of State and Department of Defense, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, through which the international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export controls because they are conventional arms or items that have both military and civil uses. Other multilateral export control regimes include the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Australia Group, which lists
BIS is also engaged, in partnership with the Departments of State and Defense, in revising the regulatory framework for export control, through the President's Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI). Through this effort, the United States Government is moving certain items currently controlled by the United States Military List (USML) to the Commerce Control List (CCL) in BIS' Export Administration Regulations. The objective of ECRI is to improve interoperability of U.S. military forces with those of allied countries, strengthen the U.S. industrial base by, among other things, reducing incentives for foreign manufacturers to design out and avoid U.S.-origin content and services, and allow export control officials to focus Government resources on transactions that pose greater concern. This effort may be accomplished by as early as 2013, when the final rules are published. Once fully implemented, the new export control framework also will benefit companies in the United States seeking to export items through more flexible and less burdensome export controls.
Some specific domestic regulatory actions that have resulted from the Department's international regulatory cooperation efforts include the rule on Identification and Certification of Fishing Vessels Engaged in Illegal, Unreported, or Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources (0648-AV51, 76 FR 2011); the Amendments to Implement the Shark Conservation Act and Revise the Definition of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (0648-BA89); and the proposed rule to comply with the 2010 Shark Conservation Provisions and Other Regulations in the Atlantic Smoothhound Shark Fishery (0648-BB02).
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 Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department consisting of three Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), nine Unified Combatant Commands, 17 Defense Agencies, and ten DoD Field Activities. It has 1,412,674 military personnel and 886,975 civilians assigned as of June 30, 2013, 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 a straightforward, yet formidable undertaking.
DoD issues regulations that have an effect on the public and can be significant as defined in E.O. 12866. In addition, some of DoD's regulations may affect other agencies. DoD, as an integral part of its program, not only receives coordinating actions from other agencies, but coordinates with the agencies that are affected by its regulations as well.
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, “international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting” public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in EO 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.
The Department of Defense, along with the Department of State and Department of Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, through which the international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export controls.
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. 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:
The Department plans to—
• Finalize the rule to implement section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011), as amended by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Section 806 requires the evaluation of offeror's supply chain risks for information technology purchases relating to national security systems. This rule enables agencies to exclude sources that are identified as having a supply chain risk in order to minimize the potential risk for purchased supplies and services to maliciously introduce unwanted functions and degrade the integrity and operation of sensitive information technology systems.
• Revise the DFARS to improve awareness, compliance, and enforcement of DoD policies on combating trafficking in persons. The rule will further improve stability, productivity, and certainty in the contingency operations that DoD supports and ensure that DoD contractors do not benefit from the use of coerced labor.
• Finalize the rule to implement section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012 relating to the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts. The rule would address contractor responsibilities for detecting and avoiding the use or inclusion of counterfeit electronic parts or suspect counterfeit electronic parts, the use of trusted suppliers, and requirements for contractors to report counterfeit electronic parts and suspect counterfeit electronic parts. The rule seeks to preclude the introduction of counterfeit material that could compromise DoD weapon and information systems.
The Department plans to—
• Revise the DFARS to implement new prescriptions and clause formats for part 219, Small Business Programs, clauses with alternates. This proposed rule, with its unique prescriptions for the basic version and each alternate for solicitation provisions and clauses, will facilitate the use of automated contract writing systems. The inclusion of the full text of the alternate clause in the regulation should make the terms of the alternate clearer to the offerors and contractors by clarifying paragraph substitutions. As a result, inapplicable paragraphs from the basic clause that are superseded by the alternate will not be included in solicitations or contracts, reducing the potential for confusion.
• Finalize the DFARS rule to delete text in DFARS Part 219 that implemented 10 U.S.C. 2323 because 10 U.S.C. 2323 has expired. Removal of the obsolete implementing coverage for 10 U.S.C. 2323 will bring DFARS up to date and provide accurate and indisputable regulations affecting the small business and vendor communities.
The Department plans to—
• Finalize the rule for DFARS to implement section 803 of the NDAA for FY 2011 to allow a covered litigation support contractor access to technical, proprietary, or confidential data for the sole purpose of providing litigation support.
• Revise the DFARS to standardize solicitation provisions and contract clauses relating to information technology Cloud Services.
• Revise the DFARS to reduce the frequency of submission of subcontracting reports.
• DFARS Cases 2012-D057, 2013-D005, 2013-D014, 2013-D025; and 2013-D026;—Propose a new convention for prescribing clauses with alternates to provide alternate clauses in full text. This will facilitate selection of alternate clauses using automated contract writing systems. The inclusion of the full text of the alternate clauses in the regulation for use in solicitations and contracts should make the terms of the alternate clauses clearer to offerors and contractors by clarifying paragraph substitutions. As a result, inapplicable paragraphs from the basic clause that are superseded by the alternate will not be included in solicitations or contracts, reducing the potential for confusion.
• DFARS Case 2013-D037—removes redundant DFARS coverage on contractors performing private security functions under a contract that requires performance during contingency operations, in an area of combat operations, or in an area of other significant military operations. These requirements have been incorporated into the FAR, so the DFARS coverage is no longer required.
• DFARS 2013-D033—deletes unnecessary text from the DFARS to increase clarity of the proposal adequacy checklist. Item 19 on the checklist is being deleted as it overlaps and duplicates other information addressed by other items on the checklist.
For this regulatory plan, there are six specific DoD priorities, all of which reflect the established regulatory principles. 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.
The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and continues to lead Government efforts to—
• 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 improve information security controls by addressing the requirements for safeguarding unclassified controlled technical information. This rule implements security measures to safeguard unclassified DoD information within contractor information systems from unauthorized access and disclosure and to prescribe reporting to DoD certain cyber intrusion events that affect DoD information resident on or transiting through contractor unclassified information systems.
The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule on contractors supporting the military in contingency operations:
• Final Rule: Operational Contract Support. This rule incorporates 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. It was required to procedurally close gaps and ensure the correct planning, oversight and management of DoD contractors supporting contingency operations, by updating outdated policy. DoD published an interim final rule on December 29, 2011 (32 CFR part 158, 76 FR 81807-81825) The final rule is expected to be published the first quarter of FY 2014.
The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule regarding the process for evaluating the impact of certain types of structures on military operations and readiness:
• Final Rule: Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process. 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 is required by section 358 of Public Law 111-383. An interim final rule was published on October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65112). DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the first quarter of FY 2014.
The Department of Defense proposes new policies, responsibilities, and procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within DoD. Additionally, the Department
• Proposed Rule: Voluntary Education Programs. In this proposed rule, the Department of Defense (DoD) discusses new policy, responsibilities, and procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within DoD. The new policies discussed in the rule include the following. All educational institutions providing education programs through the DoD Tuition Assistance (TA) Program will provide meaningful information to students about the financial cost and attendance at an institution so military students can make informed decisions on where to attend school; not use unfair, deceptive, and abusive recruiting practices; and provide academic and student support services to Service members and their families. New criteria are created to strengthen existing procedures for access to military installations by educational institutions. An annual review and notification process is required if there are changes made to the uniform semester-hour (or equivalent) TA caps and annual TA ceilings. Military Departments will be required to provide their Service members with a joint services transcript (JST). The DoD Postsecondary Education Complaint System is implemented for Service members, spouses, and adult family members to register student complaints. The Military Departments are authorized to establish Service-specific TA eligibility criteria and management controls. DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.
• Interim Final Rule: Child Development Programs (CDPs): In this interim final rule, the Department of Defense updates policy, responsibilities, and procedures for providing care to minor children birth through age 12 of individuals eligible for care in DoD CDPs to include center-based care, family child care (FCC), school-age care (SAC), supplemental child care, and community based care. The subject areas in this rule include authorizing the publication of supporting guidance for the implementation of CDP policies and responsibilities (including child development training modules, program aids, and other management tools) and establishment of the DoD Effectiveness Rating and Improvement System (ERIS). DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.
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:
• Proposed Rule: TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals. The proposed 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 proposed rule implements a reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for services provided by long term care hospitals. DoD anticipates publishing a proposed rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.
• Interim Final Rule: CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance Medications for TRICARE Life Beneficiaries through the TRICARE Mail Order Program. This interim final rule implements section 716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), which establishes a 5-year pilot program that would generally require TRICARE for Life beneficiaries to obtain all refill prescriptions for covered maintenance medications from the TRICARE mail order program or military treatment facility pharmacies. Covered maintenance medications are those that involve recurring prescriptions for chronic conditions, but do not include medications to treat acute conditions. Beneficiaries may opt out of the pilot program after 1 year of participation. This rule includes procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring covered prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program. This regulation is being issued as an interim final rule in order to comply with the express statutory intent that the program begin in calendar year 2013. DoD anticipates publishing an interim final rule in the first quarter of FY 2014.
• Final Rule: TRICARE: Certified Mental Health Counselors. This rule was published as an interim final rule on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80741), in order to meet the congressional requirement set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, section 724, which required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations by June 20, 2011, to establish the criteria, as had previously been studied in accordance with section 717 of the NDAA 2008, that would allow licensed or certified mental health counselors (MHCs) to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment for those services. Under current TRICARE requirements, MHCs are authorized to practice only with physician referral and supervision. This IFR establishes a transition period to allow MHCs to gain the requisite education, examination, and post-master's clinical experience for the new category of qualified mental health professionals, “TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselors,” who will be authorized to practice independently under TRICARE, as well as phase out the category of MHC who require referral and supervision from TRICARE authorized physicians. DoD anticipates finalizing this rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.
The Department of Defense plans to publish a final rule regarding Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures:
• Final Rule: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures. This part implements Department of Defense (DoD) policy and assigns responsibilities for the SAPR Program on prevention, response, and oversight to sexual assault. It is DoD policy to establish a culture free of sexual assault by providing an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and accountability that enhances the safety and wellbeing of all persons covered by the regulation. An interim final rule was published on April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21715). DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.
The Department of Defense plans to 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. The
The Department of Defense plans to amend the voluntary cyber security information sharing program between DoD and eligible cleared defense contractors:
• Proposed Rule: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Voluntary Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities. The Department proposes to amend the DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities regulation (32 CFR part 236) in response to Section 941 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 which requires the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures that require each cleared defense contractor (CDC) to report when a network or information system that meets the criteria reports cyber intrusions. DoD anticipates publishing a proposed rule in the second or third quarter of FY 2014.
The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include:
(1) Guidance with which the Department may establish a culture free of sexual assault by providing an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons covered by this rule;
(2) Treatment of sexual assault patients as emergency cases, which prevents loss of life or suffering resulting from physical injuries (internal or external), sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and psychological distress;
(3) The availability of two reporting options for servicemembers and their dependents who are 18 years of age or older covered by this rule who are victims of sexual assault. The two reporting options are as follows:
(a) Unrestricted reporting allows an eligible person who is sexually assaulted to access medical treatment and counseling and request an official investigation of the allegation using existing reporting channels (e.g., chain of command, law enforcement, health care personnel, the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator [SARC]). When a sexual assault is reported through unrestricted reporting, a SARC shall be notified as soon as possible, respond, assign a SAPR Victim Advocate (VA), and offer the victim medical care and a sexual assault forensic examination (SAFE); and
(b) Restricted reporting allows sexual assault victims to confidentially disclose the assault to specified individuals (i.e., SARC, SAPR VA, or health care personnel), in accordance with DoD Directive (DoDD) 5400.11, and receive medical treatment, including emergency care, counseling, and assignment of a SARC and SAPR VA, without triggering an official investigation. The victim's report to health care personnel (including the information acquired from a SAFE kit), SARCs, or SAPR VAs will not be reported to law enforcement, or to the victim's command to initiate the official investigative process, unless the victim consents or an established exception applies in accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02.
The Department's preference is for complete unrestricted reporting of sexual assaults to allow for the provision of victims' services and to pursue accountability. However, unrestricted reporting may represent a barrier for victims to access services, when the victim desires no command or law enforcement involvement. Consequently, the Department recognizes a fundamental need to provide a confidential disclosure vehicle via the restricted reporting option.
(4) Service members who are on active duty but were victims of sexual assault prior to enlistment or commissioning are eligible to receive SAPR services and utilize either reporting option. The focus of this rule and DoDI 6495.02 is on the victim of sexual assault. The DoD shall provide support to an active duty Service member regardless of when or where the sexual assault took place; and
(5) Guidance for the development of response capabilities that will enable sexual assault victims to recover, and, if servicemembers, to be fully mission capable and engaged.
The higher standard for objection imposed by section 358 of Public Law 111-383 may allow projects that conflict with military activity, but do not achieve the high level of conflict required by law to object, to proceed. This may impose costs on DoD, e.g., systems testing may have to be moved to alternative test ranges, training, and readiness activities may be curtailed or moved, and changes to operations may have to be implemented to overcome interference with coastal, border, and interior homeland surveillance. The early outreach and negotiation over mitigation required by section 358 may allow modification of some projects to reduce or eliminate their conflict with military activities in cases where the absence of early outreach and negotiation would result in the project proceeding without mitigation. This would provide a benefit to DoD. The net effect of these costs and benefits on DoD has not been quantitatively estimated.
(1) The streamlining and consolidating of two outdated instructions into a single instruction providing policy for the DoD CDP.
(2) Guidance and procedures which will provide a safe and secure environment for military children to grow.
(3) Establishment of a more standardized approach to each military services CDP, still allowing for the variances dictated by the unique mission of specific branches and installations.
(4) Clarification of the benefits provided to military members with same sex spouses.
Voluntary education programs have a positive effect on our servicemembers and their adult family members, providing ways to advance their personal education, career aspirations, and prepare them for future vocational pursuits. Additionally, partnerships with educational institutions also have a positive effect on the global economy. The services have worked with approximately 3,500 colleges and universities worldwide (both regionally and nationally accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education) in reference to TA.
a. Avoid compromise of unclassified computer networks on which controlled technical information is resident on or transiting through contractor information systems, and prevent the exfiltration of controlled technical information.
b. Improve the protection of controlled technical information by employing enhanced security measures, as identified in the clause, to appropriately protect controlled technical information from unauthorized disclosure, loss, or exfiltration.
c. Implement tracking and reporting of controlled technical information incursions to (1) assess the impact of loss; and (2) better understand methods of loss.
d. Standardize procedures for tracking and reporting intrusions.
Additionally, this interim rule is part of DoD's effort to enhance the protection of DoD information, and it also partially implements the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 section 941 requirement to mandate contractor reporting of information created by or for DoD that has been potentially compromised by a penetration of a contractor network.
Within 180 days from enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, which was enacted on January 7, 2011.
This interim rule revises the DFARS subparts 216.3 and 231.2 and adds a new clause at 252.216 to implement paragraphs (g) and (i) of section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 113-239).
Congressional requirement set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, section 724, which required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations by June 20, 2011, to establish the criteria, as had previously been studied in accordance with section 717 of the NDAA 2008, that would allow licensed or certified mental health counselors to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment for those services.
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 student 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 2013-2014 school year about 55 million students will attend an estimated 130,000 elementary and secondary schools in approximately 13,600 districts, and about 21 million students will enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools. All of these
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.
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. We also continue to seek greater public participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new technologies.
To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the Federal Docketing Management System (FDMS), an electronic single Governmentwide access point (
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.
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:
Additionally, as we continue to work with Congress on reauthorizing the ESEA, we are implementing a plan to provide flexibility on certain provisions of current law for States that are willing to embrace reform. The mechanisms we are using will ensure continued accountability and commitment to quality education for all students while providing States with increased flexibility to implement State and local reforms to improve student achievement.
In 2012, we released Investing in America's Future: A Blueprint for Transforming Career and Technical Education, our plan for a reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (2006 Perkins Act). The Blueprint can be found at the following Web site:
The 2006 Perkins Act made important changes in Federal support for career and technical education (CTE), such as the introduction of a requirement that all States offer “programs of study.” These changes in the 2006 Perkins Act helped to improve the learning experiences of CTE students but did not go far enough to systemically create better outcomes for students and employers competing in a 21st-century global economy. The Administration's Blueprint would usher in a new era of rigorous, relevant, and results-driven CTE shaped by four core principles: (1) Alignment. Effective alignment between high-quality CTE programs and labor market needs to equip students with 21st-century skills and prepare them for in-demand occupations in high-growth industry sectors; (2) Collaboration. Strong collaboration among secondary and postsecondary institutions, employers, and industry partners to improve the quality of CTE programs; (3) Accountability. Meaningful accountability for improving academic outcomes and building technical and employability skills in CTE programs for all students, based upon common definitions and clear metrics for performance; and (4) Innovation. Increased emphasis on innovation supported by systemic reform of State policies and practices to support CTE implementation of effective practices at the local level. The Administration's Blueprint proposal reflects a commitment to promoting equity and quality across these alignment, collaboration, accountability, and innovation efforts in order to ensure that more students have access to high-quality CTE programs.
The Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 18, 2013 (78 FR 57324), to amend regulations under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regarding local maintenance of effort (MOE) to ensure that all parties involved in implementing, monitoring,
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 that do not appear in
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.
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; and
• Strengthen U.S. scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and improve 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.
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 plan can be found at
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 Distribution Transformer and Microwave Oven standards, which were already published in 2013, have an estimated net benefit to the nation of up to $16.3 billion over 30 years. By 2045, these standards are estimated to save enough energy to operate the current inventory of all U.S. homes for about three 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 overall plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the Report to Congress under section 141 of EPACT 2005, which was released on January 31, 2006. This plan was last updated in the August 2012 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:
The regulatory actions included in this Regulatory Plan for battery chargers
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 external power supplies or classes of external power supplies. If such determination is positive, DOE would include any amended or new standards as part of that final rule. DOE completed this determination in 2012. 75 FR 27170 (May 14, 2010)
As the lead federal agency responsible for protecting the health of all Americans and providing supportive services for vulnerable populations, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implements programs that strengthen the health care system; advance scientific knowledge and innovation; improve the health, safety, and well-being of the American people; increase efficiency, transparency, and accountability of HHS programs; and strengthen the nation's health and human services infrastructure.
The Department's regulatory agenda for Fiscal Year 2014 advances this mission by issuing rules that will: Increase access to health care for all Americans and strengthen the Medicare program, the nation's largest insurance provider; support the President's commitment to implement strategies to reduce gun violence; build from previous experiences to safeguard the nation's food supply; promote children's health and well-being through programs that target those critical early years; arm consumers with information to help them make healthy choices; and marshal the best research and technology available to streamline and modernize the health care delivery and medical product availability systems. This overview highlights several regulations that best exemplify these priorities.
The Department continues to implement Affordable Care Act provisions that expand health insurance coverage and promote health care security for all Americans. Millions of Americans—including women, families, seniors, and small business owners—are already benefitting from the Affordable Care Act. As the Department begins open enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplaces, we will continue to provide guidance to states, providers, and insurers to enhance the experience of individuals and families accessing the Marketplaces. In addition, the Department plans to publish other rules that would enhance the protections of the Affordable Care Act.
For example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is preparing to monitor and update policies related to the Health Insurance Marketplaces based on experience with initial open enrollment to address emerging needs of states, health care providers, and insurers.
CMS, along with the Departments of Labor and the Treasury, recently published a final rule to implement the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008, which requires parity between mental health or substance use disorder benefits and medical/surgical benefits with respect to financial requirements and treatment limitations under group health plans and health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan. The Affordable Care Act builds on MHPAEA and requires coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services as one of ten essential health benefits categories. Under the essential health benefits rule, individual and small group health plans are required to comply with these parity regulations. This rule, in conjunction with the Affordable Care Act provisions will expand mental health and substance use disorder benefits and parity protections for 62 million Americans.
CMS has also identified a number of opportunities to strengthen the Medicare program by updating rules related to health care payments and issuing rules to help root out potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
In one such rule, CMS will propose certain qualification standards regarding the types of prosthetic and orthotic devices billable to the Medicare program.
In addition, CMS will update several Medicare provider payment rules to better reflect the state of practice and be responsive to feedback from providers.
On April 23, 2013, the Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting public input on issues
FDA will continue its work to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act and other statutory authorities related to food safety, working with public and private partners to build a new system of food safety oversight. In the past year, FDA has issued significant proposed rules on preventive controls for human food and produce safety, as well as foreign supplier verification for importers and accreditation of third-party auditors. This year, FDA will continue its work to enhance its oversight of the nation's food supply, including publishing rules that will help curb the development of antimicrobial resistance in food products. For example:
FDA recently issued a proposed rule establishing preventive controls in the manufacture and distribution of animal feeds.
In another proposed rule, FDA is codifying a provision in the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008 that requires sponsors of antimicrobial new animal drug products to annually report the amount of antimicrobial active ingredient in those drugs that are sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals, as well as outline other requirements for collecting additional drug distribution data. This rule will help FDA address the problem of antimicrobial resistance and will help ensure that FDA has the necessary information to examine safety concerns related to the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals.
The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) regulatory portfolio includes rules that promote children's health and well-being by strengthening programs that serve children and their families. Specifically, ACF rules support the President's Early Learning Initiative: A series of new investments that will establish a continuum of high-quality early learning for a child—beginning at birth and continuing to age five.
For example, one final rule would provide the first comprehensive update of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations since 1998.
Another final rule would amend Head Start program eligibility standards, as a component of an ongoing effort to strengthen the Head Start program and help ensure for children and families most in need access to this high-quality educational program.
As of 2010, more than one-third of U.S. adults
Building on the momentum of the First Lady's “Let's Move” initiative and the Secretary's leadership, HHS has marshaled the skills and expertise from across the Department to address this epidemic with research, public education, and public health strategies. Adding to this effort, FDA will issue several rules designed to provide more useful, easy to understand dietary information—tools that will help millions of American families identify healthy choices in the marketplace.
One final 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.
A second final rule will require vending machine operators who own or operate 20 or more vending machines to disclose calorie content for some items.
A third proposed rule would revise the nutrition and supplement facts labels on packaged food, which has not been updated since 1993 when mandatory nutrition labeling of food was first required. The aim of the proposed revision is to provide updated and easier to read nutrition information
Another proposed rule will focus on the serving sizes of foods that can reasonably consumed in one serving. This rule would provide consumers with nutrition information based on the amount of food that is typically eaten as a serving, which would assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices.
In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which authorized FDA to regulate tobacco for the first time in history. Under the Tobacco Control Act, FDA has responsibility for regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and for reducing tobacco use by minors. In the coming year, FDA plans to issue a proposed rule that would clarify which products containing tobacco, in addition to cigarettes, are subject to FDA oversight.
In 2012, Congress gave FDA new authorities under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act to support its core mission of safeguarding the quality of medical products available to the public while ensuring the availability of innovative products to promote the public health. Similar to its work in the food safety, nutrition, and tobacco control spheres, FDA works diligently to implement regulations springing from this new statutory authority with a focus on enhancing FDA oversight and protecting the quality of medical products in the global drug supply chain; improving the availability of needed drugs and devices; and promoting better-informed decisions by health professionals and patients.
For example, a newly issued regulatory proposal would require manufacturers of certain drugs, such as drugs used for cancer treatments, anesthesia drugs, and other drugs that are critical to the treatment of serious diseases and life-threatening conditions, to report discontinuances or interruptions in the manufacturing of these products.
Another recent proposed rule would update FDA's regulations to reflect the increased use of generic drugs in the current marketplace and create parity between brand name and generic drug manufacturers with regards to the ability to update product labeling. In this rule, FDA would propose to allow generic drug manufacturers to independently update product labeling to reflect certain types of newly acquired safety information through submission of a “changes being effected” supplement, irrespective of whether the revised labeling differs from that of the corresponding brand name drug.
Consistent with the President's Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” the Department remains committed to reducing regulatory burden on states, health care providers and suppliers, and other regulated industries by updating rules to align with emerging health and safety standards, eliminating outdated procedures, streamlining rules, and providing flexibility to use technology.
CMS continues its retrospective review efforts by proposing rules to update safety standards, eliminate redundancies, and reduce burden for patients and providers. For example, one proposed rule would amend the fire safety standards for hospitals, long-term care facilities, intermediate care facilities for the intellectually disabled (ICFs/ID), ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), hospices which provide in-patient services, religious non-medical health care institutions, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) facilities.
In another rule, CMS, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Office for Civil Rights, will amend the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) regulations to allow laboratories to provide patients with direct access to completed test results at the patient's request.
In a major undertaking, the Department and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will propose revisions to the ethical rules governing research on human subjects, often referred to as the Common Rule.
The legal deadline for FDA under the Food Safety Modernization Act to promulgate proposed regulations is October 2011 for certain requirements, with a final rule to publish 9 months after the close of the comment period. The Food Safety Modernization Act mandates that FDA promulgate final regulations for certain other provisions by July 2012. Finally, the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 directs FDA to publish final regulations for a subset of the proposed requirements by September 2009.
FDA is also issuing this rule under the certain provisions of section 402 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) regarding 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.
To the extent the regulations are related to communicable disease, FDA's legal authority also derives from sections 311, 361, and 368 of the Public Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 243, 264 and 271). Finally, FDA is acting under the direction of section 1002(a) of title X of FDAAA of 2007 (21 U.S.C. 2102) which requires the Secretary to establish processing standards for pet food.
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.
Section 901 of the FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, permits FDA to issue regulations deeming other tobacco products to be subject to the FD&C Act. Section 906(d) provides FDA with the authority to propose restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products, including restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, tobacco products if FDA determines that such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.
In addition to the benefits and costs of the proposed rule, FDA has estimated the benefits and costs of several alternatives to the proposed rule: deeming only, but exempt newly-deemed products from certain requirements; exempt certain classes of products from certain requirements; deeming only, with no additional provisions; and changes to the compliance periods.
The proposed rule has two parts: one part deems all tobacco products to be subject to the FD&C Act; the other part proposes additional provisions that would apply to newly-deemed products as well as to other covered tobacco products. The proposed deeming action differs from most public health regulations in that it is an enabling regulation. In other words, in addition to directly subjecting newly-deemed “tobacco products” to the substantive requirements of Chapter IX of the FD&C Act, it enables FDA to issue further public health regulations related to such products. Thus, almost all the potential benefits and most of the costs that flow from the proposed deeming action would be realized in stages over the long term. The proposed rule would generate some immediate quantifiable benefits by dissuading smokers of small and large cigars, thereby improving health and longevity; it would impose costs in the form of registration, submission, labeling, and other requirements.
Adolescence is the peak time for tobacco use initiation and experimentation. In recent years, new and emerging tobacco products, sometimes referred to as “novel tobacco products,” have been developed and are becoming an increasing concern to public health due, in part, to their appeal to youth and young adults. Non-regulated tobacco products come in many forms, including electronic cigarettes, nicotine gels, and certain dissolvable tobacco products (i.e., those dissolvable products that do not currently meet the definition of smokeless tobacco under 21 U.S.C. 387(18) because they do not contain cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco and instead contain nicotine extracted from tobacco), and these products are widely available. This deeming rule is necessary to provide FDA with authority to regulate these products (e.g., registration, product and ingredient listing, user fees for certain products, premarket requirements, and adulteration and misbranding provisions). In addition, the additional restrictions that FDA seeks to promulgate for the proposed deemed products would reduce initiation and increase cessation (particularly among youth). This rule is consistent with other approaches that the Agency has taken to address the tobacco epidemic and is particularly necessary given that consumer use may be gravitating to the proposed deemed products.
Section 1001 of FDASIA states that not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of FDASIA, the Secretary shall adopt a final regulation implementing section 506C as amended.
Since that time, FDA has received informal comments that the VFD process is overly burdensome. As a result, FDA began exploring ways to improve the VFD program's efficiency. To that end, FDA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15387), and draft text of a proposed regulation, which it published April 13, 2012 (77 FR 22247). The proposed revisions to the VFD process are also intended to support the Agency's initiative to transition certain new animal drug products containing medically important antimicrobial drugs from an OTC status to a status that requires veterinary oversight.
The proposed rule, if finalized, will make the following changes to the VFD
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
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.
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Mature and Strengthen DHS.
In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our partnerships with communities, first
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 2013 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); Public Law 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the
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.
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 a better understanding of regulations and increased public participation in the Department's rulemakings.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), DHS identified the following regulatory actions as associated with retrospective review and analysis. 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
Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4(b) of Executive Order 13609 “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation” (May 1, 2012), DHS has identified the following regulatory actions that have significant international impacts. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list may be completed actions. You can find more information about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions sections) on
DHS participates in some international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard is the primary U.S. representative to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and plays a major leadership role in establishing international standards in the global maritime community. IMO's work to establish international standards for maritime safety, security, and environmental protection closely aligns with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations. As an IMO member nation, the U.S. is obliged to incorporate IMO treaty provisions not already part of U.S. domestic policy into regulations for those vessels affected by the international standards. Consequently, the U.S. Coast Guard initiates rulemakings to harmonize with IMO international standards such as treaty provisions and the codes, conventions, resolutions, and circulars that supplement them.
Also, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper created the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) in February 2011. The RCC is an initiative between both federal governments aimed at pursuing greater alignment in regulation, increasing mutual recognition of regulatory practices and establishing smarter, more effective and less burdensome regulations in specific sectors. The Canada-U.S. RCC initiative arose out of the recognition that high level, focused, and sustained effort would be required to reach a more substantive level of regulatory cooperation. Since its creation in early 2011, the U.S. Coast Guard has participated in stakeholder consultations with their Transport Canada counterparts and the public, drafted items for inclusion in the RCC Action Plan, and detailed work plans for each included Action Plan item.
The fall 2013 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 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 2013 regulatory plan for DHS regulatory components, offices, and directorates.
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.
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 2013 Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the federal agency principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, both at and between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement mission without stifling 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 importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws concerning the entry of persons into 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, 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; servicing all people, vehicles and cargo entering the United States; maintaining 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. CBP is also automating some procedures that increase efficiencies and reduce the costs and burdens to travelers. We have highlighted some of these rules below.
The shift from a paper to an electronic form and requiring the data in advance of travel enables CBP 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 increases national security and provides 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 that will finalize the two ESTA rulemakings, the 2008 ESTA interim final rule and the 2010 ESTA fee interim final rule.
On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule titled “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 identity 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 ended on June 1, 2009. CBP has conducted a structured review of data elements for which CBP provided certain flexibilities for compliance in the interim final rule and is analyzing the comments in light of the structured review. CBP intends to publish 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 U.S. 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 2014, expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and implement trade benefit program. CBP regulations regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the Regulatory Plan of the Department of the Treasury.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not have any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2014.
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2014.
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 2014, ICE will pursue rulemaking actions to make improvements in three critical subject areas: Setting national standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities; enabling Libyan nationals, who were previously barred from doing so, to engage in aviation or nuclear-related studies in the United States; and updating and enhancing policies and procedures governing the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
This regulation is in response to the President's May 17, 2012 Memorandum titled “Implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act.” The President issued the Memorandum on the same day that the Department of Justice issued its final rule in response to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), 42 U.S.C. 15601
The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) vision is a
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the HSA direct DHS to promulgate regulations requiring potential buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate to register with DHS, in order to obtain ammonium nitrate registration numbers from DHS. The HSA also requires DHS to screen each applicant against the Terrorist Screening Database. The statute also requires sellers of ammonium nitrate to verify the identities of those individuals seeking to purchase ammonium nitrate; to record certain information about each sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate; and to report thefts and losses of ammonium nitrate to federal authorities.
On October 29, 2008, DHS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for a Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program. DHS received a number of public comments. DHS reviewed those comments and published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 3, 2011. DHS accepted public comments concerning the NPRM until December 1, 2011, and is now reviewing and adjudicating the public comments as the Department moves forward in developing a final rule for an Ammonium Nitrate Security Program.
The final rule is intended to aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism and to limit terrorists' abilities to threaten the Nation's critical infrastructure and key resources. By securing the Nation's supply of ammonium nitrate through the implementation of this rule, it will be more difficult for terrorists to obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in terrorist acts.
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 2014, 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.
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
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2014.
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise DHS's fall 2013 regulatory plan follows.
The cost of the 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 reduce the Nation's vulnerability to terrorist attacks. This rulemaking is complementary to other
On December 7, 2000, DOJ published a proposed rule in the
The benefits of this rule are retaining highly-skilled persons who intend to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. This is important when considering the contributions of these individuals to the U.S. economy, including advances in entrepreneurial and research and development endeavors, which are highly correlated with overall economic growth and job creation. In addition, the proposed amendments would bring U.S. immigration laws more in line with other countries that seek to attract skilled foreign workers.
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); . . .
The proposed rule also would help employers of E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrants avoid potential interruptions of employment for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 employees during the period that requests for an extension of these employment-based nonimmigrant visa classifications are being reviewed. These disruptions could result in lost wages for an employee and lost productivity for an employer. DHS does not have data on the number of employers or E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrants experiencing disruption in employment by not receiving an approval of the extension before the expiration date specified on the Arrival-Departure Record or the duration (length of time) of any disruption. The portion of the proposed rule addressing the evidentiary requirements for the EB-1 outstanding professor and researcher employment-based immigrant classification would allow for the submission of comparable evidence (achievements not listed in the criteria such as important patents or prestigious, peer-reviewed funding grants) for that listed in 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) through (F) to establish that the EB-1 professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in his or her academic field. Similar to the benefits of harmonizing E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 provisions, the harmonization of the evidentiary requirements for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers with other comparable employment-based immigrant classifications would provide equity for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers relative to those other employment-based visa categories. The proposed rule may also facilitate petitioners' recruitment of the EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers by expanding the range of evidence that may be adduced to support their petitions.
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.
The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include assistance to victims of qualifying criminal activity and their families and increases in arrests and prosecutions of criminals nationwide. Additional benefits include heightened awareness by law enforcement of victimization of aliens in their community, and streamlining the petitioning process so that victims may benefit from this immigration relief.
Risks: There is a statutory cap of 10,000 principal U nonimmigrant visas that may be granted per fiscal year at INA 214(p)(2). Eligible petitioners who are not granted principal U-1 nonimmigrant status due solely to the numerical limit will be placed on a waiting list maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
To protect U-1 petitioners and their families, USCIS will use various means to prevent the removal of U-1 petitioners and their eligible family members on the waiting list, including exercising its authority to allow deferred action, parole, and stays of removal, in cooperation with other DHS components.
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.
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.
Includes Retrospective Review under EO 13563.
URL for More Information:
URL for Public Comments:
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.
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 7 percent and 3 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.
The Coast Guard may revise costs and benefits for the final rule to reflect changes resulting from public comments.
The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2005-21869. The docket can be found at
Jorge Arroyo, Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-1), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7418, Washington, DC 20593-7418,
The final rule is required 2 years after the commencement of the pilot program.
This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the SAFE Port Act and to complete the implementation of the TWIC Program in our ports. By requiring electronic card readers at vessels and facilities, the Coast Guard will further enhance port security and improve access control measures.
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.
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 Customs Declaration forms for all passengers aboard the aircraft and vessel.
Under the interim final rule, a visitor seeking admission under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program must be a national of an eligible country and must meet the requirements enumerated in the current Guam visa waiver program as well as additional requirements that bring the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program into soft alignment with the U.S. Visa Waiver Program provided for in 8 CFR 217. The country eligibility requirements take into account the intent of the CNRA and ensure that the regulations meet current border security needs. The country eligibility requirements are designed to: (1) Ensure effective border control procedures, (2) properly address national security and homeland security concerns in extending U.S. immigration law to the CNMI, and (3) maximize the CNMI's potential for future economic and business growth. This interim rule also provided that visitors from the People's Republic of China and Russia have provided a significant economic benefit to the CNMI. However, nationals from those countries cannot, at this time, seek admission under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program due to security concerns. Pursuant to section 702(a) of the CNRA, which extends the immigration laws of the United States to the CNMI, this rule also establishes six ports of entry in the CNMI to enable the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) to administer and enforce the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.
Both CBP and aliens would bear costs as a result of this rule. CBP would bear costs to link its data systems and to build a Web site so aliens can access their electronic Forms I-94. CBP estimates that the total cost for CBP to link data systems, develop a secure Web site, and fully automate the Form I-94 fully will equal about $1.3 million in calendar year 2012. CBP will incur costs of $0.09 million in subsequent years to operate and maintain these systems. Aliens arriving as diplomats and students would bear costs when logging into the Web site and printing electronic I-94s. The temporary workers and aliens in the “Other/Unknown” category bear costs when logging into the Web site, traveling to a location with public internet access, and printing a paper copy of their electronic Form I-94. Using the primary estimate for a traveler's value of time, aliens would bear costs between $36.6 million and $46.4 million from 2013 to 2016. Total costs for this rule for 2013 would range from $34.2 million to $40.1 million, with a primary estimate of costs equal to $36.7 million.
CBP, carriers, and foreign travelers would accrue benefits as a result of this rule. CBP would save contract and printing costs of $15.6 million per year of our analysis. Carriers would save a total of $1.3 million in printing costs per year. All aliens would save the eight-minute time burden for filling out the paper Form I-94 and certain aliens who lose the Form I-94 would save the $330 fee and 25-minute time burden for filling out the Form I-102. Using the primary estimate for a traveler's value of time, aliens would obtain benefits between $112.6 million and $141.6 million from 2013 to 2016. Total benefits for this rule for 2013 would range from $110.7 million to $155.6 million, with a primary estimate of benefits equal to $129.5 million.
Overall, this rule results in substantial cost savings (benefits) for foreign travelers, carriers, and CBP. CBP anticipates a net benefit in 2013 of between $59.7 million and $98.7 million for foreign travelers, $1.3 million for carriers, and $15.5 million for CBP. Net benefits to U.S. entities (carriers and CBP) in 2013 total $16.8 million. CBP anticipates the total net benefits to both domestic and foreign entities in 2013 range from $76.5 million to $115.5 million. In our primary analysis, the total net benefits are $92.8 million in 2013. For the primary estimate, annualized net benefits range from $78.1 million to $80.0 million, depending on the discount rate used.
Risks: N/A.
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 sec. 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. According to sec. 1517 of the same Act, final regulations for railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than 6 months after the date of enactment.
Monica Grasso, Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
David Kasminoff, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Traci Klemm, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of all STAs. 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.
Pursuant to 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) for commercial drivers licensed 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 in the field of transportation through user fees.
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
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, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
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 that TSA issue “final regulations to ensure the security of foreign and domestic aircraft repair
Monica Grasso, Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
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, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
The operations described in this rule produce benefits by reducing security risks through the deployment of AIT that is capable of detecting both metallic and non-metallic weapons and explosives. Terrorists continue to test our security measures in an attempt to find and exploit vulnerabilities. The threat to aviation security has evolved to include the use of non-metallic explosives. AIT is a proven technology based on laboratory testing and field experience and is an essential component of TSA's security screening because it provides the best opportunity to detect metallic and nonmetallic anomalies concealed under clothing.
Monica Grasso, Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
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, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
VAWA Reauthorization Act.
The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 highlights some of the most significant regulatory initiatives that HUD seeks to complete during the upcoming fiscal year. As the Federal agency that serves as the nation's housing agency, committed to addressing the housing needs of Americans, promoting economic and community development, and enforcing the nation's fair housing laws, HUD plays a significant role in the lives of families and communities throughout America. Through its programs, HUD works to strengthen the housing market and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; and build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination.
The rules highlighted in the Regulatory Plan for FY 2014 focus on the following elements of establishing sustainable communities: promoting energy efficiency in construction and rehabilitation of housing assisted with HUD funds, and planning for and implementing pre-disaster and adaptative mitigation strategies to establish disaster-resilient communities. The focus on energy efficiency is consistent with President Obama's call, in his State of the Union Address, for Federal, State and local Governments and the American public to focus on investments in energy efficiency.
Much of HUD's portfolio of public and assisted housing was built before the advent of modern energy codes, creating both environmental and affordability challenges for building owners, residents, and the Federal Government. Toward that end, HUD has been reviewing energy-efficiency standards across the Department to work toward standardizing energy efficiency and green goals and establishing uniform tracking and reporting systems. One of the concerns in applying energy efficiency standards to HUD's public and assisted housing or to new HUD-assisted housing construction or rehabilitation is that it could potentially affect the affordability of such housing. In the regulatory action described herein, HUD (together with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)) proposes to bring HUD programs into compliance with the most recent energy efficiency codes required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and to present an analysis that the compliance with the updated codes would not negatively affect the availability or affordability of new construction of single and multifamily housing covered by EISA.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) establishes procedures for HUD and the USDA to adopt revisions to the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ASHRAE 90.1-2004, subject to (1) a determination that the revised codes do not negatively affect the availability or affordability of new construction of single and multifamily housing covered by the Act, and (2) a determination by the Secretary of Energy that the revised codes “would improve energy efficiency.” This action would announce HUD's and USDA's preliminary determination that the 2009 IECC and (with the exception of Hawaii) ASHRAE 90.1-2007 will not negatively affect the affordability and availability of housing covered by the Act.
As required by the Energy Conservation and Production Act, the Department of Energy (DOE) has published Final Determinations that the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 standards would improve energy efficiency. This Notice therefore announces the results of HUD and USDA's analysis of housing impacted by the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2007.
In this notice, HUD submits that “affordability” is a measure of whether a home built to the updated energy code is affordable to potential home buyers or renters and “availability” of housing is a measure associated with whether builders will make such housing available to consumers at the higher
Based on DOE findings on improvements in energy efficiency and energy savings, and HUD and USDA determinations on housing affordability and availability presented in the notice, HUD and USDA submit for comment that HUD and USDA have determined that adoption of the codes will not adversely impact the affordability or the availability of the covered housing.
HUD's energy strategy is designed to address the issue of residential energy costs, an aging public and assisted housing stock, and growing fiscal demands on HUD's budget to cover household and rental property utility costs. HUD also hopes to address the disproportionate energy cost burden on low- and moderate-income families, and improve the health and quality of HUD-assisted housing for building residents. Toward that end, through the Recovery Act Management and Performance System, work has begun to enable the collection of energy-efficient unit data and establish a baseline for tracking energy investments made through the Public Housing Capital Fund grant program.
This final rule updates and enhances HUD's requirements for energy audits and physical needs assessments (PNA's) conducted by housing authorities in order to assess the energy needs and physical needs of their projects. The revisions to the energy audit requires the performance of substantially more useful energy audits than the current regulation and lays the foundation for potential future incentives or other tools for implementing energy conservation measures or green measures. Also, the rule facilitates greater synchronization between the energy audit and the PNA, so that energy audit data can be better integrated into the PNA and allow for future capital planning activities which take into consideration possible energy savings. By requiring greater coordination between the PNA and the energy audit, the rule ensures that energy-saving recommendations from the energy audit may result in work items to address physical needs.
As communities begin to recover from the devastating effects of Hurricane Sandy, HUD has determined that it is important to recognize lessons learned and employ mitigation actions that ensure that structures located in floodplains are built or rebuilt stronger, safer, and less vulnerable to future flooding events.
This proposed rule would require that new construction and substantial improvements to structures in a floodplain be elevated or flood-proofed to a base flood elevation of best available data of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plus one foot. HUD's experience in the wake of Hurricane Sandy indicates that unless structures in floodplains are properly designed, constructed and elevated, they may not withstand future severe flooding events. Building to FEMA's best available data plus one foot will reduce property damage, economic loss, and loss of life, and will also benefit homeowners by reducing flood insurance rates. The best available data plus one foot standard proposed by this rule was made after considering the last ten years of FEMA flood mitigation efforts and provides, in HUD's view, the best assessment of risk. This higher elevation provides an extra buffer of one foot above the best available data to ensure the long term resilience of communities. It also takes into account projected sea level rise, which is not considered in current FEMA maps and flood insurance costs. Building to this standard will, consistent with the executive order, reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and promote sound, sustainable, long-term planning informed by a more accurate evaluation of risk and take into account possible sea level rise.
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 2014. HUD expects that the neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
The two agencies did not develop independent energy efficiency building standards, and therefore the 2006 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2004 currently apply to covered HUD and USDA programs. Section 109(d) of Cranston-Gonzalez establishes procedures for updating agency standards following revisions to the 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 code standards. Section 109(d) provides that revisions to the IECC or ASHRAE codes will apply to HUD and/or USDA's programs if (1) either agency “make(s) a determination that the revised codes do not negatively affect the availability or affordability” of new construction housing covered by the Act, and (2) the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) has made a determination under section 304 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6833) that the revised codes would improve energy efficiency (see 42 U.S.C. 12709(d)). Since DOE has made its determination of improved efficiency, HUD and USDA must assess the impact of the more recent codes on the affordability and availability of HUD- and USDA-funded new construction is currently being assessed by the two agencies. This notice presents that assessment.
With respect to costs, and based on studies that DOE relied upon it was determined that the weighted average incremental cost of complying with the 2009 IECC over existing state codes would be $840.77, yielding a median annual energy cost savings of $243.37, for a simple payback of 3.45 years. This weighted average incremental cost of $840.77 represents less than 0.32 percent of the average cost of a new home estimated by BCAP in 2009 ($267,451).
With respect to the energy audit requirements, the final rule distinguishes between “core ECMs” that must be addressed and “advanced ECMs” that may be addressed. The rule establishes minimum requirements for energy auditors. With respect to the PNA, this rule would require PHAs to project the current modernization and life-cycle replacement repair needs of its projects over a 20-year period, rather than a 5-year period, because the 20-year period coincides better with the useful life of individual properties and their building components and systems to ensure the long-term viability of the property. Additionally, this rule provides for integration of the performance of the PNA with the performance of an energy audit, and basic qualifications for PNA providers.
With respect to PNAs, HUD estimates that full compliance with the rule will cost PHAs, collectively, up to $29 million once every 5 years or an average of $5.9 million annually. The rule will not have any budgetary impact to the Federal Government, as costs to implement the PNA will be accommodated within HUD's existing budget authority.
There are also benefits to this rule. With respect to energy audits, for example, if this rule resulted in a 10 percent increase in efficiency, that would translate into significant savings for PHAs, which often pay for utilities in the form of a utility allowance for residents. With respect to PNAs, benefits include identifying capital expenses far enough in advance to allow for consideration of the most efficient method of payment; identifying synergies in the timing and intensity of capital improvements, and avoiding duplicative or wasteful expenditures; making possible a preventive maintenance strategy to maximize the useful life of property components; encouraging the implementation of energy efficiency measures; and increased occupancy and enhanced health and safety as a result of more habitable units.
The benefits of this rule include decreased flood insurance premiums for property owners and decreased costs to tenants to avoided search costs for temporary replacement housing and lost wages. The annual premium for the maximum multifamily coverage of $250,000 at the 100-year flood level is $1,359. This decreases to $660 at one foot above the 100-year flood plain level for an annual savings of $699. Assuming a 30-year useful life and returns to these savings to the owner of 3.5 percent annually, the discounted savings for a property totals $23,303, and $1.748 million in aggregate assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and $13,962 per property or $1.047 million in aggregate assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
The significant benefits also accrue to tenants who avoid costs of moving from a flooded property. The family cost of moving a two-bedroom apartment costs approximately $800 plus lost wages. This analysis uses the national median hourly wage reported by BLS of $16.71. If an affected households' wage earners are unable to work for a combined 40 hours each due to a flood-related apartment search and move, a family would lose $668. Combined, a flood would cost each tenant $1,468. There is a 1 percent chance each year that a 100-year flood will occur. Increasing the base elevation by one foot would place the building, on average, to a 250-year flood plane, which has a 0.4 percent probability of occurring each year. Thus, this rule decreases the annual risk by 0.6 percent. The discounted value of decreased expected tenant costs is $8.81 per tenant ($1,468 * 0.6%). The discounted 30-year value of these avoided costs is $178 per tenant assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $117 per tenant assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Aggregating over 100 tenants per property and 75 properties, the total benefit to tenants is $1.334 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $0.877 million assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
There are also unvalued benefits to tenants of avoiding relocation. Being forced to relocate on short notice creates considerable stress and uncertainty for families. Further, some families may not be able to find affordable housing in their immediate area and will be forced to move far, sometimes out of State. Long distance moves removes a family from their local social network leads and adds additional stress not only on adults, but also on children who may be forced to enroll in difference schools.
Finally, this rule also eliminates renovations and replacements that are paid for by FEMA insurance claims. Flood damage could require various internal renovations and replacement of necessary building utility systems, including electrical and heating systems. Although flood insurance covers $250,000, this analysis assumes approximately $50,000 in damage per property. This damage represents a cost to society that would otherwise not have occurred in the presence of actuarially fair insurance rates. The discounted value of this cost for 100 properties totals $0.454 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $0.299 million assuming a 7 percent discount.
Valued benefits of this rule total $3.536 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $2.223 million assuming a 7 percent discount.
The benefits of this rule include decreased flood insurance premiums for property owners and decreased costs to tenants to avoided search costs for temporary replacement housing and lost wages. The annual premium for the maximum multifamily coverage of $250,000 at the 100-year flood level is $1,359. This decreases to $660 at one foot above the 100-year flood plain level for an annual savings of $699. Assuming a 30-year useful life and returns to these savings to the owner of 3.5 percent annually, the discounted savings for a property totals $23,303, and $1.748 million in aggregate assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and $13,962 per property or $1.047 million in aggregate assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
The significant benefits also accrue to tenants who avoid costs of moving from a flooded property. The family cost of moving a two-bedroom apartment costs approximately $800 plus lost wages. This analysis uses the national median hourly wage reported by BLS of $16.71. If an affected households' wage earners are unable to work for a combined 40 hours each due to a flood-related apartment search and move, a family would lose $668. Combined, a flood would cost each tenant $1,468. There is a 1 percent chance each year that a 100-year flood will occur. Increasing the base elevation by one foot would place the building, on average, to a 250-year
There are also unvalued benefits to tenants of avoiding relocation. Being forced to relocate on short notice creates considerable stress and uncertainty for families. Further, some families may not be able to find affordable housing in their immediate area and will be forced to move far, sometimes out of state. Long distance moves removes a family from their local social network leads and adds additional stress not only on adults, but also on children who may be forced to enroll in difference schools.
Finally, this rule also eliminates renovations and replacements that are paid for by FEMA insurance claims. Flood damage could require various internal renovations and replacement of necessary building utility systems, including electrical and heating systems. Although flood insurance covers $250,000, this analysis assumes approximately $50,000 in damage per property. This damage represents a cost to society that would otherwise not have occurred in the presence of actuarially fair insurance rates. The discounted value of this cost for 100 properties totals $0.454 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $0.299 million assuming a 7 percent discount.
Valued benefits of this rule total $3.536 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $2.223 million assuming a 7 percent discount.
The two agencies did not develop independent energy efficiency building standards, and therefore the 2006 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2004 currently apply to covered HUD and USDA programs. Section 109(d) of Cranston-Gonzalez establishes procedures for updating agency standards following revisions to the 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 code standards. Section 109(d) provides that revisions to the IECC or ASHRAE codes will apply to HUD and/or USDA's programs if (1) either agency “make(s) a determination that the revised codes do not negatively affect the availability or affordability” of new construction housing covered by the Act, and (2) the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) has made a determination under section 304 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6833) that the revised codes would improve energy efficiency (see 42 U.S.C. 12709(d)). Since DOE has made its determination of improved efficiency, HUD and USDA must assess the impact of the more recent codes on the affordability and availability of HUD- and USDA-funded new construction is currently being assessed by the two agencies. This notice presents that assessment.
With respect to costs, and based on studies that DOE relied upon it was determined that the weighted average incremental cost of complying with the 2009 IECC over existing state codes would be $840.77, yielding a median annual energy cost savings of $243.37, for a simple payback of 3.45 years. This weighted average incremental cost of $840.77 represents less than 0.32 percent of the average cost of a new home estimated by BCAP in 2009 ($267,451).
With respect to PNAs, HUD estimates that full compliance with the rule will cost PHAs, collectively, up to $29 million once every 5 years or an average of $5.9 million annually. The rule will not have any budgetary impact to the Federal Government, as costs to
There are also benefits to this rule. With respect to energy audits, for example, if this rule resulted in a 10 percent increase in efficiency, that would translate into significant savings for PHAs, which often pay for utilities in the form of a utility allowance for residents. With respect to PNAs, benefits include identifying capital expenses far enough in advance to allow for consideration of the most efficient method of payment; identifying synergies in the timing and intensity of capital improvements, and avoiding duplicative or wasteful expenditures; making possible a preventive maintenance strategy to maximize the useful life of property components; encouraging the implementation of energy efficiency measures; and increased occupancy and enhanced health and safety as a result of more habitable units.
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 native trust assets 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 401 park units, 560 wildlife refuges, and approximately 1.7 billion of submerged offshore acres. These areas include natural resources that are essential for America's industry—oil and gas, coal, and minerals such as gold and uranium. On public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf, Interior provides access for renewable and conventional energy development and manages the protection and restoration of surface mined lands.
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;
• Preserve America's natural treasures for future generations;
• 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; and
• Promote transparency, fairness, accountability, and the highest ethical standards while maintaining performance goals.
The DOI bureaus implement congressionally mandated programs through their regulations. Some of these regulatory programs include:
• Developing onshore and offshore energy, including renewable, mineral, 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 and Alaska Natives;
• Managing natural resource damage assessments; and
• Managing assistance programs.
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.
(2) Sustainably Using Energy, Water, and Natural Resources.
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 the 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 responsible manner, harnesses with minimum impact abundant renewable energy. 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, and will identify how its regulatory processes can be improved to facilitate the responsible development of these resources.
In implementing these priorities through its regulations, the Department
(3) Empowering People and Communities.
The Department strongly encourages public participation in the regulatory process and will continue to actively engage the public in the implementation of priority initiatives. Throughout the Department, individual bureaus and offices are ensuring that the American people have an active role in managing our Nation's public lands and resources.
For example, every year FWS establishes migratory bird hunting seasons in partnership with flyway councils composed of State fish and wildlife agencies. 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, BLM uses Resource Advisory Councils to advise on management of public lands and resources. These citizen-based groups allow individuals from all backgrounds and interests to have a voice in management of public lands.
In June 2013, NPS published the final rule revising the 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.
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 into DOI's annual regulatory plan.
In examining its existing regulations, DOI has also taken a hybrid regulatory approach, incorporating flexible, performance based standards with existing regulatory requirements where possible to strengthen safety and environmental protection across the onshore and offshore oil and natural gas industry while minimizing additional burdens on the economy. The Department routinely meets with stakeholders to solicit feedback and gather input on how to incorporate performance based standards. DOI has received helpful public input through this process and will continue to participate in this effort with relevant interagency partners as part of its retrospective regulatory review.
Under 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 the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan.
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.
The following sections give an overview of some of the major regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administers and manages 55 million acres of surface land and 57 million acres of subsurface minerals held in trust by the United States for Indians and Indian tribes, provides services to approximately 1.9 million Indians and Alaska Natives, and maintains a government-to-government relationship with the 566 federally recognized Indian tribes. BIA's mission is to enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and 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 focus on improved management of trust responsibilities with each regulatory review and revision. BIA will also continue to promote economic development in Indian communities by ensuring the regulations support, rather than hinder, productive land management. 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.
In the coming year, BIA's regulatory priorities are to:
• Develop regulations to meet the Indian trust reform goals for rights-of-ways across Indian land.
• Develop regulatory changes necessary for improved Indian education.
BIA is reviewing regulations that require the Bureau of Indian Education to follow 23 different State adequate yearly progress standards; the review will determine whether a uniform standard would better meet the needs of students at Bureau-funded schools. With regard to undergraduate education, the Bureau of Indian Education is reviewing regulations that address grants to tribally controlled community colleges and other Indian education regulations. These reviews 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. BIA is reviewing the Federal acknowledgment regulations to determine how regulatory changes may streamline the acknowledgment process and clarify criteria by which an Indian group is examined.
• Revise regulations to reflect updated statutory provisions and increase transparency.
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 clearly as possible and accurately reflects the current organization of the Bureau. The Bureau is also simplifying language and eliminating obsolete provisions. In the coming year, the Bureau also plans to revise regulations regarding rights-of-way (25 CFR 169); Indian Reservation Roads (25 CFR 170); and certain regulations specific to the Osage Nation.
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. In doing so, BLM manages such varied uses as energy and mineral development, outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, and forestry and woodlands products. BLM's complex multiple-use mission affects the lives of millions of Americans, including those who live near and visit the public lands, as well as those who benefit from the commodities, such as minerals, energy, or timber, produced from the lands' rich resources. In undertaking its management responsibilities, BLM seeks to conserve our public lands' natural and cultural resources and sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. In the coming year, BLM's highest regulatory priorities include:
• Revising antiquated hydraulic fracturing regulations.
BLM's existing regulations applicable to hydraulic fracturing were promulgated over 20 years ago and do not reflect modern technology. In seeking to modernize its requirements and ensure the protection of our Nation's public lands, BLM has proposed a rule that would disclose to the public chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on public land and Indian land, strengthen regulations related to well-bore integrity, and address issues related to flowback water.
• Creating a competitive process for offering lands for solar and wind energy development.
BLM is preparing a proposed rule that would establish an efficient competitive process for leasing public lands for solar and wind energy development. The amended regulations would establish competitive bidding procedures for lands within designated solar and wind energy development leasing areas, define qualifications for potential bidders, and structure the financial arrangements necessary for the process. The proposed rule would enhance BLM's ability to capture fair market value for the use of public lands, ensure fair access to leasing opportunities for renewable energy development, and foster the growth and development of the renewable energy sector of the economy.
• Preventing waste of produced oil and gas and regulating use for beneficial purposes.
A proposed rule would cover the prevention of waste by minimizing the amount of venting and flaring that takes place on oil and gas production facilities on Federal and Indian lands. It would also delineate which activities qualify for beneficial use of the oil and gas resource to ensure that proper royalties are paid on oil and gas removed from Federal and Trust lands.
• Seeking public input on managing waste mine methane.
BLM plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting information from the public that might assist the bureau in the establishment of a program to capture, use, or destroy waste mine methane from Federal coal leases and Federal leases for other solid minerals.
• Ensuring a fair return to the American taxpayer for oil shale development.
The rule would encourage responsible development of federal oil shale resources and evaluate necessary safeguards to protect scarce water resources and important wildlife habitat while assuring a fair royalty to the American people.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) promotes energy independence, environmental protection and economic development through responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and renewable energy resources. It is dedicated to fostering the development of both conventional and renewable energy and mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an
• Expanding renewable energy resources.
As part of President Obama's comprehensive plan to move our economy toward domestic clean energy sources, BOEM is holding offshore renewable energy lease sales for the first time in U.S. history. BOEM is preparing to develop a number of standards and criteria to facilitate the more effective use of wind turbine technology on the OCS. The Bureau is completing a rulemaking to provide additional time for applicants for renewable projects to submit certain plans for which BOEM found the regulatory timeline to be unreasonable. This is designed to provide an appropriate balance between ensuring diligent progress on our renewable energy leases and accounting for the needs of renewable energy developers.
Two proposed rulemakings address recommendations submitted to BOEM by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies and its stakeholders. Specifically, these include recommendations to: Develop and incorporate state of the art wind turbine design standards and to clarify the role of Certified Verification Agents as part of the process of designing, fabricating, and installing offshore wind energy facilities for the OCS.
• Promoting safe drilling activities on the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf.
BOEM, jointly with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), is developing proposed rules to promote safe, responsible, and effective drilling activities on the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, while also ensuring the protection of Alaska's coastal communities and the marine environment.
• Protecting the Environment.
In a continuing effort to minimize the risk that oil spills will occur and that the effects of any future potential spills can be minimized and fully mitigated, BOEM is raising the limits of liability associated with future spills up to the statutory maximum. BOEM is also revising its regulations designed to oversee the Oil Spill Financial Responsibility process for which it is responsible. In addition, working in close conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Justice, BOEM is making a concerted effort to make sure that all necessary resources will be made available to address all potential contingencies of an oil spill and associated damages.
• Updating BOEM's Air Quality Program.
Until recently, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has exercised jurisdiction for air quality only for OCS sources operating in the Gulf of Mexico. In fiscal year 2012, Congress expanded DOI's authority by transferring to it responsibility for monitoring OCS air quality off the north coast of Alaska. In light of this change, BOEM is undertaking a thorough review of its air quality program. BOEM intends to exercise its mandate by ensuring the responsible development of natural resources in both regions by ensuring that regulations are developed to appropriately balance environmental needs and requirements against the needs for economic development. In doing this, BOEM is consulting and coordinating its efforts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Protecting OCS Sand, Gravel, and Shell Resources.
In light of the continuing need to provide resources to protect the coast from natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy, BOEM is developing policies and goals to formally address the use of OCS sand, gravel, or shell resources funded by the Federal government. These policies are intended to ensure that necessary sand and gravel resources remain available to help communities that have been harmed by hurricanes and other disasters, so that beaches and other natural resources can effectively be restored, without adversely impacting the development of transmission lines and pipelines needed for energy development projects. Taken together, these policies will ensure that the development of renewable and conventional energy resources continues to take place in areas adjacent to key sand and gravel resource zones and that sand and gravel resources continue to be available for construction projects, shore protection, beach replenishment, or wetlands restoration purposes.
BSEE's mission is to regulate safety, emergency preparedness, environmental responsibility and appropriate development and conservation of offshore oil and natural gas resources. BSEE's regulatory priorities are guided by the BSEE FY 2012-2015 Strategic Plan, which includes two strategic goals to focus the Bureau's priorities in fulfillment of its mission:
□ Regulate, enforce, and respond to OCS development using the full range of authorities, policies, and tools to compel safety and environmental responsibility and appropriate development of offshore oil and natural gas resources.
□ Build and sustain the organizational, technical, and intellectual capacity within and across BSEE's key functions—capacity that keeps pace with OCS industry technology improvements, innovates in regulation and enforcement, and reduces risk through systemic assessment and regulatory and enforcement actions.
The Three-Year Strategic Plan reflects the intent of BSEE to build a bureau capable of keeping pace with the rapidly advancing technologies employed by the industry, building and sustaining its organizational, technical, and intellectual capacity, and instilling a commitment to safe practices at all levels of offshore operations, at all times. Additionally, the strategic plan incorporates BSEE's approach to address numerous recommendations contained in Government Accountability Office, Office of Inspector General (OIG), and other external reports.
BSEE has identified the following four areas of regulatory priorities: (1) Compliance; (2) Oil Spill Response; (3) Alaska; and (4) Managing and Mitigating Risk. Among the specific regulatory priorities that will be BSEE's priorities over the course of the next year are:
• Compliance.
BSEE will finalize revisions of its rule on production safety systems and expand the use of lifecycle analysis of critical equipment. This rule addresses issues such as subsurface safety devices, safety device testing, and expands the requirements for operating production systems on the OCS.
• Oil Spill Response.
BSEE will update regulations for offshore oil spill response planning and preparedness. This rule will incorporate lessons learned from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, improved preparedness capability standards, and
• Alaska.
BSEE is working with BOEM on a joint proposed rule to promote safe, responsible, and effective drilling activities on the Alaska OCS while ensuring protection of Alaska's communities and marine environment.
• Managing and Mitigating Risk.
BSEE will develop a proposed rule containing requirements on blowout preventers and critical reforms in the areas of well design, well control, casing, cementing, real-time monitoring, and subsea containment. This proposed rule will address and implement multiple recommendations resulting from various investigations from the Macondo blowout.
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) 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. ONRR's regulatory plan priorities for the upcoming year include:
• Simplifying 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.
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—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. The regulatory standards in Federal program states and in primacy states are essentially the same with only minor, non-substantive differences. Today, 24 States have primacy, including 23 of the 24 coal producing States. OSM's regulatory priorities for the coming year will focus on:
• Stream Protection.
Protect streams and related environmental resources 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.
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 more than 150-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their habitats and allows the public to engage in outdoor recreational activities.
Over the course of the next year, FWS regulatory priorities will include:
• Critical habitat regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
FWS will issue rules to clarify definitions of “critical habitat” and “destruction or adverse modification,” to improve our consultation process in regard to issuing incidental take statements, and otherwise make improvements to the process of critical habitat designation.
• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act regulatory reform.
In an effort to promote renewable energy while carrying out our responsibility to protect certain species of birds, we will finalize our proposal to revise our regulations for permits for nonpurposeful take of eagles. By proposing to extend the maximum term for programmatic permits to 30 years, as long as certain requirements are met, we will facilitate the development of renewable energy projects that are designed to be in operation for many decades.
• Protecting refuges.
We will issue a proposed rule to ensure that all operators conducting oil or gas operations on NWRS lands do so in a manner that prevents or minimizes damage to the lands, visitor values, and management objectives.
• Making regulations more user-friendly.
We will issue rules to amend the format of the ESA lists to make them more user-friendly for the public, to correct errors in regard to taxonomy, to include rules issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service for marine species, and to more clearly describe areas where listed species are protected.
NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values within more than 400 units of the
To achieve this mission NPS adheres to the following guiding principles:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NPS' regulatory priorities for the coming year include:
• Managing Off Road Vehicle Use
(1) Curecanti National Recreation Area: A proposed rule published in July of 2013. The rule would designate routes and areas within Curecanti National Recreation Area where off-road vehicles (ORVs) and snowmobiles will be allowed within the recreation area. ORV use will primarily occur below the high water line of the Blue Mesa Reservoir. The rule also would provide for designation of new snowmobile access points and designates snowmobile routes from the access points to the frozen surface of the Blue Mesa Reservoir.
(2) Fire Island National Seashore: The rule would define applicable terms, designates driving routes, driving conditions, and establishes permit conditions for ORV use within Fire Island National Seashore.
(3) Wrangell St.-Elias National Preserve: The rule would (i) designate trails in the Nabesna District of Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve where ORVs may be used for recreational purposes; (ii) impose ORV size and weight restrictions; and (iii) close areas to ORV use for subsistence purposes in designated wilderness.
(4) Lake Meredith NRA: The rule would designate ORV routes, addresses required safety equipment, speed limits and clarifies ORV use for the benefit of NPS personnel and the public.
(5) Glen Canyon NRA: The rule would authorize ORV use, designate routes and areas, and establish criteria for operation of ORVs.
NPS rules would authorize and manage designate bicycles routes and allow for management of bicycle use on designated routes at Cuyahoga Valley National Park, New River Gorge National River, Chattahoochee NRA, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, and Lake Meredith National Recreation Area.
(1) A rule will correct inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the 43 CFR part 10 regulations, implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which have been identified by or brought to the attention of the Department of the Interior.
(21) A new rule would establish a process for disposition of Unclaimed Human Remains and Funerary Objects discovered after November 16, 1990, on Federal or Indian Lands.
(2) A rule revising the existing regulations would describe the NAGPRA process in plain language with clear time parameters, eliminate ambiguity, clarify terms, and include Native Hawaiians in the process. The rule would eliminate unnecessary requirements for museums and would not add process or new information collection.
The rule would account for new technology and industry practices, eliminate regulatory exemptions, update new legal requirements, remove caps on bond amounts, and allow the NPS to recover compliance costs associated with administering the regulations.
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, we employ 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. We have continued to focus on increased security at our facilities. As we undertake our responsibilities, we are continually reviewing the regulations and policies that govern our work and considering potential improvements to streamline our processes while protecting our nation's water resources and the environment.
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 foreign and domestic threats, to provide Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure the 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 regulatory priorities of the Department include initiatives in the areas of civil rights, criminal law enforcement and immigration. These initiatives are summarized below. In addition, several other components of the Department carry out important responsibilities through the regulatory
The Department is including five disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives in its Regulatory Plan: (1) Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the ADA regulations (titles II and III); (2) Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the Department's section 504 regulations; (3) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations: Movie Captioning and Audio Description; (4) Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Governments; and (5) Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public Accommodations.
The Department's other disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives, while important priorities for the Department's rulemaking agenda, will be included in the Department's long-term actions for fiscal year 2015. As will be discussed more fully below, these initiatives include: (1) Accessibility of Medical Equipment and Furniture; (2) Accessibility of Beds in Guestrooms with Mobility Features in Places of Lodging; (3) Next Generation 9-1-1 Services; and (4) Accessibility of Equipment and Furniture. The Department will also be revising its regulations for Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs.
Since 1991, there have been many technological advances in the area of closed captioning and audio 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 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 would either replace or augment digital cinema or make any regulatory requirements for captioning and audio description more difficult or expensive to implement. The Department received approximately 1171 public comments in response to its movie captioning and audio description ANPRM. The Department is in the process of completing its review of these comments and expects to publish an NPRM addressing captioning and audio description in movie theaters in early fiscal year 2014.
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
The final rulemaking initiatives from the 2010 ANPRMs are included in the Department's long-term priorities projected for fiscal year 2015:
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 explosives, and to assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in reducing crime and violence. The Department is including one rulemaking initiative from ATF in its Regulatory Plan. The Department is planning to finalize a proposed rule to amend ATF's regulations regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed, this rule would (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer.
ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 2014, to seek modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and explosives. ATF plans to issue regulations to finalize the current interim rules 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). 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 proposed denial of applications for explosives licenses or permits and proposed revocation of such licenses and permits. In addition, ATF also has several other rulemaking initiatives as part of the Department's rulemaking agenda.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” ATF has proposed 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.
DEA is the primary agency responsible for coordinating the drug law enforcement activities of the United States and also assists in the implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. DEA implements and enforces Titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended, and referred to as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA's mission is to enforce the CSA and its regulations and bring to the criminal and civil justice system those organizations and individuals involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances and listed chemicals appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States. DEA promulgates the CSA implementing regulations in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. The CSA and its implementing 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.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, DEA continuously evaluates new and emerging substances to determine whether such substances should be controlled under the CSA. During fiscal year 2014, in addition to initiating temporary scheduling actions to prevent immediate harm to the public safety, DEA will also consider petitions to schedule or reschedule various substances. Among other regulatory reviews and initiatives, DEA also plans to finalize regulations implementing the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-273) to provide means for individuals to safely and securely dispose of controlled substances.
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 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.
On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), the responsibility for immigration enforcement and border security and for providing immigration-related services and benefits, such as naturalization, immigrant petitions, and work authorization, was transferred from the Justice Department's former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). However, the immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) in EOIR remain part of the Department of Justice. The immigration judges adjudicate approximately 400,000 cases each year to determine whether aliens should be ordered 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 conducting 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, including, but not limited to: a joint regulation with DHS to provide guidance on a number of issues central to the adjudication of applications for asylum and withholding of removal; a joint regulation with DHS to provide, with respect to applicants who are found to have engaged in persecution of others, a limited exception for actions taken by the applicant under duress; a joint regulation with DHS to implement procedures that address the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children in removal proceedings pursuant to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; a proposed regulation to establish procedures for the filing and adjudication of motions to reopen removal, deportation, and exclusion proceedings based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; and a proposed regulation to improve the recognition and accreditation process for organizations and representatives that appear in immigration proceedings before EOIR. 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.
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 Department is not currently engaged in international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.
The ADA Amendments Act amended the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101,
The ADA Amendments Act revised 29 U.S.C. section 705, to make the definition of disability used in the nondiscrimination provisions in title V of the Rehabilitation Act consistent with the amended ADA requirements. These amendments (1) add illustrative lists of “major life activities,” including “major bodily functions,” that provide more examples of covered activities and covered conditions than are now contained in agency regulations (sec. 3[2]); (2) clarify that a person who is “regarded as” having a disability does not have to be regarded as being substantially limited in a major life activity (sec. 3[3]); and (3) add rules of construction regarding the definition of disability that provide guidance in applying the term “substantially limits” and prohibit consideration of mitigating measures in determining whether a person has a disability (sec. 3[4]).
The Department anticipates that these changes will be published for comment in a proposed rule within the next 12 months. During the drafting of these revisions, the Department will also review the currently published rules to ensure that any other legal requirements under the Rehabilitation Act have been properly addressed in these regulations.
Being unable to access Web sites puts individuals with disabilities at a great disadvantage in today's society, which is driven by a global 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. Beyond goods and services, information available on the Internet has become a gateway to education. Schools at all levels are increasingly offering programs and classroom instruction through Web sites. Many colleges and universities offer degree programs online; some universities exist exclusively on the Internet. The Internet also is changing the way individuals socialize and seek entertainment. Social networks and other online meeting places provide a unique way for individuals to meet and fraternize. These networks allow individuals to meet others with similar interests and connect with friends, business colleagues, elected officials, and businesses. They also provide an effective networking opportunity for entrepreneurs, artists, and others seeking to put their skills and talents to use. Web sites also bring a myriad of entertainment and information options for internet users—from games and music to news and videos.
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 businesses, educators, and other public accommodations, that their Web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the Department is proposing to amend its title III regulation to expressly address the obligations of public accommodations to make the Web sites they use to provide their goods and services to the public accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities under the legal framework established by the ADA. The proposed regulation will propose the scope of the obligation to provide accessibility when persons with disabilities attempt to access Web sites of public accommodations, as well as propose the technical standards necessary to comply with the ADA.
Web sites that do not accommodate assistive technology, for example, can create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities, just as buildings not designed to accommodate individuals with disabilities can prevent some individuals from entering and accessing services. Web designers may not realize how simple features built into a Web site will assist someone who, for instance, cannot see a computer monitor or use a mouse. In addition, in many cases, these Web sites do not provide captioning for videos or live events streamed over the Web, leaving persons who are deaf or hard of hearing unable to access the information that is being provided.
Although the Department has been clear that the ADA applies to Web sites of private entities that meet the definition of “public accommodations,” inconsistent court decisions, differing standards for determining Web accessibility, and repeated calls for Department action indicate remaining uncertainty regarding the applicability of the ADA to Web sites of entities covered by title III. For these reasons, the Department plans to propose amendments to its regulation so as to make clear to entities covered by the ADA their obligations to make their Web sites accessible. Despite the need for action, the Department appreciates the need to move forward deliberatively. Any regulations the Department adopts must provide specific guidance to help ensure Web access to individuals with disabilities without hampering innovation and technological advancement on the Web.
Today, more and more movies are produced with captions and audio description. However, despite the underlying ADA obligation, the advancement of digital technology and the availability of captioned and audio-described films, many movie theaters are still not exhibiting captioned or audio-described movies, and when they do exhibit them, they are only for a few showings of a movie, and usually at off-times. Recently, a number of theater companies have committed to provide greater availability of captioning and audio description. In some cases, these have been nationwide commitments; in other cases it has only been in a particular state or locality. A uniform Federal ADA requirement for captioning and audio description is necessary to ensure that access to movies for persons with hearing and vision disabilities is not dictated by the individual's residence or the presence of litigation in their locality.
In addition, the movie theater industry is in the process of converting its movie screens to use digital technology, and the Department believes that it will be extremely helpful to provide timely guidance on the ADA requirements for captioning and audio description so that the industry may factor this into its conversion efforts and minimize costs.
The Department has now divided the rulemakings in the next step of the rulemaking process so as to proceed with separate notices of proposed rulemakings for title II and title III. The title III rulemaking on Web accessibility will continue under RIN 1190-AA61 and the title II rulemaking will continue under the new RIN 1190-AA65. This rulemaking will provide specific guidance to State and local governments in order to make services, programs, or activities offered to the public via the Web accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The ADA requires that State and local governments provide qualified individuals with disabilities equal access to their programs, services, or activities unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of their programs, services, or activities or would impose an undue burden. 42 U.S.C. 12132. The Internet as it is known today did not exist when Congress enacted the ADA; yet today the Internet is dramatically changing the way that governmental entities serve the public. Taking advantage of new technology, citizens can now use State and local government Web sites to correspond online with local officials; obtain information about government services; renew library books or driver's licenses; pay fines; register to vote; obtain tax information and file tax returns; apply for jobs or benefits; and complete numerous other civic tasks. These Government Web sites are important because they allow programs and services to be offered in a more dynamic, interactive way in order to increase citizen participation; increase convenience and speed in obtaining information or services; reduce costs in providing information about Government services and administering programs; reduce the amount of paperwork; and expand the possibilities of reaching new sectors of the community or offering new programs or services.
Many States and localities have begun to improve the accessibility of portions of their Web sites. However, full compliance with the ADA's promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of the programs, services, and activities provided by State and local Governments in today's technologically advanced society will only occur if it is clear to public entities that their Web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the Department intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its title II regulations to expressly address the obligations of public entities to make the Web sites they use to provide programs, activities, or services or information to the public accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities under the legal framework established by the ADA. The proposed regulation will propose the scope of the obligation to provide accessibility when persons with disabilities access public Web sites, as well as propose the technical standards necessary to comply with the ADA.
Web sites that do not accommodate assistive technology, for example, can create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities, just as buildings not designed to accommodate people with disabilities prevent some individuals from entering and accessing services. Web designers may not realize how simple features built into a Web site will assist someone who, for instance, cannot see a computer monitor or use a mouse. In addition, in many cases, these Web sites do not provide captioning for videos or live events streamed over the web, leaving persons who are deaf or hard of hearing unable to access the information that is being provided. Although an increasing number of State and local Governments are making efforts to provide accessible Web sites, because there are no specific ADA standards for Web site accessibility, these Web sites vary in actual usability.
CFR Citation: 27 CFR 479
For over 100 years, the Labor Department has been central to safe guarding and expanding the American Dream for American working families. The Department's Fall 2013 Regulatory Agenda supports that mission—specifically, Secretary Perez's goal to develop and implement policies that create opportunity for everyone who wants it. These include policies that provide the opportunities for:
• Workers to acquire the skills they need to succeed;
• Employers to have the skilled workforce required to compete in a global economy;
• Employees to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work;
• Veterans to thrive in the civilian economy;
• Persons with disabilities to contribute productively to the workforce;
• Improved health benefits and a dignified retirement; and,
• Safe and healthy work environments, fully protected by anti-discrimination laws.
This narrative describes several of the Department's
In August 2011, as part of a Government wide response to E.O. 13563, the Department published its “Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules.” The plan identified several burden-reducing regulatory projects. Projects such as OSHA's Standard Improvement Project—Phase IV (SIP IV) and OSHA's Revising to Record Requirements in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard are both expected to produce savings for the covered community.
The Department is also taking action to eliminate regulations that are no longer effective or enforceable. This effort has included the removal of obsolete ETA's Job Training Partnership Act program regulations. The effort will continue with the removal of attestation requirements for facilities using nonimmigrant aliens as registered nurses in the H-1A program (authorized by the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1999); removal of attestation requirements for employers using F-1 students in off-campus work (authorized by the Immigration Act of 1990); and removal of remove obsolete regulations regarding labor certification process requirements for logging employment and non-H-2A agricultural employment. This agenda includes 13 retrospective review projects.
Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563, the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) are associated with the Department's Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules. More information about completed rulemakings, which are no longer included in the plan, can be found on Reginfo.gov. The original August 2011 DOL Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules and each subsequent update can be found at
The Department's
OSHA's regulatory program is designed to help workers and employers
•
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 routes of transmission.) 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 and 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 on this topic.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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. 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 project under E.O.13563 addresses revising the process for proposing civil penalties.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Through the work of OFCCP, DOL ensures that contractors and subcontractors doing business with the Federal Government provide equal employment opportunity and 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 nondiscriminatory manner. DOL, through OFCCP, protects workers, promotes diversity and enforces civil rights laws.
•
•
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 141 million individuals covered by an estimated 701,000 private retirement plans, 2.3 million health plans, and similar numbers of other welfare benefit plans, which together hold $7.3 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 America's 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 department-wide compliance strategy. These efforts will not only enhance EBSA's enforcement toolbox but will also encourage greater levels of compliance by the regulated community and improve awareness among workers of their rights and benefits. EBSA's Fall 2013 agenda expands 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 the Abandoned Plan Program amendments.
•
•
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 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).
•
•
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. Expanding the program to cover these plans will allow eligible bankruptcy trustees to use the streamlined termination process to better discharge their obligations under the law. The use of streamlined procedures will reduce the amount of time and overall cost it would take to terminate and wind up such plans. This will result in larger benefit distributions to participants and beneficiaries in 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 estimates that approximately 165 additional plans will benefit from the Amended Abandoned Plan Program allowing bankruptcy trustees to participate in the program. The amendment expanding the program will provide substantial benefits to plans of sponsors in Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation and bankruptcy trustees through the orderly termination of plans, less service provider fees, and preservation of assets for participants and beneficiaries, while imposing minimal costs.
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. OLMS also implements a federal transportation law by ensuring that workplace rights of mass transit employees will be protected whenever federal funds are used to acquire, improve, or operate a transit system.
•
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, and income maintenance services through its national network of American Job Centers. The programs within ETA promote ladders of opportunity 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 sought in the 21st century's economy.
•
•
•
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, public transportation, 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. In addition, the Department
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 goals in the Department's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016:
• Safety: Improve safety by “reducing transportation-related fatalities and injuries.”
• State of Good Repair: Improve the condition of our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
• Economic Competitiveness: Foster “smart strategic investments that will serve the traveling public and facilitate freight movements.”
• Livable Communities: Foster livable communities through “coordinated, place-based policies and investments that increase transportation choices and access to transportation services.”
• Environmental Sustainability: Advance environmental sustainability “through strategies such as fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, more environmentally sound construction and operational practices, and by expanding opportunities for shifting freight from less fuel-efficient modes to more fuel-efficient modes.”
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 19 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 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 and revise motor carrier safety fitness procedures.
• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will continue its rulemaking efforts to reduce death and injury resulting from incidents involving motorcoaches.
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 retrospective reviews and its 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 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 and improved Internet page that provides important regulatory information, including “effects” reports and status reports (
In addition, the Department continues to engage in a wide variety of activities to help cement the partnerships between its agencies and its customers
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, E.O. 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 that 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. Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563, 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 plan can be found at
E.O. 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation) stresses that “[i]n an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of” E.O. 13563 to “protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” DOT has long recognized the value of international regulatory cooperation and has engaged in a variety of activities with both foreign governments and international bodies. These activities have ranged from cooperation in the development of particular standards to discussions of necessary steps for rulemakings in general, such as risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses of possible standards. Since the issuance of E.O. 13609, we have increased our efforts in this area. For example, many of DOT's Operating Administrations are active in groundbreaking government-wide Regulatory Cooperation Councils (RCC) with Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. These RCC working groups are setting a precedent in developing and testing approaches to international coordination of rulemaking to reduce barriers to international trade. We also have been exploring innovative approaches to ease the development process.
Examples of the many cooperative efforts we are engaged in include the following:
The FAA maintains ongoing efforts with foreign civil aviation authorities, including in particular the European Aviation Safety Agency and Transport Canada, to harmonize standards and practices where doing so will improve the safety of aviation and aviation-related activities. The FAA also plays an active role in the standard-setting work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), particularly on the Air Navigation Commission and the Legal Committee. In doing so, the FAA works with other Nations to shape the standards and recommended practices adopted by ICAO. The FAA's rulemaking actions related to safety management systems are examples of the FAA's harmonization efforts.
As a signatory of the 1998 Agreement on the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, NHTSA is an active participant in the World Forum for Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) at the UN. Under that umbrella, NHTSA is working on the development of harmonized regulations for the safety of electric vehicles; hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles; advanced head restraints; pole side impact test procedures; pedestrian protection; the safety risks associated with quieter vehicles, such as electric and hybrid electric vehicles; and advancements in tires.
Further, NHTSA is working bilaterally with Transport Canada to facilitate our Joint Action Plans under the Motor Vehicles Working Group of the U.S.—Canada RCC. Under these plans, NHTSA is working very closely with its counterparts within Transport Canada on the development of international standards on quieter vehicles, electric vehicle safety, and hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles.
PHMSA's hazardous material group works with ICAO, the UN Subcommittee of Experts on Dangerous Goods, and the International Maritime Organization. Through participation in these international bodies, PHMSA is able to advocate on behalf of U.S. safety and commercial interests to guide the development of international standards with which U.S. businesses have to comply when shipping in international commerce. PHMSA additionally participates in the RCC with Canada and has a Memorandum of Cooperation in place to ensure that cross-border shipments are not hampered by conflicting regulations. The pipeline group at PHMSA incorporates many standards by reference into the Pipeline Safety Regulations, and the development of these standards benefit from the participation of experts from around the world.
In the areas of airline consumer protection and civil rights regulation, OST is particularly conscientious in seeking international regulatory cooperation. For example, the Department participates in the standard-setting activities of ICAO and meets and works with other governments and international airline associations on the implementation of U.S. and foreign aviation rules.
For a number of years the Department has also provided information on which of its rulemaking actions have international effects. This information, updated monthly, is available at the Department's regulatory information Web site,
As we identify rulemakings arising out of our ongoing regulatory cooperation activities that we reasonably anticipate will lead to significant regulations, we will add them to our Web site report and subsequent Agendas and Plans.
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
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.
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), Executive Order 13563, 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 such projects as those concerning aviation economic rules and rules that affect multiple elements of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with regulatory requirements and process for 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; retrospective reviews of rules; 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 2014, 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 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III
• Carrier-Supplied Medical Oxygen, Accessible In-Flight Entertainment Systems, Service Animals, and Accessible Lavatories on Single-Aisle Aircraft.
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 infrastructure, and improving livability for the people and communities who use transportation systems subject to the Department's policies. It will also oversee the Department's rulemaking actions to implement the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21).
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 2014 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.
• Respond to recommendations from Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) for improving safety and reducing certification costs for general aviation. The ARC recommendations include a broad range of policy and regulatory changes that it believes could significantly improve the safety of general aviation aircraft while simultaneously reducing certification and modification costs for these aircraft. Among the ARC's recommendations is a suggestion that compliance with part 23 requirements be performance-based, focusing on the complexity and performance of an aircraft instead of the current regulations based on weight and type of propulsion. In announcing the ARC's recommendations, the Transportation Secretary said “Streamlining the design and certification process could provide a cost-efficient way to build simple airplanes that still incorporate the latest in safety initiatives. These changes have the potential to save money and maintain our safety standing—a win-win situation for manufacturers, pilots and the general aviation community as a whole.”
• Work cooperatively to harmonize the U.S. aviation regulations with those of other countries, without compromising rigorous safety standards, or our requirements to develop cost benefit analysis. 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
• 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 2013 through 2014 include:
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:
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.
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.
On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the two-year period from 2012-2014. The FHWA has analyzed MAP-21 to identify congressionally directed rulemakings. These rulemakings will be the FHWA's top regulatory priorities for the coming year. Additionally, the FHWA is in the process of reviewing all FHWA regulations to ensure that they are consistent with MAP-21 and will update those regulations that are not consistent with the recently enacted legislation.
During Fiscal Year 2014, FHWA will continue its focus on improving the quality and performance of our Nation's highway systems by creating national performance management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21 under the following rulemaking initiatives:
• National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Safety) (RIN: 2125-AF49)
• National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Bridges and Pavement) (RIN: 2125-AF53)
• National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Congestion Reduction, CMAQ, Freight, and Performance of Interstate/Non-Interstate NHS) (RIN: 2125-AF54).
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, through legislation such as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). FMCSA regulations establish standards for motor carriers, commercial drivers, commercial motor vehicles, and State agencies receiving certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial drivers' licenses.
FMCSA's regulatory plan for FY 2014 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) Electronic Logging Devices (RIN 2126-AB20), (2) Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11), and (3) Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-AB18).
Together, these priority rules could help to substantially improve commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety
In FY 2014, FMCSA plans to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on Electronic Logging Devices (RIN 2126-AB20) to establish: (1) minimum performance and design standards for hours-of-service (HOS) electronic logging devices (ELDs); (2) requirements for the mandatory use of these devices by drivers currently required to prepare HOS records of duty status (RODS); (3) requirements concerning HOS supporting documents; and (4) measures to address concerns about harassment resulting from the mandatory use of ELDs.
In FY 2014, FMCSA will continue its work on the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program. The CSA program improves the way FMCSA identifies and conducts carrier compliance and enforcement operations. 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 interventions and an associated rulemaking to put into place a new safety fitness determination 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 2014, FMCSA plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on the Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-AB18). The rule proposes the establishment of a clearinghouse that would require employers and service agents to report information about current and prospective employees' drug and alcohol test results. It would also require employers and certain service agents to search the Clearinghouse for current and prospective employees' positive drug and alcohol test results as a condition of permitting those employees to perform safety-sensitive functions. This would provide FMCSA and employers the necessary tools to identify drivers who are prohibited from operating a CMV based on DOT drug and alcohol program violations and ensure that such drivers receive the required evaluation and treatment before resuming safety-sensitive functions.
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 safety issue of heavy vehicles and their occupants in fiscal year 2014, including combination truck tractors, large buses, and motorcoaches. The agency plans to issue a notice that would propose promulgation of a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) for rollover structural integrity requirements for newly manufactured motorcoaches in accordance with NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan, DOT's 2009 departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. NHTSA will also issue a notice that would propose promulgation of a new FMVSS for electronic stability control systems for motor coaches and truck tractors, and expects to promulgate a final rule that will require the installation of lap/shoulder belts on motorcoaches. Together, these rulemaking actions will address thirteen recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board related to motorcoach safety.
In fiscal year 2014, NHTSA will continue working toward a final rule on rear visibility to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons. This final rule is mandated by the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. Also in 2014, NHTSA plans to continue work toward a final rule that would establish a new FMVSS to provide a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation. This rulemaking is mandated by the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010 to further enhance the safety of passenger vehicles and pedestrians.
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.
FRA's current regulatory program reflects a number of pending proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), as well as actions under its general safety rulemaking authority and actions supporting the Department's High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. RSIA08 alone has required 21 rulemaking actions, 12 of which have been completed. However, FRA continues to prioritize its rulemakings according to the greatest effect on safety while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation, as well as expressed congressional interest, and will work to complete as many rulemakings as possible prior to their statutory deadlines.
Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA is working to complete many of the RSIA08 actions, including developing requirements for rail integrity, critical incident stress plans, and employee training. FRA is
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:
• Ensure the safety of public transportation systems.
• 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, often requiring implementation through the rulemaking process. In fact, FTA is currently implementing many of its public transportation programs authorized under MAP-21 through the regulatory process.
As the needs for public transportation have changed over the years, the Federal transit programs have grown in number and complexity often requiring implementation through the rulemaking process. In fact, FTA is currently implementing many of its public transportation programs authorized under MAP-21 through the regulatory process. To that end, FTA's regulatory priorities include implementing certain requirements of the newly authorized Public Transportation Safety Program (49 U.S.C. 5329), such as the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, implementing requirements for Transit Asset Management Systems (49 U.S.C. 5326), amending the State Safety Oversight rule (49 CFR part 659), and amending the Major Capital Investments rule (49 CFR Part 611) to provide steps and evaluation criteria in the New and Small Starts process, and the new Core Capacity Program. Additionally, FTA plans to amend its joint regulations with FHWA that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (23 CFR part 771) in order to streamline the FTA environmental review process.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and programs to improve and strengthen the maritime transportation system to meet the economic, environmental, 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 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, Cargo Preference, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, United States Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and Training Support, Deepwater Port Licensing, and Port and Intermodal Development. Additionally, MARAD administers the Small Shipyard Grants Program through which equipment and technical skills training are provided to America's maritime workforce, with the aim of helping businesses to compete in the global marketplace while creating well-paying jobs at home.
MARAD's primary regulatory activities in fiscal year 2014 will be to continue the update of existing regulations as part of the Department's Retrospective Regulatory Review effort, and to propose new regulations where appropriate.
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. The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2012 increased PHMSA's ability to enforce civil penalties and other part 190 Code of Federal Regulations administration enforcement processes for Federal pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA's authority to enforce the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which had been administered by the Department of Homeland Security, was also returned by the Act.
On July 6, 2012 President Obama signed into law the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act”. The Act reauthorizes the hazardous materials safety program and requires several regulatory actions by PHMSA. The Act places a great deal of emphasis on the procedures for issuing special permits and the incorporation of special permits into regulations. Persons who offer for transportation or transport hazardous materials in commerce must follow the hazardous materials regulations. A special permit sets forth alternative requirements, or variances, to the requirements in the HMR. Federal hazardous materials transportation law authorizes PHMSA to issue such variances in a way that achieves a safety level that is at least equal to the safety level required under Federal hazmat law or is consistent with the public interest if a required safety level does not exist. The Act requires a rulemaking within two years to set out procedures and criteria for evaluating applications for special permits and approvals. In addition, the Act requires PHMSA to conduct a review of nearly 1,200 existing special permits and issue another rulemaking within three years to incorporate special permits that have been in continuous effect for a ten-year period into the HMR.
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 while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. We will concentrate on the prevention of high-risk incidents identified through the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 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 continue to focus on the streamlining of its regulatory system and to reduce regulatory burdens. PHMSA will evaluate existing rules to examine whether they remain justified; should be modified to account for changing circumstances and technologies; or should be streamlined or even repealed. PHMSA will continue to be evaluating, and analyze, and be responsive to petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will review regulations, letters of interpretation, petitions for rulemaking, special permits, enforcement actions, approvals, and international standards to identify inconsistencies, outdated provisions, and barriers to regulatory compliance.
PHMSA aims to reduce the risks related to the transportation of hazardous materials by rail. Preventing tank car incidents and minimizing the consequences when an incident does occur are not only DOT priorities, but are also shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), industry, and the general public. To this end, PHMSA will consider possible regulatory changes to enhance the standards for DOT Specification 111 tank cars used to transport certain hazardous materials and explore additional operational requirements to enhance the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail.
PHMSA will be considering whether changes are needed to the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. In particular, PHMSA will be considering if other areas should be included as High Consequence Areas (HCAs) for integrity management (IM) protections, what the repair timeframes should be for areas outside the HCAs that are assessed as part of the IM program, whether leak detection standards are necessary, valve spacing requirements are needed on new construction or existing pipelines, and if PHMSA should extend regulation to certain pipelines currently exempt from regulation. The agency would also address the public safety and environmental aspects any new requirements, as well as the cost implications and regulatory burden.
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.
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 anticompetitive transfers.
All alternatives above are not considered to be acceptable by the FAA in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
URL for More Information:
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.
In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (the Act), Public Law 111-216, sec. 215 (August 1, 2010), required the FAA to conduct rulemaking to “require all 14 CFR part 121 air carriers to implement a safety management system.” The Act required the FAA to issue this final rule within 24 months of the passing of the Act (July 30, 2012).
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.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
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.
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.
Section 32301(b) of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement Act, enacted as part of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 786-788 (July 6, 2012)), mandated that the Secretary adopt regulations requiring that CMVs involved in interstate commerce, operated by drivers who are required to keep RODS, be equipped with ELDs.
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.
TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT: See 2132-AB07.
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, the Department invites interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while a proposed rule is being developed.
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, 13563, and 13609 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.
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) was established by the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701
In fiscal year (FY) 2013, the CDFI Fund published 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 2014, subject to funding availability, the CDFI Fund will provide awards through the following programs:
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) 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.
The Fiscal Service, on Treasury's behalf, 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) Administering the Government's payments, collections and debt collection; (3) Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including rules governing the sale and issue of savings bonds, marketable Treasury securities, and State and local government securities; (4) Setting out the terms and conditions by which Treasury may buy back and redeem outstanding, unmatured marketable Treasury securities through debt buyback operations; (5) Governing securities held in Treasury's retail systems; (6) Governing the acceptability and valuation of collateral pledged to secure deposits of public monies and other financial interests of the Federal Government; and (7) Administering Governmentwide accounting programs.
During fiscal year 2013, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to the following regulatory projects:
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,
During fiscal year 2013, FinCEN issued the following regulatory actions:
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2014 include finalizing any initiatives mentioned above that are not finalized by fiscal year end, as well as the following in-process and potential projects:
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 the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement final rule (77 FR 64031) of October 18, 2012 that adopted interim amendments (76 FR 68067) of November 3, 2011, to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations which implemented the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. CBP issued the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement final rule (78 FR 32356) of May 30, 2013 that adopted interim amendments (77 FR 15943) of March 19, 2012 to the CBP regulations, which implemented the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act that took effect on March 15, 2012. In addition, CBP issued the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement final rule (78 FR 60191) on October 1, 2013, that adopted the interim amendments (77 FR 59064) of September 26, 2012 to the CBP regulations. On October 23, 2013, CBP also issued regulations (78 FR 63052), on an interim basis, on the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement and CBP plans to finalize this rulemaking in fiscal year 2014.
On December 6, 2012, Treasury and CBP published a final rule (77 FR 72715) that amended the regulations to increase the $2,000 Informal entry limit on the aggregate customs value of informal entries to its statutory maximum of $2,500 in order to mitigate the effects of inflation and to meet the international commitments to Canada for the Beyond the Border Initiative. It also removed the requirement for the filing of a formal entry for certain articles formerly subject to absolute quotas under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
On July 5, 2013, Treasury and CBP published a final rule (78 FR 40388) that adopted, with some changes based upon comments received, the March 2012 proposal that provides CBP will refuse admission into the customs territory of the United States to consumer products and industrial equipment found to be noncompliant with energy conservation and labeling standards pursuant to the mandate of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and its implementing regulations. Upon written or electronic notice from the Department of Energy or the Federal Trade Commission, CBP may conditionally release under bond to the importer such noncompliant products or equipment for purposes of reconditioning, relabeling, or other action so as to bring the subject product or equipment into compliance.
On July 8, 2013, Treasury and CBP finalized (78 FR 40627) its August 2012 proposal to promulgate regulations regarding the prohibitions and conditions that are applicable to the importation and exportation of rough diamonds pursuant to the Clean Diamond Trade Act, as implemented by the President in Executive Order 13312 dated July 29, 2003, and the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations (RDCR) issued by the Treasury's Department Office of Foreign Assets Control. In addition to restating pertinent provisions of the RDCR, the regulations clarify that any U.S. person exporting from, or importing to, the United States a shipment of rough diamonds must retain for a period of at least five years a copy of the Kimberley Process Certificate that must accompany such shipments and make the copy available for inspection when requested by CBP, and also requires formal entry for shipments of rough diamonds.
This past fiscal year, consistent with the practice of continuing to move forward with Customs Modernization
During fiscal year 2014, CBP and Treasury plan to give priority to the following regulatory matters involving the customs revenue functions:
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.
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.
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.
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 July 31, 2014:
Treasury will continue the ongoing work of implementing TRIA and carrying out revised operations as a result of the TRIPRA-related regulation changes.
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.
During fiscal year 2014, the IRS will accord priority to the following regulatory projects:
In fiscal year 2014, Treasury and the IRS will continue to provide guidance to implement tax provisions of the ACA, including:
• Final regulations on information reporting by exchanges under section 36B(f)(3);
• Final regulations on minimum value of eligible-employer-sponsored plans under section 36B;
• Final regulations on limits on tax preferences for remuneration provided by certain health insurance providers under section 162(m)(6);
• Final regulations on new requirements for charitable hospitals under section 501(r);
• Final regulations on the net investment income tax under section 1411;
• Final regulations on the additional Medicare tax under sections 3101 and 3102;
• Final regulations on the employer shared responsibility provisions under section 4980H;
• Final regulations on the health insurance providers fee under section 9010 of the ACA;
• Final regulations on insurer and employer reporting under sections 6055 and 6056.
• Additional guidance on the medical device tax under section 4191.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations to implement and enforce the Federal laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes and certain non-tax laws relating to alcohol. TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
(1) Regulate with regard to the issuance of permits and authorizations to operate in the alcohol and tobacco industries;
(2) Assure the collection of all Federal alcohol, tobacco, firearms and ammunition taxes, and obtain a high level of voluntary compliance with laws governing those industries; and
(3) Suppress commercial bribery, consumer deception, and other prohibited practices in the alcohol beverage industry.
In FY 2014, TTB plans to give priority to the following regulatory matters:
Additionally, in FY 2013, TTB published a temporary rule and concurrent NPRM pertaining to permits for importers of tobacco products and processed tobacco that would extend the duration of new permits from three years to five years. Furthermore, TTB published an NPRM concerning denatured alcohol and products made with industrial alcohol. The proposed amendments would remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on the industrial alcohol industry as well as TTB, and would align the regulations with current industry practice. These three rules were published in June 2013.
As described in greater detail below, in FY 2014, TTB plans to continue its Regulations Modernization Project concerning its Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol regulations, Labeling Requirement regulations, Export regulations, Nonbeverage Products regulations and Beer regulations.
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.
The following regulations (identified by Regulatory Identifier Number) have been identified as candidates for retrospective review pursuant to the Department's most recent retrospective review of regulations plan issued in July 2013 pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011). Treasury's retrospective review plan can be found at:
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'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.
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:
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, information and communication technology, and medical diagnostic equipment. Other federal agencies adopt the accessibility guidelines and standards issued by the Access Board as mandatory requirements for entities under their jurisdiction.
This plan highlights three rulemaking priorities for the Access Board in FY 2014: (A) Information and Communication Technology Accessibility Standards and Guidelines; (B) Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards; and (C) Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines. The guidelines and standards would enable individuals with disabilities to achieve greater participation in our society, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency, and would promote our national values of equity, human dignity, and fairness, the benefits of which are difficult to quantify.
The rulemakings are summarized below.
The Access Board plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update its accessibility standards for electronic and information technology covered by section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d) (Section 508), and its accessibility guidelines for telecommunication equipment and customer premises equipment covered by section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 255) (Section 255). Section 508 requires that when developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, each federal department or agency must ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency, that electronic and information technology (regardless of the type of medium) allows individuals with disabilities to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use of the information and data by others without disabilities. Section 255 requires telecommunications manufacturers to ensure that telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment are designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities when it is readily achievable to do so.
A.1
A.2
A.3
The Access Board expects that the Information and Communication Technology Standards and Guidelines will have international impacts, and has engaged extensive outreach efforts to standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and abroad such as the World Wide Web Consortium and to other countries, including the European Commission, Canada, Australia, and Japan.
A.4
The Access Board plans to issue a final rule establishing accessibility standards for medical diagnostic equipment used in or in conjunction with medical settings such as physicians' offices, clinics, emergency rooms, and hospitals. The standards will contain minimum technical criteria to ensure that medical diagnostic equipment, including examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales, mammography equipment, and other imaging equipment used by health care providers for diagnostic purposes are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The Access Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
B.1
B.2
Section 510 does not address who is required to comply with the standards. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires health care providers to provide individuals with disabilities full and equal access to their health care services and facilities. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for issuing regulations to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act and enforcing the law. The NPRM discusses DOJ activities related to health care providers and medical equipment.
B.3
B.4
The Access Board plans to issue a final rule establishing accessibility guidelines for the design, construction, and alteration of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way, including sidewalks, shared use paths, pedestrian street crossings, curb ramps and blended transitions, pedestrian overpasses and underpasses, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and transit shelters, on-street parking spaces, and passenger loading zones. The Access Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
The Access Board expects that the Information and Communication Technology Standards and Guidelines will have international impacts, and has engaged extensive outreach efforts to standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and abroad such as the World Wide Web Consortium and to other countries, including the European Commission, Canada, Australia, and Japan.
Section 510 does not address who is required to comply with the standards. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires health care providers to provide individuals with disabilities full and equal access to their health care services and facilities. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for issuing regulations to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act and enforcing the law. The NPRM discusses DOJ activities related to health care providers and medical equipment.
For more than 40 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has worked to protect people's health and the environment. By taking advantage of the best thinking, the newest technologies and the most cost-effective, sustainable solutions, EPA has fostered innovation and cleaned up pollution in the places where people live, work, play and learn.
With a renewed focus on the challenges ahead, science, law and transparency continue to guide EPA decisions. EPA will leverage resources with grant and incentive-based programs, sound scientific advice, technical and compliance assistance and tools that support states, tribes, cities, towns, rural communities and the private sector in their efforts to address our shared challenges, including:
• Making a visible difference in communities across the country;
• addressing climate change and improving air quality;
• taking action on toxics and chemical safety;
• protecting water: a precious, limited resource;
• launching a new era of state, tribal and local partnership; and
• working toward a sustainable future.
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 to doubling the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, the Agency is working to save lives and protect the environment. In addition, while removing a billion tons of pollution from the air, the Agency has produced hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits for the American people.
EPA's more than forty years of protecting human health and the environment demonstrates our nation's commitment to reducing pollution that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use and the communities we live in. This Regulatory Plan contains information on some of our most important upcoming regulatory actions. As always, our Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information on a broader spectrum of EPA's upcoming regulatory actions.
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, the Agency has established several guiding priorities. These priorities are enumerated in the list that follows, along with recent progress and future objectives for each.
The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where appropriate and warranted. Addressing climate change calls for coordinated national and global efforts to reduce emissions and develop new technologies that can be deployed. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will continue to develop greenhouse gas standards for both mobile and stationary sources.
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, as well as many other hazardous air pollutants. Long-term exposure to air pollution can cause cancer and damage to the immune, neurological, reproductive, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems.
One of EPA's highest priorities is to make significant 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. In its implementation of these programs, EPA uses several different statutory authorities, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), as well as collaborative and voluntary activities. In FY 2014, the Agency will continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities, and highlights the following actions in this Regulatory Plan:
Despite considerable progress, America's waters remain imperiled. Water quality protection programs face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative strategies.
EPA is considering a range of regulatory and non-regulatory options to reduce the pollutant loads delivered by storm water discharges to receiving waters and improve water quality and aquatic ecosystem integrity, and to protect water quality from certain currently unregulated storm water discharges. EPA plans to work closely with state and local governments in this effort and will consider innovative approaches to address these issues.
EPA's success depends more than ever on working with increasingly capable and environmentally conscious partners. States have demonstrated leadership on managing environmental challenges and EPA wants to build on and complement their work. EPA supports 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 environmental and public health. The history and future of environmental protection will be built on this type of collaboration.
Once the e-Manifest regulation is adopted and the national e-Manifest system becomes available, hazardous waste handlers will be able to complete, sign, transmit, and store electronic manifests through the national IT system, or they can elect to continue tracking the hazardous waste under the paper manifest system. Further, waste handlers that currently submit manifests to the states will no longer be required to do so, as EPA will collect both the remaining paper manifest copies and electronic manifests in the national system, and will disseminate the manifest data to those states that want it. The adoption of e-Manifest will eliminate the current impediments to automation in the current manifest regulations, such as the requirements to physically carry paper forms with hazardous waste shipments; sign manifest copies “by-hand;” manually file copies; and mail copies to waste handlers and authorized states. EPA will clarify which electronic signature methods may be used when executing electronic manifests in the first generation of the national e-Manifest system, as well as to specify how issues of public access to manifest information will be addressed when manifest data are submitted and processed electronically.
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.
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.
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
As described above, EPA continues to review its existing regulations in an effort to achieve its mission in the most efficient means possible. To this end, the Agency is committed to identifying areas in its regulatory program where significant savings or quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens might be achieved, as outlined in Executive Order 13610, while protecting public health and our environment.
EPA has considered international regulatory cooperation activities as described in Executive Order 13609 and has identified two international activities that are anticipated to lead to significant regulations in the following year:
Karen Martin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Penny Lassiter, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Lisa Conner, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, D205-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Lisa Conner, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, D205-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Although EPA has taken a number of steps to ensure effective national implementation of and compliance with the WPS regulation, the need to consider potential changes to the WPS arose from EPA discussions with key stakeholders beginning in 1996. Since that time, EPA has held several public meetings throughout the country during which written and verbal comments identified issues and concerns with the existing requirements.
Changes under consideration for the WPS regulation are necessary improvements but will not replace these non-regulatory measures. In fact, EPA intends to consider continued support for and potential additions to these and other potential non-regulatory measures that may contribute to improving protections and compliance.
In general, EPA anticipates that the potential incremental benefits will likely accrue to workers and handlers through improved health outcomes, and that the potential incremental costs will involve revised requirements for agricultural employers.
Jeanne Kasai, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, PYS1162, Washington, DC 20460,
Rachel Fertik, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4502T, Washington, DC 20460,
Kathryn Sargeant, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, NVFEL S77, Ann Arbor, MI 48105,
Rich Damberg, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule's requirements, which apply to third-party certifiers and accreditation bodies. The rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications.
In addition, Congress directed EPA to consider a number of elements for inclusion in implementing the regulations. These elements include: labeling, chain of custody requirements, sell-through provisions, ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins, no added formaldehyde-based resins, finished goods, third-party testing and certification, auditing and reporting of TPCs, recordkeeping, enforcement, laminated products, and exceptions from the requirements of regulations promulgated for products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products.
TSCA Title VI requires EPA to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2013.
Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Government entities are not expected to be subject to the proposed requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture, fabricate, distribute, or sell composite wood products. The proposed rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications.
Lynn Vendinello, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Bryan Groce, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460,
Final, Judicial, January 14, 2014, Settlement Agreement.
Julie Hewitt, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4303T, Washington, DC 20460,
Final, Judicial, May 22, 2014, 5/22/2014—Consent Decree deadline for Final Action—Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 10-1915, D.D.C.
• 64,400 lb. of lead
• 2,820 lb. of mercury
• 79,200 lb. of arsenic
• 225,000 lb. of selenium
• 1,970,000 lb. of aluminum
• 4,990,000 lb. of zinc
• 30,000,000 lb. of nitrogen
• 682,000 lb. of phosphorus
• 14,500,000 lb. of manganese
• 158,000 lb. of vanadium; and
• 27 other pollutants.
Discharges of these toxic pollutants are linked to cancer, neurological damage, and ecological damage. Many of these toxic pollutants, once in the environment, remain there for years. These pollutant discharges contribute to:
• Over 160 water bodies not meeting State quality standards
• 185 waters for which there are fish consumption advisories; and
• degradation of 399 water bodies across the country that are drinking water supplies.
The revised steam electric rule would strengthen the existing controls on discharges from these plants. It would set the first Federal limits on the levels of toxic metals in wastewater that can be discharged from power plants, based on technology improvements in the industry over the last three decades.
Jezebele Alicea, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4303T, Washington, DC 20460,
The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, Commission, or Agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in employment by vigorously enforcing and educating the public about the following Federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy), 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 under similar working conditions at the same establishment); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 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 (prohibit employment discrimination based on disability); title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (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 & local government employees from employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability).
The first three items in this Regulatory Plan are the three items currently under review pursuant to the EEOC's Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules in compliance with Executive Order 13563: (1) “Revisions to Procedures for Complaints or Charges of Employment Discrimination Based on Disability Subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,” (2) “revisions to Procedures for Complaints/Charges of Employment Discrimination Based on Disability Filed Against Employers Holding Government Contracts or Subcontracts,” and (3) “revisions to Procedures for Complaints of Employment Discrimination Filed Against Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance.” These are the joint regulations that EEOC has with the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor (DOL) (29 CFR parts 1640, 1641 and 1691) which provide for coordinated charge/complaint handling procedures. The
The fourth item in this Regulatory Plan is entitled “Revisions to the Federal Sector's Affirmative Employment Obligations of Individuals with Disabilities Under Section 501, as amended.” This revision pertains to the Federal Government's affirmative employment obligations pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as reflected in 29 CFR part 1614. The EEOC plans to develop a notice of proposed rulemaking to seek comment on revisions to the current rule at 29 CFR 1614.203 which would reflect a more detailed explanation of how Federal agencies and departments should give full consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities. Any revisions would be informed by Management Directive 715, and may include goals consistent with Executive Order 13548. Furthermore, any revisions would result in costs only to the Federal Government; would contribute to increasing the employment of individuals with disabilities; and would not affect risks to public health, safety, or the environment.
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.
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 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 (
This proposed rule would amend this joint regulation to revise the definitions of certain terms and clarify the procedures for referring these complaints/charges between agencies with responsibility for enforcing title I of the ADA and section 504. In drafting this regulation, EEOC will explore ways to make it more consistent with two other coordination regulations (29 CFR part 1641 and 29 CFR part 1691), as well as with the recently revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the EEOC and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). This MOU addresses the investigation and processing of complaints or charges alleging employment discrimination that may fall within the jurisdiction of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and/or Executive Order 11246.
Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of the Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
This proposed rule would amend this joint regulation to revise the definition of certain terms and clarify the procedures for referring these complaints/charges between the agencies with responsibility for enforcing section 503 and title I of the ADA. In drafting this regulation, EEOC will explore ways to make it more consistent with two other coordination regulations (29 CFR part 1640 and 29 CFR part 1691), as well as with the recently revised Memorandum of Understanding between EEOC and OFCCP. This MOU addresses the investigation and processing of complaints or charges alleging employment discrimination that may fall within the jurisdiction of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and/or Executive Order 11246.
Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of the Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of the Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
This proposed rule would revise the regulations regarding the Federal Government's affirmative employment obligations in 29 CFR part 1614 to include a more detailed explanation of how Federal agencies and departments should “give full consideration to the hiring, placement and advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities.”
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 Government-wide 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.
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.
PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United States, providing facilities and workspace
OGP sets Government-wide 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 Government-wide 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 Government-wide 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 Government-wide 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 of existing rules that may be obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive.
OGP's policy regulations are described in the following subsections:
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
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.
Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for aircraft, transportation, personal property, real 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.
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 Federal Acquisition Regulation (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. The GSAM, which incorporates the GSAR, as well as internal agency acquisition policy, rules that require publication fall into two major categories:
• Those that affect GSA's business partners (
• 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.
In fiscal year 2014, GSA plans to amend the FTR by:
• Revising chapter 301, Temporary Duty Travel, ensuring accountability and transparency. This revision will ensure agencies' travel for missions is efficient and effective, reduces costs, promotes sustainability, and incorporates industry best practices at the lowest logical travel cost.
• Revising chapter 302, Relocation Allowances for miscellaneous items to address current Government relocation needs which the last major rewrite (FTR Amendment 2011-01) did not update. This will include revising the Relocation Income Tax (RIT) Allowance; amending coverage on family relocation; and amending the calculations regarding the commuted rate for employee-managed household goods shipments
In fiscal year 2014, GSA plans to amend the FMR by:
• Revising rules regarding management of Government aircraft;
• Revising rules regarding management of Federal real property;
• Revising rules regarding management of Federal personal property.
GSA updates the GSAR to maintain consistency with the 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.
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 grassroots outreach to small business concerns, through hosting such outreach events, or participating in a vast array of other similar presentations hosted by others.
Changes to the GSAR that would be of interest to small businesses include:
• GSAR Cases 2012-G501 (Electronic Contracting Initiative), 2012-G502 (Enterprise Acquisition Solution), and 2012-G503 (Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting). All of these affect GSAR Part 538 on the Schedules Program, and will assist small businesses by streamlining procedures and supporting electronic contracting.
There are currently no regulations which promote open Government and disclosure.
GSA published FTR Case 2011-308; Payment of Expenses Connected with the Death of Certain Employees in FY 2013. GSA amended 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.
GSA plans to publish a FTR Amendment in updating Chapter 303: Payment of Expenses Connected With Death of Certain Employees in FY13. The final rule will incorporate language based on Public Law 110-181, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008, section 1103 and codified at 5 U.S.C. 5742, to allow agencies to provide for relocation of dependents and household effects of an employee whose death occurred while performing official duties outside the continental United States (OCONUS) or for an employee whose death occurred while subject to a mandatory mobility agreement OCONUS and was supporting an overseas contingency operation or overseas emergency as declared by the President. This final rule allows the agency to relocate the dependents and household goods to the covered employee's former actual residence or such other place as is determined by the head of the agency concerned. Also, the final rule amends and updates the FTR regarding the authority to relocate dependents and household goods of an employee on a service agreement or mandatory mobility agreement who dies at or while in transit to or from an official station OCONUS, amends to allow transportation of the remains to the place of interment and shipment of a POV from the TDY location or from an official station OCONUS when the agency previously determined that use of POV was in the best interest of the Government, amends the household goods temporary storage timeframe in subpart H, and allows the agency to authorize additional storage not to exceed a total of 150 days, which is the same as what's allotted to an employee with relocation entitlements. Finally, this final rule reorganizes FTR part 303-70 to make it easier to understand.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (July, 2013), the GSA retrospective review and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at
For this statement of priorities, NASA has no recent legislative and programmatic activities that affect its regulations. There are no rulemakings that are expected to have high net benefits. All of the Agency's rulemaking promotes open government as the public is given an opportunity to review and comment on these rulemakings prior to promulgation.
NASA is streamlining three of its regulations dealing with 1) delegation of authority of certain civil rights functions to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 2) protection of human subjects, and 3) care and use of animals in the conduct of NASA activities because these regulations contain regulatory text that is redundant to governing statutes and other regulations. The Agency has no rulemakings that reduce unjustified burdens with no particular concern to small businesses, and there are no significant international impacts.
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, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the Earth.” The FY 2014 Strategic Plan, scheduled for publication February 2014, guides NASA's program activities through a framework of the following three strategic goals:
• Strategic Goal 1: Expand the frontiers of knowledge, capability, and opportunity in space.
• Strategic Goal 2: Advance understanding of Earth and develop technologies to improve the quality of life on our home planet.
• Strategic Goal 3: Serve the American public and accomplish our mission by effectively managing our people, technical capabilities, and infrastructure.
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 is in the process of reviewing and updating the entire NFS with a projected completion date of December 2014. Concurrently, we will continue to make routine changes to the NFS to implement NASA initiatives and Federal procurement policy.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13579 “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies” (Jul. 11, 2011), NASA regulations associated with its retrospective review and analysis are described in the Agency's final retrospective plan of existing regulations. Nine of these regulations were completed and are described below. NASA's final plan and updates can be found at
Abstracts for other regulations that will be amended or repealed between October 2013 and October 2014 are reported in the fall 2013 edition of Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulation actions.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) primarily issues regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the public. These regulations include records management, information services, access to and use of NARA holdings, and grant programs. For example, 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 four regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2014, which are included in The Regulatory Plan. The first are NARA's revisions to the Federal records management regulations found at 36 CFR chapter XII, subchapter B. The National Archives and Records Administration proposes to revise the Federal records management regulations found at 36 CFR chapter XII, subchapter B. The proposed changes include changes resulting from the 2011 Presidential Memorandum on Managing Government Records and the 2012 Managing Government Records Directive (M-12-18). The proposed rules will affect Federal agencies' records management programs relating to proper records creation and maintenance, adequate documentation, use of paper-based-only recordkeeping, electronic recordkeeping requirements, use of the Electronic Records Archive (ERA) for records transfer, and records disposition. The proposed revisions have begun with changes to provisions at 36 CFR parts 1222, 1223, 1224, 1229, 1235, 1236, and 1239. Additional proposed revisions to the subchapter will be published this fiscal year as well.
The second priority is NARA's revision of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations, clarifying the applicability of the FOIA to categories of records in NARA's accessioned holdings as well as operational records, and updating the regulations to incorporate Office of Government Services and make other changes pursuant to the Open FOIA Act of 2009, the Open Government Act of 2007, and the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (EFOIA). The revisions also explain NARA's responsibility in answering FOIA requests, the procedures for requesting a FOIA, and the response a requester can expect for a submitted FOIA. The revisions cover 36 CFR part 1250 and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been published.
NARA's third regulatory priority is the Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) Incorporation by Reference (IBR) action. On February 13, 2012, the OFR
And the fourth priority is a new regulation on Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a component of NARA, is proposing this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13556. The Order establishes an open and uniform program for managing information requiring safeguarding or dissemination controls. This rule sets forth guidance to agencies on safeguarding, disseminating, marking, and decontrolling CUI, self-inspection and oversight requirements, and other facets of the program.
OPM issued an interim rule in 2008 suspending the requirement set forth in 5 CFR 930.204(b) that requires incumbent administrative law judges (ALJs) to “possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law.” In 2010, OPM issued a proposed rule on the topic of the ALJ licensure requirements for incumbents and will consider comments on the proposed rule and comments on the interim rule when issuing a final rule on the topic.
OPM is issuing this proposed regulation to implement the administrative wage garnishment (AWG) provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA). The regulation will allow OPM to garnish the disposable pay of an individual to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed to the United States without first obtaining a court order. The proposed regulation sets forth procedures for use by OPM in collecting debts owed to the Federal Government. The Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, as amended by the Debt Collection Act of 1982 and the DCIA, requires agencies to issue regulations on their debt collection procedures. The proposed regulation includes procedures for collection of debts through AWG.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to implement amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). These regulations implement section 585(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 110-181, January 28, 2008) and section 565(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84, October 28, 2009). The statutory changes amended the FMLA provisions in 5 U.S.C. 6381 to 6383 (applicable to Federal employees) to provide that a Federal employee who is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of a covered servicemember (either a current or former servicemember) with a serious injury or illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty on active duty is entitled to a total of 26 administrative workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for the covered servicemember.
Under 5 U.S.C. 6387, OPM is required, to the extent appropriate, to be consistent with Department of Labor (DOL) regulations. DOL issued its final regulations on February 6, 2013 (78 FR 8833), which means that OPM can now issue its proposed FMLA regulations implementing the FY 2008 and FY 2010 NDAA amendments to the FMLA leave to care for a covered servicemember entitlement.
The Office of Management and Budget delineated new Core-Based Statistical Areas in February 2013. The Federal Salary Council and the Pay Agent will review the new area definitions to determine if they are suitable for use as locality pay areas for the General Schedule locality pay system. If approved by the Pay Agent, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will issue a proposed rule to use the new Core-Based Statistical Areas as the basis for locality pay areas.
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.
OPM will issue the final regulation with a change in its procedures for determining whether an individual's failure to register with the Selective Service System was knowing and willful. Individuals will be given an opportunity to fully explain their failure to register, and the determination will be made on a more complete record. OPM is also delegating authority to Federal agencies to make initial determinations as to whether an individual failure to register with Selective Service was knowing and willful. The delegation will facilitate better quality in decision-making and efficient decisions. The Office of General Counsel has committed to issuing clear guidance on “knowing and willful” prior to implementation of the final regulation.
OPM plans to issue final Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) regulations in order to strengthen the integrity, streamline the operation, and increase the effectiveness of the program to ensure its continued success.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the pensions of more than 40 million people in more than 25,000 private-sector defined benefit plans. PBGC receives no 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 has changed its regulatory approach so that its regulations do not inadvertently discourage the maintenance of existing defined benefit plans or the establishment of new plans. In the past, businesses and plans have commented that PBGC's regulations
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
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.
•
•
At the end of fiscal year 2012, PBGC had a $34 billion deficit in its insurance programs. Current PBGC premiums are insufficient.
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.
• To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
Pensions and the statutory framework in which they are maintained and terminate are complex. Despite this 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 policy-making through collaboration, PBGC also plans to expand opportunities for public participation in rulemaking (see
PBGC's current regulatory objectives and priorities are to simplify its regulations and reduce burden, particularly in the areas of premiums and reporting, enhance retirement security, and complete implementation of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006).
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.
• Termination of Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR part 4041A). When a multiemployer plan terminates, the plan must perform an annual valuation of the plan's assets and benefits. PBGC has reviewed the regulation to determine whether annual valuation requirements may be reduced for certain plans.
• Duties of plan sponsor following mass withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281). Terminated multiemployer plans that determine that they will be insolvent for a plan year must file a series of notices and updates to notices. These notice requirements can be detrimental to plan participants because they may use up assets that would be available to pay plan benefits.
• Mergers and transfers between multiemployer plans (29 CFR part 4231). Multiemployer plans must file certain information with PBGC. Multiemployer plan mergers do not pose any increase in the risk of loss to PBGC or to plan participants. These filing requirements increase administrative costs to PBGC and plans and create an unnecessary burden in completing the merger.
PBGC is developing a proposed rule that would make changes to address these concerns.
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 has issued or is considering several proposed rules that will focus on small businesses:
PBGC is doing more to encourage public participation in the regulatory process. 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
PBGC plans to provide additional means for public involvement, including on-line town hall meetings, social media, and continuing opportunity for public comment on PBGC's Web site.
PBGC also invites comments on the Regulatory Review Plan on an on-going basis as we engage in the review process. Comments should be sent to
PBGC will continue to look for ways to further improve its regulations.
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 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 also provides management and technical assistance to existing or potential small business owners through various grants, cooperative agreements or contracts. This access to capital and other assistance provide a crucial foundation for those starting a new business, or growing an existing business and ultimately creating new jobs. SBA also provides direct financial assistance to homeowners, renters, and small business owners to help communities to rebuild in the aftermath of a disaster.
SBA's regulatory policy reflects a commitment to developing regulations that reduce or eliminate the burden on the public, especially the Agency's core constituents—small businesses. SBA's regulatory process generally includes an assessment of the costs and benefits of the regulations as required by Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”; Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”; and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. SBA's program offices are particularly invested in finding ways to reduce the burden imposed by the Agency's core activities in its loan, innovation, and procurement programs.
SBA promotes transparency, collaboration, and public participation in its rulemaking process. 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. Where appropriate, SBA also conducts hearings, webinars, and other public events as part of its regulatory process.
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 the 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;
• Promoting awareness among Federal agencies, of the impact of regulatory enforcement and compliance efforts on small businesses and the importance of reducing burdens on such businesses;
• Strengthening SBA's relevance to high growth entrepreneurs and small businesses to more effectively drive innovation and job creation; and
• Mitigating risk and improving program oversight.
The regulations reported in SBA's semi-annual regulatory agenda and plan are intended to facilitate achievement of these goals and objectives. Over the next twelve months, SBA's highest regulatory priorities will include: (1) Implementing policy and procedural changes to the SBIR and STTR programs through the Policy Directives that provide guidance to the other SBIR/STTR Federal agencies; (2) implementing the Mentor-Protégé Programs, which were authorized by the Small Business Jobs Act, for participants in the HUBZone, Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) Contracting, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Programs and expanded to all small business concerns by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013; and (3) finalizing amendments to regulations for the 504 and 7(a) loan programs.
As a result of amendments to the program by the National Defense Reauthorization Act of 2012, one of SBA's priorities is issuance of a revised policy directive that simplifies and standardizes the proposal, selection, contracting, compliance, and audit procedures for the SBIR program to the extent practicable while allowing the SBIR agencies flexibility in the operation of their individual SBIR Programs. Wherever possible, SBA is reducing the paperwork and regulatory compliance burden on the small businesses that apply to and participate in the SBIR program while still meeting the statutory reporting and data collection requirements. For example, SBA created a program data management system for collecting and storing information that will be utilized by all SBIR agencies, thus eliminating the need for SBIR applicants to submit the same data to multiple agencies.
Many elements of the STTR program are designed and intended to be identical to those of the SBIR program. SBA is therefore issuing an updated STTR Policy Directive to maintain the appropriate consistency with the SBIR program, as described in the preceding paragraphs.
The revised SBIR and STTR Policy Directives are designed to reduce confusion for both small businesses and the Federal agencies that make awards under the program, reducing the regulatory cost burden, potentially increasing the number of SBIR and STTR solicitations, and leading to savings of administrative costs as a result of fewer informational inquiries and disputes.
SBA currently has a mentor-protégé program for the 8(a) Business Development Program that is intended to enhance the capabilities of the protégé 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-protégé programs for the Service Disabled Veteran Owned, HUBZone and Women-Owned Small Business Programs. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 further authorized SBA to extend the availability of mentor-protégé programs to all small business concerns. During the next 12 months, one of SBA's priorities will be to issue regulations establishing these newly authorized mentor-protégé programs. The various types of assistance that a mentor will be expected to provide to a protégé 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.
SBA also plans to finalize revised regulations to reinvigorate the Section 504 and Section 7(a) loan programs, which are both vital tools for creating and preserving American jobs. SBA proposes to strip away regulatory restrictions that detract from the 504 Loan Program's core job creation mission as well as the 7(a) Loan Program's positive job creation impact on the American economy. The revised rule will enhance job creation through increasing eligibility for loans under SBA's business loan programs, including its Microloan Program, and by modifying certain program participant requirements applicable to the 504 Loan Program. The major amendments that SBA is proposing include expanding eligibility for these programs by redefining the permitted affiliations for borrowers when determining the applicant's size, but balancing the expansion by requiring an affidavit as to ownership; eliminating the personal resources test; and changing the 9-month rule for the 504 Loan Program, and CDC operational and organizational requirements.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), SBA developed a plan for the retrospective review of its regulations. Since that date SBA has issued several updates to this plan to reflect the Agency's ongoing efforts in carrying out this executive order. The final Agency plan and review updates can be found at
Statutory requirement that proposed rule be published within 180 days of enactment.
There will be costs involved in implementing the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization through the Policy Directive. First, since there are numerous new or expanded responsibilities on both agency personnel and small businesses, there will be additional costs associated with the program. SBA is of the opinion that the additional costs are not burdensome and that the amendments to the program through the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization legislation will help generate expanded economic benefits to both agencies and small businesses/research institutions.
Legal Authority:
Statutory requirement that proposed rule be published within 180 days of enactment.
There will be costs involved in implementing the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization through the Policy Directive. First of all since there are numerous new or expanded responsibilities on both agency personnel and small businesses (e.g. reporting), there will be additional costs associated with the program. SBA is of the opinion that the additional costs are not burdensome and that the amendments to the program through the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization legislation will help generate expanded economic benefits to both agencies and small businesses.
The goal of the proposed rule is to reinvigorate the business loan programs by eliminating unnecessary compliance burdens and loan eligibility restrictions. SBA estimates that the proposed rule will streamline the 504 and 7(a) loan applications resulting in an estimated 10 percent cost reduction to small business borrowers to participate in the 504 and 7(a) loan programs. Based on estimates using FY 12 loan approvals as a base, the annual savings to borrowers for both programs combined is estimated at $700,000-$750,000 annually. SBA also estimates that the proposed rule changes will reduce agency loan review burden hours by 5 percent. Based on estimates using FY 12 loan approvals as a base, this burden reduction in loan review time combined for both the 504 and 7(a) loan programs is estimated at between $80,000 to $100,000 annually.
SBA also proposes more stringent corporate governance standards and higher insurance requirements for Certified Development Companies (CDC) to reduce risk to the SBA and the CDC. These corporate governance proposed rules place more emphasis on board oversight and responsibility on CDC boards and increase insurance requirements on CDC boards as well as requiring errors and omissions insurance.
We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
The seven 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.
Since the continued improvement of the disability program is of vital concern to us, we have initiatives in the plan addressing disability-related issues. They include:
Three proposed rules update the medical listings used to determine disability—evaluating neurological impairments, malignant neoplastic diseases and human immunodeficiency virus infection for evaluating limitations in the immune system disorders. The revisions reflect our adjudicative experience and advances in medical knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment.
Another proposed rule will require our claimants to inform us or to submit all evidence known to them that relates to their disability claim.
We will revise our rules to finalize the 12-month time limit for the withdrawal of an old-age benefits application. The final rules will permit only one withdrawal per lifetime.
We will revise our rules to protect the integrity of our programs and address public concerns regarding the removal of an administrative judge's name from the Notice of hearing and other prehearing notices.
We will finalize the rule modifying our regulations regarding Medicare Part B income-related monthly adjustment amounts in order to conform to changes made to the Social Security Act by the Affordable Care Act.
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
Shawnette Ashburne, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Paul J. Scott, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Mark Kuhn, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration. Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (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 DoD, GSA, and NASA.
This plan pertains to regulatory changes that will be included in the FAR. The FAR serves as the authoritative source for Federal agency procurements, directly affecting the purchase and sale of over $500 billion worth of supplies and services each year. The updating and maintaining of the FAR is achieved through extensive involvement with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council). The FAR Council, chaired by the OFPP, is comprised of senior representation from DoD, GSA and NASA. The FAR Council assists in the direction, development, and coordination of Government-wide procurement regulations, which is accomplished, in part, by interagency FAR teams and agency analysts. FAR changes are accompanied by an established process for review and analysis of public comment. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
Specific FAR cases that the FAR Council established and plans to address in Fiscal Year 2013 and 2014 include:
Set-Asides for Small Business—Provide authority to set-aside part or parts of multiple-award contracts, and task and delivery orders under multiple-award contracts. (FAR Case 2011-024)
Accelerated Payment to Small Business Subcontractors- Implement the temporary policy provided by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Policy Memorandum M-12-16, dated July 11, 2012, to provide for the accelerated payments to small business subcontractors. (FAR Case 2012-031)
Contracting with Women-owned Small Business Concerns—Implements section 1697 of the NDAA for FY 2013 to remove the statutory limitation on the dollar amount of a contract for which women-owned small businesses can compete. (FAR Case 2013-010)
Notification of Pass-Through Contracts—Implements section 802 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Section 802 requires review and justification by the contracting officer in any case in which an offeror for a contract or a task or delivery order informs the agency pursuant to that the offeror intends to award subcontracts for more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed under the contract, task order, or delivery order. (FAR Case 2013-012)
Applicability of the Senior Executive Compensation Benchmark—Implements of section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub L 112-81), which extends the limitation on allowability of compensation for certain contractor personnel from senior executives to all DoD, NASA and Coast Guard contractor employees. (FAR Case 2012-025)
Expansion of Applicability of the Senior Executive Benchmark—Implements Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub L 112-81), which extends the limitation on allowability of compensation for certain contractor personnel from senior executives to all DoD, NASA and Coast Guard contractor employees. (FAR Case 2012-017)
Terms of Service—Responds to recent DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion regarding open-ended indemnification Terms of Service (TOS) Agreements and the Anti-Deficiency Act. Clarifies the unenforceability against the Government of such open-ended indemnification TOS agreements. (FAR Case 2013-005)
Allowability of legal cost of Whistleblower—Implements sections 827(g) and 828(d) of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). The rule amends the FAR to address legal costs incurred by a contractor in connection with a proceeding commenced by a contractor employee submitting a complaint under the applicable whistleblower statute. (FAR Case 2013-017)
Pilot program for Enhancement of Contractor Whistleblower Protections—Implements section 828 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Section 828 enhances the whistleblower protections of contractor and subcontractor employees by establishing a 4-year “pilot program” to strengthen whistleblower protections for civilian agencies' (i.e., title 41 agencies) contractors and subcontractors. The whistleblower provisions exempt employees in the intelligence community and do not cover the disclosure of classified information. (FAR Case 2013-015)
Trafficking in Persons—Implements Executive Order 13627, and title XVII of the NDAA for FY 2013, to strengthen protections against trafficking in persons in Federal contracts. (FAR Case 2013-001)
Organizational Conflicts of Interests—Implements section 841 of the NDAA for FY 2009 (Pub. L. 110-147). Section 841 requires consideration of how to address the current needs of the acquisition community with regard to Organizational Conflicts of Interest. Separately addresses the issues regarding unequal access to information. (FAR Case 2011-011)
Personal Conflicts of Interest—Implements section 829 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). The rule extends the guidance on personal conflicts of interest for contractor employees performing acquisitions functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions guidance to contractor personnel performing certain other functions or contract types. (FAR Case 2013-022)
Basic Safeguarding of Contractor Information Systems—Addresses safeguarding of unclassified information that does not meet the standard for National Security classification under Executive Order 12958, as amended. It addresses unclassified information that is pertinent to the national interests of the United States or originated by entities outside the U.S. Federal Government, and under law or policy requires protection from disclosure, special handling safeguards, and prescribed limits on exchange or dissemination. (FAR Case 2011-020)
Information on Corporate Contractor Performance and Integrity Implements section 852 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239)—Section 852 requires that FAPIIS include, to the extent practicable, information on any parent, subsidiary, or successor entities to the corporation. (FAR Case 2013-020)
Expanded Reporting of Nonconforming Supplies—Expands Government and contractor requirements for reporting of nonconforming supplies. Partial implementation of section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012. (FAR Case 2013-002)
Contractor Access to Protected Information—Addresses contractor access to protected information, i.e., information provided by the Government (other than public information), generated for the Government, or provided by a third party and marked by the provider to indicate that protection is required. (FAR 2012-029)
Service Contracts Reporting Requirements—Implements section 743 of Division C of FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), which requires agencies to develop inventories of their service contracts, including number and work location of contractor employees. (FAR Case 2010-010)
Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code—The rule requires the use of CAGE codes for awards valued greater than the micro-purchase threshold, and identification of the immediate corporate/organization parent and highest level corporate/organization parent during contractor registration for Federal contracts. The goal is to provide for standardization across the Federal government, and to facilitate data collection. (FAR Case 2012-014)
Uniform Procurement Identification—The rule proposes the use of a unique identifier for contracting offices and a standard unique Procurement Instrument Identification Number for transactions. The goal is to provide for standardization across the Federal government and to facilitate data tracking and collection. (FAR Case 2012-023)
Line Item Numbering—Considers the use of a standardized uniform line item numbering structure in Federal procurement. (FAR Case 2013-014)
Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirements—Revises acquisition
(FAR Case 2013-006) This final rule published in the
EPEAT Items—Identifies imaging equipment and televisions as new items to be included under the EPEAT standard in FAR part 23 (FAR Case 2013-016).
Sustainable Acquisition—Implements Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance (10/5/2009), and Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management (1/24/2007), requiring agencies to leverage acquisitions to foster markers for sustainable technologies, products, and services. (FAR Case 2010-001)
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 Agencies 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:
• 9000-AM37, FAR Case 2012-031, Accelerated Payment to Small Business Subcontractors—Implement the temporary policy provided by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Policy Memorandum M-12-16, dated July 11, 2012, to provide for the accelerated payments to small business subcontractors.
• 9000-AM09, FAR Case 2012-009, Documenting Contractor Performance—Provides government-wide standardized past performance evaluation factors and performance rating categories and require that past performance information be entered into the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).
• 9000-AM40, FAR Case 2012-028, Contractor Comment Period—Past Performance Evaluations—Reduce the time a contractor has to rebut a performance assessment before the assessment is made available to other agencies in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System.
• 9000-AM12, FAR Case 2011-024, Set-Asides for Small Business—Provides authority to set-aside part or parts of multiple-award contracts, and task and delivery orders under multiple-award contracts.
• 9000-AM59, FAR Case 2013-010, Contracting with Women-owned Small Business Concerns—Implements section 1697 of the NDAA for FY 2013 to remove the statutory limitation on the dollar amount of a contract for which women-owned small businesses can compete.
• 9000-AL82, FAR Case 2011-001, Organizational Conflicts of Interest and Unequal Access to Information—Provides revised regulatory coverage on organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) and additional coverage regarding unequal access to information to help the Government in identifying and addressing circumstances in which a Government contractor may be unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government.
• 9000-AM42, FAR Case 2012-029, Contractor Access to Protected Information—Establishes the minimum processes and requirements for the selection, accountability, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions outside the United States.
• 9000-AM55, FAR Case 2013-001; Ending Trafficking in Persons—Strengthen protections against human trafficking in persons in federal contracting.
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 Dodd-Frank 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.
The CFPB's regulatory priorities for the period from [November 1], 2013, to [October 31], 2014, include continuing work to implement Dodd-Frank Act mortgage protections, a series of rulemakings to address critical issues in other markets for consumer financial products and services, and following up on earlier efforts to streamline and modernize regulations that the Bureau has inherited from other Federal agencies.
As reflected in the CFPB's semiannual regulatory agenda, a principal focus of the CFPB is the Bureau's continuing efforts to implement critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act to guard against mortgage market practices that contributed to the nation's most significant financial crisis in several decades.
To that end, a major effort of the Bureau is the expected imminent issuance by the Bureau of its final rule combining several disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The project to integrate and streamline the disclosures is mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act both to increase consumer understanding of mortgage transactions and to facilitate compliance by industry. The integrated forms are the cornerstone of the Bureau's broader “Know Before You Owe” initiative and will be supplemented by consumer education programs and regulatory implementation support programs going forward.
In addition, the Bureau's regulatory priorities include continuing rulemaking activities to implement a number of mortgage-related requirements under title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act that are designed to strengthen consumer protections involving the origination and servicing of mortgages. The Bureau issued several implementing regulations in January 2013, most of which will take effect in January 2014. The mortgage rules issued by the Bureau included rules on determining a consumer's ability to repay a mortgage loan, and on “qualified mortgages”; and rules on mortgage servicing; loan originator compensation; escrow requirements for higher-priced mortgages; appraisal requirements under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; an interagency rule on appraisals for higher-risk mortgage loans; and a rule implementing changes to requirements for high-cost mortgages.
Since the issuance of its January 2013 final rules, the Bureau has issued several clarifications and revisions to address interpretive issues and facilitate compliance with the new requirements. The Bureau also plans to engage in a further rulemaking after the January 2014 effective date, to consider certain additional refinements to the final rules. For example, the Bureau plans to further examine certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that create exceptions to new requirements for small creditors that operate predominantly in “rural or underserved areas.” The Bureau plans to engage in additional research and analysis concerning the definition of “rural or underserved” in order to address potential concerns regarding access to credit. The Bureau has also agreed to consider issuing additional guidance to facilitate the development of automated underwriting systems for originating qualified mortgages.
The Bureau is also participating in a series of interagency rulemakings to implement various Dodd-Frank Act amendments to TILA and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) relating to mortgage appraisals. These include supplementing an earlier interagency TILA final rule issued in January 2013 relating to requirements for higher-risk mortgages and implementing certain other Dodd-Frank Act amendments to FIRREA concerning regulation of appraisal management companies and automated valuation models.
Another major rulemaking priority for the Bureau is the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) that require supplementation of existing data reporting requirements regarding housing-related loans and applications for such loans. The Bureau has already begun work in preparation for this effort. In addition to obtaining data that is critical to the purposes of HMDA, including providing the public and public officials with information to enable them to determine whether financial institutions are meeting the needs of their communities, assist public officials in the distribution of public sector investments, and identify potential fair lending issues, the Bureau views this rulemaking as a potential opportunity to fulfill its mission under the Dodd-Frank Act to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden. In coming months, the Bureau expects to conduct extensive outreach to stakeholders, including convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with small lenders who may be affected by the rulemaking.
In addition to the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act mortgage related amendments, the Bureau is also working on a number of rulemakings to address important consumer protection issues in other markets for consumer financial products and services. Much of this effort will be based on previous work of the Bureau such as Requests for Information, Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), and previously issued Bureau studies and reports. For instance, the Bureau issued an ANPRM on debt collection. Debt collection is the focus of more consumer complaints to the Federal Government than any other industry.
Bureau work is also continuing on a number of earlier initiatives concerning consumer payment services. Following on an earlier ANPRM concerning general purpose reloadable prepaid cards, for example, the Bureau is now engaged in consumer testing of potential disclosures as well as other research and analysis. The Bureau expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning prepaid cards in mid-2014. In addition, the Bureau expects early next year to begin work on a further rulemaking concerning consumer remittance transfers to foreign countries. The rulemaking will address whether to extend a provision under the Dodd-Frank Act that allows insured depository institutions to estimate certain information for purposes of consumer disclosures. The provision will sunset in July 2015, unless the Bureau exercises authority to extend it for up to five years.
The Bureau is continuing rulemaking activities that will further establish the Bureau's nonbank supervisory authority by defining larger participants of certain markets for consumer financial products and services. Larger participants of such markets, as the Bureau defines by rule, are subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority.
Another priority for the Bureau is continuing work on an earlier initiative to consider opportunities to modernize and streamline regulations that it inherited from other agencies pursuant to a transfer of rulemaking authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition to completing work on the TILA-RESPA disclosure project to consolidate and streamline Federal mortgage forms, the Bureau is planning as part of the HMDA rulemaking described above to explore opportunities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden concerning reporting of mortgage application and origination activity. The Bureau is also expecting to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2014 to explore whether to modify certain requirements under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's implementing Regulation P to which financial
The Bureau is continuing to assess timelines for the issuance of additional Dodd-Frank Act related rulemakings and rulemakings inherited by the CFPB from other agencies as part of the transfer of authorities under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau is also continuing to conduct outreach and research to assess issues in various other markets for consumer financial products and services. For example, as directed by Congress, the Bureau is conducting a study on the use of agreements providing for arbitration of consumer disputes in connection with the offering or providing of consumer financial products or services. Upon completion of this study, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, including possible rulemaking actions consistent with the findings of the study. The Bureau will similarly evaluate policy responses to other ongoing research and outreach, taking into account the critical need for and effectiveness of various policy tools. The Bureau will update its regulatory agenda in spring 2014 to reflect the results of further analysis, planning, and prioritization.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the 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 bans when other, less restrictive, efforts are inadequate to address an unreasonable risk of injury, 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;
• participates 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.
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.
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, provides consumers the best choice of products and services at the lowest prices.
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 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. 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
The Commission protects consumers through a variety of tools, including both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. It has encouraged industry self-regulation, developed a corporate leniency policy for certain rule violations, and established compliance partnerships where appropriate.
As detailed below, protecting consumer privacy, containing the rising costs of health care and prescription drugs, fostering competition and innovation in cutting-edge, high-tech industries, challenging deceptive advertising and marketing, and safeguarding the interests of potentially vulnerable consumers, such as children and the financially distressed, continue to be at the forefront of the Commission's consumer protection and competition programs. By subject area, the FTC discusses some of the major workshops, reports,
The Commission hosted several workshops seeking to protect consumer privacy; including Mobile Security—Potential Threats and Solutions (June 4, 2013) and The Big Picture: Comprehensive Online Data Collection (December 6, 2012). The Mobile Security forum explored potential challenges that may arise as consumer use of mobile technology continues to grow. For example, there were a range of views of the impact of malware on the current mobile security environment. The U.S. market is taking steps to try to secure the mobile environment, but it is important to stay vigilant.
On December 6, 2012, the FTC also hosted a workshop exploring the practices and privacy implications of comprehensive data collection about consumers' online activities. Entities such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), operating systems, browsers, social media, and mobile carriers have the capability to collect data about computer users across the Internet, beyond direct interactions between consumers and these entities. The comprehensive data collection workshop follows up on the FTC's March 2012 report,
(b)
On December 12, 2012, the Commission issued a new staff report, “Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade,” examining the privacy disclosures and practices of apps offered for children in the Google Play and Apple App stores.
(c)
On February 20-21, 2013, FTC representatives and the Florida Attorney General's Office held a town hall event in Boca Raton, Florida to address the rising incidence of identity theft-related tax fraud in South Florida. State and federal law enforcement partners and consumer advocacy groups, including the U.S. Attorney's Office, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Seniors vs. Fraud, and AARP, also participated in the program to discuss the problem and address ways to combat identity theft tax fraud. In addition, on the same dates, the Federal Trade Commission also joined a program on ID Theft and Tax Fraud in
(d)
The Commission has also continued its efforts to curb deceptive and unfair practices in debt collection. In addition to bringing law enforcement actions against debt collectors that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC issued a report on its Debt Buyer Study and co-hosted a roundtable on debt collection issues with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The study is the first empirical examination of companies in the business of buying consumer debts and trying to collect on them.
The joint FTC-CFPB roundtable held in June 2013 examined the flow of consumer data throughout the debt collection process. The event brought together consumer advocates, credit issuers, collection industry members, state and federal regulators, and academics to exchange information on a range of issues, including: the amount of documentation and other information currently available to different types of collectors and at different points in the debt collection process; the information needed to verify and substantiate debts; the costs and benefits of providing consumers with additional disclosures about their debts and debt-related rights; and information issues relating to pleading and judgment in debt collection litigation.
(e)
(f)
For instance, the FTC and DOJ held a joint workshop in December 2012 to explore the impact of patent assertion entity (PAE) activities
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
The FTC strives to promote sound approaches to common problems by building relationships with sister agencies around the world. The FTC and DOJ entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Indian competition authorities, providing for increased cooperation and mechanisms to further strengthen relations among the agencies. The FTC's network of formal and informal arrangements enables it to cooperate in merger and conduct cases such as Vivendi/EMI
The FTC continues to lead efforts to promote convergence toward sound and effective antitrust enforcement internationally. The FTC co-leads the International Competition Network's Agency Effectiveness Working Group and its Investigative Process Project, which has focused on transparency in competition investigations. The FTC also leads the Curriculum Project, which produced new video training modules on the analysis of competitive effects, leniency programs, merger analysis, and predatory pricing.
(l)
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 2012 Regulatory Plan was published.
Section 319 of FACTA 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. The Commission's December 2012 report to Congress on credit reporting accuracy focused on identifying potential errors that could have a material effect on a person's credit standing. Any participant who identified a potentially material error on their report was encouraged to dispute the erroneous information. The study found that 26 percent of consumers reported a potential material error on one or more of their three reports and filed a dispute with at least one credit reporting agency (CRA) and half of these consumers experienced a change in their credit score. For five percent of consumers, the error on their credit report could lead to them paying more for products such as auto loans and insurance. Congress instructed the FTC to complete this study by December 2014, when a final report is due.
On September 17, 2012, the Commission published a proposed amendment to the Fur Rules to update its Fur Products Name Guide, provide more labeling flexibility, incorporate recently enacted TFLA provisions, and eliminate unnecessary requirements. The comment period closed on November 16, 2012.
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. 601-612. Under the Commission's program, rules are reviewed on a 10-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, in that 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 10-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 others since the early 1990s.
In light of Executive Orders 13563 and 13579, the FTC continues to take a fresh look at its longstanding regulatory review process. The Commission is taking a number of steps to ease burdens 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. The Commission is currently reviewing 22 of the 65 rules and guides within its jurisdiction.
• The Commission continues to request and review public comments on the effectiveness of its regulatory review program and suggestions for its improvement.
• The FTC maintains a Web page at
In addition, the Commission's 10-year periodic review schedule includes initiating reviews for the following rules and guides (78 FR 30798, May 23, 2013) during 2013 and 2014:
(1) Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR 310,
(2) Regulations Under Section 4 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 16 CFR 500,
(3) Exemptions From Requirements and Prohibitions under Part 500, 16 CFR 501,
(4) Regulations Under Section 5(c) of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 16 CFR Part 502,
(5) Statements of General Policy or Interpretation [under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act], 16 CFR 503.
(6) Rules and Regulations under the Hobby Protection Act, 16 CFR 304,
(7) Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 CFR 314, and
(8) Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses [Holder in Due Course Rule], 16 CFR 433.
Furthermore, consistent with the goal of reducing unnecessary burdens under section 6 of Executive Order 13563, the Commission amended:
• The Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305, to streamline Department of Energy and FTC reporting requirements for Regional Efficiency Standards; and
• The Alternative Fuel Rule, 16 CFR 309, by harmonizing FTC and Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy labeling requirements for alternative fuel vehicles.
In particular, the Alternative Fuel Rule amendments are estimated to save industry approximately 35,000 hours in compliance time
The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and guides, which are discussed below.
On November 7, 2011, as part of its systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides, the Commission requested comments on the Rule.
The Guides prohibit misrepresentations that a part is new or about the condition, extent of previous use, reconstruction, or repair of a part. Previously used parts must be clearly and conspicuously identified as such in advertising and packaging, and, if the part appears new, on the part itself. The comment period closed on August 3, 2012. Staff is evaluating comments and meeting with commenters, and anticipates making a recommendation to the Commission by late 2013.
Since the publication of the 2012 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to terminate rulemaking proceedings.
Comparability Ranges—On July 23, 2013, the Commission issued new EnergyGuide labels for refrigerators and clothes washers, and updated comparative energy consumption information on labels for other appliances, to help consumers compare products in light of new Department of Energy (DOE) tests for measuring energy costs. See 78 FR 43974 (final rule); 78 FR 1779 (NPRM). The amendments are effective on November 15, 2013.
Periodic Rule Review—As part of its ongoing regulatory review of the Rule, the Commission amended the Rule by streamlining data reporting requirements for manufacturers, clarifying testing requirements and enforcement provisions, improving online energy label disclosures, and making several minor technical changes and corrections. 78 FR 2200 (Jan. 10, 2013). The Commission continues to consider other issues related to this regulatory review and may seek comment on additional proposals in the future.
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 (Sept. 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,
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 or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.” Executive Order 12866, section 1.
The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a “significant regulatory action” under the definition in Executive Order 12866.
(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.
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.
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:
More specifically, the NIGC recently issued final rules in the following areas: (i) 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 in parts 543 and 547 and (ii) requirements for obtaining a self-regulation certification for Class II gaming.
Finally, the NIGC is currently considering promulgating new regulations in the following areas: (i) Amendments to its regulatory definitions to conform to the newly promulgated rules; (ii) the removal, revision, or suspension of the existing minimum internal control standards (MICS) in part 542; and (iii) updates or revisions to its management contract regulations to address the current state of the industry. 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.
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 license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials, to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. 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 Regulatory Plan contains a statement of the major rules that the Commission expects to publish in the current fiscal year (FY) and a description of the other significant rulemakings that the Commission expects to work on during the current FY, the coming FY, and beyond.
The NRC will have published two major rules (Regulation Identifier Numbers (RIN) 3150-AJ19 and 3150-AI12) by the end of FY 2013.
Through this rule, the NRC will amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees in order to continue fulfilling the NRC's statutory requirement to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in FY 2013. This recovery does not include amounts appropriated for waste incidental to reprocessing, and for generic homeland security activities (non-fee items). Each year, the NRC receives 10 percent of its budget authority from the general fund controlled by the U.S. Treasury to pay for the cost of agency activities that do not provide a direct benefit to NRC licensees. Such activities include international assistance and Agreement State activities (as defined under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended). The comment period for the proposed rule ended on April 8, 2013.
Through this rule, the NRC will amend the Commission's regulations to codify security requirements for the use of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material. The objective of this action is to ensure that effective security measures are in place to prevent the use of radioactive materials for malevolent purposes. The rule also addresses background investigations and access controls, enhanced security, and enhanced 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 of Title 10 of the
The NRC anticipates publishing one major rule in FY 2014.
• Revision of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for FY 2014—The NRC will update its requirement to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in FY 2014.
The NRC anticipates completing two other significant rulemakings in FY 2013.
• Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (RIN 3150-AI42)—The rule amends the Commission's regulations that provide the environmental protection requirements for renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses. This final rule will redefine the number and scope of the environmental impact issues that must be addressed by the NRC and applicants during license renewal environmental reviews. This rule incorporates lessons learned and knowledge gained from license renewal environmental reviews
• Domestic Licensing of Source Material—Amendments and Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50)—The final rule would amend the Commission's regulations by adding additional requirements for source material licensees that possess significant quantities of uranium hexafluoride. The rule would require these licensees to conduct integrated safety analyses. This rule is in the final rule stage.
The NRC's other significant rulemakings for FY 2014 and beyond are listed below. Some of these regulatory priorities are a result of recommendations from the Near-Term Task Force established by the NRC in 2011 to examine regulatory requirements, programs, processes, and implementation based on information from the Fukushima Dai-ichi site in Japan, following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami (
• Station Blackout Mitigation Strategies (RIN 3150-AJ08)—(addresses Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task Force Recommendations 4 and 7). A request for comment containing specific questions on the draft regulatory basis and draft rule concepts was published in the
• Performance-Based Emergency Core Cooling System Acceptance Criteria (RIN 3150-AH42)—The proposed rule would replace prescriptive requirements with performance-based requirements, incorporate recent research findings, and expand applicability to all fuel designs and cladding materials. Further, the proposed rule would allow licensees to use an alternative risk-informed approach to evaluate the effects of debris on long-term cooling.
• Strengthening and Integrating Onsite Emergency Response Capabilities (RIN 3150-AJ11)—(addresses Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 8). The draft regulatory basis for this rulemaking was published in the
• Medical Use of Byproduct Material (Formerly titled: Preceptor Attestation Requirements) (RIN 3150-AI63)—The proposed rule would amend medical use regulations related to medical event definitions for permanent implant brachytherapy; training and experience requirements for authorized users, medical physicists, Radiation Safety Officers, and nuclear pharmacists; and requirements for the testing and reporting of failed molybdenum technetium and rubidium generators; make changes that would allow Associate Radiation Safety Officers to be named on a medical license, and make other clarifications. This rulemaking would also consider a request filed in a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM-35-20, to “grandfather” certain board-certified individuals, and per Commission direction in the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated August 13, 2012, to SECY-12-0053, subsume a proposed rule previously published under RIN 3150-AI26, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material-Amendments/Medical Event Definition” [NRC-2008-0071].
• 10 CFR Part 26 Drug and Alcohol Testing (RIN 3150-AJ15)—This proposed rule would amend the drug testing requirements of 10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness-for-Duty Programs,” to incorporate lessons learned from implementing the 2008 Part 26 final rule, enhance the identification of new testing subversion methods, and require the evaluation and testing of semi-synthetic opiates, synthetic drugs and urine, and use of chemicals or multiple prescriptions that could result in a person being unfit for duty.
• Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications (RIN 3150-AI49)—The proposed rule would implement the NRC's authority under the new Section 161a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and revise existing regulations governing security event notifications.
• Site-Specific Analysis (Disposal of Unique Waste Streams) (RIN 3150-AI92)—The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to require both currently operating and future low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities to enhance safe disposal of low-level radioactive waste by conducting a performance assessment and an intruder assessment to demonstrate compliance with performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.”
• 10 CFR Part 26 Drug Testing—U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Guidelines (RIN 3150-AI67)—The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations to selectively align drug testing requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 with Federal drug testing guidelines issued by HHS.
• Two Certificate of Compliance Rulemakings (RIN 3150-AJ10; RIN 3150-AJ12)—These rulemakings would allow a power reactor licensee to store spent fuel in approved cask designs under a general license.
Waste Confidence Rule Update (RIN 3150-AJ20)—The proposed rule would update 10 CFR 51.23, “Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel after Cessation of Reactor Operation—Generic Determination of No Significant Environmental Impact,” and the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of significant and not significant regulations being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with E.O. 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For this edition of the USDA regulatory agenda, the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online regulatory agenda and in part II of the
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-3257.
Real estate appraisals;
Lease, subordination, and disposition of security; and
Conservation contracts.
FSA is also making technical and conforming amendments. The amendments are technical corrections, clarifications, and procedural improvements that will allow FSA to further streamline normal servicing activities and reduce burden on borrowers while still protecting the loan security.
Christopher Robinson, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and Export, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231,
Various Secretary's Rules and Regulations (years of 1911, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, 1950, and 1963) and Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.15 provide direction for the use of NFS lands for mineral development activities associated with the exercise of reserved mineral rights. These existing rules for reserved minerals development activities also include requirements for protection of NFS resources.
Currently there are no formal regulations governing the use of NFS lands for activities associated with the exercise of outstanding mineral rights underlying those lands. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 2508, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to: apply specified terms and conditions to surface-disturbing activities related to development of oil and gas on certain lands with outstanding mineral rights on the Allegheny National Forest, and promulgate regulations implementing that section.
The Forest Service initiated rulemaking for the use of NFS lands for development activities associated with both reserved and outstanding minerals rights with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
The Forest Service intends to publish the proposed ski area water rights clause in the
The proposed directive would address the development of water facilities on NFS lands; the ownership of preexisting and future water rights; mechanisms to ensure sufficient water remains for ski areas on NFS lands; and measures necessary to protect NFS lands and resources.
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's fall 2013 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014.
Commerce hereby publishes its fall 2013 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
In this edition of Commerce's regulatory agenda, a list of the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the issue of the
In addition, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, Commerce's entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. These operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office, issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's fall 2013 regulatory agenda follows.
The proposed action would:
• Increase the butterfish ABC by 8 percent and the butterfish landings limit by 24 percent compared to 2013;
• Set a 236 mt cap on river herring and shad catch in the mackerel fishery;
• Raise the post-closure possession limit for longfin squid to 10,000 lb for vessels targeting Illex squid; and
• Change the butterfish Phase 3 trip limit to 600 lb (from 500 lb) for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders to make it consistent with the incidental butterfish trip limit.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this semiannual agenda of regulatory documents, including those that are procurement-related, for public information and comments under Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda incorporates the objective and criteria, when applicable, of the regulatory reform program under the Executive Order and other regulatory guidance. It contains DoD issuances initiated by DoD components that may have economic and environmental impact on State, local, or tribal interests under the criteria of Executive Order 12866. Although most DoD issuances listed in the agenda are of limited public impact, their nature may be of public interest and, therefore, are published to provide notice of rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation in the internal DoD rulemaking process. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on July 3, 2013, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda is scheduled to be published in the spring of 2014. In addition to this agenda, DoD components also publish rulemaking notices pertaining to their specific statutory administration requirements as required.
Starting with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485, or write to Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1600, or call 703-697-2714.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations, other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Morgan Park, telephone 571-372-0489, or write to Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary agenda items, which are procurement-related, contact Mr. Manuel Quinones, telephone 571-372-6088, or write to Defense Acquisition Regulations Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2, Alexandria, VA 22350, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Ms. Brenda Bowen, telephone 703-428-6173, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS-RDR-C, Casey Building, Room 102, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3860, or email:
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Mr. Chip Smith, telephone 703-693-3644, or write to Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Legislation), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 2E569, Washington, DC 20310-0108, or email:
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact LCDR Catherine Chiappetta, telephone 703-614-7408, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374-5066, or email:
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh, telephone 703-695-6608/6605, or write to Department of the Air Force, SAF/A6PP, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or email:
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated in each DoD component report.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is composed of the regulatory status reports, including procurement-related regulatory status reports, from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Departments of the Army and Navy. Included also is the regulatory status report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose civil works functions fall under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866 and involve water resource projects and regulation of activities in waters of the United States.
DoD issuances range from DoD directives (reflecting departmental policy) to implementing instructions and regulations (largely internal and used to implement directives). The OSD agenda section contains the primary directives under which DoD components promulgate their implementing regulations.
In addition, this agenda, although published under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866, continues to be the DoD single-source reporting vehicle, which identifies issuances that are currently applicable under the various regulatory reform programs in progress. Therefore, DoD components will identify those rules which come under the criteria of the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Those DoD issuances, which are directly applicable under these statutes,
Although not a regulatory agency, DoD will continue to participate in regulatory initiatives designed to reduce economic costs and unnecessary burdens upon the public. Comments and recommendations are invited on the rules reported and should be addressed to the DoD component representatives identified in the regulatory status reports. Although sensitive to the needs of the public, as well as regulatory reform, DoD reserves the right to exercise the exemptions and flexibility permitted in its rulemaking process in order to proceed with its overall defense-oriented mission. The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Secretary of Education publishes a semiannual agenda of Federal regulatory and deregulatory actions. The agenda is issued under the authority of section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The purpose of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with early information about regulatory actions we plan to take.
Questions or comments related to specific regulations listed in this agenda should be directed to the agency contact listed for the regulations. Other questions or comments on this agenda should be directed to LaTanya Cannady, Program Specialist, or Hilary Malawer, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Division of Regulatory Services, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Education, Room 6C131, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-2241; telephone: (202) 401-9676 (LaTanya Cannady) or (202) 401-6148 (Hilary Malawer). Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993, requires the Department of Education (ED) to publish, at a time and in a manner specified by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 602(a), requires ED to publish, in October and April of each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda.
The regulatory flexibility agenda may be combined with any other agenda that satisfies the statutory requirements (5 U.S.C. 605(a)). In compliance with the Executive order and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Secretary publishes this agenda.
For each set of regulations listed, the agenda provides the title of the document, the type of document, a citation to any rulemaking or other action taken since publication of the most recent agenda, and planned dates of future rulemaking. In addition, the agenda provides the following information:
• An abstract that includes a description of the problem to be addressed, any principal alternatives being considered, and potential costs and benefits of the action.
• An indication of whether the planned action is likely to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
• A reference to where a reader can find the current regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations.
• A citation of legal authority.
• The name, address, and telephone number of the contact person at ED from whom a reader can obtain additional information regarding the planned action.
In accordance with ED's Principles for Regulating listed in its regulatory plan (78 FR 1361, published January 8, 2013), ED is committed to regulations that improve the quality and equality of services to its customers. ED will regulate only if absolutely necessary and then in the most flexible, most equitable, least burdensome way possible.
Interested members of the public are invited to comment on any of the items listed in this agenda that they believe are not consistent with the Principles for Regulating. Members of the public are also invited to comment on any uncompleted actions in this agenda that ED plans to review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610) to determine their economic impact on small entities.
This publication does not impose any binding obligation on ED with regard to any specific item in the agenda. ED may elect not to pursue any of the regulatory actions listed here, and regulatory action in addition to the items listed is not precluded. Dates of future regulatory actions are subject to revision in subsequent agendas.
The entire Unified Agenda is published electronically and is available online at
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 40 in part II of this issue of the
Department of Energy.
Notice of semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda), including its Regulatory Plan (Plan), pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's entire fall 2013 Agenda can be accessed online by going to:
Publication in the
The Plan appears in both the online Agenda and the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order 12866 require the Department semiannually to issue an inventory of rulemaking actions under development to provide the public a summary of forthcoming regulatory actions. This information will help the public more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory activity, and the Department welcomes comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Jennifer M. Cannistra, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal Government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services. This agenda presents the rulemaking activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. The agenda furthers several Departmental goals, including strengthening health care; advancing scientific knowledge and innovation; advancing the health, safety, and well-being of the American people; increasing efficiency, transparency, and accountability of HHS programs; and strengthening the Nation's health and human services infrastructure and workforce.
HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. The Department's Public Participation Task Force, which was created as part of the HHS Retrospective Review plan in response to Executive Order 13563 (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Paula Katz, Consumer Safety Officer, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, WO 51, Room 1320, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993,
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the General Counsel, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528-0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sep. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sep. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation & Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of all current and projected rulemakings, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on July 23, 2013, at 78 FR 44266.
Beginning in fall 2007, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
As part of the Unified Agenda, Federal agencies are also required to prepare a Regulatory Plan of the most important significant regulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects to issue in proposed or final form in that fiscal year. As in past years, for fall editions of the Unified Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, are printed in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agenda in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
On November 5, 2003, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) published a notice requesting comment on possible changes in order to allow for open industry and public input. TSA sought comments on issues regarding how to impose the ASIF, and whether, when, and how often the ASIF should be adjusted.
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Traci Klemm, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
After considering comments received on the NPRM and sponsoring public meetings with stakeholders, TSA decided to revise the original proposal to tailor security requirements to the general aviation industry. TSA is preparing a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM), which will include a comment period for public comments. TSA is considering the following proposed provisions in the SNPRM: (1) Security measures for foreign aircraft operators commensurate with measures for U.S. operators, (2) the type of aircraft subject to TSA regulation, (3) compliance oversight, (4) watch list matching of passengers, (5) prohibited items, (6) scope of the background check requirements and the procedures used to implement the requirement, and (7) other issues.
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Denise Daniels, Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of rules scheduled for review or development between fall 2013 and spring 2014. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
You should direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. You should direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at 202-208-3181.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Paul Steblein, Refuge Program Specialist, Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Suite 670, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, Phone: 703 358-2678, Fax: 703 358-1929,
Department of Justice.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Justice is publishing its fall 2013 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 601 to 612 (1988).
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-8059.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Kathleen Franks, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Information pertaining to a specific regulation can be obtained from the agency contact listed for that particular regulation.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
In addition, the Department's Regulatory Plan, also a subset of the Department's regulatory agenda, is being published in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved, and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
Backing vehicles and equipment are common causes of struck-by injuries and can also cause caught-between injuries when backing vehicles and equipment pin a worker against an object. Struck-by injuries and caught-between injuries are two of the four leading causes of workplace fatalities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2011, 75 workers were fatally backed over while working. While many backing incidents can prove to be fatal, workers can suffer severe, non-fatal injuries as well. A review of OSHA's IMIS database found that backing incidents can result in serious injury to the back and pelvis, fractured bones, concussions, amputations, and other injuries. Emerging technologies in the field of backing operations may prevent incidents. The technologies include cameras and proximity detection systems. The use of spotters and internal traffic control plans can also make backing operations safer. The Agency has held stakeholder meetings on backovers and is conducting site visits to employers. Current rules regarding reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities may not adequately address worker hazards in work related to post-tensioning and reinforcing steel. Both are techniques for reinforcing concrete and are generally used in many types of construction. OSHA's IMIS data indicates that 31 workers died while performing work on or near post-tensioning operations or reinforcing steel between 2000 and 2009.
Currently, workers performing steel reinforcing suffer injuries caused by unsafe material handling, structural collapse, and impalement by protruding reinforcing steel dowels, among other causes. Employees involved in post-tensioning activities are at risk for incidents caused by the misuse of post-tensioning equipment and improper training. The Agency is continuing to seek information about injuries and hazards of reinforcing steel operations.
OSHA will use the information gathered from the NEP to assist in the development of this rule. OSHA published an ANPRM October 21, 2009. Additionally, stakeholder meetings were held in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2009, in Atlanta, GA, on February 17, 2010, and in Chicago, IL, on April 21, 2010. A webchat for combustible dust was also held on June 28, 2010 and an expert forum was convened on May 13, 2011
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to be more aware of and allow it to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory activity. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Kathryn Sinniger, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call (202) 755-7687.
Improvement of our regulations is a prime goal of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT). Our regulations should be clear, simple, timely, fair, reasonable, and necessary. They should not be issued without appropriate involvement of the public; once issued, they should be periodically reviewed and revised, as needed, to assure that they continue to meet the needs for which they originally were designed. To view additional information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activities online, go to
To help the Department achieve these goals and in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemaking, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the succeeding 12 months or such longer period as may be anticipated or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
The Agendas are based on reports submitted by the offices initiating the rulemaking and are reviewed by the Department Regulations Council.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for detailed list see section heading “Explanation of Information on the Agenda”) on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The Agenda covers all rules and regulations of the Department. We have classified rules as a DOT agency priority in the Agenda if they are, essentially, very costly, beneficial, controversial, or of substantial public interest under our Regulatory Policies and Procedures. All DOT agency priority rulemaking documents are subject to review by the Secretary of Transportation. If the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decides a rule is subject to its review under Executive Order 12866, we have classified it as significant in the Agenda.
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated August 7, 2013, requires the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then, the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage, (2) proposed rule stage, (3) final rule stage, (4) long-term actions, and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (e.g., NPRM, final rule); (6) an abstract; (7) a timetable, including the earliest expected date for a decision on whether to take the action; (8) whether the rulemaking will affect small entities and/or levels of Government and, if so, which categories; (9) whether a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis is required (for rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities); (10) a listing of any analyses an office
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which we expect to make a decision on whether to issue it. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received subsequent to the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
Our agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as make the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D. In response to Executive Order 13563 “Retrospective Review and Analysis of Existing Rules,” we have prepared a retrospective review plan providing more detail on the process we use to conduct reviews of existing rules, including changes in response to Executive Order 13563. We provided the public opportunities to comment at
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive Orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the Internet at
(Name of contact person), (Name of the DOT agency), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. (For the Federal Aviation Administration, substitute the following address: Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591).
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
All comments via the Internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at, or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to, the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-5527. Working Hours: 9-5.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the use of plain language techniques in new rules and considering its use in existing rules when we have the opportunity and resources to permit its use. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing rules and, if needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on these reviews.
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department has added other elements to its review plan. The Department has decided to improve its plan by adding special oversight processes within the Department; encouraging effective and timely reviews, including providing additional guidance on particular problems that warrant review; and expanding opportunities for public participation. These new actions are in addition to the other steps described in this appendix.
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years, and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEIOSNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially-mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Thus, Year 1 (2008) begins in the fall of 2008 and ends in the fall of 2009; Year 2 (2009) begins in the fall of 2009 and ends in the fall of 2010, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or particular analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in Appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEIOSNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEIOSNOSE, we will give a short explanation (e.g., “these rules only establish petition processes that have no cost impact” or “these rules do not apply to any small entities”). For parts, subparts, or other discrete sections of rules that do have a SEIOSNOSE, we will announce that we will be conducting a formal section 610 review during the following 12 months. At this stage, we will add an entry to the Agenda in the prerulemaking section describing the review in more detail. We also will seek public comment on how
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review),” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
The FAA has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most DOT modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
The FHWA has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highways is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. section 145 of title 23 expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for the construction and other work related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in title 23 do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA solicits public comment on this preliminary conclusion.
Section 610 and Other Reviews
1. How and to what degree these rules affect you;
2. Any complaints or comments you may have concerning the covered rules;
3. The complexity of the covered rules;
4. The extent to which the rules overlap, duplicate or conflict with other Federal rules, and to the extent feasible, with State and local Government rules; and
5. The extent of the economic impact on you and why you believe the economic impact is significant.”
Two comments were received in response to the notice (notice and comments are available for review at:
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 104 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 108 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 109 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 110 in part II of this issue of the
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 118 in part II of this issue of the
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda and annual regulatory plan.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order (EO) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations. EO 12866 also requires the publication by the Department of a regulatory plan for the upcoming fiscal year.
The Agency contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review. For this edition of the regulatory agenda, the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the primary medium for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
The semiannual agenda and The Regulatory Plan of the Department of the Treasury conform to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC).
R. Lisa Mojiri-Azad, Senior Technician Reviewer, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224,
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities which may be conducted by the Agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the Agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact James J. Raggio, General Counsel, (202) 272-0040 (voice) or (202) 272-0062 (TTY).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda and semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the semiannual regulatory agenda online (the e-Agenda) at
• Regulations and major policies currently under development,
• Reviews of existing regulations and major policies, and
• Rules and major policymakings completed or canceled since the last agenda.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish it in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker” refers to an online portal to EPA's priority rules and retrospective reviews of existing regulations. More information about the Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker appears in section H of this preamble.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the semiannual regulatory agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
• Semiannual Regulatory Agenda:
• Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility Agenda:
• Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker:
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In addition to meeting its mission goals and priorities as described above, EPA has begun reviewing its existing regulations under Executive Order (EO) 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This EO provides for periodic retrospective review of existing significant regulations and is intended to determine whether any such 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. More information about this review is described in EPA's Statement of Priorities in the Regulatory Plan.
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments are provided in each Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). To be most effective, comments should contain information and data that support your position and you also should explain why EPA should incorporate your suggestion in the rule or other type of action. You can be
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule and policymaking process. For more information about public involvement in EPA activities, please visit www.epa.gov/open.
EPA includes regulations and certain major policy documents in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to state implementation plans; equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring; deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list; delegations of authority to states; area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans; hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards; deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants; suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA is opening one 610 review and concluding one other in fall 2013. One 610 review remains ongoing during this time.
You can choose how to organize the agenda entries online by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage—This section includes EPA actions generally intended to determine whether the agency should initiate rulemaking. Prerulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking, such as Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), studies or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage—This section includes EPA rulemaking actions that are within a year of proposal (publication of Notices of Proposed Rulemakings [NPRMs]).
3. Final Rule Stage—This section includes rules that will be issued as a final rule within a year.
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action is after December 2012. We urge you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category. By the time an action is listed in the Proposed Rules category you may have missed the opportunity to participate in certain public meetings or policy dialogues.
5. Completed Actions—This section contains actions that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may 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.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., certain State Implementation Plans, National Priority List updates, Significant New Use Rules, State Hazardous Waste Management Program actions, and Tolerance Exemptions). If an action that would normally be classified Routine and Frequent is reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under EO 12866, then we would classify the action as either “Economically Significant” or “Other Significant.”
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of EO 12866.
EPA posts monthly information of new rulemakings that the Agency's senior managers have decided to develop. This list is also distributed via email. You can find the current list, known as the Action Initiation List (AIL), at
1. The
2. The Regulatory Information Service Center and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs have a Federal regulatory dashboard that allows users to view the Regulatory Agenda database (
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL that provides additional information about the action.
3. Public Dockets
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
4. EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker
EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA is opening one 610 review and concluding one other in fall 2013. One 610 review remains ongoing during this time.
EPA established an official public dockets for each 610 Review under the docket identification (ID) numbers indicated above. All documents in the dockets are listed on the
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing RFA/SBREFA, please visit the RFA/SBREFA Web site at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Keith Barnett, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, D243-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
David Cole, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C404-05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Mark Sendzik, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C-304.03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
David Hockey, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5303P, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the spring 2013 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. GSA also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. Proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Since the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire
Hada Flowers, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
NASA's regulatory agenda describes those regulations being considered for development or amendment by NASA, the need and legal basis for the actions being considered, the name and telephone number of the knowledgeable official, whether a regulatory analysis is required, and the status of regulations previously reported.
Director, for Internal Controls and Management Systems, Office of Management Systems Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
Cheryl E. Parker, (202) 358-0252.
OMB guidelines dated August 7, 2013; “Fall 2013 Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions” require a regulatory agenda of those regulations under development and review to be published in the
Part 1251 implements the federally assisted provisions of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 504), as amended, 29 U.S.C. section 794, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of Federal Financial Assistance from NASA. Under Executive Order 12250, the United States Attorney General has the authority to coordinate the implementation and enforcement of a variety of civil rights statutes by Federal agencies such as NASA, including section 504.
The revisions to this rule are part of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed at:
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). For this fall edition of the SBA's Regulatory Agenda, a Regulatory Plan that contains a list of the Agency's most important and significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities is also included. This plan appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
This agenda provides the public with information about SBA's regulatory activity. SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda. SBA expects that providing early information about pending regulatory activities would encourage more effective public participation in this process.
SBA provides this notice under the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 601 to 612 and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” which require each agency to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The Regulatory Agenda is a summary of all current and projected rulemakings during the coming one-year period, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last Regulatory Agenda for the Agency.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) also requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The title for this rule has been changed since the rule was first reported in the Regulatory Agenda on January 8, 2013, from “Small Business Size Standards for Wholesale Trade” to “Small Business Size Standards: Employee Based Size Standards for Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade.” The title was changed to make it clear that the rule also addresses industries with employee based size standards in Retail Trade.
The title for this rule has been changed since it was first announced in the Regulatory Agenda on January 8, 2013, to add the words “or Retail Trade” at the end of the previous title. This change makes it clear that industries in the retail trade with employee based size standards are also not addressed in the rule.
In particular, this rule: (1) Defines SBLCs and NFRLs; (2) clarifies SBA's authority to regulate SBLCs and NFRLs; (3) authorizes SBA to set certain minimum capital standards for SBLCs, to issue cease and desist orders, and revoke or suspend lending authority of SBLCs and NFRLs; (4) establishes the Bureau of Premier Certified Lender Program Oversight in the Office of Credit Risk Management; (5) transfers existing SBA enforcement authority over CDCs from the Office of Financial Assistance to the appropriate official in the Office of Capital Access; and (6) defines SBA's oversight and enforcement authorities relative to all SBA lenders participating in the 7(a) and CDC programs and intermediaries in the Microloan program.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council in compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda is being published to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has attempted to list all regulations pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions; however, unanticipated requirements may result in the issuance of regulations that are not included in this agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing.
Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Hada Flowers, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities,jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
The coverage provided in this proposed rule differs from the coverage provided in the first proposed rule in a number of important respects. This case is included in the FAR retrospective review of existing regulations under Executive Order 13563. Additional information is located in the FAR final plan (2012), available at:
Section 841 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417) required a review of the FAR coverage on OCIs. This proposed rule was developed as a result of a review conducted in accordance with section
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) is publishing this agenda as part of the Fall 2013 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014. The next agenda will be published in the spring of 2014 and will update this agenda through the spring of 2014. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of September 6, 2013.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein.
The CFPB is publishing its fall 2013 agenda as part of the Fall 2013 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The CFPB's participation in the Unified Agenda is voluntary. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following Web site:
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the CFPB from seven Federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The CFPB also 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.
The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014.
First, the CFPB is continuing its regulatory efforts to implement critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act. For instance, the Bureau expects to issue, in the near future, a final rule combining several disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, increasing consumer understanding of mortgage transactions and facilitating industry compliance.
The Bureau is also continuing rulemaking activities to assist in the full implementation of, and facilitate compliance with, various mortgage-related final rules issued by the Bureau in January 2013 strengthening consumer protections involving the origination and servicing of mortgages. Most of these rules, implementing requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, will take effect in January 2014. Over the last several months, the Bureau has issued several clarifications and revisions to address interpretive issues and facilitate compliance with the new requirements. After the effective date, the Bureau is planning to engage in a further rulemaking to consider certain additional refinements to these rules.
The Bureau is also participating in a series of interagency rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Act relating to mortgage appraisals.
In addition, the Bureau has begun work in preparation to implement Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) that require supplementation of existing data reporting requirements regarding housing-related loans and applications for such loans.
Second, the CFPB is working on and considering a number of rulemakings to address important consumer protection issues in other markets for consumer financial products and services. For instance, the Bureau is planning to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on debt collection, and has been engaged in extensive research and analysis concerning payday loans, deposit advance products, and bank overdraft programs, building on Bureau white papers issued in April and June 2013.
The Bureau is also continuing work on a number of earlier initiatives concerning consumer payment services. For instance, following on an earlier Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning general purpose reloadable prepaid cards, the Bureau expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning prepaid cards in mid-2014. The Bureau also expects early next year to begin work on an additional rulemaking to consider whether to extend the sunset of a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act allowing depository institutions to estimate certain items on disclosures concerning consumer remittance transfers to foreign countries.
Third, the Bureau is continuing rulemaking activities that will further establish the Bureau's nonbank supervisory authority by defining larger participants of certain markets for consumer financial products and services. Larger participants of such markets, as the Bureau defines by rule, are subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority.
Fourth, the Bureau is continuing work to consider opportunities to modernize and streamline regulations that it inherited from other agencies pursuant to a transfer of rulemaking authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. This work includes completing the consolidation and streamlining of Federal mortgage disclosure forms discussed earlier, and exploring opportunities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden as part of the HMDA rulemaking. The Bureau is also expecting to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2014 to explore whether to modify certain requirements under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide annual notices regarding financial institutions' data sharing practices.
Finally, the Bureau is continuing to assess timelines for other rulemakings mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act or inherited from other agencies and to conduct outreach and research to assess issues in various other markets for consumer financial products and services. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, including possible rulemaking actions, taking into account the critical need for and effectiveness of various policy tools. The Bureau will update its regulatory agenda in spring 2014 to reflect the results of this further prioritization and planning.
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
On September 21, 2004, the Commission released an Order amending existing safe harbor rules for telemarketers subject to the do-not-call registry to require such telemarketers to access the do-not-call list every 31 days, rather than every 3 months.
On April 5, 2006, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration amending its facsimile advertising rules to implement the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005. On October 14, 2008, the Commission released an Order on Reconsideration addressing certain issues raised in petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of the Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration.
On January 4, 2008, the Commission released a Declaratory Ruling, clarifying that autodialed and prerecorded message calls to wireless numbers that are provided by the called party to a
Following a December 4, 2007 NPRM, on June 17, 2008, the Commission released a Report and Order amending its rules to require sellers and/or telemarketers to honor registrations with the National Do-Not-Call Registry indefinitely, unless the registration is cancelled by the consumer or the number is removed by the database administrator.
Following a January 22, 2010 NPRM, the Commission released a Report and Order (on February 15, 2012) requiring telemarketers to obtain prior express written consent, including by electronic means, before making an autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing call to a wireless number or before making a prerecorded telemarketing call to a residential line; eliminating the “established business relationship” exemption to the consent requirement for prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines; requiring telemarketers to provide an automated, interactive “opt-out” mechanism during autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and during prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines; and requiring that the abandoned call rate for telemarketing calls be calculated on a “per-campaign” basis.
On November 29, 2012, the Commission released a Declaratory Ruling clarifying that sending a one-time text message confirming a consumer's request that no further text messages be sent does not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) or the Commission's rules as long as the confirmation text only confirms receipt of the consumer's opt-out request, and does not contain marketing, solicitations, or an attempt to convince the consumer to reconsider his or her opt-out decision. The ruling applies only when the sender of the text messages has obtained prior express consent, as required by the TCPA and Commission rules, from the consumer to be sent text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system.
On May 9, 2013, the Commission released a declaratory ruling clarifying that while a seller does not generally “initiate” calls made through a third-party telemarketer, within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), it nonetheless may be held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers.
On August 28, 2009, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry that asks questions about information available to consumers at all stages of the purchasing process for all communications services, including (1) choosing a provider; (2) choosing a service plan; (3) managing use of the service plan; and (4) deciding whether and when to switch an existing provider or plan.
On October 14, 2010, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing rules that would require mobile service providers to provide usage alerts and information that will assist consumers in avoiding unexpected charges on their bills.
On July 12, 2011, the Commission released an NPRM proposing rules that would assist consumers in detecting and preventing the placement of unauthorized charges on their telephone bills, an unlawful and fraudulent practice, commonly referred to as “cramming.”
On April 27, 2012, the Commission adopted rules to address “cramming” on wireline telephone bills and released an FNPRM seeking comment on additional measures to protect wireline and wireless consumers from unauthorized charges.
On April 27, 2012, the Commission adopted rules to address “cramming” on wireline telephone bills and released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on additional measures to protect wireline and wireless consumers from unauthorized charges.
The Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking discusses the frequency bands that are still under consideration in this proceeding and invites additional comments on their disposition. Specifically, it addresses the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (UPCS) band at 1910-1930 MHz, the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) spectrum at 2155-2160/62 MHz bands, the Emerging Technology spectrum, at 2160-2165 MHz, and the bands reallocated from MSS 91990-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2165-2180 MHz. We seek comment on these bands with respect to using them for paired or unpaired Advance Wireless Service (AWS) operations or as relocation spectrum for existing services.
The seventh Report and Order facilitates the introduction of Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) in the band 1710-1755 MHz—an integral part of a 90 MHz spectrum allocation recently reallocated to allow for such new and innovative wireless services. We largely adopt the proposals set forth in our recent AWS Fourth NPRM in this proceeding that are designed to clear the 1710-1755 MHz band of incumbent Federal Government operations that would otherwise impede the development of new nationwide AWS services. These actions are consistent with previous actions in this proceeding and with the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 2002 Viability Assessment, which addressed relocation and reaccommodation options for Federal Government operations in the band.
The eighth Report and Order reallocated the 2155-2160 MHz band for fixed and mobile services and designates the 2155-2175 MHz band for Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) use. This proceeding continues the Commission's ongoing efforts to promote spectrum utilization and efficiency with regard to the provision of new services, including Advanced Wireless Services.
The Order requires Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licensees in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band to provide information on the construction status
The Notice of Proposed Rule Making requested comments on the specific relocation procedures applicable to Broadband Radio Service (BRS) operations in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band, which the Commission recently decided will be relocated to the newly restructured 2495-2690 MHz band. The Commission also requested comments on the specific relocation procedures applicable to Fixed Microwave Service (FS) operations in the 2160-2175 MHz band.
The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) set forth the specific data that Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licensees in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band must file along with the deadline date and procedures for filing this data on the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS). The data will assist in determining future AWS licensees' relocation obligations.
The ninth Report and Order established procedures for the relocation of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) operations from the 2150-2160/62 MHz band, as well as for the relocation of Fixed Microwave Service (FS) operations from the 2160-2175 MHz band, and modified existing relocation procedures for the 2110-2150 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands. It also established cost-sharing rules to identify the reimbursement obligations for Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) entrants benefiting from the relocation of incumbent FS operations in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands and AWS entrants benefiting from the relocation of BRS incumbents in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band. The Commission continues its ongoing efforts to promote spectrum utilization and efficiency with regard to the provision of new services, including AWS. The Order dismisses a petition for reconsideration filed by the Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCA) as moot.
Two petitions for Reconsideration were filed in response to the ninth Report and Order.
The Report and Orders and Declaratory Ruling concludes the Commission's longstanding efforts to relocate the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) from the 1990-2110 MHz band to the 2025-2110 MHz band, freeing up 35 megahertz of spectrum in order to foster the development of new and innovative services. This decision addresses the outstanding matter of Sprint Nextel Corporation's (Sprint Nextel) inability to agree with Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators in the band on the sharing of the costs to relocate the BAS incumbents. To resolve this controversy, the Commission applied its time-honored relocation principles for emerging technologies previously adopted for the BAS band to the instant relocation process, where delays and unanticipated developments have left ambiguities and misconceptions among the relocating parties. In the process, the Commission balances the responsibilities for and benefits of relocating incumbent BAS operations among all the new entrants in the different services that will operate in the band.
The Commission proposed to modify its cost-sharing requirements for the 2 GHz BAS band because the circumstances surrounding the BAS transition are very different than what was expected when the cost-sharing requirements were adopted. The Commission believed that the best course of action was to propose new requirements that would address the ambiguity of applying the literal language of the current requirements to the changed circumstances, as well as balance the responsibilities for and benefits of relocating incumbent BAS operations among all new entrants in the band based on the Commission's relocation policies set forth in the Emerging Technologies proceeding.
The Commission proposed to eliminate, as of January 1, 2009, the requirement that Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) licensees in the thirty largest markets and fixed BAS links in all markets be transitioned before the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators can begin offering service. The Commission also sought comments on how to mitigate interference between new MSS entrants and incumbent BAS licensees who had not completed relocation before the MSS entrants begin offering service. In addition, the Commission sought comments on allowing MSS operators to begin providing service in those markets where BAS incumbents have been transitioned.
The Second Memorandum Opinion and Order finalizes rules to make the unused spectrum in the TV bands available for unlicensed broadband wireless devices. This particular spectrum has excellent propagation characteristics that allow signals to reach farther and penetrate walls and other structures. Access to this spectrum could enable more powerful public Internet connections—super Wi-Fi hot spots—with extended range, fewer dead spots, and improved individual speeds as a result of reduced congestion on existing networks. This type of “opportunistic use” of spectrum has great potential for enabling access to other spectrum bands and improving spectrum efficiency. The Commission's actions here are expected to spur investment and innovation in applications and devices that will be used not only in the TV band but eventually in other frequency bands as well.
This Order addressed five petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's decisions in the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Second MO&O”) in this proceeding and modified rules in certain respects. In particular, the Commission: (1) Increased the maximum height above average terrain (HAAT) for sites where fixed devices may operate; (2) modified the adjacent channel emission limits to specify fixed rather than relative levels; and (3) slightly increased the maximum permissible power spectral density (PSD) for each category of TV bands device. These changes will result in decreased operating costs for fixed TVBDs and allow them to provide greater coverage, thus increasing the availability of wireless broadband services in rural and underserved areas without increasing the risk of interference to incumbent services. The Commission also revised and amended several of its rules to better effectuate the Commission's earlier decisions in this docket and to remove ambiguities.
The Commission also asked, in a Notice of Inquiry, about approaches for creating opportunities for full use of the 2 GHz band for stand-alone terrestrial uses. The Commission requested comment on ways to promote innovation and investment throughout the MSS bands while also ensuring market-wide mobile satellite capability to serve important needs like disaster recovery and rural access.
In the Report and Order the Commission amended its rules to make additional spectrum available for new investment in mobile broadband networks while also ensuring that the United States maintains robust mobile satellite service capabilities. First, the Commission adds co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 2 GHz band, consistent with the International Table of Allocations, allowing more flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future. Second, to create greater predictability and regulatory parity with the bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service, the Commission extends its existing secondary market spectrum manager spectrum leasing policies, procedures, and rules that currently apply to wireless terrestrial services to terrestrial services provided using the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of an MSS system.
Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding concerning Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.
In the Report and Order, the Commission took preliminary steps toward making a significant portion of the UHF and VHF frequency bands (U/V Bands) currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses. This action serves to further address the Nation's growing demand for wireless broadband services, promote the ongoing innovation and investment in mobile communications, and ensure that the United States keeps pace with the global wireless revolution. At the same time, the approach helps preserve broadcast television as a healthy, viable medium and would be consistent with the general proposal set forth in the National Broadband Plan to repurpose spectrum from the U/V bands for new wireless broadband uses through, in part, voluntary contributions of spectrum to an incentive auction. This action is consistent with the recent enactment by Congress of new incentive auction authority for the Commission (Spectrum Act). Specifically, this item sets out a framework by which two or more television licensees may share a single six MHz channel in connection with an incentive auction.
However, the Report and Order did not act on the proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish fixed and mobile allocations in the U/V bands or to improve TV service on VHF channels. The Report and Order stated that the Commission will undertake a broader rulemaking to implement the Spectrum Act's provisions relating to an incentive auction for U/V band spectrum, and that it believes it will be more efficient to act on new allocations in the context of that rulemaking. In addition, the record created in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not establish a clear way forward to significantly increase the utility of the VHF bands for the operation of television services. The Report and Order states that the Commission will revisit this matter in a future proceeding.
In the Report and Order (R&O), the Commission revised and streamlined its rules to modernize the Experimental Radio Service (ERS). The rules adopted in the R&O updated the ERS to a more flexible framework to keep pace with the speed of modern technological change while continuing to provide an environment where creativity can thrive. To accomplish this transition, the Commission created three new types of ERS licenses—the program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance testing license—to benefit the development of new technologies, expedite their introduction to the marketplace, and unleash the full power of innovators to keep the United States at the forefront of the communications industry. The Commission's actions also modified the market trial rules to eliminate confusion and more clearly articulate its policies with respect to marketing products prior to equipment certification. The Commission believes that these actions will remove regulatory barriers to experimentation, thereby permitting institutions to move from concept to experimentation to finished product more rapidly and to more quickly implement creative problem-solving methodologies.
This Report and Order amends the Commission's rules to provide a more efficient use of the 76-77 GHz band, and to enable the automotive and aviation industries to develop enhanced safety measures for drivers and the general public. Specifically, the Commission eliminated the in-motion and not-in-motion distinction for vehicular radars, and instead adopted new uniform emission limits for forward, side, and rear-looking vehicular radars. This will facilitate enhanced vehicular radar technologies to improve collision avoidance and driver safety. The Commission also amended its rules to allow the operation of fixed radars at airport locations in the 76-77 GHz band for purposes of detecting foreign object debris on runways and monitoring aircraft and service vehicles on taxiways and other airport vehicle service areas that have no public vehicle access. The Commission took this action in response to petitions for rulemaking filed by Toyota Motor Corporation (“TMC”) and Era Systems Corporation (“Era”).
Petitions for Reconsideration were filed by Navtech Radar, Ltd. and Honeywell International Inc.
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes certain changes to the Commission's part 2 equipment authorization processes to ensure that they continue to operate efficiently and effectively. In particular, it addresses the role of TCBs in certifying RF equipment and post-market surveillance, as well as the Commission's role in assessing TCB performance. The NPRM also addressed the role of test laboratories in the RF equipment approval process, including accreditation of test labs and the Commission's recognition of laboratory accreditation bodies, and measurement procedures used to determine RF equipment compliance. Finally, it proposes certain modifications to the rules regarding TCBs that approve terminal equipment under part 68 of the rules that are consistent with our proposed modifications to the rules for TCBs that approve RF equipment. Specifically the Commission proposes to recognize the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) as the organization that designates TCBs in the United States and to modify the rules to reference the current International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) guides used to accredit TCBs.
On October 17, 2012, the Commission released an Order on Reconsideration that addressed various petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 Second Report and Order.
The NPRM invited comment on two alternatives for expediting the satellite application process. One alternative was to replace the processing round procedure with a “first-come, first-served” procedure that would allow the Bureau to issue a satellite license to the first party filing a complete, acceptable application. The other alternative was to streamline the processing round procedure by adopting one or more of the following proposals: (1) Place a time limit on negotiations; (2) establish criteria to select among competing applicants; (3) divide the available spectrum evenly among the applicants.
In the First Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission determined that different procedures were better-suited for different kinds of satellite applications. For most geostationary orbit (GSO) satellite applications, the Commission adopted a first-come, first-served approach. For most non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite applications, the Commission adopted a procedure in which the available spectrum is divided evenly among the qualified applicants. The Commission also adopted measures to discourage applicants from filing speculative applications, including a bond requirement, payable if a licensee misses a milestone. The bond amounts originally were $5 million for each GSO satellite, and $7.5 million for each NGSO satellite system. These were interim amounts. Concurrently with the
In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a streamlined procedure for certain kinds of satellite license modification requests.
In the Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a standardized application form for satellite licenses, and adopted a mandatory electronic filing requirement for certain satellite applications.
In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission revised the bond amounts based on the record developed in response to FNPRM. The bond amounts are now $3 million for each GSO satellite, and $5 million for each NGSO satellite system.
Specifically, the Commission required MVPDs to make available by a security element (known as a “cablecard”) separate from the basic navigation device (e.g., cable set-top boxes, digital video recorders, and television receivers with navigation capabilities). The separation of the security element from the host device required by this rule (referred to as the “integration ban”) was designed to enable unaffiliated manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors to commercially market host devices while allowing MVPDs to retain control over their system security. Also, in this proceeding, the Commission adopted unidirectional “plug and play” rules, to govern compatibility between MVPDs and navigation devices manufactured by consumer electronics manufacturers not affiliated with cable operators.
In the most recent action, the Commission made rule changes to improve the operation of the CableCard regime.
In 2002, the Commission undertook a comprehensive review of its broadcast multiple and cross-ownership limits examining: Cross-ownership of TV and radio stations; local TV ownership limits; national TV cap; and dual network rule.
The Report and Order replaced the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership and radio and TV rules with a tiered approach based on the number of television stations in a market. In June 2006, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiating the 2006 review of the broadcast ownership rules. The further notice also sought comment on how to address the issues raised by the Third Circuit. Additional questions are raised for comment in a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
In the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, the Commission adopted rule changes regarding newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership, but otherwise generally retained the other broadcast ownership rules currently in effect.
For the 2010 quadrennial review, five of the Commission's media rules are the subject of review: The local TV ownership rule; the local radio ownership rule; the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rule; the radio/TV cross-ownership rule; and the dual network rule.
In October 2012, the Commission declined to extend the prohibition on exclusive contracts beyond the October 5, 2012, expiration date. The Commission also affirmed its expanded discovery procedures for program access complaints. In the accompanying FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on additional revisions to the program access rules.
In a Further Notice issued in 2005, the Commission reexamined some of its rules governing the LPFM service, noting that the rules may need adjustment in order to ensure that the
The Third Report and Order resolves issues raised in the Further Notice. The accompanying Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) considers rule changes to avoid the potential loss of LPFM stations.
In the third FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the impact of the Local Community Radio Act on the procedures previously adopted. The Fourth Report and Order adopts translator application necessary policies to effectuate the requirement of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010. In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission modified rules to implement provisions of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010.
In the sixth Report and Order, the Commission adopted an LPFM service standard for second and adjacent channel spacing waivers. The Commission also adopted procedures for third adjacent channel interference complaints and remediation requirements
The Commission adopted a second FNPRM in order to develop a more comprehensive record regarding measures to assist Federally recognized Native American tribes and Alaska native villages in obtaining commercial FM station authorizations. In the second R&O, the Commission adopted a number of procedures, procedural changes, and clarifications of existing rules and procedures, designed to promote ownership and programming diversity, especially by Native American tribes, and to promote the initiation and retention of radio service in and to smaller communities and rural areas.
In the Third R&O, the Commission adopted procedures to enable a tribe or tribal entity to qualify for tribal allotments added to the FM allotment table.
Pursuant to a remand from the Third Circuit, the measures adopted in the 2009 Diversity Order were put forth for comment in the NPRM for the 2010 review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership rules.
The 2012 Report and Order extended the Commission's outage reporting requirements to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services where there is a complete loss of connectivity that has the potential to affect at least 900,000 user minutes. Interconnected VoIP service providers will file outage reports through the same
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sought comment on what service rules should be adopted in the AWS-3 band. We requested comment on rules for licensing this spectrum in a manner that will permit it to be fully and promptly utilized to bring advanced wireless services to American consumers. Our objective is to allow for the most effective and efficient use of the spectrum in this band, while also encouraging development of robust wireless broadband services. We proposed to apply our flexible, market-oriented rules to the band in order to meet this objective.
Thereafter, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), seeking comment on the Commission's proposed AWS-3 rules, which include adding 5 megahertz of spectrum (2175-80 MHz) to the AWS-3 band, and requiring licensees of that spectrum to provide—using up to 25 percent of its wireless network capacity—free, two-way broadband Internet service at engineered data rates of at least 768 kbps downstream.
Christina Clearwater, Assistant Division Chief, SCPD, Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554,
In addition, the Commission has sought comment on a proposal intended to make it possible to use wider channel bandwidths for the provision of broadband services in these spectrum bands. The proposed changes may permit operators to use spectrum more efficiently, and to provide higher data rates to consumers, thereby advancing key goals of the National Broadband Plan.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sought comment on what service rules should be adopted in the AWS-2 band. We requested comment on rules for licensing this spectrum in a manner that will permit it to be fully and promptly utilized to bring advanced wireless services to American consumers. Our objective is to allow for the most effective and efficient use of the spectrum in this band, while also encouraging development of robust wireless broadband services.
Thereafter, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), seeking comment on the Commission's proposed rules for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. In addition, the Commission proposed to add 5 megahertz of spectrum (2175-80 MHz band) to the 2155-2175 MHz band, and would require the licensee of the 2155-2180 MHz band to provide—using up to 25 percent of its wireless network capacity—free, two-way broadband Internet service at engineered data rates of at least 768 kbps downstream.
The Commission also imposes a freeze on the filing of new license applications that seek to operate on any 700 MHz Band frequencies (698-806 MHz) after the end of the DTV transition, February 17, 2009, as well as on granting any request for equipment authorization of low power auxiliary station devices that would operate in any of the 700 MHz Band frequencies. The Commission also holds in abeyance, until the conclusion of this proceeding, any pending license applications and equipment authorization requests that involve operation of low power auxiliary devices on frequencies in the 700 MHz Band after the end of the DTV transition.
On January 15, 2010, the Commission released a Report and Order that prohibits the distribution and sale of wireless microphones that operate in the 700 MHz Band (698-806 MHz, channels 52-69) and includes a number of provisions to clear these devices from
On January 15, 2010, the Commission also released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on the operation of low power auxiliary stations, including wireless microphones, in the core TV bands (channels 2-51, excluding channel 37). Among the issues the Commission is considering in the Further Notice are revisions to its rules to expand eligibility for licenses to operate wireless microphones under part 74; the operation of wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis in the core TV bands under part 15; technical rules to apply to low power wireless audio devices, including wireless microphones, operating in the core TV bands on an unlicensed basis under part 15 of the rules; and long-term solutions to address the operation of wireless microphones and the efficient use of the core TV spectrum.
Today's action is a first step in implementing the Congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) that we grant new initial licenses for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding—unless doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licenses in the 1930-1985 MHz (PCS downlink) band. The potential for harmful interference to the PCS downlink band relates only to the Lower H Block transmissions, and may be addressed by appropriate technical rules, including reduced power limits on H Block devices. We therefore propose to pair and license the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block for flexible use, including mobile broadband, with an aim to assign the licenses through competitive bidding in 2013. In the event that we conclude that the Lower H Block cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS, we propose to license the Upper H Block for full power and seek comment on appropriate use for the Lower H Block, including Unlicensed PCS.
On February 19, 2010, the Commission released an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that enabled schools that receive funding from the E-rate program to allow members of the general public to use the schools' Internet access during nonoperating hours through funding year 2010 (July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011) and sought comment on revising its rules to make this change permanent.
On March 18, 2010, the Commission issued a Report & Order and Memorandum Opinion & Order. In this order, the Commission addressed an inequitable asymmetry in the Commission's current rules governing the receipt of universal service high-cost local switching support (LSS) by small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs). By modifying the Commission's rules to permit incumbent LECs that lose lines to receive additional LSS when they cross a threshold, the order provides LSS to all small LECs on the same basis. Nothing in the order is intended to address the long-term role of LSS in the Commission's high-cost on universal service policies, which the Commission is considering as part of comprehensive universal service reform. April 16, 2010, the Commission issued an Order and NPRM addressing high-cost universal service support for nonrural carriers serving insular areas. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on amending its rules to provide additional low-income support in Puerto Rico.
On April 21, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the first in a series of proceedings to kick off universal service support reform that is key to making broadband service available for millions of Americans who lack access. This NOI and NPRM sought
On February 15, 2005, the Commission adopted an Order that extended the Federal-State Joint Conference on Accounting Issues until March 1, 2007.
On September 6, 2008, the Commission adopted an MO&O granting conditional forbearance from the Armis
The Commission also adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking additional comment on proposals for incentive regulation, increased pricing flexibility for rate-of-return carriers, and proposed changes to the Commission's “all-or-nothing” rule. Comments on the FNPRM were due on February 14, 2002, and reply comments on March 18, 2002.
On February 12, 2004, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order resolving several issues on which the Commission sought comment in the FNPRM. First, the Commission modified the “all-or-nothing” rule to permit rate-of-return carriers to bring recently acquired price cap lines back to rate-of-return regulation. Second, the Commission granted rate-of-return carriers the authority immediately to provide geographically deaveraged transport and special access rates, subject to certain limitations. Third, the Commission merged Long Term Support (LTS) with Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS).
The Commission also adopted a Second FNPRM seeking comment on two specific plans that propose establishing optional alternative regulation mechanisms for rate-of-return carriers. In conjunction with the consideration of those alternative regulation proposals, the Commission sought comment on modification that would permit a rate-of-return carrier to adopt an alternative regulation plan for some study areas, while retaining rate-of-return regulation for other of its study areas. Comments on the Second FNPRM were due on April 23, 2004, and May 10, 2004.
On February 8, 2011, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on proposed rule revisions to address access stimulation. The Commission sought comment on a proposal to require rate-of-return LECs and competitive LECs to file revised tariffs if they enter into or have existing revenue sharing agreements. The proposed tariff filing requirements vary depending on the type of LEC involved. The Commission also sought comment on other record proposals and on possible rules for addressing access stimulation in the context of intra-MTA call terminations by CMRS providers. Comments were filed on April 1, 2011, and reply comments were filed on April 18, 2011.
In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, we defined access stimulation. The access stimulation definition we adopted has two conditions: (1) A revenue sharing condition; and (2) an additional traffic volume condition, which is met where the LEC either; (a) has a three-to-one interstate terminating-to-originating traffic ratio in a calendar month; or (b) has had more than a 100 percent growth in interstate originating and/or terminating switched access minutes of use in a month compared to the same month in the preceding year. If both conditions are satisfied, the LEC generally must file revised tariffs to account for its increased traffic.
On June 27, 2013, the Commission adopted a Report and Order addressing collection of broadband deployment data from facilities-based providers.
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment on what further steps, if any, the Commission should take to improve the process of changing providers.
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts
The Commission began implementing the electronic filing of tariffs on January 31, 1997, when it released the Streamlined Tariff Order. On November 17, 1997, the Bureau made this electronic system, known as the Electronic Tariff Filing System (EFTS), available for voluntary filing by incumbent LECs. The Bureau also announced that the use of ETFS would become mandatory for all incumbent LECs in 1998.
On May 28, 1998, in the ETFS Order, the Bureau established July 1, 1998, as the date after which incumbent LECs would be required to use ETFS to file tariffs and associated documents. The Commission deferred consideration of establishing mandatory electronic filing for non-incumbent LECs until the conclusion of a proceeding considering the mandatory detariffing of interstate long distance services.
On June 9, 2011, the Commission adopted rule revisions to require all tariff filiers to file tariffs using ETFS. Carriers were given a 60-day window in order to make their initial filings on ETFS. On October 13, 2011, the Commission announced that all tariff filiers should file their initial Base Document and/or Informational Tariff using the ETFS between November 17, 2011 and January 17, 2012. After January 17, 2012, all carriers would be required to use ETFS on a going-forward basis to file their tariff documents.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) is hereby publishing items for the fall 2013 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The agenda contains information about FDIC's current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations under review, and completed rulemakings.
Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
Twice each year, the FDIC publishes an agenda of regulations to inform the public of its regulatory actions and to enhance public participation in the rulemaking process. Publication of the agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) (collectively, “the agencies”) are seeking comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (“proposal”) that would strengthen the agencies' leverage ratio standards for large, interconnected U.S. banking organizations. The proposal would apply to any U.S. top-tier bank holding company (“BHC”) with at least $700 billion in total consolidated assets or at least $10 trillion in assets under custody (“covered BHC”) and any insured depository institution subsidiary of these BHCs. In the revised capital regulations adopted by the agencies (“2013 rule”), the agencies established a minimum supplementary leverage ratio of 3 percent (“supplementary leverage ratio”), consistent with the minimum leverage ratio adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, for banking organizations subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital rules. In this proposal, the agencies are proposing to establish a “well capitalized” threshold of 6 percent for the supplementary leverage ratio for any insured depository institution that is a subsidiary of a covered BHC, under the agencies' prompt corrective action framework. The Board also proposes to establish a new leverage buffer for covered BHCs above the minimum supplementary leverage ratio requirement of 3 percent (leverage buffer). The leverage buffer would function like the capital conservation buffer for the risk-based capital ratios in the 2013 rule. A covered BHC that maintains a leverage buffer of tier 1 capital in an amount greater than 2 percent of its total leverage exposure would not be subject to limitations on distributions and discretionary bonus payments. The proposal would take effect beginning on January 1, 2018. The agencies are seeking comment on all aspects of this proposal.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) will be proposing to rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart Y, entitled Prompt Corrective Action (“PCA”). This subpart was included in the regulations that were transferred to the FDIC from the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”) on July 21, 2011, in connection with the implementation of applicable provisions of Title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Upon removal of 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart Y, the PCA regulations applicable for all insured depository institutions for which the FDIC has been designated the appropriate federal banking agency will be found at 12 CFR Part 325, Subpart B, entitled Prompt Corrective Action, 12 CFR 325.2, entitled Definitions, and 12 CFR Part 308, Subpart Q, entitled Issuance and Review of Orders Pursuant to the Prompt Corrective Action Provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act Rules (“FDIC PCA Rules”).
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the Farm Credit Administration, and the National Credit Union Administration (collectively, “the Agencies”) will be proposing to amend their regulations regarding loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. Specifically, the proposal would establish requirements with respect to the escrow of flood insurance payments, the acceptance of private flood insurance coverage, and the force-placement of flood insurance. The proposal also would clarify the Agencies' flood insurance regulations with respect to other amendments made by the Act and make technical corrections. Furthermore, the OCC and the FDIC are proposing to integrate their flood insurance regulations for national banks and Federal savings associations and for State non-member banks and State savings associations, respectively.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will be requesting comment on proposed rules that would implement a quantitative liquidity requirement consistent with the liquidity coverage ratio standard established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The proposed rule would apply to all banking organizations that are subject to, or have elected to use, the agencies' advanced approaches risk-based capital rules (advanced approaches banking organizations) and subsidiary depository institutions of advanced approaches banking organizations with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets. The requirement is designed to promote improvements in the measurement and management of asset- and funding-liquidity risk.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC” or the “Corporation”) is proposing to issue a rule (“proposed rule”) implementing section 210(r) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Section 210(r)” of the “Dodd-Frank Act”), 12 U.S.C 5390(r). Under Section 210(r), individuals or entities that have, or may have contributed to the failure of a “covered financial
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively the “agencies”) reopened the comment period on the proposed rule published in the
On November 7, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (collectively, the “Agencies”) published in the
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission, and the Fair Housing Finance Agency proposed a rule to implement section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The rule would require the reporting of incentive-based compensation arrangements by a covered financial institution and prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements at a covered financial institution that provide excessive compensation or that could expose the institution to inappropriate risks that could lead to material financial loss.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) is adopting an interim final rule that revises its risk-based and leverage capital requirements for FDIC-supervised institutions. This interim final rule is substantially identical to a joint final rule issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (together, with the FDIC, “the agencies”). The interim final rule consolidates three separate notices of proposed rulemaking that the agencies jointly published in the
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) proposed to rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart A, entitled Restrictions on Post-Employment Activities of Senior Examiners. This subpart was included in the regulations that were transferred to the FDIC from the Office of Thrift Supervision on July 21, 2011, in connection with the implementation of applicable provisions of Title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Upon removal of 12 CFR Part 390 Subpart A, the restrictions for post-employment activities of senior examiners of all insured depository institutions for which the FDIC has been designated the appropriate federal banking agency will be found at 12 CFR Part 336, Subpart C, entitled One-Year Restriction on Post-Employment Activities of Senior Examiners. The rule would not change 12 CFR Part 336, Subpart C. This rule also proposed to revise 12 CFR Part 336, Subpart B by deleting a reference to the “Office of Thrift Supervision” in the definition of “Federal banking agency” described in Part 336.3(e) and adding the words “predecessors or” in front of the word “successors”.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) is proposing to rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR part 390, subpart K (“Part 390, Subpart K”), entitled “Recordkeeping and Confirmation Requirements for Securities Transactions.” This subpart was included in the regulations that were transferred to the FDIC from the Office of Thrift Supervision on July 21, 2011, in connection with the implementation of applicable provisions of Title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. With few exceptions, the requirements for State savings associations in Part 390, Subpart K are substantively similar to those in FDIC's 12 CFR part 344 (“Part 344”), which also is entitled “Recordkeeping and Confirmation Requirements for Securities Transactions” and is applicable to State nonmember insured banks and foreign banks having an insured branch. The FDIC proposed to amend section 344.3 of Part 344 to remove the definition of “bank,” and add the definition of “FDIC-supervised institution” for purposes of clarifying that Part 344 applies to all insured depository institutions, including State savings associations, for which the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency. This defined word and its plural form would replace “bank,” “banks,” “state nonmember insured bank (except a District bank),” and “foreign bank having an insured branch” throughout Part 344. The FDIC also proposed to amend section 344.2(a)(1) of Part 344 to increase the number of transactions, from 200 to 500, that all FDIC-supervised institutions may effect on behalf of customers under the small transaction exception from certain of the recordkeeping requirements (“Small Transaction Exception”).
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (collectively the “agencies”) are seeking comment on a joint proposed rule to revise the proposed rule the agencies published in the
On August 30, 2012, the FDIC, together with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (together, “the agencies”) published in the
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively, the “Agencies”) are seeking comment on three notices of proposed rulemaking (“NPRMs”) that would revise and replace the Agencies' current capital rules. In the NPRM (Advanced Approaches and Market Risk NPR) the Agencies are proposing to revise the advanced approaches risk-based capital rule to incorporate certain aspects of “Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems” that the agencies would apply only to advanced approach banking organizations. The NPRM also proposes other changes to the advanced approaches rule that the agencies believe are consistent with changes by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“BCBS”) to its “International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework” (Basel II), as revised by the BCBS between 2006 and 2009, and recent consultative papers published by the BCBS. The Agencies also propose to revise the advanced approaches risk-based capital rule to be consistent with Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). These revisions include replacing reference to credit ratings with alternative standards of creditworthiness consistent with section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act. This Rule has now been merged into 3064-AD95: Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Implementation of Basel III Capital Adequacy, Transition Provisions, Prompt Corrective Action, Standardize Approach for Risk-Weighted Assets, Market Discipline and Disclosure Requirements, Advanced Approaches Risk-Based Capital Rule, and Market Risk Capital Rule.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation adopted a final rule that implements section 11(d)(15)(D) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(15)(D)). This statutory provision provides time frames for the retention of records of a failed insured depository institution. The final rule incorporates the statutory time frames and defines the term “records.”
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) adopted a final rule that amends its deposit insurance regulations, with respect to deposits in foreign branches of United States insured depository institutions (“United States bank” or “bank”) outside of the United States. The final rule clarifies that deposits in branches of U.S. banks located outside the United States banks are not FDIC insured deposits. This would be the case even if they are also payable at an office within the United States (“dual payability”). As discussed further, a pending proposal by the United Kingdom's Prudential Regulation Authority (“U.K. PRA”), formerly known as the Financial Services Authority, has made it more likely that large United States will change their United Kingdom foreign branch deposit agreements to make their U.K. deposits payable both in the United Kingdom and the United States. This action has the potential to expose the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) to expanded deposit insurance liability and create operational complexities if these types of deposits were treated as insured. The purpose of the final rule is to protect the DIF against the liability that it would otherwise face as a potential global deposit insurer, preserve confidence in the FDIC deposit insurance system, and ensure that the FDIC can effectively carry out its critical deposit insurance functions.
Ryan Billingsley, Senior Policy Analyst, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Karl Reitz, Senior Capital Markets Specialist, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Mark Handzlik, Senior Attorney, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Michael Phillips, Counsel, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Anthony J. DiMilo, Examination Specialist, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., MB-5100, Washington, DC 20429,
Karl Reitz, Senior Capital Markets Specialist, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Mark Handzlik, Senior Attorney, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Michael Phillips, Counsel, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Ryan Billingsley, Senior Policy Analyst, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Mark Handzlik, Senior Attorney, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Michael Phillips, Counsel, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period November 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014. The next agenda will be published in spring 2014.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its fall 2013 agenda as part of the Fall 2013 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following Web site:
The Board's agenda is divided into four sections. The first, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The second section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. A third section, Long-Term Actions, reports on matters that have been proposed and under Board consideration, but a completion date has not been determined. And a forth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further. A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda.
The Board on August 12, 2011, approved an interim final rule for SLHCs, including a request for public comment. The interim final rule transferred from the OTS to the Board the regulations necessary for the Board to supervise SLHCs, with certain technical and substantive modifications. The interim final rule has three components: (1) New Regulation LL (part 238), which sets forth regulations generally governing SLHCs; (2) new Regulation MM (part 239), which sets forth regulations governing SLHCs in mutual form; and (3) technical amendments to existing Board regulations necessary to accommodate the transfer of supervisory authority for SLHCs from the OTS to the Board.
The structure of interim final Regulation LL closely follows that of the Board's Regulation Y, which governs bank holding companies, in order to provide an overall structure to rules that were previously found in disparate locations. In many instances interim final Regulation LL incorporated OTS regulations with only technical modifications to account for the shift in supervisory responsibility from the OTS to the Board. Interim final Regulation LL also reflects statutory changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to SLHCs, and incorporates Board precedent and practices with respect to applications processing procedures and control issues, among other matters.
Interim final Regulation MM organized existing OTS regulations governing SLHCs in mutual form (MHCs) and their subsidiary holding companies into a single part of the Board's regulations. In many instances interim final Regulation MM incorporated OTS regulations with only technical modifications to account for the shift in supervisory responsibility from the OTS to the Board. Interim final Regulation MM also reflects statutory changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to MHCs.
The interim final rule also made technical amendments to Board rules to facilitate supervision of SLHCs, including to rules implementing Community Reinvestment Act requirements and to Board procedural and administrative rules. In addition, the Board made technical amendments to implement section 312(b)(2)(A) of the Act, which transfers to the Board all rulemaking authority under section 11 of the Home Owner's Loan Act relating to transactions with affiliates and extensions of credit to executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders. These amendments include revisions to parts 215 (Insider Transactions) and part 223 (Transactions with Affiliates) of Board regulations.
The comment period with respect to the interim final rule closed on November 1, 2011, and the Board intends in the future to issue a finalized rule.
Anna Harrington, Senior Attorney, Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division,
Christopher Paridon, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing its semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The Agenda is a compilation of all rules on which the NRC has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. This issuance of the NRC's Agenda contains 53 rulemaking activities: three are Economically Significant; 12 represent Other Significant agency priorities; 37 are Substantive, Nonsignificant rulemaking activities; and one is an Administrative rulemaking activity. This issuance updates any action occurring on rules since publication of the last semiannual regulatory agenda on January 8, 2013 (78 FR 1704). The NRC is requesting comment on its rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda.
Submit comments on this agenda by February 6, 2014.
Submit comments on any rule in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in the proposed rule notice. Comments received on rules for which the comment period has closed will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closure dates specified in the Agenda. You may submit comments on this Agenda through the Federal Rulemaking Web site by going to http://
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-287-0949; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0076 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may access publically available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
•
• NRC's Public Document Room: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0076 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The information contained in this semiannual publication is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on rules since publication of the last NRC Agenda on July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44404). Within each group, the rules are ordered according to the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN).
The information in this Agenda has been updated through August 29, 2013. The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the rule is scheduled to be published in the
The NRC Agenda lists all open rulemaking actions. Three rules impact small entities.
The NRC has a process for developing rulemaking budget estimates and determining the relative priorities of rulemaking projects during budget formulation. This process produces a “Common Prioritization of Rulemaking” (CPR). The NRC adds new rules and evaluates rule priorities annually. The CPR process considers four factors and assigns a score to each factor. Those factors include (1) support for the NRC's Strategic Plan goals; (2) support for the Strategic Plan organizational excellence objectives; (3) a governmental factor representing interest to the NRC, Congress, or other governmental bodies; and (4) an external factor representing interest to members of the public, non-governmental organizations, the nuclear industry, vendors, and suppliers.
The NRC's fall Agenda contains its annual regulatory plan, which includes a statement of the major rules that the Commission expects to publish in the coming fiscal year (FY) and a description of the other significant regulatory priorities from the CPR that the Commission expects to work on during the coming FY and beyond.
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing an agenda of its rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). Information in the agenda was accurate on November 5, 2013, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before February 6, 2014.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Anne Sullivan, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5019.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Leila Bham, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549,
Charles Kwon, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549,
Ted Yu, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549,
Charles Kwon, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549,